1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the proof

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions DIR' started by Unes, Feb 11, 2018.

  1. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    the proof

    For a long time Man intuitively has recognized the existence of God in the heart of his world, and he has reflected this finding in his various sacred books, and now in this short article I have proved with solid evidences the existence of an Active Conductor who Intelligently and Consciously run this Universe at meticulous details. My evidences are:
    The Evidence in the Mirror Reflection , The Evidence in the Snowflakes' Symmetrical Designs, The Evidence in the Human Consciousness. The Evidence in our special dreams

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    The Evidence in the
    Mirror Reflection

    From early time Man has noticed the image reflections over the surfaces of still water. This is a natural phenomenon that enriches the beauty of Nature a great deal, and it has played a role in improving our cognition. Man has learnt all smooth flat surfaces reflect images too. After discoveries of gold, silver, and glass Man has made mirrors to look at himself, and he has used mirror for signaling and bringing sunlight inside the dark places. Through numerous observations, science has formed the Optic Law for Mirror Reflection. The Optic Law for Mirror Reflection states that "the incident ray, the reflected ray, and the normal to the surface of the mirror all lie in the same plane. Furthermore, the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence". In daylight each second there are more than ten million billions (10^16) photons per each square inch in the incoming image. This optic law is correct and accurate for each and every one of the reflected photons from the surface of a mirror in every direction.

    Man had no clue how mirror reflected the images, or what was the nature of light. In 1801 Thomas Young performed light double-slit experiment, which it proved the wave theory of light was correct. Wave theory of light explains that light is a wave, like the wave that we observe over the surface of water in a pond when we drop a stone on the water. In nineteen century science made many discoveries in the field of electricity and magnetism, and finally James Clark Maxwell concluded that light was made of electromagnetic waves. In 1900 Max Planck’s work on Black Body radiation, and Einstein’s paper on photoelectric proved that light energy was absorbed and it was emitted in quanta of energy, this meant that light was also a particle. All these experiments proved that light had both wave and particle properties which it was called photon.

    By the advances that are made in the field of particle physics we have developed the theory of Quantum Electromagnetic (QED), which it is the crowning achievement of our science for all time. Almost all our modern technological achievements are based on QED theory. With the advances that are made in technologies now we are capable to observe the detail functions of a SINGLE photon in various phenomena. QED theory has produced the details of absorption and emission of photon by an electron or any other particles, and it has concluded that these emissions are govern only by statistical models, and the emitted light propagates randomly in many directions, and the direction of the emission of a single photon is totally uncertain and it can NOT be predicted at all, this uncertainty in the direction and the timing of the emission, is the intrinsic property of the material, and it has nothing to do with the accuracy of our measuring devices.

    Now, we have the following puzzle on our hand; while QED says the direction and the timing of the emission of a photon is intrinsically uncertain, and it is purely govern by the uncertainty principle, then how is it that the Optic Law defines the direction of the mirror reflection with an absolute certainty? Since these two different scientific discoveries are directly contradicting each other, then one of these two analyses has to be wrong, or there might be another option for resolving this contradiction; we might have missed something very important in these analyses, which could reconcile this contradiction between these two very valid scientific discoveries.

    In order to resolve this puzzling contradiction, QED has devised the “all-path method,” and QED wave function method. All physicists unanimously have accepted both of these methods as the QED’s valid answer for the puzzle of the mirror reflection.

    I have exposed few flaws within the QED’s all-path method and QED wave function, that these two QED methods regarding the mirror reflection are totally false and phony, and they should be dismissed without any hesitation, and I explain my analyses here. Our modern technologies allow us to work with one photon at a time. Now, we send ONE photon to the surface of the mirror and expose the flaws of these QED’s methods. Since QED all-path examines all the possible paths, then I add few more photo-multipliers (the detectors) to the all-path process, and I configure the summation of the amplitude vectors for each one of these detectors. The process of the summation of the amplitude vectors for each one of these detectors presumably produces a valid figure, and we cannot dismiss any of these calculated results, nor can we privilege any detector over any other detectors, so each one of these detectors presents us a valid summation for their amplitude vectors. Then, in this process each detector presents the detection of a photon, as a result in this process our ONE photon has been multiplied to many photons! The law of conservation of energy totally rejects this conclusion. This argument exposes one of the flaws within the all-path method.

    Let us analyze another scenario. Let us assume that the detector which actually detects the reflected photon it is located at point t1, now, we move this detector to point t2, and point t3, and point t4, . . . , and point t1000. At each of these locations the summation of the amplitude vectors produces a valid result, and the “all-path” method is totally unable to distinguish at which location that ONE reflected photon should be detected. This is another flaw. (Every one of these 1000 locations can detect that ONE reflected photon, we only need to adjust the direction and the angle of the incident for the incoming photon accordingly. But since in our scenario the direction and the angle of the incident are fixed, only the detector at point t1 location detects the reflected photon, and the detector at other locations will not detect the reflected photon, and QED all-path method is incapable to recognize that. )

    Now, let us examine this reflected photon from a different angle; QED “all-path” method and QED wave function method implement the correct location of the point t1 into their configuration, this is cheating pure and simple, this is like in our exam we steal “the correct answer” from our neighboring class-mate, (the point t1 is the location that it is identified by the Optic Law). After all, we have implemented the correct answer of point t1 into the QED’s configuration, then, are we surprised that we got the correct result!? These two QED methods are supposed to discover the point t1 with their own natural methods, and not to require it in advance for their configurations! Without the information of the point t1, which it is produced by the Optic Law, these two QED methods cannot perform any configuration. This is another flaw.

    Now, let us examine these two QED’s methods from the perspective of the QED’s core methodology. Based on the experimental results and the uncertainty principle QED’s methods produce statistical models. These models tell us that QED’s results are ALWAYS in statistical form, then how could these two QED methods for the mirror reflection produce the result which the detection point of t1 is a CERTAINTY!?
    I understand that these two QED methods produce a distributed path for the direction of the reflected photon, but this slight distribution for the photon’s path is negligent when it is compared to the absolute randomness that QED has discovered for the emission of photon by an electron. For both of these two QED methods for the mirror reflection the point of detection at t1 is a certainty, and that is unacceptable, because, unlike the Optic Law that defines the reflection path and the detection point at t1 with an absolute certainty, no QED method should produce a result with an absolute certainty, because that violates the uncertainty rule. This is another flaw.

    It is continued in the next post.
     
  2. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Continuation from previous post

    So, we can confidently conclude that there is no merit to these two QED methods, both of these methods for mirror reflection are false and void, but regarding the uncertainty of the emission of the emitted photon at the surface of the mirror we do know QED theory is correct, because we have discovered this result through many experiments. As I stated before, in daylight, in each second, in each square inch of an image from any direction that we observe, there are over ten million billion (10^16) photons are coming toward us. And the integrity of the reflected images from a mirror is maintained in all directions of the hemisphere in front of the mirror. Now, if at the surface of a mirror each photon should deal with uncertainty in the direction of the emission and uncertainty in timing of the emission as it is discovered by QED, then the reflected image cannot possibly resemble to the incoming image, and the reflected image should get scrambled beyond any recognition. What happens at the surface of the mirrors that well tested uncertainty rule of QED fails totally, and instead we have the certainty of the Optic Law?

    Mirror reflection is a peculiar phenomenon that it points to the existence of an Intelligent and Conscious Conductor who intentionally and deliberately suspends and negates the randomness and the disorder of QED uncertainty principle for the mirror reflection, and he delivers us the reflected images in all directions that they are very similar to their incoming images. This Intelligent and Conscious Conductor orderly and flawlessly produces the beautiful mirror reflections in all directions without any noticeable interference. Our mental capability was needed to reach to the sophisticated level that it could discover and comprehend the randomness of the uncertainty rule in order to realize very rationally the function of this Intelligent and Conscious Conductor, who is active deep at the heart of the Nature. Without the influence of this Intelligent and Conscious Conductor there would be no recognizable image from any mirror. Mirror reflection has fundamentally stimulated the cognition of our brain a great deal, and now, mirror reflection is a phenomenon that it is guiding us to the recognition of this Intelligent and Conscious Conductor who is actively running all elements of this Universe in mind boggling manners that they are beyond our comprehension. It seems AT LAST science has reached to its ultimate goal to present us this function of the Conductor in abundance, which all people can see, can examine, and can scrutinize in details. This amazing function is unlike the fuzzy miracles of the holy texts, which they were manufactured by the believers’ limited and deficient minds, this amazing function is present now to be examine by all people without any obscurity or hearsay. The manufactured miracles of those believers were sufficient for Man’s intellect at that level, but today as we notice hearsay miracles of the past will not do, we need to experience the functions of the Conductor that are present in our environment, individually and first hand, and without any hearsay. QED explains the randomness and the chaos of the uncertainty rule, and we wonder how do such chaotic processes result to such orderly structured Universe, and now we are recognizing the missing function in these processes. It looks like a curtain has been lifted partially, and we are blessed to observe and grasp the most important aspect of our complex existence first hand.


    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    It is continued in the next post.
     
  3. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23

    Continuation from previous post

    The Evidence in the
    Snowflakes' Symmetrical Designs

    I got the following passage on snowflake's formation from Wikipedia.
    "The exact details of the sticking mechanism remain controversial. Possibilities include mechanical interlocking, sintering, electrostatic attraction as well as the existence of a "sticky" liquid-like layer on the crystal surface. The individual ice crystals often have hexagonal symmetry." "Most snowflakes are not completely symmetric." "Empirical studies suggest less than 0.1% of snowflakes exhibit the ideal six-fold symmetric shape." "The most common snow particles are visibly irregular, although near-perfect snowflakes may be more common in pictures because they are more visually appealing." "A non-aggregated snowflake often exhibits six-fold radial symmetry. The initial symmetry can occur because the crystalline structure of ice is six-fold. The six "arms" of the snowflake, or dendrites, then grow independently, and each side of each arm grows independently." "Since the micro-environment (and its changes) are very nearly identical around the snowflake, each arm can grow in nearly the same way."

    The snowflakes’ symmetrical formation is another case that science has totally failed to understand the root cause of the phenomenon, and it has fudged its analyses to fit the KNOWN result!

    It is said the initial symmetry can occur because of the crystalline ice structure is six-fold. Let us examine this claim closely. Let us imagine that “The hexagon shape of the crystalline ice structure” is formed, and vaper water molecules start to attach themselves to the six-corners of this hexagon shape structure. The hexagon shape structure of ice crystalline is way too small to be able to direct the macroscopic design of the snowflake, just at the tiny center of the snowflakes there are over ten million billions (10^16) of such hexagon shape of crystalline ice structures, that they are piled up together, without showing any preference for any direction that the snowflakes’ arms should grow. Besides, some snowflakes’ shapes have different shapes other than the six arms.

    The thickness of snowflakes indicates that the vaper water molecules get attached to the hexagon shape structure in directions of x, y, and z axes, which z axis presents the thickness of the snowflakes. The thickness of the Snowflakes is the result of many trillions of water molecules that they are randomly piled up on top of each other to produce the thickness. With the same absolute freedom vaper water molecules randomly get attached to the hexagon shape structure in the directions of x and y axes. There is no known force to impose any artistic symmetry on this process, and as far as our science is concerned this process is purely Random. So, the development of various artistic symmetries around the x axis is a total mystery. This mystery gets deepened further when the other arms of the snowflake develop very similar pattern. Furthermore this mystery gets deepened even further; because at the same time the arms in the neighboring snowflakes are getting developed in totally different patterns, this outcome gave rise to the notion that “no two snowflakes have similar shape.” Just this notion that “no two snowflakes have similar shape” shows how diverse and how random this process is. And if the process of developing arms is so diverse, then it makes no sense the arms of a snowflake which are developing INDEPENDENTLY to form very similar symmetrical shape. Unlike the flowers which they have genes to produce their symmetries, the snowflakes lack any such mechanism to control the development of its arms, there is only Randomness, and Randomness does not create harmony and symmetry at all, it creates disorder and chaos. The absolute Randomness that exists in this process totally rejects the formation of any symmetry, especially when the structure possesses such huge number of water molecules. When the arms of the snowflakes are forming a CONDUCTOR is needed to implement various artistic symmetries to the random formation of this large number of water molecules. This Conductor is present at the fabric of the Nature that demonstrates his existence with such clarity, that no fair minded person would deny his existence.

    Even though the ancient man from very early stages of his intelligence was inspired to recognize the existence of this mysterious force who was influencing his environment and his life, but our advanced scientific discoveries were needed to confirm the validity of those early confusing assessments! And for us science has been and it is our best arbitrator.

    With unimaginable successes that our science has produced our amazing technologies it is hard to stand up and challenge our science for being faulty and wrong. I hope that you focus on the logic of my arguments and judge them rationally, with an open mind, and without much prejudice. I am sure with further investigations we can prove the function of this Conductor in many other phenomena all around us, we only need to pay close attention in order to recognize them. And of course, we need to understand the corresponding scientific methodologies in order to see the influence of the Conductor in those processes.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    It is continued in the next post.
     
    #3 Unes, Feb 11, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  4. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Continuation from previous post

    The Evidence in the
    Human Consciousness

    Consciousness is an elusive phenomenon. There are much debates and discussions about the nature of our Consciousness. In a nutshell our Consciousness is our awareness about our existence and about our activities. Our awareness presumably emerges from the activities of the components of our brain. But, our glorious science yet to be able to recognize the existence of this emerging awareness! Science has interjected that our Consciousness might be an illusion. Perhaps science is right, and the examined activities of our brain do not produce our Consciousness. Maybe the source of our Consciousness is yet to be discovered. I think, I have found the Source of our Consciousness, and here I am going to prove his existence, and his activities. I intend to show that our Consciousness is provided to us by the Conductor who is at the fabric of this Universe, and he is directing all events in extreme details.

    In order to establish validity of a claim we need to move our argument from the realm of a philosophical discussion into the domain of the testable scientific experiments. On PBS brain series program with Dr. David Eagleman, he talked about "Iowa Gambling Task experiment". By this experiment and some other testable experiments scientists have proved when the activities of our sub-conscious mind are realized by our Conscious mind, those information are already old news. This means there is a time delay between the activities of our sub-conscious mind and the comprehension of those events by our Conscious mind. This discovery is very significant, one of these experiments is "Iowa Gambling Task experiment", I think this experiment reveals something far more fundamental, it reveals the Source of our awareness and our Consciousness. Let us review "Iowa Gambling Task experiment" more closely, then I will explain my reason for the ramifications of this revealing discovery.


    The Brain with David Eagleman on PBS | How Do I Decide?

    Iowa Gambling Task experiment
    Task structure
    Participants are presented with 4 virtual decks of cards on a computer screen. They are told that each time they choose a card they will win some game money. Every so often, however, choosing a card causes them to lose some money. The goal of the game is to win as much money as possible. The decks differ from each other in the number of trials over which the losses are distributed. Thus, some decks are "bad decks", and other decks are "good decks", because some will lead to losses over the long run, and others will lead to gains.


    Common finding
    Most healthy participants sample cards from each deck, and after about 40 or 50 selections are fairly good at sticking to the good decks. Concurrent measurement of galvanic skin response shows that healthy participants show a "stress" reaction to hovering over the bad decks after only 10 trials, long before conscious sensation that the decks are bad.


    The winning incentive in "Iowa Gambling Task experiment" is an abstract incentive. As far as we know only human conscious mind has the capability to comprehend the meaning of an abstract incentive. And now we have discovered that our Conscious mind acquires this intelligence from the activities of our sub-conscious mind. How is this possible? Our sub-conscious mind is not supposed to have this capability at all, but Iowa gambling experiment proved that our sub-conscious mind not only it has this capability, but it possesses this capability far better than our conscious mind does. This should not be the case, but strangely it is! We always had assumed that our conscious mind had the best thinking power in the Nature, and it was supreme. Our conscious mind is supposed to be the source of our comprehension, and here we have discovered a far inferior system preforms the abstract comprehension far better than our conscious mind does.

    Now the question arises since our sub-conscious mind which it supposed to be far inferior organ compared to our conscious mind, how does it acquire this capability which is far superior to our conscious mind? We have to conclude that this observation points to the existence of an Intelligent and Conscious Being deep within the fabric of our Nature, who is intentionally feeding this intelligent comprehension into our system.


    May God Bless Us All,
     
  5. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,699
    Ratings:
    +10,001
    Religion:
    Judaism
    From Wikipedia:

    Common findings[edit]
    Most healthy participants sample cards from each deck, and after about 40 or 50 selections are fairly good at sticking to the good decks. Patients with orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) dysfunction, however, continue to persevere with the bad decks, sometimes even though they know that they are losing money overall. Concurrent measurement of galvanic skin response shows that healthy participants show a "stress" reaction to hovering over the bad decks after only 10 trials, long before conscious sensation that the decks are bad.[5] By contrast, patients with amygdala lesions never develop this physiological reaction to impending punishment. In another test, patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VM) dysfunction were shown to choose outcomes that yield high immediate gains in spite of higher losses in the future.[6] Bechara and his colleagues explain these findings in terms of the somatic marker hypothesis.

    The Iowa gambling task is currently being used by a number of research groups using fMRI to investigate which brain regions are activated by the task in healthy volunteers[7] as well as clinical groups with conditions such as schizophrenia and obsessive compulsive disorder.​

    Apparently what we have here is a bit of selective editing of plagiarized material. No?
     
  6. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,699
    Ratings:
    +10,001
    Religion:
    Judaism
    And, by the way, the same Wiki article continues ...

    Although the IGT has achieved prominence, it is not without its critics. Criticisms have been raised over both its design and its interpretation. Published critiques include:
    • A paper by Dunn, Dalgliesh and Lawrence[4]
    • Research by Lin, Chiu, Lee and Hsieh,[8] who argue that a common result (the "prominent deck B" phenomenon) argues against some of the interpretations that the IGT has been claimed to support.
    • Research by Chiu and Lin,[9] the "sunken deck C" phenomenon was identified, which confirmed a serious confound embedded in the original design of IGT, this confound makes IGT serial studies misinterpret the effect of gain-loss frequency as final-outcome for Somatic marker hypothesis.
    • A research group in Taiwan utilized an IGT-modified and relatively symmetrical gamble for gain-loss frequency and long-term outcome, namely the Soochow gambling task (SGT) demonstrated a reverse finding of Iowa gambling task.[10] Normal decision makers in SGT were mostly occupied by the immediate perspective of gain-loss and inability to hunch the long-term outcome in the standard procedure of IGT (100 trials under uncertainty). In his book, Inside the investor's brain,[11] Richard L. Petersonconsidered the serial findings of SGT may be congruent with the Nassim Taleb's[12] suggestion on some fooled choices in investment.
     
  7. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Why do you label this plagiarized, when the link was provided!?
     
    #7 Unes, Feb 11, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  8. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,467
    Ratings:
    +4,203
    Religion:
    None
    Non sequitur. Your argument doesn't support your conclusion.

    Regarding proof, remember, proof is what convinces. The proof of Pythagoras' theorem is not proof to one who cannot understand or follow it.

    For you this may serve as proof - and I doubt that this argument is what brought you to theism, so I doubt that it proved anything to you either - but it doesn't convince me, and I'd be surprised of it convinced anybody else here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Dear "It Aint Necessarily So",
    The subject is the contradiction that exists in the described phenomenon, you may disagree with my conclusion, but you need to provide us with an alternative answer. How do you solve the contradiction?

    May God Bless Us All
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  10. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,467
    Ratings:
    +4,203
    Religion:
    None
    I didn't disagree with your conclusion. I said that your argument doesn't support it. If you said that the moon is out tonight, therefore the sun will rise in the morning, I would give you the same answer: Non sequitur. The conclusion, whether correct or not, doesn't follow from what preceded it.

    There may be a god, but I challenge your claim that you proved it with an argument citing quantum physics.

    Accordingly, I remain agnostic on the matter of gods.

    It would help if you would be explicit about which contradiction you mean. Did you mean paradox?

    Finally, plenty of people that understand QED better than either of us remain atheists - perhaps most. How do you account for that?
     
  11. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,699
    Ratings:
    +10,001
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Because I did not see it. Would you mind pointing it out?
     
  12. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,699
    Ratings:
    +10,001
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Rubbish.
     
  13. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    It seems you were hasty, the link is right before the Iowa Gambling Task experiment ;
    The Brain with David Eagleman on PBS | How Do I Decide?

    Besides, I did not claim this experiment as my own, I just reported the experiment, do you call that a "Plagiarism"!?

    May God Bless Us All
     
    #13 Unes, Feb 11, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  14. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    3,303
    Ratings:
    +1,824
    Religion:
    Christian
    It wasn't designed, it just happened. It only has the appearance of design!

    Lol.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Dear "It Aint Necessarily So",

    I am referring to the following paradox which in my post I highlighted with red:


    "What happens at the surface of the mirrors that well tested uncertainty rule of QED fails totally, and instead we have the certainty of the Optic Law?"

    Few month ago I discussed this paradox in this site in the following thread: “QED’s “All Path Argument” for Mirror Reflection is false, phony, and deceptive.” Some of the flaws that I have explained in this article are taken from that discussion. I think the described flaws about QED methods are valid. So, since QED’s answer for resolving this puzzle is void, then I did interject my own answer to solve this puzzle. There are many knowledgeable physicists in this forum, so I wish they challenge me, if they deem that this article is not below their dignity.

    My conclusion does solve the paradox of mirror reflection, which it suggests the existence of a Conductor in this process, but if you have a different answer to solve this paradox for the mirror reflection I will be happy to get enlightened.


    May God Bless Us All
     
Loading...