Could there be a God?

[robheus]

The concept "God" is a very diffuse concept, you need to clearly define it before one can debate about it, but human antropology makes it quite clear I guess that "Gods" are human inventions (and not the other way around) and just portray some idealist / fictuous ideas about ourselves.

Moreover there is no need for "inventing" a God, because the philosophy of materialism (matter as the substance - being the ground for all observable phenomena - and consciousness only being a secondary feature of the world and later development and emergent property of matter in living organisms) has no need of there being any God.

 

EDIT: And an argument against a God/creator would be that matter/energy itself does not get created or destroyed, and hence no "creation" event whatsoever needed to take place, just transformation from one kind of material form into other forms (and there might be different kinds of stuff as we currently know of, and perhaps that kind of stuff causes the big bang, and maybe the dark energy and/or dark matter are remnants of that stuff), and secondly, how could a spiritual being (i.e. non-material) "outside of space / time" have anything to do with the material, actual world, as these are all just gross absurdities. The logic of why there would have to be a God is just stupid logic (like saying, the material interactions that lead to the formation of earth, life and human beings made it possible for us to exist, and THEREFORE, those material interactions must have been guided with some pre-set goal, intend and purpose, which is the same basic flawed logic as thinking that if you win a lottery, there was some collaboration, intend and purposese in all the material forces that caused your ticket to win the lottery).

 

IMO it's a pointless question. Unless someone can prove that there could not be a god then the default answer is, "sure, a god is possible". We could of course follow this with an infinite number of other pointless questions, i.e., Could there be unicorns?, Could there be leprechuans?, Could there be wormholes?, Could there be Raleians?, etc. and so on forever. Sure, anything is possible. Why bother?

 

There are a lot of possibilities, but on the other hand also a lot of impossibilites. I'm sure the existence of any "Gods" is one of those impossibilities.

 

For example, how could it be that "god" supposedly "created the world" as the mere supposed existence of a God already means that a world (which at least contains that God-entity) is existing? So far, nobody could explain me how such would be possible at all. And there are a lot of other problems for making the concept of God into some real existing phenomena what could be placed in the world, and thus far nobody succeeded in doing that, hence there is no reason to contemplate such utterly imaginary beings.

Edited June 30, 2012 by robheus

[Aethelwulf]

The concept "God" is a very diffuse concept, you need to clearly define it before one can debate about it, .

 

How do you clearly define God....In my approach, I took the same approach any religion might... But I defied those religions by saying their God cannot know anything beyond quantum physics...

 

Uncertainty principles is not a back corner I took.. it is matter of physical fact.

[Moontanman]

How do you clearly define God....In my approach, I took the same approach any religion might... But I defied those religions by saying their God cannot know anything beyond quantum physics...

 

Uncertainty principles is not a back corner I took.. it is matter of physical fact.

 

 

Aren't you assuming the absolute truth of quantum theory by asserting that scenario?

[Aethelwulf]

Aren't you assuming the absolute truth of quantum theory by asserting that scenario?

 

 

Can I clarify what I have just said to you....? I appreciate your contributions...

 

''

God is just an amazingly baggage of thoughts and information. HE is is not a persona.''

 

i liked your post, because you asked the right kind of question.

[The Architekt]

Although I am still at the elementary levels of science, I believe that "singularities" were created to keep the harm that human beings create "for themselves" out of the barriers of the universe...

 

I truly believe that "something" knew that mankind one day would discover things about the atom and at that, humans have already created much damage in this world as we see. Radiation is everywhere causing people to be sick, killing wild life and animals, "INNOCENT VICTIMS."

 

From pollution to even an economy system that is ruled by numbers, greed lies and etc... All these things were created by scientist, mathematicians, philosophers and even 'religion."

 

Animals that get tortured by scientific experiments to even starvation, and deprivation on other "selected" races""....

 

 

From "NUCLEAR WARS", to the very creation of the internet that now serves as a system ruled by lies, anyone can be anyone now!

 

 

The point here is that "something" keeps humanity at a distance of true knowledge and escape from their creation, in this case the harnessing of the atom....I know some may get offended when I say, but from what I gather, science still has no clue about the scale of this earth, what the size of the universe is, nor do they have any clue in where exactly time references "everything."

I was told to admit when I was wrong about anything that came out of my mouth, with the current events in the world, I think it is time for the "world" to admit that we need god now more than ever before and perhaps science needs an entire upgrading system in where more theories can be accepted and or proven.

 

 

When someone says the word ''God'' most people think of divine, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-knowing entities. There are some problems with an all-knowing entity, such as the Uncertainty Principle.

 

If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics. If he didn't it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to [math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]. There is one reason why (a) God cannot be outside of the rules of quantum physics, assuming that relativity has any universal truth or precedence. Since nothing exists outside of the universe, we must assume God is contained within his own creation - indeed, assuming he even created the universe. A possibility of such an entity would be that they were created inside of the bubble of the universe, entwined if you like in a ''creation'' which he (or indeed she) had no control over.

 

Many people have traditional views of God today, mostly evolved from scriptures and ancient proverbs - but these have been adapted by men on Earth who have created these views to suit their doctrine and way of thoughts and systematic beliefs and foibles. What does seem certain, if a God does exist and are so superior, beyond the intellect of man, it is doubtful he or she would even find us interesting. Indeed, the God of Einstein was Spinoza's God, a God who does not care for the doings of mankind.

 

This is likely, the kind of God we can deal with in physics, or any kind of understanding of any physical kind of science. God is not outside of science, so long as you realize that God must be ignorant of many physical qualities that we often think he is superior for.

 

So what is ''God'' if not something we associate to scripture?

 

God in my eyes, should be ''something'' which has as quantum nature about it. Usually in quantum mechanics, to encode the information about a particular system, we consider a ''State Function'' often denoted with a [math]\Psi[/math] ''a capitol Psi''. The is the wave function which describes if you like, all the information of a system, which could be from a particle to the entire universe. The problem however, is, just like a particle you can only know [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] of any attribute of a particle system. You may know for instance, with almost correct parameters the position of a particle, but doing so would result in an amazing uncertainty inherent in its momentum/trajectory.

 

The wave function therefore itself, or rather, the state function cannot ever really be known completely unless we where talking about systems which was ''macroscopic'' because such systems are devoid of quantum effects (not entirely, but enough) to be ignored. A position of Schrodinger's cat is not smeared over space for instance. So in it's full form, is the universe a victim of quantum effects? It is after all, something large and can be modeled as a macroscopic system?

 

Well, most of the universe is made up of about 99% space. The rest of it exists as tangible ''existing out there'' matter, the kind that our most functional telescopes can hone in on and take pictures of. The rest of space is made up of ghostly matter which appears to be smeared over all spacetime. Some of it in the form of radiation, others will be smeared over spacetime as particles or other types of matter resonating from other distant galaxies. And even, some of this matter might actually turn up in different parts of space which a most recent experiment has shown (citations can be given if asked for).

 

I have even speculated within myself whether anamolous gravitational effects show up in the universe because the matter in the universe turn up in places they shouldn't according to this experiment, and thus, adding a reason why we pick up gravitational distortions where they should not be present.

 

God could even be some kind of ''supercomputer'' who is located in the future sending signals back in the form of (what I will call) Cramer Waves. Cramers delayed choice experiment has shown that actions in the future can in fact alter present conditions we see today. In relativity, we have no such thing as a ''true past'' or even a ''true future''. So maybe God is really some kind of machine in our future horizon which creates the world we see around us today, (which would mean ultimately) that things we do and observe in the present is really shaping the world in the past, when the universe was young and ripe.

Edited July 1, 2012 by The Architekt

[Moontanman]

Although I am still at the elementary levels of science, I believe that "singularities" were created to keep the harm that human beings create "for themselves" out of the barriers of the universe...

 

I truly believe that "something" knew that mankind one day would discover things about the atom and at that, humans have already created much damage in this world as we see. Radiation is everywhere causing people to be sick, killing wild life and animals, "INNOCENT VICTIMS."

 

From pollution to even an economy system that is ruled by numbers, greed lies and etc... All these things were created by scientist, mathematicians, philosophers and even 'religion."

 

Animals that get tortured by scientific experiments to even starvation, and deprivation on other "selected" races""....

 

 

From "NUCLEAR WARS", to the very creation of the internet that now serves as a system ruled by lies, anyone can be anyone now!

 

Science has led humanity into an "occultism order" now a victim of its creation like chaos theory..

I believe god previously knew this, so yes I believe there is a god that created singularities to keep the bad things out.

 

The point here is that "something" keeps humanity at a distance of true knowledge and escape from their creation, in this case the harnessing of the atom....I know some may get offended when I say, but from what I gather, science still has no clue about the scale of this earth, what the size of the universe is, nor do they have any clue in where exactly time references "everything."

I was always told to admit I was wrong about anything that came out of my mouth, with the current events in the world, I think it is time for the "world" to admit that we need god now more than ever before and perhaps science needs an entire upgrade system.

 

 

i think you are conflating the perceived problems of the earth with possible problems with the universe due to your earth centrism thinking... The Earth is not important in the grand scheme of things to anyone but us and nuclear weapons and pollution is meaningless on a universal scale... and if anything the concept of god or gods makes it much much worse for us here on the earth... Much of the contention and strife on the earth is associated with god concepts and the dehumanizing influence god has on society..

[ecoli]

 

 

Indeed, if any specific measurement was out of a specific type of order, then the universe as we know it today would have been drastically different. This is what I speak of a ''Super-Order'' - an underlying deterministic universe with a specific path which has led to this wonderful construction which allows even humans today to speak about the things they have. If it had not, we would not be here today.

But you haven't accounted for observational effects. The anthropic principle (illusion of perfect design) can also be explained by observation selection. If the universe's physics (or evolutionary laws) had been different than maybe other types of beings would be observing that universe and commenting about how perfect it is. Or maybe there'd be no conscious beings to observe it at all.

 

"Not being here today" could be the effort of graceful design (which is pure speculation) but this hypothesis doesn't rule out the above observational biases. This is the equivalent to throwing partially cooked pasta at the wall to see what sticks and calling the whole pot perfectly cooked by ignoring everything on the floor.

 

(wow what a terrible metaphor!)

[doG]

If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics. If he didn't it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to [math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]. There is one reason why (a) God cannot be outside of the rules of quantum physics, assuming that relativity has any universal truth or precedence. Since nothing exists outside of the universe, we must assume God is contained within his own creation - indeed, assuming he even created the universe...

 

Read back over this part of your OP. The verbiage used sounds like you are asserting these things as facts, not possibilities. If you are making such assertions then the Speculations Forum Rules clearly say,

 

"Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure."

 

You should not be making complaints if you have been asked to provide some sort of proof for these assertions and you have not done so. If you have received neg rep as a result of not abiding by the rules you shouldn't be complaining about that either.

 

Read through your other posts and see where you have provided actual proof and not just some opinion you have proffered as proof. I've not read through them myself but I suspect you will find some explanation as to why some members have reacted to your posts the way they have. Look particularly for any links you have posted to support your assertions from outside sources. If you can't find any then maybe you should post some.

[Aethelwulf]

Read back over this part of your OP. The verbiage used sounds like you are asserting these things as facts, not possibilities. If you are making such assertions then the Speculations Forum Rules clearly say,

 

"Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure."

 

You should not be making complaints if you have been asked to provide some sort of proof for these assertions and you have not done so. If you have received neg rep as a result of not abiding by the rules you shouldn't be complaining about that either.

 

Read through your other posts and see where you have provided actual proof and not just some opinion you have proffered as proof. I've not read through them myself but I suspect you will find some explanation as to why some members have reacted to your posts the way they have. Look particularly for any links you have posted to support your assertions from outside sources. If you can't find any then maybe you should post some.

 

That is fact.

 

Nothing is outside quantum mechanics. If anything violated the Uncertainty Principle directly it be disasterous in nature. Nothing would be able to exist.

 

But you haven't accounted for observational effects. The anthropic principle (illusion of perfect design) can also be explained by observation selection. If the universe's physics (or evolutionary laws) had been different than maybe other types of beings would be observing that universe and commenting about how perfect it is. Or maybe there'd be no conscious beings to observe it at all.

 

"Not being here today" could be the effort of graceful design (which is pure speculation) but this hypothesis doesn't rule out the above observational biases. This is the equivalent to throwing partially cooked pasta at the wall to see what sticks and calling the whole pot perfectly cooked by ignoring everything on the floor.

 

(wow what a terrible metaphor!)

 

But it's fact, again, that there are an infinite amount of beginning our universe could have chose, with only a handful of other kinds of universe which are sustainable today. That certainly has massive implications in the theory of statistics.

 

 

 

 

Has anyone here actually read the Anthropic Principle by Tipler and Barrow?

[immortal]

That is fact.

 

No, that seems to be your opinion more than an objective fact, the below statement is not a fact. This might be the reason why you're being neg repp quite often.

 

Nothing is outside quantum mechanics. If anything violated the Uncertainty Principle directly it be disasterous in nature. Nothing would be able to exist.

 

Not necessarily, we still have not understood how entanglement works and the experiments by German scientists suggest that there is something far more important is at work. The uncertainty principle failed to account for the results generated from the experiments, so its not that uncertaintly principle is violated but there is something very strange happening which we don't know yet. There are many physicists who think that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

Origin of QM complementarity probed by a 'which-way' experiment in an atom interferometer. - S. DuÈ rr, T. Nonn & G. Rempe.

 

 

Your basic assumption in this thread that if a God exists then he must be confined to the rules of Quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed.

 

Could there be a God?

 

Yes there is still room for God but such an hypothesis is outside of science. It is not science.

 

The scientist who leaves room for spirituality - Read this interview with the Templeton prize winner Bernard d'Espagnat who has worked under the architects of Modern Physics like Bohr and De brouglie.

[Aethelwulf]

No, that seems to be your opinion more than an objective fact, the below statement is not a fact. This might be the reason why you're being neg repp quite often.

 

 

 

Not necessarily,

 

? How can you say, not necessarily? Read my sentence again: Nothing can violate the uncertainty principle. It is a cornerstone of physics as we know it. You can't know the position and trajectory of every particle in the universe, it just won't let you!!!

 

Physics 101.

 

So the idea of an all-knowing entity is fundamentally-flawed. Not my argument.

 

Also I believe physics is incomplete - its very incomplete - that is irrelevant however because no amount of tweaking our theories will the uncertainty principle ever be proven wrong or can be violated directly. There are, as I have shown, some very special ways one can know the location and trajectory of a particle but it requires making two-time measurements.

[immortal]

? How can you say, not necessarily? Read my sentence again: Nothing can violate the uncertainty principle. It is a cornerstone of physics as we know it. You can't know the position and trajectory of every particle in the universe, it just won't let you!!!

 

That's exactly what my point is, as shown in the paper which I cited we still don't know why nature won't let us to simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle in the universe or why it behaves like that way when we make a measurement. There is a mechanism which is working at the heart of the measurement process. So the uncertainty principle might not be a fundamental law of nature so that you can draw some absolute conclusions about the nature of the universe.

 

So the idea of an all-knowing entity is fundamentally-flawed. Not my argument.

 

As I said, not necessarily. We still don't know a lot about how nature works.

[Aethelwulf]

That doesn't make sense. You either agree with my statement on the uncertainty principle - then you say we don't know how nature works. You can't have it both ways.

[immortal]

That doesn't make sense. You either agree with my statement on the uncertainty principle - then you say we don't know how nature works. You can't have it both ways.

 

For a layman description of what that paper concludes can be found below.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/Q/quantum_entanglement.html

 

The revisionist picture of the Bohr-Einstein debates stems partly from a suggestion made in 1991 by Marlan Scully, Berthold-Georg Englert, and Herbert Walther of the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany.3 These researchers proposed using atoms as quantum objects in a version of Young's two-slit experiment. Atoms have an important advantage over simpler particles, such as photons or electrons: they have a variety of internal states, including a ground state (lowest energy state) and a series of excited states. These different states, the German team reckoned, could be used to track the atom's path.

 

Seven years later, Gerhard Rempe and his colleagues at the University of Konstanz, also in Germany, brought the experiment to life – and made a surprising discovery.4 Their technique involved cooling atoms of rubidium down to within a hair's breadth of absolute zero. (Cold atoms have long wavelengths, which make their interference patterns easier to observe.) Then they split a beam of the atoms using thin barriers of pure laser light. When the two beams were combined, they created the familiar double-slit interference pattern. Next, Rempe and his colleagues looked to see which path the atoms followed. The atoms going down one path were left alone, but those on the other path were nudged into a higher energy state by a pulse of microwaves (short wavelength radio waves). Following this treatment, the atoms, in their internal states, carried a record of which way they'd gone.

 

The crucial factor in this version of the double-slit experiment is that the microwaves have hardly any momentum of their own, so they can cause virtually no change to the atom's momentum – nowhere near enough to smear out the interference pattern. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can't possibly play a significant hand in the outcome. Yet with the microwaves turned on so that we can tell which way the atoms went, the interference pattern suddenly vanishes. Bohr had argued that when such a pattern is lost, it happens because a measuring device gives random kicks to the particles. But there aren't any random kicks to speak of in the rubidium atom experiment; at most, the microwaves deliver momentum taps ten thousand times too small to destroy the interference bands. Yet, destroyed the bands are. It isn't that the uncertainty principle is proved wrong, but there's no way it can account for the results.

 

The only reason momentum kicks seemed to explain the classic double slit experiment discussed by Bohr and Einstein turns out to be a fortunate conspiracy of numbers. There's a mechanism at work far deeper than random jolts and uncertainty. What destroys the interference pattern is the very act of trying to get information about which paths is followed. The effect at work is entanglement.

 

Do we really know how nature works now?

 

 

[zapatos]

No, that seems to be your opinion more than an objective fact, the below statement is not a fact. This might be the reason why you're being neg repp quite often.

I agree. It started in the OP and has not stopped. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, making scientific claims about the supernatural shows a fundamental lack of understanding about science. It is inviting trouble on a science forum. The problem is only compounded with the attitude he shows for those who don't agree.

[robheus]

Can there be a God?

 

Simple answer no, because nobody can explain me how the logic works that seems to dictate there must be a God. The logic goes like this:

1. There is a world.

2. It must have a cause.

3. Therefore there must be a God who created the world.

etc.

 

What is wrong with this logic is that as soon as you say such a being exists, it satisfies the condition that a world exists, even if it only contained that being (ie. a world only containing God).

But then, there would have been no creation act of God necessary, since the world already existed, even if only in the form of just God existing.

And if we ask the very basic question, how it is that the world seems to need a cause of existing, but God does not need to have a cause of existing, the most likely answer you get is because God exists indefinately or eternally.

But since the world exist by definition then also, this then just turns out to be that the world itself is eternal and ever existing. No need of any such God creators.

 

This makes the question of wether any such beings which we can call God unnessary by definition, since no creation event needed to have taken place if it turns out the world is eternal, and we don't need to argue wether negative (or absense) of existence can be proven, etc.

[doG]

That is fact...

 

But it's fact, again...

Prove it. Rules are rules so let's see the proof. Then again, maybe this thread does belong in the trash can as the rules imply. I can't see the op actually stepping up with any evidence to support his/her opinion.

[ecoli]

But it's fact, again, that there are an infinite amount of beginning our universe could have chose, with only a handful of other kinds of universe which are sustainable today.

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion, nor how this presupposes that the "evolution" of universe space is directed by a diety (as opposed to anthropic selection)

 

Has anyone here actually read the Anthropic Principle by Tipler and Barrow?

Admittedly, I havent read the original work, but I'll definitely add it to the reading list now. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Aethelwulf]

For a layman description of what that paper concludes can be found below.

 

http://www.daviddarl...tanglement.html

 

 

 

Do we really know how nature works now?

 

 

 

I have hardly had enough to time look at anything, besides a paper. I know for a fact however the paper won't be telling me that you can defy the uncertainty principle directly, which was my point all along, one which you side-stepped by saying we don't know everything in physics, (whatever that is meant to mean in the context of things).

 

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion, nor how this presupposes that the "evolution" of universe space is directed by a diety (as opposed to anthropic selection)

 

 

Admittedly, I havent read the original work, but I'll definitely add it to the reading list now. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

It's called the wave function. When the universe was very small, we believe it was still subject to quantum effects. In other words, the rules of quantum mechanics is the same everywhere. This would mean that just a single particle may have several outcomes to any state, the universe also had many states it could have arisen in. In fact, according to current belief, the universe could have had an infinite amount of possible states it could have arose in, but only so many of those states would allow the kind of stable vacuum we observe today.

 

Now the reason why this creates a question of God, is who made the first measurement which pulled the universe out of this superpositioning? We are led to this question because if the universe had arose out of so many states, we would effectively still see some of these states smeared over spacetime. We don't.. however, this is one reason why parallel universes was created.

 

Prove it. Rules are rules so let's see the proof. Then again, maybe this thread does belong in the trash can as the rules imply. I can't see the op actually stepping up with any evidence to support his/her opinion.

 

Start Proof:

 

[math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]

 

and

 

[math]\Delta x \Delta p[/math]

 

Corner stone principles, cannot be directly violated.

 

End proof.

 

 

 

I agree. It started in the OP and has not stopped. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, making scientific claims about the supernatural shows a fundamental lack of understanding about science. It is inviting trouble on a science forum. The problem is only compounded with the attitude he shows for those who don't agree.

 

No, you don't understand. I have made suppositions in the OP based on ''IF God exists''.... notice the ''IF''.

 

You are then, it seems, treating this as me saying ''God does exist and is usually within the context of science''.

 

Which is wrong. I am sick and tired of people not reading what I write, its almost as if they are intentionally trying to wrap things I say to mean other things. If a God DID exist, then he would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics, (the one named in the OP), the Uncertainty Principle. The reasons why have been explained time and time again. If anything, EVEN a God knew the location and position of every particle in the universe it would cause a tremendous discharge of energy.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[immortal]

I have hardly had enough to time look at anything, besides a paper. I know for a fact however the paper won't be telling me that you can defy the uncertainty principle directly, which was my point all along, one which you side-stepped by saying we don't know everything in physics, (whatever that is meant to mean in the context of things).

 

Yes, you're using the uncertainty principle to assert that nothing cannot exist outside of quantum mechanics but as we know every respectable physicist knows that QM and SR are incomplete theories and I don't think anyone who is of a scientific attitude would use such a theory to draw factual conclusions about an ill defined entity like God.

 

Its like an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

 

We don't know in any other way how an entity can surpass the uncertainty principle and know everything therefore nothing must exist outside of quantum mechanics or an all knowing entity must be impossible.

 

This is a logical fallacy.

 

 

Start Proof:

 

[math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]

 

and

 

[math]\Delta x \Delta p[/math]

 

Corner stone principles, cannot be directly violated.

 

End proof.

 

First of all you need to define God. What is your definition of God? Why should a God be subjected to such a proof? or how can you prove that nothing cannot exist outside quantum mechanics? In science we don't prove anything, there are no ultimate proofs from which you can draw absolute conclusions, looking at that way your proof cannot be applied to even an human observer. We don't go by verification, in science we go by falsification which means that even your axioms or assumptions can be wrong and can be overthrown.

 

 

Which is wrong. I am sick and tired of people not reading what I write, its almost as if they are intentionally trying to wrap things I say to mean other things. If a God DID exist, then he would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics, (the one named in the OP), the Uncertainty Principle. The reasons why have been explained time and time again. If anything, EVEN a God knew the location and position of every particle in the universe is would cause a tremendous discharge of energy.

 

There are inconsistencies in your statements and we are reading you correctly.

 

Aethelwulf, on 26 June 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

"If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics

This is a fact."

 

Aethelwulf, Today said:

"If a God DID exist, then he would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics."

 

Now you're rephrasing your statements and accusing us for intentionally trying to frame you. Everyone can see what your claims were. Now you're stating it as your opinion which gives more support to my previous prediction that you were stating your opinions as a scientific fact and that's what brought the trouble.

 

 

[Aethelwulf]

Yes, you're using the uncertainty principle to assert that nothing cannot exist outside of quantum mechanics but as we know every respectable physicist knows that QM and SR are incomplete theories and I don't think anyone who is of a scientific attitude would use such a theory to draw factual conclusions about an ill defined entity like God.

 

 

I never said God was not ill-defined. I have said for the take of this thread, if God existed. You obviously don't seem to realize why I say it would be impossible for anything violate the uncertainty principle... and I can only assume this is with a certain lack of understanding the topic. Whatever God, if he or she exists, there still cannot be such a violation. The fact we are here, speaking and talking is because this principle is preserved.

 

Understand?

 

 

First of all you need to define God. What is your definition of God? Why should a God be subjected to such a proof? or how can you prove that nothing cannot exist outside quantum mechanics? In science we don't prove anything, there are no ultimate proofs from which you can draw absolute conclusions, looking at that way your proof cannot be applied to even an human observer. We don't go by verification, in science we go by falsification which means that even your axioms or assumptions can be wrong and can be overthrown.

 

 

I took a few ways that could help define God. In my OP, I explained some traditional ways that he or she is seen. My definition of God, is Einstein's God - A God of nature.... but here we go again. I have actually told you this already.

 

 

There are inconsistencies in your statements and we are reading you correctly.

 

Aethelwulf, on 26 June 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

"If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics

This is a fact."

 

Aethelwulf, Today said:

"If a God DID exist, then he would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics."

 

Now you're rephrasing your statements and accusing us for intentionally trying to frame you. Everyone can see what your claims were. Now you're stating it as your opinion which gives more support to my previous prediction that you were stating your opinions as a scientific fact and that's what brought the trouble.

 

 

I am not rephrasing anything. I said above, ''IF'' God exists. Where do you see an inconsistency?

 

(Seriously, the last one has me quite amused) -

 

 

NO where in those sentences have I rephrased anything. Everything said depends on the BIG ''IF'' question. You're now trying reshape the argument to fit your own.

 

''Now you're stating it as your opinion which gives more support to my previous prediction that you were stating your opinions as a scientific fact and that's what brought the trouble.''

 

Well no, because you seem to be having some problems reading what I write. I have explained that it is scientific fact that if every position and trajectory of every particle was known would be extremely volatile. This is scientific fact. It would cause a tremendous instability of spacetime. That is FACT.

 

Now, what part of a ''God'' knowing the position and trajectory of each particle in the universe is impossible, which disturbs you? Is it the fact we have pre-supposed the existence of God, or that I am saying nothing can know these probabilities certainly? Say a God did exist, and he did know the trajectory and positions of every particle, what makes you think we'd still be around? As I have explained, such a notion is physically-impossible.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[doG]

Start Proof:

 

[math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]

 

and

 

[math]\Delta x \Delta p[/math]

 

Corner stone principles, cannot be directly violated.

 

End proof.

That's not proof that any and/or all possible gods MUST fall under the rules as we understand them. There is plenty we don't know. Please fill in those gaps for us in order to complete your proof.

[Aethelwulf]

That's not proof that any and/or all possible gods MUST fall under the rules as we understand them. There is plenty we don't know. Please fill in those gaps for us in order to complete your proof.

 

What part of the Uncertainty Principle do you not understand?

 

You do realize, in it's fullest that it is a Law of Nature - an inherent law within all matter...

 

You do realize, that particles could not be sustainable if such a law broke down at any time?

 

So explain, if a God existed, why don't we see these violations? (Not that we'd be around for long if he did anyway...)

[immortal]

I never said God was not ill-defined. I have said for the take of this thread, if God existed. You obviously don't seem to realize why I say it would be impossible for anything violate the uncertainty principle... and I can only assume this is with a certain lack of understanding the topic. Whatever God, if he or she exists, there still cannot be such a violation. The fact we are here, speaking and talking is because this principle is preserved.

 

Understand?

 

Again you're making factual claims by assuming your presupposed notions of God. Why should God be omniscient only by simultaneously knowing the position and momentum of a particle? He might acquire knowledge in ways which we don't know or his epistemology might be different. Now just because God cannot be omniscient in this way you seem to conclude that God cannot be omniscient in any other way.

 

Understand?

 

I took a few ways that could help define God. In my OP, I explained some traditional ways that he or she is seen. My definition of God, is Einstein's God - A God of nature.... but here we go again. I have actually told you this already.

 

If you're arguing about God as a scientific hypothesis I request you to give a precise falsifiable defintion of God making testable predictions so that we can falsify your claims, someone else's subjective opinions are not science.

 

I am not rephrasing anything. I said above, ''IF'' God exists. Where do you see an inconsistency?

 

(Seriously, the last one has me quite amused) -

 

 

NO where in those sentences have I rephrased anything. Everything said depends on the BIG ''IF'' question. You're now trying reshape the argument to fit your own.

 

Yes you did, see my bolded part there is lot of difference between the words "must" and "would". You cannot use it interchangeably it changes the meaning of your claims.

 

 

Now, what part of a ''God'' knowing the position and trajectory of each particle in the universe is impossible, which disturbs you? Is it the fact we have pre-supposed the existence of God, or that I am saying nothing can know these probabilities certainly? Say a God did exist, and he did know the trajectory and positions of every particle, what makes you think we'd still be around? As I have explained, such a notion is physically-impossible.

 

The measurement process or what we call observation is one of the ways of epistemology (how we know what) used by humans to acquire knowledge. Now my question is why a God or even a human should be subjected to only this way of knowing, there might be other ways of knowing the world. Why should a God use a detector or a measuring device to acquire knowledge? There might be other ways of knowing. I know the uncertainty principle is not a consequence of an imprecise detector, don't tell me that I lack understanding. Your argument seem to imply that there are absolutely no other ways of knowing the world and that a God must abide himself to the rules of QM. God could easily come up with other ways of knowing and be omniscient (i.e to know everything that is there to know).

 

What part of the Uncertainty Principle do you not understand?

 

You do realize, in it's fullest that it is a Law of Nature - an inherent law within all matter...

 

You do realize, that particles could not be sustainable if such a law broke down at any time?

 

So explain, if a God existed, why don't we see these violations? (Not that we'd be around for long if he did anyway...)

 

I can show you ways how a God could exist without violating the uncertainty principle and at the same time be omnisicent.

[Greg H.]

Correct me if I am wrong (I am going somewhere with this), but according to the uncertainty principle, it is the actual measuring that causes the probability wave to collapse, and prevents you from accurately measuring the other property (for instance, if I measure position accurately, I cannot also measure velocity). Is that a correct summary?