Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[BillyJoe]

.....sorry, I've run out of time tonight to post any more replies.

 

[Lonewulf]

So, BillyJoe is convinced that quantum mechanics are, then, completely supernatural?

 

[BillyJoe]

Lonewulf, I see your powers of comprehension have not improved.

 

[chriswl]

You'll find that, no matter how you phrase or interpret interactions at the quantum level, they are not logical.

It only stops being logical if you try to recast your description of quantum phenomena in terms analogous to everyday macroscopic physics. Such descriptions can help us to understand the theory but they are not literally true. These simplified descriptions may ultimately be illogical but QM itself isn't.

In any case, I would welcome your attempt at a logical interpretation of what happens in the delayed choice double slit experiment. In my post I used one attempt at an interpretation - the "backwards in time causation" interpretation - but the other interpretations are, at least, equally illogical. But, if you disagree, I am happy to be shown otherwise.

There is nothing inherently illogical about backwards causation. It's a metaphysical inovation, perhaps, but not inherently wrong. It doesn't break a fundamental rule of logic. Of course we can all easily imagine scenarios where backwards causation leads to paradoxes. So it may lead to situations that are illogical. But backwards causation explanations for QM are carefully formulated to avoid these paradoxes. So they don't run foul of logic.

Perhaps I could put my argument this way: If there is no logical interpretation of QM, but QM is true, how can we disprove god by merely demonstrating that there is no logical interpretation of god.

What is an interpretation? Do you need an "interpretation" of Newtons laws? I think all you mean is that QM is counter-intuitive and hard to talk about. But it just is what it is. If you talk loosely about it and get into logical difficulties then the illogic is all your own.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf, I see your powers of comprehension have not improved.

So Quantum mechanics are completely natural, within the natural universe?

BillyJoe,

I just wanted to give you a note of support. You're making sense to me. It's taken me three days to read through this thread. But there are no solid proofs here. Just atheists proving to their own satisfaction that no God could possibly exist. I don't find their arguments convincing. I remain agnostic with leanings toward deism.

Please explain what led you to lean towards belief in the existance of a Creator. In detail, with evidence.

I do not need "solid proofs" to not believe in something. I do not need solid proof to doubt the existance of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Unicorns, or the divinity of Jesus Christ. I do not need "solid proofs" to doubt the existance of an invisible dragon in your garage (If you don't get the reference, I highly suggest you start reading some of Carl Sagan's books).

There is no positive evidence of theism, and there is no positive evidence of deism for that matter. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, I will have to go with Occam's Razor, and other scientific principoles and philosophies. The same kinds of scientific principles and philosophies that make our computers, design our buildings, and give us a fundamental understanding of the natural universe.

 

[BillyJoe]

So Quantum mechanics are completely natural, within the natural universe?

So far, the outcome of every quantum experiment has been completely predictable so, if there is a supernatural entity holding together the interconnectedness of quantum wavicles through space and time, He has not chosen to throw a spanner in the works as far as we can tell. But who knows?

[To Beth]: Please explain what led you to lean towards belief in the existance of a Creator. In detail, with evidence.

I do not need "solid proofs" to not believe in something. I do not need solid proof to doubt the existance of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Unicorns, or the divinity of Jesus Christ. I do not need "solid proofs" to doubt the existance of an invisible dragon in your garage (If you don't get the reference, I highly suggest you start reading some of Carl Sagan's books).

There is no positive evidence of theism, and there is no positive evidence of deism for that matter. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, I will have to go with Occam's Razor, and other scientific principoles and philosophies. The same kinds of scientific principles and philosophies that make our computers, design our buildings, and give us a fundamental understanding of the natural universe.

You are in the wrong thread.
This one is about disproving god, not proving him.

 

[BillyJoe]

It only stops being logical if you try to recast your description of quantum phenomena in terms analogous to everyday macroscopic physics. Such descriptions can help us to understand the theory but they are not literally true. These simplified descriptions may ultimately be illogical but QM itself isn't.

Well then, don't "recast the description in macroscopic terms". Stay at the quantum level if you want to. But please just provide a logical explanation/interpretatiom/understanding. I haven't seen one yet.

There is nothing inherently illogical about backwards causation. It's a metaphysical inovation, perhaps, but not inherently wrong. It doesn't break a fundamental rule of logic. Of course we can all easily imagine scenarios where backwards causation leads to paradoxes. So it may lead to situations that are illogical. But backwards causation explanations for QM are carefully formulated to avoid these paradoxes. So they don't run foul of logic.

If you believe this, I don't know what else I can say. Perhaps you are using too narrow a definition of "logical", which is not necessary if the purpose is to show that god cannot be disproven. For me, backwards in time causation is not logical/comprehensible/understandable.
Also, I wasn't really referring to paradoxes. But, in order to avoid them, we have to pose another explanation that is not logical/comprehensible/understandable such as a multidimensional multiverse where a new universe is created orthogonal to every other universe, whenever a quantum interaction occurs

What is an interpretation? Do you need an "interpretation" of Newtons laws? I think all you mean is that QM is counter-intuitive and hard to talk about. But it just is what it is. If you talk loosely about it and get into logical difficulties then the illogic is all your own.

By "interpretation", I mean trying to understand how, for instance, doing something now can change what's happened in the past. By "interpretation", I mean trying to understand how, for instance, interacting with a quantum wavicle can instantly affect another quantum wavicle on the other side of the universe.

 

[BillyJoe]

What I am trying to say here is that, if there is something like, for example, quantum physics, which we can prove empirically, but which is totally imcomprehensible to us at the present time and with our present state of knowledge, how can we be so confident in saying that we can disprove god. Maybe, in time, this might be possible. But, at present, with our limited knowledge, we surely cannot be so confident.

Strangely enough, some of the attempts to explain QM use attributes that resemble those assigned to god. For example, "backwards in time causation" is sometimes explained as time being an artifact of our human point of view. From the point of view of a photon travelling at the speed of light, time is said to not exist and space is said to be co-extensive, so that a photon is everywhere everytime. We are just creatures looking through a slit passing up and across the space/time diagram.
God is said to be outside of space and time or to be omnipresent.
"Instantaneous action at a distance" is sometimes explained in terms of the interconnectedness of all things. Every electron is intimately connected to, or has knowledge of, every other electron in the universe. A sort of extreme form of holism.
God is said to be omniscient.

Actually, far from being able to disprove god, if one day humans are able to fully comprehend what the above apparent nonsense actually means, perhaps they will look back and say "Hey, remember that god concept people used to believe in...."

 

[Lonewulf]

So far, the outcome of every quantum experiment has been completely predictable so, if there is a supernatural entity holding together the interconnectedness of quantum wavicles through space and time, He has not chosen to throw a spanner in the works as far as we can tell. But who knows?

If it's predictable, then it's logical and follows the laws of cause and effect. Thus, there is nothing equivalent to any supernatural concept, and so, your argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in my eyes.

You are in the wrong thread.
This one is about disproving god, not proving him.

So God cannot be proven, and has no more proof than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. There is nothing that demonstrates the existance of God at all.

Therefore, there is no reason to think that God is real. Even if he isn't disproven, he is a hypothesis that has no support. He might as well be disproven. A theory that predicts nothing and explains nothing that does not have an alternative explanation, and has no evidence to support is, is a theory that might as well be nothing.

 

[BillyJoe]

If it's predictable, then it's logical and follows the laws of cause and effect. Thus, there is nothing equivalent to any supernatural concept, and so, your argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in my eyes.

QM is logical in that sense.
It is not logical when we look at what is happening to produce these predictable results.
Specifically, QM does not follow the laws of cause and effect.

So God cannot be proven, and has no more proof than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. There is nothing that demonstrates the existance of God at all.

Therefore, there is no reason to think that God is real. Even if he isn't disproven, he is a hypothesis that has no support. He might as well be disproven. A theory that predicts nothing and explains nothing that does not have an alternative explanation, and has no evidence to support is, is a theory that might as well be nothing.

I might argue with you about the italicised bit but, goddamn, I have to agree with the rest.

 

[Lonewulf]

QM is logical in that sense.
It is not logical when we look at what is happening to produce these predictable results.
Specifically, QM does not follow the laws of cause and effect.

If you say so. Regardless, it does not prove anything supernatural, and in fact goes to prove my point that any "supernatural" process in the natural world would still be considered a natural effect, as long as it is within this universe.

I might argue with you about the italicised bit but, goddamn, I have to agree with the rest.

If you agree with the rest, then there should be little issue with the italicized.

 

[PixyMisa]

QM is logical in that sense.
It is not logical when we look at what is happening to produce these predictable results.
Specifically, QM does not follow the laws of cause and effect.

Sure it does. It's just that those laws turn out to be statistical.

That the nature of reality is not what you expected does not make it any less logical.

 

[BillyJoe]

If you say so.

I do say so.

Regardless, it does not prove anything supernatural...

The idea was to disprove god, not to show that he cannot be proven.

...and in fact goes to prove my point that any "supernatural" process in the natural world would still be considered a natural effect, as long as it is within this universe.

So, if I levitated into space, that would be a natural event because it happened within this universe.

If you agree with the rest, then there should be little issue with the italicized.

Showing that god cannot be proven is not the same as disproving him.
That should be pretty clear.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The first step is to apply SOME characteristic to God. This must be done, because if there is no definition to the term, then we're just speaking nonsense. Once that has been done, you can point out that science and the observed laws of the universe show that that isn't possible.

God-[SIZE=-1]the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE]

For example...let's say that God created the universe. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, according to what we've observed, God is impossible.

If God made the entire universe INCLUDING the laws of conservation of mass or energy then how exactly would such laws apply to him?

Perhaps then, we say that God is a being with ultimate control of the universe, or the consciousness of the universe itself. This may be a bit more difficult, but we've observed the universe to consist of gas and elements, in a configuration that leads to no active consciousness or control. It can be demonstrated that a whiff of hydrogen or a stone have no thought patterns and no will of their own. Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur. This would make God impossible.

If the universe is 'part of god' like my arm is part of me, this doesn't mean that my arm must have specific attributes of consciousness to be part of me.

How would the theist respond to this?

Fairly easily.

 

[BillyJoe]

Sure it [QM] does [follow the laws of cause and effect].

Describe the "delayed choice double slit experiment".

It's just that those laws turn out to be statistical.

I am not referring to the statistical aspects of QM.

That the nature of reality is not what you expected does not make it any less logical.

That the nature of reality involves "backwards in time causation" and/or "instantaneous action at a distance" and/or "holistic interconnectedness", concepts which are totally incomprehensible, makes me just a little less confident that anyone can disprove god (in case you have lost track of the fact that this thread is about whether we can disprove god).

 

[Lonewulf]

I do say so.

Cool.

The idea was to disprove god, not to show that he cannot be proven.

Under scientific theories, and in my eyes, the two are closely related.

So, if I levitated into space, that would be a natural event because it happened within this universe.

Yes! You would agree with me almost instantly if you did so because of some sort of futuristic anti-grav engine, or if it was a reproducable effect.

If it was not a reproducable effect, there still would be a cause. The question is, where did the cause come from? Just because the cause is not readily apparent, or just because the effect is "out of this world", does not make such an event supernatural, as it does exist within the natural.

To claim that something is "supernatural" because it "breaks the laws of nature", would rule out a lot of technology in Star Trek as supernatural. Yet if such technology were ever developed, they would not be considered "supernatural", but instead would redefine the laws of nature. In short, scientific theory would work it's way around them.

Also, about levitation: We've made frogs levitate thanks to magnetics. Was this a supernatural event?

Showing that god cannot be proven is not the same as disproving him.
That should be pretty clear.

I'll refer to my previous point about how theories with no evidence and no predictions to support them are useless theories.

 

[BillyJoe]

Under scientific theories, and in my eyes, the two are closely related.

But not the same.

Yes! You would agree with me almost instantly if you did so because of some sort of futuristic anti-grav engine, or if it was a reproducable effect.

If it was not a reproducable effect, there still would be a cause. The question is, where did the cause come from? Just because the cause is not readily apparent, or just because the effect is "out of this world", does not make such an event supernatural, as it does exist within the natural.

To claim that something is "supernatural" because it "breaks the laws of nature", would rule out a lot of technology in Star Trek as supernatural. Yet if such technology were ever developed, they would not be considered "supernatural", but instead would redefine the laws of nature. In short, scientific theory would work it's way around them.

Also, about levitation: We've made frogs levitate thanks to magnetics. Was this a supernatural event?

How about right now I make my eyes pop out of their sockets, do a circuit around your head and back again into their sockets without loss of vision.

I'll refer to my previous point about how theories with no evidence and no predictions to support them are useless theories.

Useless, but not disproven.

 

[Lonewulf]

How about right now I make my eyes pop out of their sockets, do a circuit around your head and back again into their sockets without loss of vision.

Still happens in the natural universe. You're not that good at this... you can give every example you can think of something "strange" happening, but it is not necessarily supernatural, especially within the argument that anything that happens within this universe is natural, especially if it is repeatable.

If it happens and is suitably recorded (I.E., obviously not fake), then we could very well readjust scientific law to accomodate it.

 

[BillyJoe]

Still happens in the natural universe.

A supernatural event cannot take place in "the natural universe"???
You are absolutely sure about this?

You're not that good at this...

I need a good listener.

you can give every example you can think of something "strange" happening, but it is not necessarily supernatural...

Not "necessarily"? Is that a chink in your armoured defence against the supernatural? Just a little concession perhaps?

...especially within the argument that anything that happens within this universe is natural, especially if it is repeatable.

So, you've conclusively proven that a supernatural 4D space that intersects on occasion with our 3D space cannot possibly exist?
Can I see your proof please?

If it happens and is suitably recorded (I.E., obviously not fake), then we could very well readjust scientific law to accomodate it.

I'm not sure what our scientist would think of having to adjust their scientific laws to accommodate my eyes doing a circuit of your head and then returning unharmed to their sockets. They could, in fact, not do so. They would have no explanation whatsoever. They would not even have the beginnings of an explanation. I would be world famous. And I would be rich. One million dollars richer at least!

 

[chriswl]

If you believe this, I don't know what else I can say. Perhaps you are using too narrow a definition of "logical", which is not necessary if the purpose is to show that god cannot be disproven.

I'm just using the word "logic" correctly. Any disproof of God would only require this "narrow" conception of logic. And this logic applies to everything, even QM. So that's your argument dealt with.

For me, backwards in time causation is not logical/comprehensible/understandable

Causation of any sort is not a logically necessary feature of the world. See Hume.