Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2015, 03:16 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015 03:24 PM by Octapulse.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 02:07 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  So let me ask you this, and forgive me if somebody has already asked this, I don't have time at the moment to wade through 35 pages to catch up:

Why can't weirdness at the quantum level be autonomous of a divine being? I am presuming that by weirdness you are referring to how sub-atomic activities tend to not follow the observed laws of the macro world in which we live such as electrons popping in and out of existence. Why is this weird? Because it's unexpected? Or because we can't explain it? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you are referencing the later as the definition of weirdness. Do you believe that because we can't explain all of the quantum weirdness. . . therefore god? To do so would be an argument out of ignorance. Just because we don't currently have an explanation does not mean there isn't one outside the realm of woo

It is not an argument out of ignorance. We know some effects do not have local causes. We know this. It is something we are not ignorant about but rather a known fact. If you don't understand that, you cannot understand the argument.

Observing effects which do not have local causes is an observation that one should expect to see if God exists. If God exists we should see things which do not have natural explanations and cannot have natural explanations. On the quantum level we do observe effects which do not have natural explanations and cannot have natural explanations.

Does this prove God's existence? No. However the atheistic claim that there are no observations in nature which suggest the existence of the supernatural is clearly false. Reality contains an element that is here with us, but cannot be accessed by us. Yet, that element can cause effects we can observe.

Except you're wrong. Doesn't have and cannot have are two different things. While cannot have automatically implies does not have, does not have doesn't automatically imply cannot have. Just as if I say that you don't have a valid arguement, does not mean you cannot have a valid argument. In order to assert cannot, one must exhaust all possible seen and unseen causations. What about the unkown? There could exist an agent of causation that has yet to be discovered because it exists on a micro scale we don't have the ability to view yet. Therefore, it really is an arguement out of ignorance and to assert otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest (but you would never be guilty of that, would you?)Rolleyes

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Octapulse's post
08-09-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And also if he does not, as quantum mechanics explains.

Except that is doesn't.

Some folks, perhaps in order to avoid the realization that God might actually exist, believe, as a matter of faith, in something called irreducible randomness. Which in my opinion is just a ludicrous as would be trying to explain certain gravitational effects that cannot be explained by the observed matter as irreducible gravity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015 03:28 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:16 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Except your wrong. Doesn't have and cannot have are two different things. While cannot have automatically implies does not have, does not have doesn't automatically imply cannot have. Just as if I say that you don't have a valid arguement, does not mean you cannot have a valid argument. In order to assert cannot, one must exhaust all possible seen and unseen causations. What about the unkown? There could exist an agent of causation that has yet to be discovered because it exists on a micro scale we don't have the ability to view yet. Therefore, it really is an arguement out of ignorance and to assert otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest (but you would never be guilty of that, would you?)Rolleyes

Except that you are wrong. There isn't a possibility of "the unknown". Here is a short dumbed down video that can explain it better than I can.





You just have to suck up and accept that it is a scientific fact that not all effects have local causes. Of course...this is something we should expect to observe if our world is created and maintained by God....so its really not a surprise to theists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 03:16 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Except your wrong. Doesn't have and cannot have are two different things. While cannot have automatically implies does not have, does not have doesn't automatically imply cannot have. Just as if I say that you don't have a valid arguement, does not mean you cannot have a valid argument. In order to assert cannot, one must exhaust all possible seen and unseen causations. What about the unkown? There could exist an agent of causation that has yet to be discovered because it exists on a micro scale we don't have the ability to view yet. Therefore, it really is an arguement out of ignorance and to assert otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest (but you would never be guilty of that, would you?)Rolleyes

Except that you are wrong. There isn't a possibility of "the unknown". Here is a short dumbed down video that can explain it better than I can.




For there to be no possibility of the unkown, that would mean there is no such thing as discovery

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:26 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  For there to be no possibility of the unkown, that would mean there is no such thing as discovery

You would not be able to observe a non local cause. That would be impossible. However you can infer the existence of a non local cause by observing effects which cannot have a local cause.

Suppose the laws of physics prevent us from ever being able to discover dark matter(and this a very real possibility if the "matter" is non local to us). It is still reasonable to believe dark matter exists. Why? because we see its effect. Its effect is evidence of its existence.

Events without local causes are evidence of a non local causal agent.....which is why I believe in a non-local causal agent. God is the causal agent which sets everything in motion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:21 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Some folks, perhaps in order to avoid the realization that God might actually exist, believe, as a matter of faith, in something called irreducible randomness.

It's not a matter of faith.

Even assuming that hidden variables do not suffice to explain the randomness we observe in quantum mechanics - and we have not yet ruled that out - it could very well be the case that there is no god.

"There are some truly random things happening" is not an argument for a god's existence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 03:57 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Events without local causes are evidence of a non local causal agent.....which is why I believe in a non-local causal agent. God is the causal agent which sets everything in motion.

Again, "non-local causal agent" is not something that most people would consider a god, and "non-local causal agent which sets everything in motion" is a meaningless non-phrase.

Non-local causes are not evidence for a god. They could happen because a god exists. They also could happen because of simple physical mechanisms. It's a null tell.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-09-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 03:26 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  For there to be no possibility of the unkown, that would mean there is no such thing as discovery

God is the causal agent which sets everything in motion.

Why would one logically be fine making such an assumption with gusto?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:58 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Why would one logically be fine making such an assumption with gusto?

I have located the source of your problem.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-09-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-09-2015 03:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 03:26 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  For there to be no possibility of the unkown, that would mean there is no such thing as discovery

You would not be able to observe a non local cause. That would be impossible. However you can infer the existence of a non local cause by observing effects which cannot have a local cause.

Suppose the laws of physics prevent us from ever being able to discover dark matter(and this a very real possibility if the "matter" is non local to us). It is still reasonable to believe dark matter exists. Why? because we see its effect. Its effect is evidence of its existence.

Events without local causes are evidence of a non local causal agent.....which is why I believe in a non-local causal agent. God is the causal agent which sets everything in motion.

How do you assert with 100% confidence that something cannot be caused by a local agent? Again, just because you don't know of a local cause agent does not mean there cannot be one

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: