Evidence against Materialism and for a Cosmic Mind


Presentation Description

Convincing philosophical and scientific arguments and empirical evidence that refutes materialism and demonstrates the existence of a cosmic mind (God) as the ground of all being, as well as intelligent design in nature.


Presentation Transcript

slide 1:

Evidence against Materialism and for a Cosmic Mind God
 and Intelligent Design 
 GÜNTER BECHLY Ph.D. paleontologist: Former Curator for Amber and Fossil Insects at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science Culture in Seattle USA Senior Scientist at the Biologic Institute in Redmond USA Chairman of the Center for BioComplexity and Teleology in Nature in Austria

slide 2:

The Conflict between Science and Religion 
 is Nothing but a 19th Century Myth 1874 Religion is not like Flat-Eartherism

slide 3:

The Hard Problem of Consciousness Phenomenal consciousness or subjective experience qualia can in principle not be reduced to or explained with the mere interaction of unconscious elementary particles. David Chalmers

slide 4:

Introspective Argument Premise 1: We cannot doubt that consciousness mind exists Descartes: “I think therefore I am”. Premise 2: Consciousness has properties Qualia that cannot be explained by matter in action Hard Problem. Premise 3: Matter-Mind-Dualism is false Interaction Problem. Conclusion 1: Mind is all there is. Premise 4: Solipsism is false. Conclusion 2: Everything exists in 
 a universal mind.

slide 5:

The Argument from Reason Problem of Rationality Transcendental Argument: A putative reasonable belief in the truth of materialism is self- contradictory and thus incoherent because if materialism would be true then there would exist …: • no reason because the laws of logic and arguments are immaterial und thus could not influence merely material brain states • no beliefs because propositional beliefs are immaterial • and no truth because truth is only a property of propositions and not of material brain states • and thus there would be no reason to trust our brains: why should merely material blind causal chains result in reasonable or even true beliefs rather than just survival C.S. Lewis

slide 6:

The Problem of Intentionality Premise 1: Our thoughts have the queer property of intentionality or aboutness they are about something else e.g. I think about a house. Premise 2: Matter is just what it is but is never about any other chunk of matter. This also holds for our material brain. Conclusion: Therefore 
 materialism is false Actually there is no viable naturalistic explanation 
 for intentionality. 
 Therefore naturalism 
 is false

slide 7:

A Gödelian Argument for Supernaturalism Premise 1: No sufficiently complex system can be internally consistent complete and self-explaining. Premise 2: Nature is a sufficiently complex system. Conclusion: Therefore nature requires an explanation beyond itself which is by definition supernatural and non-material. This statement cannot be proved true

slide 8:

The Uncanny Effectiveness of Math Why can a scientist like Peter Higgs sit down at his desk and predict a particle in 1964 which is only found fifty years later with billion dollar effort at CERN in 2012 • Eugene Wigner 1960 “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences“: „… the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it.” • Galileo Galilei “The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics” • Stephen Hawking “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe” • John Archibald Wheeler “Why these particular equations and not others”

slide 9:

The Uncanny Effectiveness of Math Premise 1: If mathematics exists just in our heads then its effectiveness is just a lucky coincidence. Premise 2: If mathematics exists in a platonic realm of ideas it could not affect the world and its effectiveness is just a lucky coincidence. Except: Tegmark’s mathematical monism Premise 3: Only if mathematics exists as ideas in a universal mind who created and sustains the world according to mathematical regularities its effectiveness is not just a lucky coincidence. Premise 4: The effectiveness of math 
 cannot be just a lucky coincidence. Conclusion: Therefore a universal 
 mind must exist

slide 10:

Laws from a Lawgiver Alexander Vilenkin 2006: final page “Many Worlds in One“: “It follows that the laws should be „there“ even prior to the universe itself. … In the absence of space time and matter what tablets could they be written upon The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind does this mean that mind should predate the universe”

slide 11:

Where do the Laws of Nature come from … and what explains the causal connection between these abstract mathematical laws and the material physical world

slide 12:

Where do the Laws of Nature come from Albert Einstein 1936: “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility …  The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”

slide 13:

Where do the Laws of Nature come from Premise 1: Laws of Nature cannot be the ultimate explanation of the cosmos because they cannot explain themselves. Conclusion 1: Therefore the Laws of Nature require an explanation for their existence beyond nature and its laws. Conclusion 2: The best explanation is an intelligent designer as “law giver” who created the cosmos according to mathematical principles. The assumption of an orderly creation by God as law giver is indeed the historical reason why natural science was invented in the West.

slide 14:

Leibniz’ Fundamental Question Why is there anything rather than nothing
 Ex nihilo nihil fit from nothing nothing comes Materialism cannot explain the existence of our contingent world and therefore materialists often resort to absurd and self-contradictory claims:

slide 15:

Leibniz’ Fundamental Question Premise 1: Either the world exists without explanation or all possible worlds exist or there necessarily exists a principle of limitation. Premise 2: The options of no explanation and of modal realism are both absurd PSR. Premise 3: The principle of limitation can either be platonic axiarchism or a personal mind endowed with free will. Premise 4: Platonic axiarchism is unintelligible. Conclusion: Therefore the explanation of the 
 world must be a necessarily existing mind.

slide 16:

The Universe had a Beginning Modern cosmology proves a cosmic beginning and thus refutes materialism because a contingent and temporally finite nature space time matter and energy cannot explain itself so that its explanation necessarily has to be supernatural timeless spaceless and immaterial.

slide 17:

The Universe had a Beginning Big Bang and expansion 1927 by Georges Lemaître based on Einstein’s equations
 Redshift of galaxies 1929 by Edwin Hubble 
 Insulting nickname “Big Bang” 1949 by Fred Hoyle Cosmic Background Radiation 1964 by 
 Arno Penzias Robert Woodrow Wilson

slide 18:

The Universe had a Beginning Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: “Any universe that has on average been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must h a v e a p a s t s p a c e t i m e boundary” This even applies to a potential inflationary multiverse. Vilenkin 2017 said that no viable cosmological model can escape the conclusion of this theorem.

slide 19:

The Universe had a Beginning Alexander Vilenkin 2006: page 176 “Many Worlds in One“: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

slide 20:

Argument for a First Cause KALAM Cosmological Argument: Premise 1: Everything that has a temporal beginning is contingent does not exist necessarily requires a cause. Premise 2: The universe has a beginning 
 it is not past infinite and is contingent. Conclusion 1: Therefore the universe has a cause. Conclusion 2: This cause must be spaceless timeless immaterial powerful enough to bring the universe into being and personal with free will because otherwise a timeless cause could not have a temporal effect.

slide 21:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Just 3 examples of 50 numbers: • Cosmological Constant: 1 to 10 120 • Gravitational Constant: 1 to 10 60 • Entropy: 1 to 123 These fine-tuned constants are arbitrary. Their values are not defined by the laws of physics. There is no known reason that they had to be this way.

slide 22:

The Trouble with Puddle Thinking A puddle says „Hey look how neatly the shape of this hole exactly fits my body it must have been especially made for me“ The explicit claim is: The universe is not fine-tuned for life but life is fine-tuned to the universe. The implicit claim is: Life could be fine-tuned to any universe. However the puddle analogy fails miserably because of a fundamental difference: Each hole fits the bill 
 thus it is not a rare match 
 there is no fine-tuning Luke Barnes

slide 23:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Quantum physicist David Deutsch 2006: “If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction stars burn out within a million years of their formation and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.”

slide 24:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe An infinite multiverse is the only atheistic and naturalist explanation for this fine-tuning of nature. But this is …: • extremely unparsimonious • an unobservable multiverse is as metaphysical as the God hypothesis • scientifically refuted by the 
 “measure problem” • empirically refuted through our 
 regular and orderly observations 
 “freak observer problem” 
 Boltzmann brains • refuted by fine-tune-ability 
 John Leslie • Multiverse generator needs fine-tuning itself

slide 25:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Premise 1: The fine-tuning is either due to chance necessity laws or design. Premise 2: The fine-tuning is neither physically necessary nor plausibly due to chance universal probability bound. Conclusion: Design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning. The designer of the universe must be beyond space and time thus an immaterial cosmic mind.

slide 26:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is extremely specific and extremely unlikely. Premise 2: The only possible explanations are an infinite multiverse or design brute fact would not be an explanation. Premise 3: An infinite multiverse is incompatible with the universe we observe too big too old too regular. Conclusion 1: Therefore design is the best explanation. Premise 4: The designer could not be within the universe e.g. aliens. Conclusion 2: The designer of the universe must transcend the universe God or the Matrix or both.

slide 27:

Quantum Mechanics vs Realism Einstein was wrong
 The weird results from quantum mechanics indeed refute … • a deterministic clockwork universe • an observer-independent reality that has distinct properties if we observe it or not naive realism • self-existing matter or spacetime materialism

slide 28:

Quantum Mechanics vs Realism • observer effect double-slit experiment quantum zeno • local hidden variables / local realism refuted by violation of Bell’s inequality Aspect spooky action at a distance • non-local hidden variables / non-local realism refuted by violation of Leggett’s inequality Zeilinger / Gröblacher before-before experiment • realism refuted by non-local delayed choice quantum eraser creating a back-history • naive realism refuted by proof of Kochen-Specker theorem contextuality • quantum-classical border refuted by violation of Leggett- Garg inequality and entangled macro-objects

slide 29:

Quantum Mechanics vs Realism

slide 30:

Argument from the Wave Function Premise 1: There is a wave function of the whole universe. Premise 2: The wave function of quantum mechanics is real but is not spatio-temporal but of mathematical nature Dorato 2015. Premise 3: Mathematical objects are abstract concepts that require a conscious mind as substrate. Conclusion:
 There is a universal mind beyond space and time in which the wave function of the universe “lives”.

slide 31:

Spacetime is Emergent Different lines of evidence all converge to the recognition that spacetime emerges from entangled quantum information: • holographic principle AdS/CFT correspondence • ER/EPR correspondence • AdS/MERA correspondence • UWF entanglement and non-locality are universal • Before-Before Experiment reality is non-spatiotemporal • quantum gravity Leading theoretical physicist Prof. Nima Arkani-Hamed Princeton Univ.

slide 32:

Sean Carroll CalTech Brian Greene Columbia Univ. Leonard Susskind 
 Stanford Univ. Max Tegmark MIT Erik Verlinde Univ. Amsterdam Spacetime is Emergent

slide 33:

Argument from Emergent Spacetime Premise 1: Space and time and thus also matter and energy are not fundamental but emergent from entangled quantum information. Premise 2: Mathematical objects such as quantum information are abstract concepts that require a conscious mind as substrate. Conclusion:
 Spacetime emerges from a universal mind beyond space and time which therefore must be uncreated and eternal.

slide 34:

Argument from Integrated Information Premise 1: Spacetime emerges from entangled quantum information. Premise 2: Entanglement of information is equivalent to integration of information. Premise 3: Integration of information consciousness 
 Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory. Conclusion 1: Spacetime emerges from consciousness. Premise 3: There is a universal wave function 
 which implies the entanglement of all matter and 
 information into a single integrated information state. Conclusion 2: Physical reality emerges from a single 
 universal consciousness. Giulio Tononi

slide 35:

Argument from Simulation Theory Many features of the universe suggest a simulation digital physics such as …: • creation from nothing at start Big Bang • pixelation quantization Planck limits • maximum speed of light • non-realism reality is rendered on the fly when you look • non-locality „equidistance“ of CPU to all screen pixels • tunnel effect Philip Rosdale „Second Life“ • error correction code MIT James Gates Simulation in a computer would lead to 
 infinite regress. Thus the more 
 parsimonious view is a simulation in an infinite 
 non-spatiotemporal universal mind. Nick Bostrom

slide 36:

Argument from Intelligent Design Premise 1: Certain features of the biological realm cannot be sufficiently explained by chance and necessity but require the introduction of specified information from outside the system intelligent design. Premise 2: All naturalistic designers like space aliens would imply an infinite regress. Conclusion: The best explanation 
 is an uncreated supernatural 
 designer. DISCLAIMER: This is NOT an argument FOR intelligent design but an argument FROM intelligent design.

slide 37:

Design-Arguments in Biology • Origin of life first replicator and causal circularity • Origin of the genetic code information problem • Origin of new proteins “needle in a haystack” problem • Origin of irreducible and specified complexity • Discontinuities in the fossil record • The waiting-time problem

slide 38:

Origin of Life Evolution presupposes a perfect system of self-replication and genetic code translation that cannot itself be explained with evolution. To solve this chicken-egg problem some biologists e.g. Eugene Koonin already consider an infinite ensemble of parallel universes. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

slide 39:

Origin of New Protein-Folds The origin of new functional proteins is a needle in a haystack problem that cannot be solved with Neo-Darwinism because the search space of possible aminoacid sequences is much too big compared to the isolated islands of functional folds 
 1 in 10 77 . Prof. Douglas Axe

slide 40:

Irreducible Complexity “Mountain Improbable“ cannot be climbed with numerous small steps. Charles Darwin 1859 “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down.“ Prof. Michael Behe

slide 41:

Molecular Machines in the Cell Bacterial Flagellum: • electro motor with rotor 
 shaft bushing propeller • 40 different proteins • 100.000 RPM • 1/4 turn to reverse direction 
 of rotation Helicase DNA-Replication: • a double-sided copy 
 machine © Veritasium D. Berry W.E. Hall Inst. Med. Res.:

slide 42:

Molecular Machines in the Cell Kinesin Motor-Protein: • a walking transport robot © Cellular Vision Harvard Univ. „The Inner Life of a Cell“: http://www.studiodaily.com/2006/07/cellular-visions-the-inner-life-of-a-cell/

slide 43:

Specified Complex Information Specified complex information is only produced by intelligent agents In our universe max. 500 Bit can be produced naturally. No software programs itself or can be improved with random accidental changes of the code. No meaningful book can be transformed into another one by randomly changing letters and only selecting meaningful intermediate manuscripts. Dr. William Dembski

slide 44:

Information Science “Information habitually arises from conscious activity“ The Emergence of Biological Organization 
 Yale Univ. Press 1964: page 16 Austrian scientist Dr. Henry Quastler who pioneered information theory in biology.

slide 45:

Causal Circularity To make Adenine you need: ATP: to make one ATP requires six ATP NAD+: requires NAD+ and ATP THF: requires ATP NAD+ and THF CoA: requires all four Dr. Ann Gauger Münchhausen bootstrapping

slide 46:

Discontinuities in the Fossil Record • Abrupt origins “explosions“ • Top-down pattern • Ghost lineages • Stasis and “Living Fossils“ • No gradual species transitions

slide 47:

The Waiting Time Problem The fossil record and population genetics combined do refute the mathematical feasibility of the Neo-Darwinian mechanism. Geological available windows of time are m u c h t o o s h o r t t o accommodate the required genetic changes to arise and spread in the ancestral populations. Dr. Rick Sternberg

slide 48:

Mainstream Evolutionists Admit the Problem Renowned evolutionary biologist Prof. Gerd Müller at his keynote talk to the conference “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology“ at the Royal Society in London in November 2016.

slide 50:

Neo-Darwinism Declared Dead in 2018 From the conference website: “For more than half a century it has been accepted that new genetic information is mostly derived from random‚ error-based’ events. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity.“

slide 51:

Even Atheists Agree … … like atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel 2012 in his bestseller “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False“. Oxford University Press 144 p.

slide 52:

Questions Answers Images: • Discovery Institute • Wikimedia Commons • Pixabay Pxfuel • Public Domain • and fair use covers news screenshots