Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

An interesting argument for God's existence..

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:00:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Out of all the arguments for God's existence, this one seems like a tough nut to crack (I've known about it for quite some time now). How would one refute this?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:13:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:06:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is no better than any first-cause argument, and proves nothing.

Why is it no better than any first-cause argument? Why does it prove nothing?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:14:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some have argued that wave function models actually don't allow a God to exist
http://www.philoonline.org...

An argument against an omniscient God can be made.

1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent " all-observing " being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
2. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)


http://www.strongatheism.net...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:19:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:00:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Out of all the arguments for God's existence, this one seems like a tough nut to crack (I've known about it for quite some time now). How would one refute this?

Well, one would first recognize that that is, at best, a surface explanation of the concepts at play here.

And one would note, second, that the argument is self refuting (note at 2:26, where the observation of a mind is identical to the observation of a mindless measuring apparatus, thus negating the need for a universal "mind" at all). One would also note that the "a mind collapses its own wave-function" argument, used in this manner, is completely unsupported by any actual evidence, but is rather a postulate.

"Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons.""

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

And one would finally note that, even if we accepted all the concepts presented at face value, they are not enough to establish for certainty a god.

This is, essentially, a first cause argument all dressed up in new clothes.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:31:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:14:43 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Some have argued that wave function models actually don't allow a God to exist
http://www.philoonline.org...

An argument against an omniscient God can be made.


1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent " all-observing " being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
2. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)


http://www.strongatheism.net...

One would have to show that being everywhere, equates to observing anything. Is it not possible that God could be in a location, and chose not to observe said location?
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:42:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems to me that the flaw with the 'first cause' argument is that it presupposes that the logical chain of causation that we see within the universe must then be applied to whatever condition exists/existed external or prior to this universe's inception. Yet there is no reason that I can think of that this would be so, except that there is no reason not to do so.

As a result, the first cause argument ends up basically as a 'push'.

On the other hand, though, it's true the universe as we understand it does provide us with this discernible chain of causation, and via that chain of causation there is the inference of purpose, even if we don't know what that purpose might be. And I think it's that inference of purpose that makes the first cause a 'tough nut to dismiss'. Whereas the other alternative: that existence is purposeless, and happened by purely by chance just does wash for those of us living in this universe, surrounded by a chain of causation and the sense of purpose that it implies. The idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident is simply not tenable when everything WITHIN the universe indicates otherwise.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 7:29:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:42:03 PM, PureX wrote:
It seems to me that the flaw with the 'first cause' argument is that it presupposes that the logical chain of causation that we see within the universe must then be applied to whatever condition exists/existed external or prior to this universe's inception. Yet there is no reason that I can think of that this would be so, except that there is no reason not to do so.

As a result, the first cause argument ends up basically as a 'push'.

On the other hand, though, it's true the universe as we understand it does provide us with this discernible chain of causation, and via that chain of causation there is the inference of purpose, even if we don't know what that purpose might be. And I think it's that inference of purpose that makes the first cause a 'tough nut to dismiss'. Whereas the other alternative: that existence is purposeless, and happened by purely by chance just does [not] wash for those of us living in this universe, surrounded by a chain of causation and the sense of purpose that it implies. The idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident is simply not tenable when everything WITHIN the universe indicates otherwise.

Good post PureX. I assume you meant to use the word "not" I put in the brackets above. With respect to the last paragraph, it should be recognized that reason's ability to get to the Truth of a matter is limited. This link is to a podcast discussing it:

http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org...

It's no secret that many of the greatest discoveries in science was not the product of careful deductive reasoning or syllogisms; they were oftentimes not even rational--a leap of imagination, dream or "gut feeling" are very often credited with a discovery rather than the brilliance of the individual.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 7:43:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:31:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:14:43 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Some have argued that wave function models actually don't allow a God to exist
http://www.philoonline.org...

An argument against an omniscient God can be made.


1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent " all-observing " being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
2. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)


http://www.strongatheism.net...

One would have to show that being everywhere, equates to observing anything. Is it not possible that God could be in a location, and chose not to observe said location?

Great observation, RT!!
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:14:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:14:43 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Some have argued that wave function models actually don't allow a God to exist
http://www.philoonline.org...

An argument against an omniscient God can be made.


1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent " all-observing " being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
2. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)


http://www.strongatheism.net...

That's a really poor understanding of omnipresence.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:15:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 8:14:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:14:43 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Some have argued that wave function models actually don't allow a God to exist
http://www.philoonline.org...

An argument against an omniscient God can be made.


1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent " all-observing " being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
2. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)


http://www.strongatheism.net...

That's a really poor understanding of omnipresence.

Besides, as the divine Creator of the idea of a wavefunction, subjecting God to physical phenomena is futile.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 8:50:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:42:03 PM, PureX wrote:
It seems to me that the flaw with the 'first cause' argument is that it presupposes that the logical chain of causation that we see within the universe must then be applied to whatever condition exists/existed external or prior to this universe's inception. Yet there is no reason that I can think of that this would be so, except that there is no reason not to do so.

As a result, the first cause argument ends up basically as a 'push'.

On the other hand, though, it's true the universe as we understand it does provide us with this discernible chain of causation, and via that chain of causation there is the inference of purpose, even if we don't know what that purpose might be. And I think it's that inference of purpose that makes the first cause a 'tough nut to dismiss'. Whereas the other alternative: that existence is purposeless, and happened by purely by chance just does wash for those of us living in this universe, surrounded by a chain of causation and the sense of purpose that it implies. The idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident is simply not tenable when everything WITHIN the universe indicates otherwise.

This is more than simply a first cause argument....Any rebuttals against any vague understanding of a first cause argument, isn't going to really shut down this argument.
dipnt
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 12:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent " all-observing " being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
2. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)


If observation collapses quantum superpositions, how do we "observe" that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed?
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 1:39:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:50:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:42:03 PM, PureX wrote:
It seems to me that the flaw with the 'first cause' argument is that it presupposes that the logical chain of causation that we see within the universe must then be applied to whatever condition exists/existed external or prior to this universe's inception. Yet there is no reason that I can think of that this would be so, except that there is no reason not to do so.

As a result, the first cause argument ends up basically as a 'push'.

On the other hand, though, it's true the universe as we understand it does provide us with this discernible chain of causation, and via that chain of causation there is the inference of purpose, even if we don't know what that purpose might be. And I think it's that inference of purpose that makes the first cause a 'tough nut to dismiss'. Whereas the other alternative: that existence is purposeless, and happened by purely by chance just does wash for those of us living in this universe, surrounded by a chain of causation and the sense of purpose that it implies. The idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident is simply not tenable when everything WITHIN the universe indicates otherwise.

This is more than simply a first cause argument....Any rebuttals against any vague understanding of a first cause argument, isn't going to really shut down this argument.

Calling it a "push" does not rebut the argument. Some people are simply satisfied with "just because"--at least my granddaughter is. The video you posted may not prove God's existence (I'm a theist and even I don't think that's possible), but it does illustrate why God won't go away.

Not only is "the idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident" incongruent with our sense of meaning and values, but material science is on very thin ice when it presumes to have displaced God. For example, a scientist (Lawrence Krauss) left me laughing out loud when, in trying to prove his case that science has displaced God, argued that even the wave function is deterministic, that there is even a mathematical formula for it and the probabilities can be measured with great accuracy and therefore God isn't necessary. So far, so good, but he went on to say that only the actual outcome is indeterminate.

Huh? If the outcome is always indeterminate, how can the probability wave (which is never seen and is only inferred) be said to be determinate? It sounds far more consistent with the notion of a living, omnipresent God than a mechanism. It seems that this scientist should sick to science as he's make a lousy philosopher or critic of religion.

There are dozens of YouTube videos like the one you posted.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 5:16:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 1:39:25 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:50:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:42:03 PM, PureX wrote:
It seems to me that the flaw with the 'first cause' argument is that it presupposes that the logical chain of causation that we see within the universe must then be applied to whatever condition exists/existed external or prior to this universe's inception. Yet there is no reason that I can think of that this would be so, except that there is no reason not to do so.

As a result, the first cause argument ends up basically as a 'push'.

On the other hand, though, it's true the universe as we understand it does provide us with this discernible chain of causation, and via that chain of causation there is the inference of purpose, even if we don't know what that purpose might be. And I think it's that inference of purpose that makes the first cause a 'tough nut to dismiss'. Whereas the other alternative: that existence is purposeless, and happened by purely by chance just does wash for those of us living in this universe, surrounded by a chain of causation and the sense of purpose that it implies. The idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident is simply not tenable when everything WITHIN the universe indicates otherwise.

This is more than simply a first cause argument....Any rebuttals against any vague understanding of a first cause argument, isn't going to really shut down this argument.

Calling it a "push" does not rebut the argument. Some people are simply satisfied with "just because"--at least my granddaughter is. The video you posted may not prove God's existence (I'm a theist and even I don't think that's possible), but it does illustrate why God won't go away.

Not only is "the idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident" incongruent with our sense of meaning and values, but material science is on very thin ice when it presumes to have displaced God. For example, a scientist (Lawrence Krauss) left me laughing out loud when, in trying to prove his case that science has displaced God, argued that even the wave function is deterministic, that there is even a mathematical formula for it and the probabilities can be measured with great accuracy and therefore God isn't necessary. So far, so good, but he went on to say that only the actual outcome is indeterminate.

Huh? If the outcome is always indeterminate, how can the probability wave (which is never seen and is only inferred) be said to be determinate? It sounds far more consistent with the notion of a living, omnipresent God than a mechanism. It seems that this scientist should sick to science as he's make a lousy philosopher or critic of religion.

There are dozens of YouTube videos like the one you posted.

"It sounds far more consistent with the notion of a living, omnipresent God than a mechanism."

How so?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 1:39:25 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:50:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:42:03 PM, PureX wrote:
It seems to me that the flaw with the 'first cause' argument is that it presupposes that the logical chain of causation that we see within the universe must then be applied to whatever condition exists/existed external or prior to this universe's inception. Yet there is no reason that I can think of that this would be so, except that there is no reason not to do so.

As a result, the first cause argument ends up basically as a 'push'.

On the other hand, though, it's true the universe as we understand it does provide us with this discernible chain of causation, and via that chain of causation there is the inference of purpose, even if we don't know what that purpose might be. And I think it's that inference of purpose that makes the first cause a 'tough nut to dismiss'. Whereas the other alternative: that existence is purposeless, and happened by purely by chance just does wash for those of us living in this universe, surrounded by a chain of causation and the sense of purpose that it implies. The idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident is simply not tenable when everything WITHIN the universe indicates otherwise.

This is more than simply a first cause argument....Any rebuttals against any vague understanding of a first cause argument, isn't going to really shut down this argument.

Calling it a "push" does not rebut the argument. Some people are simply satisfied with "just because"--at least my granddaughter is. The video you posted may not prove God's existence (I'm a theist and even I don't think that's possible), but it does illustrate why God won't go away.

Not only is "the idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident" incongruent with our sense of meaning and values, but material science is on very thin ice when it presumes to have displaced God. For example, a scientist (Lawrence Krauss) left me laughing out loud when, in trying to prove his case that science has displaced God, argued that even the wave function is deterministic, that there is even a mathematical formula for it and the probabilities can be measured with great accuracy and therefore God isn't necessary. So far, so good, but he went on to say that only the actual outcome is indeterminate.

Huh? If the outcome is always indeterminate, how can the probability wave (which is never seen and is only inferred) be said to be determinate? It sounds far more consistent with the notion of a living, omnipresent God than a mechanism. It seems that this scientist should sick to science as he's make a lousy philosopher or critic of religion.

There are dozens of YouTube videos like the one you posted.

If History has taught us anything, we always interpret things we don't fully understand as being "alive", until we find out the mechanism.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 7:39:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If History has taught us anything, we always interpret things we don't fully understand as being "alive", until we find out the mechanism.

I couldn't agree more, but sometimes we just gotta go with our "guts."

Human understanding is like a web anchored at three points: self, other and the unit. Conceptual knowledge is the spiral that forms the body of the web and linking all three. Every new bit of information damages the spiral in some way and it has to be repaired, but some people wait so long before making any repairs (creationists, for example) that they hold everyone else back.

Personally, I think it fun. Far from displacing God, science has a blessing to my understanding of the Divine Nature.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 7:45:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:39:07 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If History has taught us anything, we always interpret things we don't fully understand as being "alive", until we find out the mechanism.

I couldn't agree more, but sometimes we just gotta go with our "guts."

Sometimes, but preferably not when it comes to certain areas in which going with our guts, has been proven a flawed methodology. It's better to go with your guts, with regards to those areas which it has been shown reliable.


Human understanding is like a web anchored at three points: self, other and the unit. Conceptual knowledge is the spiral that forms the body of the web and linking all three. Every new bit of information damages the spiral in some way and it has to be repaired, but some people wait so long before making any repairs (creationists, for example) that they hold everyone else back.

Personally, I think it fun. Far from displacing God, science has a blessing to my understanding of the Divine Nature.

Science has made me severely doubt God's existence. I guess some people look at it differently.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 8:59:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:45:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Science has made me severely doubt God's existence. I guess some people look at it differently.

It's called "confirmation bias." I call it human nature. Maybe we just see what we want to see? If yes, it would be very consistent with video you posted.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:00:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Out of all the arguments for God's existence, this one seems like a tough nut to crack (I've known about it for quite some time now). How would one refute this?

I liked the line:
"For reference, the solution to the wave-function of the universe is not 42 - Just in case anyone was wondering."

Does anyone know where to find this in pure written form?
(I want to show this to a scientist & philosophy professor, I know.)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 12:27:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:50:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:42:03 PM, PureX wrote:
It seems to me that the flaw with the 'first cause' argument is that it presupposes that the logical chain of causation that we see within the universe must then be applied to whatever condition exists/existed external or prior to this universe's inception. Yet there is no reason that I can think of that this would be so, except that there is no reason not to do so.

As a result, the first cause argument ends up basically as a 'push'.

On the other hand, though, it's true the universe as we understand it does provide us with this discernible chain of causation, and via that chain of causation there is the inference of purpose, even if we don't know what that purpose might be. And I think it's that inference of purpose that makes the first cause a 'tough nut to dismiss'. Whereas the other alternative: that existence is purposeless, and happened by purely by chance just does wash for those of us living in this universe, surrounded by a chain of causation and the sense of purpose that it implies. The idea that such specificity, diversity, and balance could have spring up by accident is simply not tenable when everything WITHIN the universe indicates otherwise.

This is more than simply a first cause argument....Any rebuttals against any vague understanding of a first cause argument, isn't going to really shut down this argument.

Yes, it would. This is exactly a first cause argument, dressed up in quantum misunderstanding. The argument is, essentially, that something must have first observed, to collapse the other wave functions. How is that different than a causation argument?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:12:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's another take on QM. I thought the speaker was claiming to debunk many of the "popular interpretations" and I didn't understand most of it, but he concludes with
this statement: "Quantum mechanics actually predicts a comprehensible universe, but at the cost of forcing you to believe that what you perceive to be physical reality is not actually real. It's actually an illusion."

Heck, "mystics" have been saying that for thousands of years.
Hvaniratha
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 2:41:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
" [...] for Ohrmazd sees all things. "
-- Dadestan-i Denig

I think this argument is a good one for the existence of Ohrmazd. If the " wave - function " needs an observer, and no one else could collapse the " wave - function " but a mind like Ohrmazd, then I think it proves that Ohrmazd exists . . . but I do not know much about the particle physics of " wave - functions. "
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 10:16:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:45:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:39:07 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Personally, I think it fun. Far from displacing God, science has a blessing to my understanding of the Divine Nature.

Science has made me severely doubt God's existence. I guess some people look at it differently.

I suspect this depends on how we conceive of "God".

I have found it interesting, for example, that folks who use evolution and cosmology and quantum physics to deny the idea of any kind of divine or primal creative consciousness are themselves a living example of how quantum physics, cosmology, and evolution have created the very self-conscious living being that is doing the doubting. We ARE the universe, thinking. Through us, the universe has become self-aware and is learning it's own nature.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 12:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 10:16:58 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:45:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:39:07 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Personally, I think it fun. Far from displacing God, science has a blessing to my understanding of the Divine Nature.

Science has made me severely doubt God's existence. I guess some people look at it differently.

I suspect this depends on how we conceive of "God".

I have found it interesting, for example, that folks who use evolution and cosmology and quantum physics to deny the idea of any kind of divine or primal creative consciousness are themselves a living example of how quantum physics, cosmology, and evolution have created the very self-conscious living being that is doing the doubting. We ARE the universe, thinking. Through us, the universe has become self-aware and is learning it's own nature.

"We ARE the universe, thinking. Through us, the universe has become self-aware and is learning it's own nature."

I've had this philosophical thought myself....Maybe we are the universe's way of discovering itself. Consciousness is most likely the result of natural processes, but why would nature function in such a way to lead to creatures like us? Possibly, so we can be aware of the universe. Since we are part of the universe, it would be like the universe observing itself. Thus, we are the key to the universe becoming conscious in a sense.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 10:16:58 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:45:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:39:07 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Personally, I think it fun. Far from displacing God, science has a blessing to my understanding of the Divine Nature.

Science has made me severely doubt God's existence. I guess some people look at it differently.

I suspect this depends on how we conceive of "God".

I have found it interesting, for example, that folks who use evolution and cosmology and quantum physics to deny the idea of any kind of divine or primal creative consciousness are themselves a living example of how quantum physics, cosmology, and evolution have created the very self-conscious living being that is doing the doubting. We ARE the universe, thinking. Through us, the universe has become self-aware and is learning it's own nature.

Exactly. Some forms of theism believe in a God "out there" and this is the god atheism attacks or denies. Other forms say there is no "out there" out there and this is the kind of God QM can be interpreted as supporting though not necessarily proving. With the latter, "God" is a term of convenience rather than a designation for something.

Here's the thing. If there's no "out there" out there, "God" is all there is and there is no individual self making the decisions. There is only one, infinite "I" acting as the impetus for everything we experience, including our sense of individuality. Many people on both sides of the God debate resent this because it denies the validity of their greatest treasure: their sense of individuality.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." A. Einstein

Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other said, "The wind is moving." A third monk passed by and said, "Not the wind, not the flag. Mind is moving."
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:18:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 12:46:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 10:16:58 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:45:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:39:07 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Personally, I think it fun. Far from displacing God, science has a blessing to my understanding of the Divine Nature.

Science has made me severely doubt God's existence. I guess some people look at it differently.

I suspect this depends on how we conceive of "God".

I have found it interesting, for example, that folks who use evolution and cosmology and quantum physics to deny the idea of any kind of divine or primal creative consciousness are themselves a living example of how quantum physics, cosmology, and evolution have created the very self-conscious living being that is doing the doubting. We ARE the universe, thinking. Through us, the universe has become self-aware and is learning it's own nature.

"We ARE the universe, thinking. Through us, the universe has become self-aware and is learning it's own nature."

I've had this philosophical thought myself....Maybe we are the universe's way of discovering itself. Consciousness is most likely the result of natural processes, but why would nature function in such a way to lead to creatures like us? Possibly, so we can be aware of the universe. Since we are part of the universe, it would be like the universe observing itself. Thus, we are the key to the universe becoming conscious in a sense.

One book I have says, "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature." In other words, "The mind moves." Why? I don't know, but I like to think in order to self-aware in the fullest possible way. Hundus have a saying: "In the beginning God was one and being one he became lonely, so he became many."
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 3:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 12:30:24 PM, dipnt wrote:
1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent " all-observing " being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
2. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)


If observation collapses quantum superpositions, how do we "observe" that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed?

I believe it's suppose to be "test". Just saying, this isn't my argument nor am I certain that it's valid.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 5:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 5:17:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


If History has taught us anything, we always interpret things we don't fully understand as being "alive", until we find out the mechanism.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!