immortal

I knew you would ask this question to me and you might consider that I am bit naive to think like that. Just because we prove that a pantheon of gods exist doesn't mean that we have falsified other pantheon of gods. What if, a Jew comes along and walks on water and say that "hey I got this knowledge from the God of abraham", a christian comes and walks on water and says "hey I got this knowledge from the Father of Jesus" and a Hindu comes along and say "hey I got this knowledge from the hindu pantheon of Gods". Yes anyone who demonstrates such knowledge or miracle had to get that knowledge from Gods and that's how that specific god will be proved to exist. To PeterJ-- I hold the view that God and I are one and also the view of the existence of anthropomorphic gods independent of the mind as very much plausible but you think that if we somehow wipe out the existence of gods we can merge all religions into one reality and that's what I am showing you that its not that easy as you might think, you cannot keep the gods aside from reality.

I think you went inside the Sphere you need some psychological help.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58097-reality-theory-god/page__st__160 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58097-reality-theory-god/page__st__140 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62250-free-will-vs-determinism/page__pid__659441__st__20#entry659441 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63765-feynman-and-gaps/page__pid__657569#entry657569 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57295-metaphysics-and-science/page__pid__657112#entry657112 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57295-metaphysics-and-science/page__pid__657112#entry657112 I have objected to your view in six threads with countless number of posts and with a huge number of insightful arguments and yet you ignore all those arguments and you never ever made a rebuttal to my arguments, if you are an absolutist and when you've decided that you're not going to change your misconceptions, what can I do, I cannot help it, I have made my point very clear in those threads. I never objected the view of Schroedinger because my view doesn't make his views to be incorrect, it doesn't contradict, the problem is with people like him and other scholars who blur the distinctions of those schools of philosophical thought without giving importance to traditional pantheon of gods and their religious models. More importantly my view of Christianity is falsifiable, if one demonstrates the existence of an external physical world by walking on water then it would prove the existence of god and the traditional religious anthropomorphic view of the world where everything was made of anthropomorphic gods. I'm not saying the view of schroedinger was incorrect but he only knew half the truth, he didn't realized the distinctions that were there in those school of philosophical thought and you make the same mistake too.

I agree with Xittenn here, I am currently doing my final year project about blocking misbehaving users in anonymizing networks like Tor. Sometimes it is very necessary for one to be anonymous while doing or posting some sensitive issues over the internet where privacy and personal freedom is needed and if you're not on an anonymous network which encrypts your original IP address one can easily figure out what websites you log in daily, one can easily trace all your activities over the internet and this would be a big problem if someone threatens you and ask you for some ransom in return. People do stupid things just for fun, there are stupid people out there and no one likes to be their victims. The benefit of revealing one's credentials and identity is going to come at the cost of that person's life. I think we should make our claims by substantiating it with genuine links from scientific oriented journals so that people don't have any problems with the credibility of the claims being made.

That statement was made by Walter J.Moore who wrote the biography of Schroedinger, so you think you know more about schroedinger than he did. You're calling Walter J.Moore an idiot. I'm not a scientist, i'm just a layman, yes he was genius in empirical science, no one is denying that, just because he was a genuis on one field doesn't mean that what ever he says about all other fields are right, we test his ideas. It has nothing do with how genius he was. Please care to read the last post of the previous page of this thread and then come back. I have made the objection already.

No, "I'm not sure" doesn't imply this --> "the truth of the existence of gods is unknowable". It doesn't logically follow, rigney has not made any positive assertion what so ever but saying that the truth of the existence of gods is unknowable is a positive assertion and hence rigney is not an agnostic atheist.

There is a guy around here named as PeterJ and he said that "Schroedinger argued for over 30 years that the people of Upanishads have got it right" and this was the reason why I was being dragged into this kind of discussion. I never started this thread and I never claimed to have any evidence, all I am presenting here is a model of how one school of philosophical thought views the world and what are its conclusions. So lets separate the person from the idea or the model being presented. The question is to test such a model and it has nothing to do with dismissing me personally. The people of Upanishads existed around 2500 years ago and by that evidence they were definitely just goat herders and here comes Schroedinger a 20th century physicist who was one of the founding father of one of the most intellectual theory mankind has ever achieved, the quantum physics and all along his life he gives importance to metaphysics, weird conjectures and to the world of the supernatural as described in upanishads. Please kindly hear it from himself. This was his view of the world. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger This is specifically to PeterJ - You asked me why do I reject the view of Schroedinger and its because of this above reason. I was not really aware of his view of the world nor I had read his works before, I opposed his view straight away because one doesn't need to read the entire work of a man, one can easily figure out his worldview from the few little words or claims that he makes and this above link proves what I had earlier said about Schroedinger, he rejected traditional religious models. A mistake which all scholars in the field make and only write gibberish in their books. They start with unity and say this is unity, that is unity and after reading the whole book you'll realize that the knowledge you gained from it is absolutely zero. Go get a book from a true philosopher. This is what I find ridiculous about these scholars and scientists, they very well know something is terribly wrong and they argue for years and years writing piles of books on them defending the view of ancient goat herders and yet refuse to accept their simple view of the world just because they are naive and their view is hard enough to convince a mind which was developed rationally and logically. Shouting "this cannot be possible, this is nonsense" and yet they just accept only those truth of those ancient goat herders which suits their rational way of thinking and call it wisdom. This is what I find ridiculous about and when I find you quoting from these scientists turned philosophers, I am really afraid that you're misrepresenting the truth of those ancient school of philosophical thought. If Schroedinger thinks that the people of Upanishads have got it right about the reality of the world then it inevitably leads to the following conclusions according to their view of the world as given in the Upanishads. Remember I am just presenting a model here and I am not presenting it as a fact. 1. The world is made up of just five elements i.e earth, water, air, space and fire. 2. The things described by physics don't really exist in the actual external physical world. There are no particles, no waves. These are all mere ideological abstractions, no greater reality should be attributed to them. If this is true then oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and all the elements in the periodic table do not exist in the external physical world, they don't have a place for this in their model which indirectly implies they exist only in our minds. 3. There is no duality here. Mind and matter are all made up of a same kind of deity dust. So only deity dust exists. They don't have to worry about how a non-physical thing interacts with a physical thing. No, there is nothing non-physical or physical, everything is made up of deity dust. 4. They have a pantheon of gods and humans acquired the knowledge of Upanishads from Gods, they didn't discovered it out of the blue, the Gods gave them that knowledge. So saying that they don't exist is very ridiculous, if you deny the existence of Gods then don't defend the claims made by Upanishads because I find it ridiculous when you quote about schroedinger and Upanishads and call yourself an atheist. Don't misrepresent those schools of philosophical thought. Their view completely reduces the reality of science to a sub case which emerges only when one observes the world through the sense organs which means the reality given by science only exist in our minds and physical things don't exist in the external physical world. This is the reason why I assert that the world described by science and the world described by religion are two completely different worlds and I find it obvious that the world of phenomena cannot be identical to the world of noumena. This means that "Brain" doesn't actually exist in the external physical world, it exists only in the simulation of our minds. Only Mind and those five elements are real. This is their model of the world and these are its conclusions. I find it ridiculous when scholars only accept the final conclusion or a part of the truth about Upanishads and ramble about the "unity" of the universe which cannot be understood through logic or thought and reject the naive irrational truths made by the same school of philosophical thought. They are either misinformed or ignorant or desperately trying to fit such a model of the world with a model given by modern science which I find it very ridiculous and incorrect about what they are trying to do. You have to either believe in the unity of the universe and disbelieve that oxygen, nitrogen, atoms, quarks, photons exist in the external physical world or reject the unity of the universe and accept that physical things do exist in the external physical world. The problem with scientists is that they cannot accept that the things described by science don't exist in the external physical world and hence they reject the traditional religious models and only accept the unity of the universe and Schroedinger did knew about this but he lacked revelations and hence he couldn't appreciate the truth of those traditional models.

Well obviously those things are impossible according to scientific models and I am not going to use any of those models to argue in favour of those extraordinary claims made by religions of the world. I find it ridiculous when people try to fit religious views based on scientific models, for example people like Dovada who thinks that Holy spirit is some kind of universal electrical energy moving the atoms in the cosmos and those Intelligent design proponents who thinks that God designed organisms using DNA and proteins. These people are desperately trying to fit religious worldviews into scientific models which doesn't require any outside force from anywhere to make its models consistent with observations. The point is one needs to understand the worldview of those ancient civilizations. They didn't knew anything about molecular biology, quantum physics, particle physics and a whole lot of what modern science had discovered up until now. The point is one doesn't need the knowledge of modern science to reproduce those extraordinary claims because their model of the world is very simple. In their model the world is made up of just five elements (i.e Earth, water, air, fire and space) and when you look at things from their model of the world those claims are not implausible, in fact its inevitable. When God said "let there be light" he is not talking about the photon, he is not talking about the light of physics and in the same way it is ridiculous to say that God used DNA to create life or God used particle physics to create Big Bang. God doesn't rely on scientific models, he doesn't need them. It is wrong to interpret the Bible using scientific models and say that it is incompatible, its obvious that they are incompatible because God doesn't use scientific models to make things work. When they talk about the rapture we find that such a thing is impossible when we look at things from the scientific perspective, our body is made up of billions of atoms and it is not practically possible to transfer or teleport the quantum state from one place to another so that the person disappears from here and appears somewhere else, such a thing is definitely impossible from the perspective of science but if you think that the human body is made up of just five elements then there is no reason why the rapture is impossible, its very much possible. Therefore religion and science stands on their own and there are of a different magesteria but I do agree with Richard Dawkins that these two worldviews do come in conflict with each other, a supernatural world will be completely different from the world of science and any supernatural claims does indeed make some of the main tenets of science to be false. The question is who are deluded about reality is it the ancient goat herders or the proponents of New atheism. The answer to that question lies in the research of the Human mind and those claims can be easily falsifiable. The problem is of a philosophical one, it is about the nature of the physical world. If those extraordinary claims are found to be true, its not going to change the scientific models in any way, they still stand on their own, what will change is the way we perceive things. The scientific models will be consistent with our observations as long as we are confined within the simulation of our minds. If scientific models are the only road to reality then its quite easy to prove it just reduce the human mind to Brain and I will stop opposing your intolerance towards religious beliefs and will join the New atheism campaign. If not we might have to reduce science to the reality of ancient goat herders. Reality will turn upside down. I neither have to fit religion by changing scientific models nor I have to change the interpretation of the Bible to make it fit with the reality of the scientific models. Absolute idealism Its not right to put all of them on the same line, you cannot comprehend those traditions without comprehending their pantheon of Gods. You're doing injustice to yourself. I agree with INow just because an interpretation is logically feasible doesn't mean its the right interpretation, we don't go around by verifying things, we go around by falsifying things, we put those interpretations to test to see whether it can stand up to its scrutiny. The problem with scientists or professors like Schrodinger is that they lacked revelations and therefore didn't entertained the non-intellectual ways of looking at the world and failed to see the truth behind the people who followed their orthodox traditions and practices.

You missed the trick of walking on water and there is no reason why those things are impossible in reality, I basically don't think that those ancient goat herders were in the age of darkness, infact they might have had a very simple model of the world which helps humans to achieve those things, those miracles don't rely on magic, its not magic, there is rationality behind it and if such a model is true then there is nothing in reality which prevents us from reproducing those things and in the absence of evidence your intolerance towards such beliefs is quite understandable and its fair enough.

The thing that bothers me is that is there a one-to-one correspondence or one-to-one mapping between the physical objects that we see and the objects that actually exists in the external physical world. This is the main problem. The external physical world might very well be made up of just five elements as described in major religions i.e Fire, water, earth, air and space. This would mean that all the distinct elements that we see exist only in our minds and our scientific models might just describe the relationship of these elements which exist solely in our minds. To make you grasp what I am saying. Let us suppose we supply oxygen to a patient who is suffering from a breathing problem and we will find that the patient is recovering from his severe condition and we believe that oxygen exist in the physical objective world because we have observed its effect on the human body and in the same way if we supply a poisonous gas to the same patient we observe that the patient is suffocating and soon it will lead to the death of the patient and we believe that the poisonous gas too exist in the physical world. If the world is made up of a single "air" entity then oxygen or any other poisonous gas don't really exist in the actually physical world. If the human body too is made up of just five elements then this would mean that when a patient dies due to intoxication from a poisonous gas he just dies in our minds but he is still very much alive with a body made up of just five elements. Its just our minds make those physical things described by science appear as real. So obviously the scientific models will be consistent with our observations and predictions but it cannot give the actual nature of the external physical world. So we are not manipulating nature in any way, the nature is made up of just five elements, all that we are manipulating are just the way things appear to our minds, the only things we know of. Everyone don't see the human body in the same way, some of them who practice traditional ayurveda and qigong use a different model of the body, they didn't knew about DNA, they didn't knew anything about most of what molecular biology had discovered about the human body. They just see the human body as made up of just five elements and therefore their model is different and they don't see the human body like the way a homeopathic does and yet their medicines still work and some do take a course on ayurveda and it is still being taught in universities. So as Feyerabend says all cultures and all traditions stands on their own and the reality given by science is not the only reality, there are other roads too and scientism will not be successful until it can reduce the activities of the mind to mere physical descriptions and to believe that the physical objects actually exist in the physical world without understanding the human mind means that scientism(naturalism or physicalism) too is just a belief without credible evidence.

There can be only three truths i.e Gnostic theism, Gnostic Atheism and Agnosticism. Since we don't know what the truth is and since its inevitable that we have to choose a side before taking part in a discussion in a religious forum we just sway from one axis to the other which means we all are intellectually dishonest when discussing about religious issues. To the OP- whether you're a theist or an atheist its not going change your life in any way unless you're a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.

An intellectually honest person?

But you're still an ordinary human who don't even have control over his thoughts and his body as long as you're still subject to the causal forces of God. In real sense, Yes, you're God but not before transcending an anthropomorphic God.

It would be not right to compare the signalling mechanisms of quorum sensing used in bio-films which constitutes different prokaryotic single cellular organisms and organize themselves to form colonies with the signalling mechanisms used in multicellular tissues. In multicellular organisms cell-to-cell interactions takes place through gap junctions whose basic unit is called as connexons or pores which aid in regulated transport of ions, micro-molecules and metabolites and the macromolecules stay with in the cells which makes those cells tissue specific or defines what a tissue is. There are also Cell adhesion proteins and carbohydrate complexes which aid in cell adhesion and all this help in the differentiation of the embryo from its initial stages to the final stage of a fully developed organism. So basically Cellular interactions and Cell adhesions are the key to embryonic development. Biofilms and quorum sensing backgrounder

Mitochondria have a slightly different code to synthesize its proteins and that shows that life might have started more than once but the problem is with the origin of the code. The main point of this thread was that many of them here are agnostic atheists, they niether say that God exists nor they say that God doesn't exist but they take a default position and say that there is no evidence or possibility for the existence of God. In the same way there are agnostic theists here too who neither say that the existence of God is a scientific fact nor put their personal beliefs as absolute truths and they see the possibility for the existence of God and any metaphysical speculation whether it is of the existence of the anthropomorphic God(s) or of the existence of the unicorns both have equal merit and it should be allowed to openly discuss in the religious and philosophy forums and it should be tolerated as long as one doesn't put their beliefs as facts and I think this latter kind of discussions are not being allowed here. This was my main objection.

On one occassion he estimates the probability of the origin of the cytochrome c protein but I know that such an estimation is irrelevant to the origin of life scenario and since natural selection can easily account for the evolution of such a complex protein polymer. The intruiging thing is, his estimates about the origin of the genetic code which he thinks is the main problem, he thinks natural selection is too slow to have assigned the codons to the amino acids. This is his estimations. Information theory, evolution and origin of life. Its in the content "Evolution of genetic code and its modern characteristics", I hope you can access it. The main objection of Yockey is that there is no such thing as a code synthesis in any natural chemical process other than in living systems. The central dogma of molecular biology is that protein synthesis occurs based on a code which is self evident. This is his main objection. Even if we get through all the problems that life faced in its beginning times.( For example:- The ribose sugar was itself not adequately found in the prebiotic earth before the origin of the ribozymes so how did ribozymes originated in the first place?) The problem of the origin of the genetic code is a major problem for modern science. DNA is the material, Does position, mometum, mass, energy and other physical concepts actually exist in the external physical world is a different issue and its a philosophical problem which we don't know the answers yet and I doesn't want to say that DNA is abstract and make a positive assertion, it might sound silly but its still a possibility. Genome is not DNA, its an abstract concept, infact one can scramble the whole genome, rearrange the correlations between the nucleotide bases and if you measure the information content in bits or bytes before the rearrangement and after the scramble of the genome, the information content will be the same in both occassions. As I said earlied the decoder or the analyser will even decode the scrambled genome and give it to you because it is not concerned with the message that it is decoding. As you can you see such a decoded genome has no meaning or specificity but in terms of shanon, it is also a genuine possible message that can be communicated between the encoder and the decoder. The meaning of the message is irrelevant in the communication system. Therefore one can accept that "meaning" or "specificity" has been accumulated in the Genome through the process of Natural selection but the problem is with the origin of the Genome, the problem is not even of the origin of the genetic code, the problem is with the origin of the genome, (i.e the origin of the meaningful functional specificity in biomolecules). The assignment or origin of the genetic code itself requires meaningful messages or specificity and therefore the problem of origin of life is more of a problem of origin of genome. It is this distinction or demaracation line which Yockey makes between non-living matter and living matter, living things have a Genome which cannot be seen in a physical machine or in any chemical system.

Shannon's concepts are purely abstract and even Schroedinger's wave function is purely abstract. Biophysics and Biochemistry accounts for biological energy, its no special thing. (I am very confused and skeptical as to what this abstract concepts represent in the external physical world, its a philosophical problem)

OK, will do. It was Yockey's statement, he says meaning is non-measurable and I think that it is non-physical. Normally in any engineering problem or even in a biological problem the main aim of a communication system is to simply reproduce the message from the encoder side to the decoder side. The meaning of the message is irrelevant and shanon's entropy doesn't address that. For example:- Suppose you have a set of building blocks, say the 24 alphabets of the english language and you choose a finite length of builiding blocks arranged in a linear fashion as your message, such a communication system will reproduce your message at the decoder side without giving any prevelance to the meaning of the message. It will reproduce this --> "This is a science forum" or this --> "Htad mi p iscnlce ufqor" To a communication system both the messages are equivalent, the meaning of the message is irrelevant. One can measure the information content in both the messages by measuring the correlations with in the builiding blocks and if we can jumble up or choose the building blocks in some way to get a match we'll see that the information content in a meaningful message and the information content in a meaningless message are equal provided their message length are same. --------------------------------| Met | Val | Arg | Trp | Thr | Leu | (E Frame) G T T G A G G C T T G C G T T T A T G G T A C G C T G G A C T T T G. . . . . . | val | Glu | Ala | Cys | val | Tyr | Gly | Thr | Leu | Asp | Phe | (D Frame) The above nucleotide sequence is from the (phi)X174 virus which infects E. coli. A single gene encodes for two protein subunits since the same gene provides different binding sites for ribosomes. The frames are needed to fold the linear one dimensional array of amino acids into a three dimensional biospecific functional protein. A G C T T T G A C A G G C T T A A C G G C T T T G C G T T G C A G G. . . . . . . In the above sequence if we make sure that the RNA polymerase binding site and the ribosomal binding site in the mRNA are at the right places then the bio-machinery will reproduce the message present in the nucleotide sequence but the protein produced is non-functional because it cannot be folded into a three dimensional structure and hence it doesn't have the specificity. Hubert Yockey argues that such biomolecules with specificity or meaning have arrived or originated too soon in earth's history and hence the problem of origin of life is unsolvable to the scientific method since such specificity and meaning or complexity required to make life thrive cannot originate through a random walk in such a limited period of time as it is the case in the origin of life on earth. I think that meaning is non-physical and it exists independently. The question is about the origin of "meaning" or origin of "specificity" in the natural world, as you said anyone can add noise to a channel and obscure the meaning of the message, you are not directly changing the meaning, what you're doing is that you're changing the material which represents the message. This gives more support to the anthropomorphic view of the world. The ribozymes of the RNA world are itself complex biomolecules which requires more time than the age of this universe to self organize itself through a random walk. Hubert Yockey looks at living organisms from the mathematical aspect of it or from the information theory aspect of it which is purely based on mathematics and he gave an excellent insight as to what should be taught in schools. In every Evolution or Biology textbook I find that the author starts with the primordial soup and he gives a story as to how life might have originated on earth and it looks like a creation story with no evidence as to how it actually originated and therefore I think one has to accept that there is a problem and the real issue in hand has to be taught in schools. Most physicists think that evolution by natural selection is a type 2 science and hence creationists can easily babble about evolution and anyone can pile up a huge evidence and argue against evolution, General relativity doesn't face this problem, QM doesn't face this problem and I think a mathematical theory for living organisms is a necessity and it has to be given much credence. I have to ask you, is there any evidence that qualia are mere patterns in the brain? without that you cannot positively assert that "redness" is a physical thing or just a pattern in the Brain, if it was then we should have been able to copy that pattern and implement it in a neural network. It is better to say we don't know at this stage. Yes I agree with this one. It is better for science and religion to work in a non-overlapping environment and the professionals in either field can demand evidence when a conflict arises and deduce the nature and working of this universe.

I completely agree with this. When I first came here with a little background on selfish gene theory I believed that natural selection acts on individual genes. Later 'lucaspa' showed why I was wrong or misinformed about the theory which was popularly accepted in the field saying that natural selection acts on genotypes or phenotypes and also quoting the works of E.O Wilson. It completely changed the way I thought about evolution from then on. I think this site has always maintained its standards, one cannot get away by making a hit and run case here, one has to do some research, understand what it is that they are posting and then make a rebuttal.

This is a mainstream science forum, this thread shouldn't be here, it either belongs to the speculations forum or the philosophy forum, To the OP - This is not the right place to preach advaita vedanta and if you had really understood that school of philosophical thought you realise that Neil Bohr was right about quantum physics and Einstein was right about the objectivity of the world.

All atempts to formally connect those two concepts have failed. Hubert Yockey, especially, makes a distinction between themodynamic entropy and shanon entropy in his book Information theory and Molecular biology. The argument of Hubert Yockey goes like this - Then he goes on to show that why meaning or specificity in biomolecules could not have originated with in the time frame between the formation of our solar system and the origin of life on earth through random walk by doing probabilistic calculations and therefore he asserts that the origin of life is an unsolvable problem scientifically. Neither Thermodynamic entropy or shanon entropy can account for the natural origin of meaningful functional information. To me "meaning" is non-physical, the origin of life is a philosophical problem and this is again an indirect evidence that those qualia exist independent of the mind and hence it has to be taken seriously and it has to be investigated, it plays an insignificant role in how the universe works but none the less they are necessary to account for the various phenomena in the universe. Whether they give DNA or a human readable version, they both are material, Genome is different from DNA in the sense that not only that it can be measured in the form of bits and bytes, it has one more property called as "meaning" or "specificity" which cannot be measured and makes the genome unique from non-living matter. Its similar to asking I don't want a photon, I want redness, I don't want sugar, I want sweetness. Can you give me redness and sweetness? No you can't, if they are really non-physical, you cannot give me that. If one synthesizes various chemicals or building blocks in a primordial soup, there is no spontaneous natural process other than a random walk which can produce specificity or complexity of biomolecules having a specific biomolecular function but the origin of life requires a natural process other than a random walk to produce specificity required at the level of "life". If we assume that "meaning" is non-physical and it is responsible for the high specificity seen in biomolecules then the question arises how can a non-physical entity interact with a physical entity. This is where the nature of the physical system is so important to know, if all that science describes are just abstract things then there is no substantial evidence that those things are actually there outside in the physical world, all that we know is our perceptions and experiences of qualia. Even physical-monism is possible or non-physical monism is possible, anything can be possible. I'll address about the competing hypotheses below. The origin of the forerunners is the main problem. I am a layman and I am not using any complex terminologies, its just that these concepts are counter intuitive to our common notions of our world. You're still finding it hard to distinguish redness from a photon, there is no such thing as a red photon, redness exist in the mind. The problem is, there are competing hypotheses or God hypothesis in other schools of philosophical thought which makes positive assertions about the ontological nature of the physical world. Therefore these hypotheses are not only competing to explain the same problem as the sceintific theories, in fact if those hypotheses are found to be true then it even falsifies naturalism(the view that only the things described by physics exists). This is where the main conflict between religion and science rely on. There is only one truth, scientific truth or theological truth. Obviously science or naturalism will not see the necessity for God since the principle of Occam's Razor will eliminate any such necessity but if the God hypothesis is true then it indirectly makes a positive assertion saying that science will never ever be able to give an objective account of reality without bringing God into the picture. The God hypothesis doesn't work in a scientific way, it works through faith and revelation, if such a hypothesis is true then science cannot and will not be able to give an objective account of reality without coming out of its positive reductionist approach, science has to overcome from its scientific method. The failure of science to give an objective account of reality, in some way, eventually opens up other possible school of philosophical thought which works on a different method of investigating the nature. After going through all this, the simple question is, will scientists accept that the hard problem of Consciousness, the ontological problem of space and time and the problem of origin of life are unsolvable by scientific method and goes and investigates other methods of investigating nature or will it leave it to the theologicians to find a theological truth whose result if it is positive will go on to falsify naturalism. Is there a place for a theological scientist who tests hypothesis of God in the scientific community or if science doesn't investigate them then will it allow the theologicians to have a metaphysical speculation and demand evidence from the theologicians and hold a non overlapping magesteria without interfering with religious beliefs. Either science itself should change or it should openly allow other possible roads to reality. What should be the role of science in this situation. Does it have to take the role of New Atheism or the role of Non-overlapping magisteria ?

Science works on a set of self-evident assumptions, if you think whatever science says is wrong or false then you have to show the scientific community as to what is wrong in those assumptions and why our perceptions misguide us about the true nature of God if he is real and has a basis in our reality. No body has shown evidence against those assumptions and this is the reason why I believe in science. I personally have a neutral position towards all religions, not only bible, all religions of the world. If Trinity(Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit) is real then it will be revealed through revelations and once I have revelations then I have access to knowledge which others don't have then I might do some noble deeds or even perform some miracles, I can even pass on that knowledge to others and now this is what real knowledge is, if a religion is real then it has to come up with real knowledge. Therefore neither I say that Jesus exists nor I say that he doesn't exists, I don't know. If you can pass on some kind of real knowledge to me then sure I'll believe in Bible and even in Trinity without that why should I have to believe in Bible blindly. This is what Einstein meant when he said "Religion without science is blind". If you are believing it blindly then you're deluded. One more important thing, first take off that extremist view from your signature saying "All atheists and non-Christians will go to hell". God protects everyone, you can believe in anything, I don't have anything personal against you but I seriously condemn your view. Well this is what we are doing here, we are testing you, we are testing whether you have true spirit in you or not and so far you haven't given any credible evidence what so ever so why should we respect what you're saying, unfortunately this how religion works we cannot make a distinction between the person and his idea. I am sorry this is how religion works, I didn't mean to offend you. You're wrong, that's exactly how it works, a lecturer gives knowledge of science and if science didn't had any evidence then all the parents in this world wouldn't have sent their children to schools where they teach science and its principles. In the same way if one has to take you seriously and if we have to come to you to learn some knowledge we have to test you, if its real then you are passed, then I'll be your pupil but you can't get around here fooling us without giving any credible evidence. This is how Holy spirit works. That's exactly what we are doing, we are using it wisely so that we don't fall into pseudoscience. We are looking for someone like him and we have not found anyone like him yet as far as my knowledge is concerned.

One has to develop such an attitude so that one doesn't fall into pseudoscience. If qualia are non-physical and exists independent of the mind then that opens up new physics. New physics means it affects reality and one can observe such effects. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff tried desperately to account for these qualia with in the reductionist approach saying that Objective reduction of space and time events or quantum gravity which access platonic values generating an experience of a quale. Science is no way near to explain such things and it all points to the direction that they are non-physical. This is the reason many intellectuals are turning towards eastern schools of philosophical thought but they have to be investigated thoroughly, a model has to be produced, everyone cannot come up with their own interpretations, it shouldn't work on beliefs, it should work on some kind of new science which can bring out some real knowledge.

I was aware of these works five years ago and I don't know whether any progress have been made in the field of abiogenesis since then. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105001 http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3895 http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0403036 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0002037 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102034 I don't know in what context you used the word "imperceptible". As you can see from those links if quantum information processing was used in the primordial soup made up of random chemicals to synthesize living matter(bio-chemicals) from non-living matter(pre-biotic chemicals) then that seems to be a problem. 1. Computer scientists who are working to design quantum computers have to apply precise magentic fields in a delicate manner to do operations in qubits which are in superposition (i.e all possible values are superimposed). 2. They have to use specific methods to make a measurement on the qubits in such a way that they can extract the desired answer without destroying the delicate computed information existing in the superposition of qubits. 3. More importantly Quantum decoherence prevents the chemicals in the primordial soup to achieve quantum coherence and deny them to exist in such a superposition for long enough time and decoherence makes a random measurement on the superposition, it doesn't do any processing or searching for a desired chemical having specific properties, it is inherently random. And yet we see living matter self-organizing and produce some amazing design solutions. Natural selection can come into play and can produce novel design solutions only after there is a self-replicator, Natural selection requires a hereditary factor to act on. Once again the nature of the physical quantum system come into the picture which science can never attempt to answer. All we can know that something does some operations and changes the possible values of a quantum system and life emerges out as a classical phenomena just like how other classical concepts emerge out from the approximations of the quantum world as described by the correspondance principle by Neils Bohr. Self-organization is a problem and evolution by Natural selection is an incomplete explanation as to how biodiversity arosed on planet earth.

If you don't believe in science then why are you on the internet using a computer which was created by computer scientists which works solely based on scientific principles and morever why do you go to a doctor when you're ill, why do you take up medicines which are clinically tested and researched? Why? Can you see how absurd your question is?