# Could there be a God?

## Recommended Posts

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?

That's correct - but an observation of types could also be thought about as having all the information about your system... the old saying ''an all-seeing, all-knowing God'' would be impossible to really comprehend in physics because particles would act in such erratic ways....

...But I am actually sick of explaining this to the above poster. Considering not even answering them... we'll see how I feel after a coffee break.

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.

''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''

Which is why I have explained also, there are ways to gain knowledge about a particles position and trajectory through a paper I linked called ''Curious New Statistical Predictions of Quanutm Mechanics,'' do you remember me even posting it?

Omniscient is by definition knowing everything. The universe is made up statistical averages - other than that, there's nothing much more. So, for God to know everything, why wouldn't knowing the location and trajectory of every particle?????

''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. ''

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

''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.''

I didn't, because I said it even in the post above the one you bringing this up, I said ''If'' a God could exist then it ''Would'' mean bla bla bla. I haven't changed ANYTHING in the way of my claims. You are either lying or trolling, so stop it.

If a God did exist it surely would be impossible to think of physics in your usual way. He could not be omniscient because this is forbidden, we'd ACTUALLY notice this in the physical world if anything was observing and knowing everything around us, matter would act differently. Please start understanding this or I am terminating this discussion with you.

Edited by Aethelwulf
• Replies 170
• Created

#### Popular Posts

I'm frustrated that you're being so unnecessarily evasive and petulant, but I'm hardly angry.   I knew up front what you likely meant when referencing Einstein. You're not the first, nor will you

The lack of evidence is not evidence against. Something you will learn in science friend.

Sure, there "could" be a god. There "could" also be microscopic garden gnomes living in your armpits and singing songs accompanied by tiny fiddles.

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?

That's correct - but an observation of types could also be thought about as having all the information about your system... the old saying ''an all-seeing, all-knowing God'' would be impossible to really comprehend in physics because particles would act in such erratic ways....

Here's my contention - if our theoretical God entity really is all knowing, he wouldn't need to observe the particles. Knowing is not the same as observing - not really.

Consider the following scenario. You have spent your entire life in a window-less, door-less room that has the means to keep you alive to adulthood. Your only means of communication with the outside world is an intercom speaker through which people can speak to you but you cannot answer.

If someone calls you on the intercom to tell you it's hot outside, then you know it's hot (for some definition of the word hot), without ever observing "outside" for yourself. (In fact, you have never even seen outside).

Now, obviously, on a human scale, someone had to make the observation, but if we assume our entity really is omniscient, i.e. all knowing, then it should be possible that he would know without needing to make the observation. Perhaps he can observe the probability waves directly and determine the information from them (something we cannot, to my knowledge, do).

In this way it is possible that he could be all knowing, and the uncertainty principle still hold true.

Obviously this is just an opinion, as we have no way of testing these statements, but as a thought exercise, it may hold some value or some insight.

##### Share on other sites

Here's my contention - if our theoretical God entity really is all knowing, he wouldn't need to observe the particles. Knowing is not the same as observing - not really.

How do you know about any system without an observation of that system?

I have actually explained that God could have set the universe into motion and stayed ignorant inbetween, if that is what you mean. In that case yes, God could have known how to set the universe up, but if it involves any direct measurement of the universe's averages at any given period of time simultaneously, then no that would not happen. I guess... the question really is, if God is ignorant now of what is happening, or at least the greatest part of it, how can you truly know everything which followed the Big Bang. It's like a certain set of conditions - you might have a snowball and its been made in such a way that you know some outcomes, those being if you shake the ball the tiny snow flakes will start moving. But if these where real particles, there will always be a measure of uncertainty after shaking the ball.

##### Share on other sites

What I have said and will continue to say, God is a possibility - one you guys as real scientists need to wake up to...

You may want to brush up a touch on the scientific method and experimental design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

Generally, a test hypothesis will take the form of a positive expression - i.e.

H1: God exists.

The null hypothesis will counter the test with a negative, null position - i.e.

H0: God does not exist.

The experiment, or observations will attempt to reject the null hypothesis, in relation to a predetermined statistical significance - e.g. p <0.01

If the experiment cannot reject the null hypothesis at this predetermined level, the test hypothesis is unsupported, and thus the null position is maintained. As such, a lack of proof God does not exist not only prevents the acceptance of the test hypothesis, but dictates, under strict application of the scientific method that we retain the null position until such time as sufficient evidence to reject the null is provided.

Given that God is generally defined as beyond objective reality and thus we are prevented from gathering evidence to conduct any tests which would result in the rejection of the null hypothesis - the strict scientific position must be one that accepts that no evidence to support God's existence has been provided and thus assumes non-existence. However in the absence of any empirical data either way and the unlikeliness of the ever being any, the notion of a deity's potential existence is not a very compelling scientific topic - certainly not one I'd think the scientific community needs to "wake up" to.

##### Share on other sites

''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''

Which is why I have explained also, there are ways to gain knowledge about a particles position and trajectory through a paper I linked called ''Curious New Statistical Predictions of Quanutm Mechanics,'' do you remember me even posting it?

Omniscient is by definition knowing everything. The universe is made up statistical averages - other than that, there's nothing much more. So, for God to know everything, why wouldn't knowing the location and trajectory of every particle?????

How do you know what the universe is made up of? We infact don't know whether these particles exist in the external physical world or not. So why would God want to know your abstract concepts which you have made up in your models.

Subjectivism

One reaction to the quantm measurement problem is to retreat into 'subjective idealism'. In doing this, we simply accept that quantum physics implies that it is impossible to give an objective account of reality. The only thing we know that must be real is our personal experience: the counter may both fire and not fire, the cat may be both alive and dead, but when the information reaches my mind through my brain I certainly know which has really occured. Quantum physics may apply to photons, counters and cats, but it does not apply to you or me! Ofcourse, I do not know that the states of your mind are real either, so I am in danger of relapsing into 'solipsism', wherein only I and my mind have any reality. Philosophers have long argued about whether they could prove the existence of an external physical world, but the aim of science is not to answer this question but rather to provide a consistent account of any objective world that does exist. It would be ironic if quantum physics were to finally destroy this mission. Most of us would much rather search for an alternative way forward.

A beginner's guide to QM

- Alastair i.m rae

''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.''

I didn't, because I said it even in the post above the one you bringing this up, I said ''If'' a God could exist then it ''Would'' mean bla bla bla. I haven't changed ANYTHING in the way of my claims. You are either lying or trolling, so stop it.

You did used the word "must" why the hell I should lie.

If a God did exist it surely would be impossible to think of physics in your usual way. He could not be omniscient because this is forbidden, we'd ACTUALLY notice this in the physical world if anything was observing and knowing everything around us, matter would act differently. Please start understanding this or I am terminating this discussion with you.

As I said above if what you call the physical world only exist in our minds, the external world independent of mind could be made of anything and be based on any kind of rules.

Please understand this or consider this possibility.

##### Share on other sites

You may want to brush up a touch on the scientific method and experimental design.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_experiments

http://en.wikipedia....Null_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia....othesis_testing

Generally, a test hypothesis will take the form of a positive expression - i.e.

H1: God exists.

The null hypothesis will counter the test with a negative, null position - i.e.

H0: God does not exist.

The experiment, or observations will attempt to reject the null hypothesis, in relation to a predetermined statistical significance - e.g. p <0.01

If the experiment cannot reject the null hypothesis at this predetermined level, the test hypothesis is unsupported, and thus the null position is maintained. As such, a lack of proof God does not exist not only prevents the acceptance of the test hypothesis, but dictates, under strict application of the scientific method that we retain the null position until such time as sufficient evidence to reject the null is provided.

Given that God is generally defined as beyond objective reality and thus we are prevented from gathering evidence to conduct any tests which would result in the rejection of the null hypothesis - the strict scientific position must be one that accepts that no evidence to support God's existence has been provided and thus assumes non-existence. However in the absence of any empirical data either way and the unlikeliness of the ever being any, the notion of a deity's potential existence is not a very compelling scientific topic - certainly not one I'd think the scientific community needs to "wake up" to.

I'm well aware of the Null Hypothesis.

And we have already covered this ''proving scientific theories by measurement and observations.'' I have explained that God isn't something which falls into that catagory. Now this might mean God is not a scientific topic, but I have also explained there are also many different area's of science which cannot be measured and are awaiting for the right kind of technology, such as string theory. Or there are speculations on things which are awaiting for the right kind of mathematical framework.

I am not saying God is a part of science, because usually today too many scientists like to stay clear from that topic, but it certainly didn't stop Hawking's famous words

''then we would know the mind of God''

In reference to unifying the theories of physics in a consistent framework, in his popular book, a brief history of time. In much the same sense, I am simply saying ''If a God exists'' so deal with it.

How do you know what the universe is made up of? We infact don't know whether these particles exist in the external physical world or not. So why would God want to know your abstract concepts which you have made up in your models.

You did used the word "must" why the hell I should lie.

You said I am rephrasing my arguments, my arguments have not changed a single iota, I've used the same arguments over and over again. They all depend on ''If''... you even quoted that thinking it was a rebuttel, so you must be trolling if you claim you are not lying.

Now you are asking me how do I know what the universe is made up of.... well, taking relativity and our current quantum (well-tested) theories at face value, four ingredients make up the world around us... those are ''space'', ''time'', ''matter'' and ''energy''.

You got a problem with that?

Edited by Aethelwulf
##### Share on other sites

Nothing for nothing, but nothing is no longer nothing. Looking into a box of nothing you will see something. The something just comes and goes, just like the thoughts in your head.

What ever it is, it must come from somewhere, because if it does not come from somewhere then it comes from nowhere and that is where God exists.

This is where my nothing comes from:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/09/10076985-how-to-get-a-cosmos-from-nothing?lite

##### Share on other sites

Nothing for nothing, but nothing is no longer nothing. Looking into a box of nothing you will see something. The something just comes and goes, just like the thoughts in your head.

What ever it is, it must come from somewhere, because if it does not come from somewhere then it comes from nowhere and that is where God exists.

This is where my nothing comes from:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/09/10076985-how-to-get-a-cosmos-from-nothing?lite

When someone talks to me about a Null Energy Hypothesis, I think about the vacuum condition

$E=Mc^2 - \frac{GM}{2R}$

Where when $M=0$ what is left over is the metric.

##### Share on other sites

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

Yes, I understand. You said IF God exists. I notice the IF.

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

No, I am treating this as saying "IF God exists He would be subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics".

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.

You should consider the possibility that perhaps people disagree with you not because they didn't read what you wrote, but because they think you are wrong. You do understand that you could be wrong, don't you?

Your assertion has inspired me to make one of my own:

God is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics. If a God truly exists, he therefore must exist outside of the universe. If he did exist inside the universe it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to $\Delta E \Delta t$. Since this has not happened, it is proof that IF he exists, he exists outside the universe.

##### Share on other sites

I am simply saying ''If a God exists'' so deal with it.

If the whole concept is unscientific, why are you demanding scientists/we "wake up to the possibility" and "deal with it" ?

As stated, the scientifically correct position is to retain the null hypothesis in the absence of its rejection. There is simply no sensible reason to demand that science considers a supernatural explanation in the absence of evidence for it.

Let's also not go down the route of insinuating scientists making statements of a religious nature by taking single quotes out of context. The use of the word 'God' in physics has a long standing history of being used in a metaphoric sense: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/wein-body.html

"By "God" most of them simply mean the laws of nature, the principles that govern everything." -Prof. Steven Wienberg.

Hawking is rather unequivocally an atheist and almost certainly using the term metaphorically -

""I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist ... It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

"In a nutshell, do we need a God to set it all up so that a big bang could bang?" Hawking posed. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith but I think science has some more compelling explanation than a Divine Creator." http://www.christianpost.com/news/stephen-hawking-something-out-of-nothing-is-possible-53589/

##### Share on other sites

Your assertion has inspired me to make one of my own:

God is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics. If a God truly exists, he therefore must exist outside of the universe. If he did exist inside the universe it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to $\Delta E \Delta t$. Since this has not happened, it is proof that IF he exists, he exists outside the universe.

Exactly, that's so right.

But his definition of a God seems to be a natural one, so he believe that God could be found in some kind of unified theory and we have got no idea what properties this God has so that we can even make some arguments or talk about it. He just says "If God exist... deal with it" without precisely defining what that word means and its very difficult to comprehend what concept of God he has in his mind.

Now you are asking me how do I know what the universe is made up of.... well, taking relativity and our current quantum (well-tested) theories at face value, four ingredients make up the world around us... those are ''space'', ''time'', ''matter'' and ''energy''.

You got a problem with that?

Yes, you know it, don't you?

You have participated in this thread.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62257-what-is-energy-exactly/

There is a problem.

##### Share on other sites

How do you know about any system without an observation of that system?

As I pointed out, knowledge is not necessarily the same as observation. On the human scale, one necessarily precedes the other (in my previous example someone had to go outside and check the temperature at some point), but for an individual, it is possible to know things that you haven't directly observed.

##### Share on other sites

Yes, I understand. You said IF God exists. I notice the IF.

No, I am treating this as saying "IF God exists He would be subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics".

You should consider the possibility that perhaps people disagree with you not because they didn't read what you wrote, but because they think you are wrong. You do understand that you could be wrong, don't you?

Your assertion has inspired me to make one of my own:

God is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics. If a God truly exists, he therefore must exist outside of the universe. If he did exist inside the universe it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to $\Delta E \Delta t$. Since this has not happened, it is proof that IF he exists, he exists outside the universe.

''No, I am treating this as saying "IF God exists He would be subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics".''

Yes that's right, under the doctrine he is omniscient, but I stressed this fact.

''

God is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics. If a God truly exists, he therefore must exist outside of the universe.''

There is no outside to the universe. Not according to relativity. You see, I made the statements I made because they where as close to my understanding of physics. Of course the idea of an outside of the universe crossed my mind. Indeed, the only way for instance the universe can have an energy, is if someone was either

1. sitting outside the universe

2. or was sitting at the last instance of time and was measuring the universe

However, as most physicists know, including a paper I can recite on Fotini Markopoulou, neither case is physical valid. So no, your argument makes no sense to me.

And if God was outside the universe, he would view the universe as a single system - not ''measuring'' the actual individuality of particles as in my case. My case is an inside knowledge, yours would be like observing the universe as a single particle with a definite energy. Still unphysically possible.

Exactly, that's so right.

But his definition of a God seems to be a natural one, so he believe that God could be found in some kind of unified theory and we have got no idea what properties this God has so that we can even make some arguments or talk about it. He just says "If God exist... deal with it" without precisely defining what that word means and its very difficult to comprehend what concept of God he has in his mind.

So wrong... actually. And I have given reasons why.

As I pointed out, knowledge is not necessarily the same as observation.

Actually if you invoke observations, there can only be extracting information. Remember, this involves all types of observation, even those particles who do not have eyes. Observations in physics means extracting information, and omniscience in this case would mean knowing the entire framework of your model.

If the whole concept is unscientific, why are you demanding scientists/we "wake up to the possibility" and "deal with it" ?

I want people to wake up to the idea, which seems to have been lost the last 50 years. Ok, we still have people like Hawking who are not afraid to speculate about God. We had much more contributors however in the past century than we do today, which is unfortunate.

(Sorry Greg, I was typing so fast) - ''Actually if you invoke observations, there can only be extracting information.''

Edited by Aethelwulf
##### Share on other sites

So wrong... actually. And I have given reasons why.

Whatever it is you need to solve the problem of the Problem of Universals if you think that QM is all there is. Roger Penrose is one of them who is a strong Platonist and Platonists believed in realism that universals and mathematical concepts exist outside of the universe eternally. There are many reasons why you could be wrong too.

##### Share on other sites

Whatever it is you need to solve the problem of the Problem of Universals if you think that QM is all there is. Roger Penrose is one of them who is a strong Platonist and Platonists believed in realism that universals and mathematical concepts exist outside of the universe eternally. There are many reasons why you could be wrong too.

I never said quantum mechanics is all there is, but, that's speculative. I am well aware of things like Plato's Cave, for instance.

I have stated that quantum mechanics is incomplete, but this shouldn't be taken that there is definitely something outside of it.

##### Share on other sites

"God is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics. If a God truly exists, he therefore must exist outside of the universe.''

There is no outside to the universe. Not according to relativity. You see, I made the statements I made because they where as close to my understanding of physics.

What rules of physics are applicable to whether the supernatural must be inside or outside the universe?

And if God was outside the universe, he would view the universe as a single system - not ''measuring'' the actual individuality of particles as in my case. My case is an inside knowledge, yours would be like observing the universe as a single particle with a definite energy. Still unphysically possible.

What observation of God's ability led you to the conclusion that God was not capable of 'measuring' the actual individuality of particles from outside the universe?

##### Share on other sites

I want people to wake up to the idea, which seems to have been lost the last 50 years. Ok, we still have people like Hawking who are not afraid to speculate about God. We had much more contributors however in the past century than we do today, which is unfortunate.

Conversely, I feel it's extremely fortunate that the unscientific notion of a deity beyond the conditions of reality is becoming increasingly absent from scientific discussions.

Did you miss the part where Hawking was almost certainly not discussing God in the context of supernatural being and actually using the term as a metaphor?

##### Share on other sites

What rules of physics are applicable to whether the supernatural must be inside or outside the universe?

What observation of God's ability led you to the conclusion that God was not capable of 'measuring' the actual individuality of particles from outside the universe?

''What rules of physics are applicable to whether the supernatural must be inside or outside the universe?''

The relativistic equations which explain the dynamical features of our universe are currently tested to such a high degree that the solutions to the equations fitting a beginning of time in the form of a Big Bang preclude that there is nothing outside the universe.. Do you know why?

''What observation of God's ability led you to the conclusion that God was not capable of 'measuring' the actual individuality of particles from outside the universe?''

The fact everything in nature abides by this rule. Even non-sentient beings cannot observe complimentary observable's of neighboring systems without causing even the slightest disruption.

So if God could measure everything about particles, we'd know... in fact, everything would just crumble in physical world.

Conversely, I feel it's extremely fortunate that the unscientific notion of a deity beyond the conditions of reality is becoming increasingly absent from scientific discussions.

Did you miss the part where Hawking was almost certainly not discussing God in the context of supernatural being and actually using the term as a metaphor?

No... he wasn't meaning it as a metaphor. At the time he had a lot of pressure from authorities like the Vatican to assure them he would not denounce God, so he came to an appropriate settlement.... that being that God could still be part of science or at least not outside mentioning him or her. It is strangely enough, only recently Hawking has said there is now no need for God saying that M-theory is the theory of everything, which many scientists don't believe.

I believe he was fortunate enough to get away with the ''no-creation'' card, but I guess not many people knew what that really meant. I kind of agree with Hawking on this one though, it probably wasn't the kind of creation one can associate to ''a sentient decision maker''.

##### Share on other sites

''What rules of physics are applicable to whether the supernatural must be inside or outside the universe?''

The relativistic equations which explain the dynamical features of our universe are currently tested to such a high degree that the solutions to the equations fitting a beginning of time in the form of a Big Bang preclude that there is nothing outside the universe.. Do you know why?

No I don't know why but I'll take your word that it applies to the natural world. Are you saying that "the relativistic equations which explain the dynamical features of our universe" apply to the supernatural? If so, can you cite any evidence?

''What observation of God's ability led you to the conclusion that God was not capable of 'measuring' the actual individuality of particles from outside the universe?''

The fact everything in nature abides by this rule. Even non-sentient beings cannot observe complimentary observable's of neighboring systems without causing even the slightest disruption.

So if God could measure everything about particles, we'd know... in fact, everything would just crumble in physical world.

When you say 'everything in nature abides by this rule', are you saying that God and his abilities are 'natural', and not 'supernatural'? If so, can you cite any evidence?

##### Share on other sites

No I don't know why but I'll take your word that it applies to the natural world. Are you saying that "the relativistic equations which explain the dynamical features of our universe" apply to the supernatural? If so, can you cite any evidence?

When you say 'everything in nature abides by this rule', are you saying that God and his abilities are 'natural', and not 'supernatural'? If so, can you cite any evidence?

Do yourself a favor and stop adding words to claims.

The relativistic equations says there is nothing outside of the universe for a number of reasons. One of them being there is no boundary to the universe. There is no edge.

For there to be something outside of the universe, it almost certainly requires a boundary between this universe and something else, which none of today's current equations in mainstream science support...

...well... actually there is one case for certain classes of string theory but I prefer to stick to the science that makes most sense. In certain classes of string theory, our universe is a branch/brane floating in a multidimensional pool. But compared to the case where there is no boundary and no outside to string theory, one is a real science, the other isn't.

I have said from the outset, I believe God is nature. He is Spinoza's God, the same God referenced by Einstein when pressed whether he believes in a God.

##### Share on other sites

''What rules of physics are applicable to whether the supernatural must be inside or outside the universe?''

The relativistic equations which explain the dynamical features of our universe are currently tested to such a high degree that the solutions to the equations fitting a beginning of time in the form of a Big Bang preclude that there is nothing outside the universe.. Do you know why?

Of course there can be nothing outside the universe, the trick is to actually define the entirety of the universe, we simply do not know if we know enough to say what you are asserting. i agree that within the bounds of our knowledge what we see as the universe is indeed the universe but saying that is a known fact is a bit misleading i think.

''What observation of God's ability led you to the conclusion that God was not capable of 'measuring' the actual individuality of particles from outside the universe?''

The fact everything in nature abides by this rule. Even non-sentient beings cannot observe complimentary observable's of neighboring systems without causing even the slightest disruption.

So if God could measure everything about particles, we'd know... in fact, everything would just crumble in physical world.

I understand that you are approaching this from the point of view of the current understanding of the universe but any fundamentalist theist would immediately dismiss your point by saying God doesn't have to play by our rules and by definition is not bound by any rules what so ever.

No... he wasn't meaning it as a metaphor. At the time he had a lot of pressure from authorities like the Vatican to assure them he would not denounce God, so he came to an appropriate settlement.... that being that God could still be part of science or at least not outside mentioning him or her. It is strangely enough, only recently Hawking has said there is now no need for God saying that M-theory is the theory of everything, which many scientists don't believe.

Are you suggesting that the opinion of the Vatican trumps Science?

I believe he was fortunate enough to get away with the ''no-creation'' card, but I guess not many people knew what that really meant. I kind of agree with Hawking on this one though, it probably wasn't the kind of creation one can associate to ''a sentient decision maker''.

"get away with" Are you suggesting that popular opinion has a dog in this hunt?

##### Share on other sites

Actually if you invoke observations, there can only be extracting information. Remember, this involves all types of observation, even those particles who do not have eyes. Observations in physics means extracting information, and omniscience in this case would mean knowing the entire framework of your model.

(Sorry Greg, I was typing so fast) - ''Actually if you invoke observations, there can only be extracting information.''

But if we assume that our "God" entity is already all knowing, why would he need observations at all? Doesn't the idea of knowing everything already sort of preclude the need to make observations to learn something?

##### Share on other sites

Do yourself a favor and stop adding words to claims.

Do yourself a favor and try not to piss off people you are conversing with.

I did not add words to your claim and insist they were yours. I added words to your claim and asked if you also believed that. It is a way gaining a further understanding of a person's position.

If someone says they 'enjoyed the restaurant' it doesn't really give me a good understanding of their experience. It is perfectly reasonable of me to say 'did you enjoy the restaurant because the food was good?'. Or, 'did you enjoy the restaurant because of the atmosphere?'. Or 'did you enjoy the restaurant because your first date went very well?'.

When people ask you questions you may want to take it as a sign that they are making an honest effort to understand your position. I'm here for conversation and debate, not a lecture.

##### Share on other sites

I'll be back soon. I need to run a quick errand.

But if we assume that our "God" entity is already all knowing, why would he need observations at all? Doesn't the idea of knowing everything already sort of preclude the need to make observations to learn something?

I don't believe something is just all-knowing. I think something is only aware of certain information through the act of measuring to know something; the act of measuring does indeed bring potential existence into the real world. Such was the measurement problem of the Big Bang. Something needed to be there to bring order out of the potential chaos, so-to-speak.

Do yourself a favor and try not to piss off people you are conversing with.

I did not add words to your claim and insist they were yours. I added words to your claim and asked if you also believed that. It is a way gaining a further understanding of a person's position.

If someone says they 'enjoyed the restaurant' it doesn't really give me a good understanding of their experience. It is perfectly reasonable of me to say 'did you enjoy the restaurant because the food was good?'. Or, 'did you enjoy the restaurant because of the atmosphere?'. Or 'did you enjoy the restaurant because your first date went very well?'.

When people ask you questions you may want to take it as a sign that they are making an honest effort to understand your position. I'm here for conversation and debate, not a lecture.

Don't ask a question and then posit the answer in some form of a statement - considering how delicate this conversation is, I think it would be wiser to just ask a question and wait for the answer.

Of course there can be nothing outside the universe, the trick is to actually define the entirety of the universe, we simply do not know if we know enough to say what you are asserting. i agree that within the bounds of our knowledge what we see as the universe is indeed the universe but saying that is a known fact is a bit misleading i think.

I understand that you are approaching this from the point of view of the current understanding of the universe but any fundamentalist theist would immediately dismiss your point by saying God doesn't have to play by our rules and by definition is not bound by any rules what so ever.

Most of your statements was just rubbish, so I have ended up ignoring... like the one ''does the Vatican Trump science''?

''Of course there can be nothing outside the universe, the trick is to actually define the entirety of the universe.''

Do you know the definition of a universe? It means something which encompasses everything... and in the context of relativity, that means strictly within spacetime.

'' understand that you are approaching this from the point of view of the current understanding of the universe but any fundamentalist theist would immediately dismiss your point by saying God doesn't have to play by our rules and by definition is not bound by any rules what so ever. ''

Only if they are ignorant of science they would.

##### Share on other sites

I don't believe something is just all-knowing.

So if it's not all knowing and not all powerful, why refer to it as God, with all of the connotations that word carries?

Something needed to be there to bring order out of the potential chaos, so-to-speak.

But why do we need to call that something God, especially if we're positing it's a natural, not supernatural source.

## Create an account

Register a new account