Yes, actually. I think the fossil record proves that God did not develop life through UCD.
I am not quite sure what your point is here. Regardless of whether it is possible by random means, this would need to be demonstrated empirically in order for it to be considered science.
Well, we were discussing whether my God hypothesis can be ( dis)proven scientifically in the first place. If you are conceding that it can and you want me to proceed further in proving it, then I will do so.
Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that “the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws.” In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.
In fact, a team of scientists have even succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving. “These experiments show that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles”. Thus, you cannot separate the two realms because quantum mechanics is ultimately fundamental.
I would agree but this does not apply to me.
Well, it just depends on which form of idealism we are talking about here. The one that I am advocating for does allow for it.
A quantum mind must exist to create life on earth
A quantum mind must exist to bring life into being on earth
Here’s an experiment showing how a quantum mind does not need to exist to create life on earth by showing how a possible natural condition can create life without it.
Again, A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case.
This is what it means to be “necessary”. This leads me to address your response to this…
I think “random” is the wrong term to use here. What you really mean is “natural law” if I am not mistaken. If so, I would agree BUT the question is whether this natural law was a guided process or not, which we can test, as I showed and explained to you before.
The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.
For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.
I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more. I have already gave you the source that verifies all this. In fact, here is a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address:
"Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105).
Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters. With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively. As the enigmatic riddle of consciousness has remained intractable, we need more theories and hypotheses to attract enough attention and maintain lively debate. This conflict is the only way for human beings to explore the truth. Since there is no conclusive scientific mechanism of consciousness, as one of the most systemic and convincing theories among various theories of consciousness, the Orch-OR theory deserves our deeper understanding and study."
Do you know of a new peer-reviewed objection of their article after 2019 that they failed to address?