Jump to content

Could there be a God?


Recommended Posts

Alright, I've only had basic quantum, but I'm pretty sure we know how entanglement works. Hint: It's nothing that will ever lead to interpretation.

 

 

No, local hidden variable theory or the Bohmian mechanics was developed to explain quantum entanglement but Bell's inequality experiments showed that if a hidden variable theory exists then it has to be non-local but this contradicts with relativity. I know we cannot use entanglement to send information faster than the speed of light but we discovered that entities do not have pre-determined attributes and that they're assigned an attribute only when a measurement is being made. Any statement about the nature of the quantum system is meaningless, it is metaphysical. We still don't have an explanation for the correlations that arise in a quantum entanglement.

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

!

Moderator Note

AethelWolf, I'm giving you two options here:

 

1. I move this thread to Religion and you focus the conversation on that aspect.

2. It stays here and I close it for violation of the rules outlined in my previous note (the one about needing evidence).

 

 

Hmmm... well, I have no intention talking about religion, but then on the other hand, I knew from the outset that I could not be able to provide hard evidence for God. So... I'll leave it in your capable hands to decide the fate of this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, alright, well for the benefit of continuing discussion I'll move this to religion. This is a thread about God, so I don't see how it couldn't belong there. In future, please be more mindful of where you place threads.

 

I said I have no interest in discussing religion. This isn't about ''religion''. So if any takes this to discuss ''religion'' I will simply not participate.

 

I said I have no interest in discussing religion. This isn't about ''religion''. So if any takes this to discuss ''religion'' I will simply not participate.

 

I guess this depends on your definition of religion. When I think of religion, I think of doctrine, Bible talk ect. Of course, our views will differ from person to person. I just don't want this becoming a discussion on Christ, Yehovah or anything canonically related.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need evidence of your God as of now, Aethelwulf. What was needed was a clear falsifiable definition of your God followed by a prediction and the method used to falsify it and you failed to provide one. If your God is not falsifiable then it belongs to metaphysics, it is not science. It either belongs to the philosophy forum or the religion forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1341410938[/url]' post='688369']

I said I have no interest in discussing religion. This isn't about ''religion''. So if any takes this to discuss ''religion'' I will simply not participate.

 

 

 

I guess this depends on your definition of religion. When I think of religion, I think of doctrine, Bible talk ect. Of course, our views will differ from person to person. I just don't want this becoming a discussion on Christ, Yehovah or anything canonically related.

 

It is about God and therefore belongs in the Religion forum. I don't care for any semantic arguments here. This is simply how SFN chooses to segregate subject matter.

 

The Speculations forum demands evidence or a testable theory as per the rules of that forum. Anything that implicates a God or Gods cannot possibly fulfil this criteria. As such, these types of threads are inherently not suited for such a forum, unless of course you intended it for the trash.

 

And to be clear, I am not trying to stifle conversation here. I am in fact doing the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this depends on your definition of religion. When I think of religion, I think of doctrine, Bible talk ect. Of course, our views will differ from person to person. I just don't want this becoming a discussion on Christ, Yehovah or anything canonically related.

Religion is about beliefs regardless of the facts and science is about facts regardless of beliefs. So far you've presented nothing but your beliefs and opinion in this thread, no supported facts at all. Thus far this thread has been a religious discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need evidence of your God as of now, Aethelwulf. What was needed was a clear falsifiable definition of your God followed by a prediction and the method used to falsify it and you failed to provide one. If your God is not falsifiable then it belongs to metaphysics, it is not science. It either belongs to the philosophy forum or the religion forum.

 

I gave you conditions in which this kind of God can exist in. Like, we know that the uncertainty principle is not violated in any way, so on the supposition that if there was a God, they must be ignorant of certain things in this universe.

 

Thus far this thread has been a religious discussion.

 

No it hasn't. Just because it fails to provide the concrete evidence a religious subject would be often called on for, does not make my subject aa religion. I certainly don't see my view of God as a Religion. Very philosophical however, but not quite a religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it hasn't. Just because it fails to provide the concrete evidence a religious subject would be often called on for, does not make my subject aa religion. I certainly don't see my view of God as a Religion. Very philosophical however, but not quite a religion.

Just because something is religious does not make it a religion, i.e. just because you have a fervent belief in something does not mean it is a system of beliefs. This discussion has been centered around your fervent belief in your worldview, not your evidence to support a scientific hypothesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave you conditions in which this kind of God can exist in. Like, we know that the uncertainty principle is not violated in any way, so on the supposition that if there was a God, they must be ignorant of certain things in this universe.

 

Uncertainty principle is not responsible for the loss of interference pattern in the measurement of a double slit experiment, it is the entanglement or the correlations between the detector and the quantum object is what is responsible for the loss of interference pattern and we don't have a mechanism or an explanation for how entanglement works and hence it follows that we don't know what is impossible and what is possible.

 

 

You're making false assertions as though it is a scientific fact, please stop doing that. Science doesn't in any way say that an omniscient personal God is impossible.

 

 

I asked what your God is not what he is not, they are not omniscient, so what? How do we falsify it? Is your idea based on some kind of Sci-fi movie where a super-intelligent God machine is responsible for the working of this universe? or Is your idea has any basis in reality? What are your inferences for such an idea?

 

So far what you have tried to do is disprove the supernatural using quantum mechanics and you were shown that you're wrong but you have not supported anything for the existence of your own version of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...)

 

Aethelwulf,

 

I read through this thread, all the time thinking it was supposed to be in Religion.

 

The lastest posts revealed it was moved for its failure to provide evidence for your claims. I thought that was pretty obvious from the get-go, and had thought this thread had resided in the religion section for a longer period of time than it evidently has. So I was always reading you as attempting to relay a religious type of insight. And was formulating different "responses" to your ideas based on this take. If your intent is to formulate a scientific proof of "no god", I believe you have it wrong. The inability of an entity, such as TAR2 or a quark, or an atom to know everything is rather evident. Here the uncertainty principle seems to have more to do with the limitations of any entity, that is, the reach of any subtanitive entity is by defintion, limited. The speed of light precudes any one "here and now" to be anything else, but "everywhere and always".

 

Yet we each (human), have an "idea" of that which is more than here and now. And always are able to imagine the grain size larger, that would "have to" be there, even when the largest "real" grain size is identified. That is, as soon as you show your evidence of "everywhere and always", someone else can point to the necessity of there being, or at least the possibility of there being, "something other". A thing that is bigger or smaller. A thing that may have come before, or that will result from the existence of the "everywhere and always" described.

 

In this human ability, is where I believe "god" resides.

 

That we have "memory" and can learn about our environment and can cause changes in our environment "on purpose", puts us "a little" ahead, of the mindless quark. But the quark also dances to the same tune as we do, and we know by this we are not the only musician apparent, and not the only tune being played.

 

If god is nature, as you suggest, and as is apparently true, then nature is NOT constrained to being "here and now" as we and the quark are. We as humans can consider history, and future, entities that make up other entities, successively larger and smaller containers, and the rules and connections between such. Nature itself has no such abilities. It is the whole ball of wax, that makes up the stage and the players, and as such, probably "knows" everything it has done, everything it is...already. But probably has not done, what it is going to do next, at least in the exact manner in which it is going to do it.

 

If, in your claims in the OP, you have noticed/discovered, something about nature, which everybody else has missed, than by all means, show us, point it out, and we can explore it together. Move it back to speculations, on the strength of your evidence.

 

On the other hand, if it is the same "god" the rest of us are already aware of, that you talking about. Then let's talk about it, here, where the discussion is real. And we can then, at least together, determine what god is not. And together know what is the "same", about your god and mine. (Which would put the discussion again, back in the hands of science, as in that which we all together, can see evidence of.) After all, this is a science forum.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that concept of a non biological god who is everything in the universe together as a collective consciousnesses

 

too-open-minded,

 

Well yes and no. One would still have to be careful as to how much of that consciousness one could realistically consider their own, and how much they should realistically consider "other". Such is probably the reason why religious discussions are so difficult.

In this take, it would be obvious that "there could be a god". In fact if taken in this manner, its almost a requirement. And human consciousness is just an "example" of the universe/nature, being aware of itself.

 

Thus Aethelwulf's determination that the uncertainty principle would disallow god, would then, if true, disallow any consciousness at all from being possible. Which is obviously a non-starter, since we are here, conscious, talking about consciousness being possible or not. Consciousness is obviously something that nature can do. At least in the many billions of cases of human consciousness that we have very good evidence of.

 

Unless one would consider their own consciousness as being "impossible" for nature to come up with...which would only leave consciousness a "supernatural" position in the universe. So a religious person would be wrong in suggesting that God was supernatural, if it was their own consciousness they were considering as "above" nature. But this fault would pass to the atheist as well, that would consider their own consciousness was "other than" natural. That is, that their consciousness superceded nature, and was not created by it, and was not subservient to it.

 

 

So, to me, the question is not so much "could there be a god?" as "what is the nature of God?"

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

too-open-minded,

 

I don't know that we are looking at this, all that differently. I think we would be in agreement that reality, and our consciousness of it, are indeed a bit more vast and complex than any four symbol representation, could possibly account for.

 

There is room enough to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and consider that we really are probably both talking about "this" reality. However we might characterize it. Seems rather apparent to me, that we have to be talking about the same thing. There is no other universe but this one, available for witnessing or discussion.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well tar i feel almost the same as you except we start to differ where im an agnostic...

So, are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we just put the labels to the side?

 

youll understand me alot better if i just say I'm somone who believes theirs more to life than we know but its such a big concept were better off being content knowing we can't know everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow sure got a lot of intense people on this forum.

 

Sure there could be a God. God could be the randomness of the universe and how every outcome is due to the fact that the universe doesn't want to undo what it has already done.

 

To those that said God is a superior being, what if it was? It all depends how you define the term "superior" for all we know it could just be a force that keeps everything going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

So, to me, the question is not so much "could there be a god?" as "what is the nature of God?"

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Tar.... I agree that the question, "what is the nature of God?", is the necessary door through which an basic, introductory understanding of God would be found. That requires that we consider and detemine first the medium, the model, that is man most familiar with and would tend to be able to understand in the clearest terms. For me, that conclusion would be man himself. We are not more acquainted with the familiaity of any animated, living entity than that of humankind. Therefore we are best equipped to evaluate a life that would claim to represent God to see if there are any distinct characteristics within that life that may point to characteristic unique, distinctly different, then we find typical to man and that may be found differently in a God.

 

But the question is, would God choose to manifest his character in such a way? It would seem plausible that he may elect to do so. His two other choices would be; 1. a direct manifestation, direct manifestation or, 2. through a supernatural phenomenology of some element or combination of elements. In the first choice, if his form where different from what we would expect, how would we know if it was God or not? We wouldn't. We'd have to simply take his word for it, faith alone.

 

If he used the elements, even in an unexplainable event, again, how would we know it was God's doing. More importantly, neither option would leave us with any greater undrstanding of ....what he is really like. So the most logical answer for me is that God would choose to manifest himself through an entity that we, as humans, would be able to evaluate best, that is, a person in the form of a human being. :huh:

Edited by adam1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tar.... I agree that the question, "what is the nature of God?", is the necessary door through which an basic, introductory understanding of God would be found. That requires that we consider and detemine first the medium, the model, that is man most familiar with and would tend to be able to understand in the clearest terms. For me, that conclusion would be man himself. We are not more acquainted with the familiaity of any animated, living entity than that of humankind. Therefore we are best equipped to evaluate a life that would claim to represent God to see if there are any distinct characteristics within that life that may point to characteristic unique, distinctly different, then we find typical to man and that may be found differently in a God.

 

But the question is, would God choose to manifest his character in such a way? It would seem plausible that he may elect to do so. His two other choices would be; 1. a direct manifestation, direct manifestation or, 2. through a supernatural phenomenology of some element or combination of elements. In the first choice, if his form where different from what we would expect, how would we know if it was God or not? We wouldn't. We'd have to simply take his word for it, faith alone.

 

If he used the elements, even in an unexplainable event, again, how would we know it was God's doing. More importantly, neither option would leave us with any greater undrstanding of ....what he is really like. So the most logical answer for me is that God would choose to manifest himself through an entity that we, as humans, would be able to evaluate best, that is, a person in the form of a human being. :huh:

 

 

Ah, just like the sun and the moon. We needed them to appear to us as humans so we could see that they exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.