Is there finally an argument for the existence of God?

All sorts of explanations for all sorts of things are not yet available. Why does that pose a significant challenge to you (note the personalization)? It doesn’t to me as I’m not a physicist. I’ll wait until those experts make them available; doing so without feeling the need to make up pseudo-philosophical explanations


Firstly, your assumption is equally valid to mine, so it ultimately comes down to personal preference regarding which one to believe.

Secondly, notable atheists such as Bertrand Russell have grappled with this issue and put forth the notion that matter itself is composed of experience. I am not alone in contemplating this problem. I am merely stating the obvious: if a material process can generate subjective experience within us, then in theory, other complex structures of matter could also give rise to subjective experience.

Honestly, I don’t believe it should be as problematic as it may initially seem.

No it isn’t, you’re just making up an unevidenced assumption. this has been pointed out as well, and you just roll on repeating the claim over and over. What does that infer I wonder?

No such thing as “more logical”, something is either in accordance with the principles of logic or it is not.

Straw man fallacy, so not logical at all in fact. It’s theists and theism that make appeals to magic btw.


  1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Can you explain how your deity does all the things you are claiming? Quod erat demonstrandum.

Another meaningless and unevidenced claim.

Because ice in insentient, as is the universe, and I am becoming more and more inclined to believe this is an elaborate windup, or at least I’m hoping it is.

I see no maths there? Just a list of bare unevidenced assertions and assumptions.

This bodes well, as you’re offering nothing so far.

I can’t speak for other atheists, but I make no such assumption, I do not however believe your unevidenced assumption that insentient things can experience anything.

False equivalence fallacy, this is not true of insentient things. Our consciousness is an emergent property of our evolved physical brains.

I don’t believe you, and again this is because you are simply making up nonsense.

1 Like

Subjective experience is simply emergent property. Your body as a whole had only one experience for every moment of your past existence. It is expected to have subjective experience rather than an objective one as primary drive.
It seems that you are missing some crucial informations here.
If subjective experience is what is troubling you, than you should watch this series.

It may help you to understand some basic points.


Oh look, the newcomer purports to be in a position to lecture me on discoursive conduct.

This is not going to end well for you.

Not least, because you will find, if you exercise some diligence in the matter, I have been prolific with respect to my contributions here, including presenting numerous peer reviewed scientific papers on relevant topics, and expounding upon the contents thereof, in order to make said contents accessible to a non-technical audience.

I’ve also been prolific with respect to the matter of dealing with canards (of which many have been brought here by the usual suspects), and explaining in detail precisely why those cnards are canards.

So before you posture as being in a position to lecture the regulars here on the subject of discoursive conduct, you might want to spend some time learning about the actual expertise of said regulars in this regard, instead of snidely presuming that you know better than everyone else here.



Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

Why have you avoided this question throughout this discourse I wonder?


Apparently I wasn’t clear. You write as though assumptions are universal. They are not.

So what?

Sigh….I may be oblivious to you. I find it neither obvious nor a worthy thought experiment.

Matter itself is composed of experience?

What does that even mean? It doesn’t matter who said it, can you elaborate on what does that mean to you.?
Never heard of such nonsense!

“To generate subjective experience” you understand that you need a complex recipient to comprehend subjective experience.
It doesn’t matter what generates it. It is who is experiencing it. And you need a complex biological structure with emergent property of reactory behaviour to external stimuli to have subjective experience.


Thank you for the video. I believe I may have already seen it, but I will take another look.

Regarding your comment, there are three issues to address:

1 While emergent properties such as senses, reproduction, or information processing can be understood as complex manifestations of the underlying properties of the elements involved in the process, subjective experience does not align with or correspond to any of the fundamental properties known about particles.

2 Unlike other emergent properties, subjective experience (S.E.) is an objective reality in itself. This implies that either the emergence of S.E. involves the creation of something real with its own distinct properties, separate from the molecules involved in the process, or the molecules involved in the process undergo a transformation enabling them to possess a new property known as S.E.

3 If a physical process in our brain can generate subjective experience, why shouldn’t we assume that subjective experience can arise in other physical processes as well?

I am dubious, please offer a citation that supports your unevidenced claim that Russel said this.

Also how does any of this evidence any deity?

@Quim Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?

1 Like

We don’t, we know that sentience is an emergent property of a physical brain in non-human animals. So your claim is a vague and unevidenced assumption, what natural process are you talking about for example, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate they are capable of sentience? We only have objective evidence for sentience as an emergent property of a physical evolved brain.

Sigh…and around and around he goes.

  1. So far we have only discovered “particles” molecules that generate any experience especially initial, subjective one. How would you go about proving that particles don’t play a role in our biochemistry.

  2. "Subjective experience is an reality in itself " do you read what you write? Are you intentionally skipping the subjective part from the conclusion.

Subjective experience is a potential subjective reality, yes for someone very shallow minded.

  1. Nobody did that. I do think that other evolved animals have consciousness on a spectrum. We know how most of it works.

What you seek is a nonmaterial experience. You don’t get that without showing any plausibility. And there is no.

1 Like

Here, we encounter issues concerning language. When I mention subjective experience, I am not referring to the specific thoughts, feelings, or mental states we experience. Rather, I am referring to the inherent capacity to experience itself…

Here is something I find quite arbitrary. You assume that a complex biological reaction should result in a subjective experience, while a ball bouncing does not. The problem with this line of reasoning is that your complex biological structure is nothing more than numerous balls bouncing around. The issue at hand is not the complexity of the process; rather, it lies in the fact that current physics does not predict any subjective experience, whether it involves one ball or 1e+80 balls, as there is no fundamental property to support it.

According to our physics, everything should occur exactly as it does now, but without anyone experiencing it. That is what our physics predicts, but it is not the case in reality.

Anyway, it’s late for me. I’ve had a long day of hard work. Let’s continue tomorrow.

1 Like

I don’t even care if Russell said it or not. He said a lot of weird stuff. Statement doesn’t make sense.

Most of that stuff comes from a nonsense interpretation of “quantum observer”. Which is in itself a misunderstanding of a quantum measurement problem, which is often confused with quantum inequality.

That’s how you get “atoms have self awareness”!

1 Like

You can read it here. As you can see, the problem is far from simple.

1 Like

Watch the playlist (it’ll take roughly 30 hours), it’s not just numerous balls bouncing around.
How did you conclude that our physics exclude experience?

It’s late here as well, I’m cool with delaying it for tomorrow.

1 Like

This is not an assumption, it is based on objective evidence, as we never observe sentience in the absence of a physical brain.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The time has come to simply point and laugh at this nonsense now.

You’re making up nonsense again… :rofl:

@Quim Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?


People will continue as they wish according to their own time zones and availability. You may continue during your tomorrow but others will likely not just do so to be in accordance with your schedule. :grin:

See how things can be so different to different people?

1 Like

That is a large document, where in there are you claiming that Russell “put forth the notion that matter itself is composed of experience”?

@Quim Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?

@Quim, the title of this debate that you started is, “Is there finally an argument for the existence of God?”

Which god?

1 Like