The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God

[VenusPrincess 0]

According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all. However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed, and therefore God is has no knowledge of the cat's state. That contradicts the initial assumption that God is omnipotent, but if God is not Omnipotent then he is not God at all, and therefore God does not exist.

[iNow 5694]

This is basically a reformulation of the problem of evil 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Quote

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,^[21] the logical argument from evil is as follows:

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:^[2]

P1a. God exists.

P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. 

<...>

A version by William L. Rowe:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.^[2]

Another by Paul Draper:

1. Gratuitous evils exist.
2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.

 

[zapatos 1598]

Thought experiment proves that fire engines are red:

1+3=4

4x3=12

12 inches is the length of a ruler

A great ruler is Queen Elizabeth

The RMS Queen Elizabeth sailed the seas

Seas have fishes

Fishes have fins

The Finns fought the Russians

The Russians are Red

And therefore fire engines are red, because they are always rushing.

[Markus Hanke 401]

2 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed

Presumably an omnipotent being would have no need to observe the quantum system, he could have knowledge of its entire history without having to collapse it first. Since that knowledge is not accessible to us, this case would be indistinguishable from God not existing.

[Kartazion 9]

3 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all.

You just said it yourself. Thanks to the superposiiton ; we could say that God tests all the possibilities and know all the possible paths.
It is only for the man who observes, which results in only one way, and only one possibility.

[noquacks 1]

But even the revered activity of observation has recently been proven unreliable. Not only in our justice system relying on line-ups and witnesses to a crime, testimonials on having witnessed a crime, but the famous Gorilla Experiment done at Univ of Illinois. Observation now is even considered not essential in scientific method by some scientists.  

Quote

 

 

[iNow 5694]

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

even the revered activity of observation has recently been proven unreliable. Not only in our justice system relying on line-ups and witnesses to a crime, testimonials on having witnessed a crime, but the famous Gorilla Experiment done at Univ of Illinois. Observation now is even considered not essential in scientific method by some scientists.  

You're mistakenly conflating the act of taking a measurement (either with equipment or human senses) with the accuracy of eye-witness testimony (itself obviously flawed due to the plastic nature of memory and how they get rewritten slightly every single time we access them).

They're not the same. They are different in important ways. Your comment does not apply here.

Edited October 16 by iNow

[noquacks 1]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

You're mistakenly conflating the act of taking a measurement (either with equipment or human senses) with the accuracy of eye-witness testimony (itself obviously flawed due to the plastic nature of memory and how they get rewritten slightly every single time we access them).They

e. They are different in important ways. Your comment does not apply her

I goofed on the entire reply/edit, sorry people. I even accidentally erased inows words.  Just wanted to post : Inow, thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it. 

Edited October 16 by noquacks

[OldChemE 75]

I have to be careful how I say this, but...

I do not believe God exists-- but, if a God of unlimited power did exist, could not that God have triggered the existence of the Universe in such a manner that everything we can measure with science remains true?  If so, then, while there is no experiment or observation that proves such a God exists, there would also be no experiment or observation to prove such a God does not exist.