Total Posts:309|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is the most convincing argument for God?

Somecrap
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:41:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
U can go to http://www.hamzatzortzis.com... for more detail.. in this site he discuss things like that... anyway in short its give the 3 reasons:
1. The second law of thermodynamics
2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events
3. Astrophysical evidence
for debates he debated people like krauce and stuff.. here one http://www.youtube.com...
If u eat u excrete it cant be helped
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:56:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:41:41 AM, Somecrap wrote:
U can go to http://www.hamzatzortzis.com... for more detail.. in this site he discuss things like that... anyway in short its give the 3 reasons:
1. The second law of thermodynamics
2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events
3. Astrophysical evidence
for debates he debated people like krauce and stuff.. here one http://www.youtube.com...

What does a finite past, or thermodynamics have to do with God? That only has to deal with a beginning of the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:57:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:50:47 AM, Nzrsaa wrote:
Ontological I would say.

It's probably the most interesting arguments for God, but it seems just as reasonable to not accept the crucial possibility premise, than to accept it. So, I think it fails.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:59:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:50:47 AM, Nzrsaa wrote:
Ontological I would say.

(correction)

*It's probably the most interesting argument for God, but it seems just as reasonable to not accept the crucial possibility premise, as it is to accept it. So, I think it fails.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.



Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.


In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.


I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.


I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Intelligence just imitates nature. Therefore, when you see patterns, complexity, and all these other things, they are just evidence of nature; not intelligence. We produce complexity, and show patterns and mechanisms; that's only because we are spawned from nature, and nature does these things.

Complexity, patterns, and all these things are only evidence of the intricacy of nature. It has nothing to do with intelligence, God, or anything else.

Theists just engage in the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. The fact that we were produced by natural processes just shows how complex nature actually is. It says nothing about intelligence or anything. Intelligence is just a survival tool anyway, it helps with problem solving. What would the producer of the cosmos need with intelligence? That makes no sense, you don't need intelligence for complexity. Nature produces enough complexity, and we are the evidence!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:10:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.



Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.


In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.


I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.


I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!

I hate these forums and get confused how to reply, Let's just say that you have no idea how it's all being done and you believe everything has just fell into place without any guidance....This takes more faith for me to believe in that. It's absurd.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:13:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 1:10:30 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.



Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.


In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.


I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.


I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!


I hate these forums and get confused how to reply, Let's just say that you have no idea how it's all being done and you believe everything has just fell into place without any guidance....This takes more faith for me to believe in that. It's absurd.

I agree, that is absurd. Its a good thing I don't believe everything just fell into place randomly!

It was due to natural processes; which aren't random. Natural processes guide these things, so it is guided. Earth didn't just "randomly" form, it was due to gravity. Life didn't just "randomly" form, it was due to a natural process called abiogenesis. Snow flakes don't just form 'randomly", but due to chemical reactions in the clouds.

None of this is:

(i) Completely random

(ii) Has anything to do with intelligence

Therefore, your little "randomness" vs "God" dichotomy is a false one! I don't believe everything randomly came together either, but I don't believe a God did it. That is absurd!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:16:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 1:10:30 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.



Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.


In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.


I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.


I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!


I hate these forums and get confused how to reply, Let's just say that you have no idea how it's all being done and you believe everything has just fell into place without any guidance....This takes more faith for me to believe in that. It's absurd.

So you think even they way clouds absorb dirty water and purifies it and pours thousands of litres of clean fresh water so that the earth benefits and flourishes just happens without any guidance.

C'mon Rational Thinker, this is one example among tons of others.

These things are not just happening without any guidance. please.

Everything is necessary, even the moons existence controls the tides and gives us light at night as well as helps nourish our food stuff so the earth can produce vegetables.

The sun can ripen a bunch of grapes from 83 million miles away and you just think this all happens without any guiding force.?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 1:16:21 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:10:30 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.



Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.


In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.


I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.


I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!


I hate these forums and get confused how to reply, Let's just say that you have no idea how it's all being done and you believe everything has just fell into place without any guidance....This takes more faith for me to believe in that. It's absurd.


So you think even they way clouds absorb dirty water and purifies it and pours thousands of litres of clean fresh water so that the earth benefits and flourishes just happens without any guidance.

It happens due to the laws of chemistry. That is a pretty big guidance that has nothing to do with intelligence. Epic fail.


C'mon Rational Thinker, this is one example among tons of others.

These things are not just happening without any guidance. please.

I agree! They are guided by natural processes; not intelligence.


Everything is necessary, even the moons existence controls the tides and gives us light at night as well as helps nourish our food stuff so the earth can produce vegetables.

So? That has nothing to do with intelligence. You are starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly now.


The sun can ripen a bunch of grapes from 83 million miles away and you just think this all happens without any guiding force.?

What force do you need for that though? If the sun is aimed at grapes; they ripen. These are natural processes lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:29:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you are just trying to look for reasons to believe in God, and you are stretching really hard. Your reasons for belief are very bad.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:45:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 1:28:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:16:21 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:10:30 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.



Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.


In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.


I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.


I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!


I hate these forums and get confused how to reply, Let's just say that you have no idea how it's all being done and you believe everything has just fell into place without any guidance....This takes more faith for me to believe in that. It's absurd.


So you think even they way clouds absorb dirty water and purifies it and pours thousands of litres of clean fresh water so that the earth benefits and flourishes just happens without any guidance.

It happens due to the laws of chemistry. That is a pretty big guidance that has nothing to do with intelligence. Epic fail.


C'mon Rational Thinker, this is one example among tons of others.

These things are not just happening without any guidance. please.

I agree! They are guided by natural processes; not intelligence.


Everything is necessary, even the moons existence controls the tides and gives us light at night as well as helps nourish our food stuff so the earth can produce vegetables.

So? That has nothing to do with intelligence. You are starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly now.


The sun can ripen a bunch of grapes from 83 million miles away and you just think this all happens without any guiding force.?

What force do you need for that though? If the sun is aimed at grapes; they ripen. These are natural processes lol

No, I have explained that nature is a combination of chemicals, so either they are combining accidently or they are being guided.

Your only argument is if such exist then such will happen naturally, without explaining how such exists or why it happens naturally, what gives them such intrinsic qualities to function in regards to becoming purposeful due to a combination.....

Anyway I am nearly ending my shift and can't really continue much longer, as usual I expect you to disagree, but as a friend I think you need to stop defending positions on how God doesn't exist and start looking within yourself on way's God does exist.

This is also another argument I have for you. Listen carefully.

God is so kind, he gives us our desires, weather you believe this or not, karma also plays a role. And my message to you is that if you want to forget God, God will give you the knowledge on how to forget him, he can give you the knowledge to become a first class atheist, and you will forget him and not know him. but you are not gurranted tomorrow and one day everybody gets kicked out, so seek God with your heart and God will reveal himself to you.

By devotion God reveals himself.

"I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear. But those who worship me with love live in me, and I come to life in them."

- Bhagavad Gita

Speak to you later.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 1:50:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 1:45:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:28:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:16:21 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:10:30 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


No, I have explained that nature is a combination of chemicals, so either they are combining accidently or they are being guided.

Nature is more than just a combination of chemicals; how embarrassing. Forces of nature guide these processes; not intelligence or randomness. Lay off the false-dichotomy.



Your only argument is if such exist then such will happen naturally, without explaining how such exists or why it happens naturally, what gives them such intrinsic qualities to function in regards to becoming purposeful due to a combination.....

Take a science class. Then you will learn how these things happen naturally.



Anyway I am nearly ending my shift and can't really continue much longer, as usual I expect you to disagree, but as a friend I think you need to stop defending positions on how God doesn't exist and start looking within yourself on way's God does exist.

I have been. Look at this thread; I posted an argument that Quentin Smith outlined which I find to be an interesting argument for God's existence.



This is also another argument I have for you. Listen carefully.


God is so kind, he gives us our desires, weather you believe this or not, karma also plays a role.

There is no evidence of karma. Good people get the short end of the stick, and evil people prosper. Look at the banks, karma hasn't gotten to them.

And my message to you is that if you want to forget God, God will give you the knowledge on how to forget him, he can give you the knowledge to become a first class atheist, and you will forget him and not know him. but you are not gurranted tomorrow and one day everybody gets kicked out, so seek God with your heart and God will reveal himself to you.

This is just preaching, not an argument. You haven't supported your statements with any reason, you just want me to take it on faith.



By devotion God reveals himself.

I bet lol


"I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear. But those who worship me with love live in me, and I come to life in them."

- Bhagavad Gita


Speak to you later.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 2:18:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like the cosmological arguments from first cause the best. They are some of the most convincing reasons why one needs a god to explain the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 3:51:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 2:18:20 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I like the cosmological arguments from first cause the best. They are some of the most convincing reasons why one needs a god to explain the universe.

You didn't respond to me in the other thread, but the need for a personal free-agent is a myth based on an unsupported notion that a sufficient cause is needed for something to begin to exist. There could easily be a finite temporal effect from a timeless cause without a personal free-agent.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:06:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"The death of Schrodinger's cat and of consciousness based quantum wave-function collapse"

http://aflb.ensmp.fr...

Read that. They show that the measuring device causes the collapse regardless of any conscious observation. This means, that conscious doesn't cause collapse, it is simply an interaction with an external system that does it; its all physical.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:08:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"Our results are consistent with the idea that a measurement from the Geiger counter [unconscious object made of atoms] is sufficient to collapse the quantum state, most likely because the counter involves amplification processes that are irreversible. Conscious perception of the outcome of a quantum measurement is not a prerequisite for the collapse of a quantum wavefunction" - R. H. S. CARPENTER, ANDREW J. ANDERSON
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:10:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"Consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum process." - John A. Wheeler

"It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all!" - Leggett

" From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed that important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory." - John S. Bell

---

Hopefully that helps you out.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:21:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:06:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"The death of Schrodinger's cat and of consciousness based quantum wave-function collapse"

http://aflb.ensmp.fr...

Read that. They show that the measuring device causes the collapse regardless of any conscious observation. This means, that conscious doesn't cause collapse, it is simply an interaction with an external system that does it; its all physical.

I've read that argument, but the problem is that a measuring device inserts the possibility of later conscious observation of the collapse. When you think about it, even our observation is merely recording it into our brain. The results of a measurement must be observed to know that it actually collapses the wave, so in this respect the measuring device is actually observing the process. No one understands exactly why the double-slit experiment behaves as it does, which is why it is only a possible argument instead of a more certain one.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:27:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:10:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"Consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum process." - John A. Wheeler

I plainly stated that not every physicist believes that consciousness is required. What's your point? This does stand as a good example of the thread I started myself a while ago asking why some posters seem to post questions as bait to attract others so that they can attack their arguments instead of discussing them rationally.

"It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all!" - Leggett

I also said that the double-slit experiment has never been understood, in response to your first reply to my post. You are merely repeating what I've already said.

" From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed that important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory." - John S. Bell

---

Hopefully that helps you out.

Sorry, it didn't. With all due respect, I wish you would consider the thoughts of others more carefully before asserting your own.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:21:22 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:06:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"The death of Schrodinger's cat and of consciousness based quantum wave-function collapse"

http://aflb.ensmp.fr...

Read that. They show that the measuring device causes the collapse regardless of any conscious observation. This means, that conscious doesn't cause collapse, it is simply an interaction with an external system that does it; its all physical.

I've read that argument, but the problem is that a measuring device inserts the possibility of later conscious observation of the collapse.

This proves you didn't read that argument, because they ruled that out.

"A potential objection to the above experiment is that the state of the ball, and hence Observer B"s perception of the state of the ball, may exist as a superposition until such time as Observer A becomes conscious of the measurement result. Therefore, we designed an extra experiment to investigate this possibility..." - R. H. S. CARPENTER, and ANDREW J. ANDERSON

When you think about it, even our observation is merely recording it into our brain.

Exactly, its not actually collapsing the wave-function. The unconscious measurement device, made of atoms does that. Also, a quantum system can bath in photons and collapse wave-functions.

The results of a measurement must be observed to know that it actually collapses the wave, so in this respect the measuring device is actually observing the process.

False. Read the paper I cited.

Sorry, it didn't. With all due respect, I wish you would consider the thoughts of others more carefully before asserting your own.

Sorry, I don't respect ideas that have been ruled out by experiment.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:43:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.

What makes "something" necessary? If God exists, would that mean "something" isn't necessary, but rather was willed?

Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

What is gravity and how does it exist? Where do these other "combiners" come from? It would seem that many combiners really have no reason for existence, rather they just exist.

, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.

Did random natural processes make this configuration? If so, what made those natural processes? More natural processes? When does it end? It just ultimately regresses an infinite amount of time.

In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.

How are they not random? And what exactly is intelligence?

I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.

What do you mean that they are deterministic, and how are they that way?

I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!

Then what exactly do you believe?

I am a student right now and you are a teacher. I am not presenting these rebuttals/questions as an arguer, rather as someone who is interested in your point of view.
Nolite Timere
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:50:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:35:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:21:22 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:06:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"The death of Schrodinger's cat and of consciousness based quantum wave-function collapse"

http://aflb.ensmp.fr...

Read that. They show that the measuring device causes the collapse regardless of any conscious observation. This means, that conscious doesn't cause collapse, it is simply an interaction with an external system that does it; its all physical.

I've read that argument, but the problem is that a measuring device inserts the possibility of later conscious observation of the collapse.

This proves you didn't read that argument, because they ruled that out.

I did read that argument, and I've read their objection before, as well. I've also read objections to their objections, which is what I was saying to you. There are two sides to that debate, and you are quoting one source as if it were the definitive one. That question alone could keep both of us occupied for the next month, but since (as you showed) quantum mechanics and the wave collapse are not fully understood, then every argument made about them is largely based on opinion and personal perception. I argued that point for months on YouTube. I do not want to repeat that here.

"A potential objection to the above experiment is that the state of the ball, and hence Observer B"s perception of the state of the ball, may exist as a superposition until such time as Observer A becomes conscious of the measurement result. Therefore, we designed an extra experiment to investigate this possibility..." - R. H. S. CARPENTER, and ANDREW J. ANDERSON


When you think about it, even our observation is merely recording it into our brain.

Exactly, its not actually collapsing the wave-function. The unconscious measurement device, made of atoms does that. Also, a quantum system can bath in photons and collapse wave-functions.

Somewhere you and I are crossing words, or at least our meaning of those words. We seem to be saying much the same thing in our own ways. What I was suggesting was the possibility of a recording device "passing-along" its recording could lead to a continuous regress in what we call conscious observation.

The results of a measurement must be observed to know that it actually collapses the wave, so in this respect the measuring device is actually observing the process.

False. Read the paper I cited.

Sorry, it didn't. With all due respect, I wish you would consider the thoughts of others more carefully before asserting your own.

Sorry, I don't respect ideas that have been ruled out by experiment.

Saying that just shows that you haven't bothered to really consider what I said, or else you totally misinterpreted or misunderstood it. It simply means that I also cannot respect your arguments. It's totally unnecessary, especially for someone with the username "Rational_Thinker9119".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:50:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:43:36 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/6/2013 1:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 12:55:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:30:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Why is there something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is easy. The idea of "nothing" is just something we made up; something is necessary.

What makes "something" necessary?

The fact that something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, if there is something, it has to be necessary by deduction

If God exists, would that mean "something" isn't necessary, but rather was willed?

God is still something. Whether God, or something else; something is necessary.

Why is contingent life on earth dependant on so many factors and how do they come to be by simple random processes.

They aren't random.


Furthermore, Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, these chemicals only become useful when they are combined, for instance; Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both need to be combined to make water, without them being combined we have no water. Combination means combiner

Nature is the combiner (such as gravity, which combines matter to form planets); no intelligence needed.

What is gravity and how does it exist?

Gravity is an attractive force, and it exists because it is a bi-product of matter and energy.

Where do these other "combiners" come from?

Everything we know of spawned from The Big Bang.

It would seem that many combiners really have no reason for existence, rather they just exist.

That's the same reason you believe God exists, right? He just exists, or has to exist? Well, if something just has to exist, why not nature?


, First we have to ask why such chemicals are in existence and then why they have intrinsic qualities that make them useful only when combined.

The chemicals exist because of The Big Bang, and certain things can arise when configured a certain way.

Did random natural processes make this configuration? If so, what made those natural processes? More natural processes? When does it end? It just ultimately regresses an infinite amount of time.

In other words, If I left the ingredients to bake a cake in the kitchen and came back and the cake was already made, that would imply somebody combined together the ingredients to produce the cake, on the other hand if I return and the cakes ingredients were left there scattered and un-arranged then I know nobody made any arrangement to combine the ingredients. And thus therefore there is no combiner.

If you have a winter sky, snowflakes will be produced. If you have enough time; gravity will form planets. These are NATURAL processes. They are neither "random", OR have anything to do with intelligence.

How are they not random? And what exactly is intelligence?

Because they are deterministic, and due for forces, which force outcomes and don't leave it to pure chance. Also, there are many definitions of intelligence, such as the application of knowledge.


I Just can not get over the fact that so many chemicals exists and work in a harmonious way as to produce the magnificence of not only our universe with billions and billions of planets and which we hardly know anything about, but also our little blue planet is also a marvel in itself. due the combination of chemicals.

This is because you assume that if God didn't do it, then it all has to be random. That's a false-dichotomy. Natural processes aren't completely random, they are very deterministic.

What do you mean that they are deterministic, and how are they that way?

How is God the way he is? I can just ask these questions back at you. The theist isn't solving any problems by positing God, because now we have to explain God!


I can not believe they are combining randomly or that they simply exist and everything just falls into place.

Cool, I don't believe that either!

Then what exactly do you believe?



I am a student right now and you are a teacher. I am not presenting these rebuttals/questions as an arguer, rather as someone who is interested in your point of view.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 5:52:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 5:50:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:35:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:21:22 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:06:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 5:03:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:58:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To Quote Atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith:

"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science." " Quentin Smith [Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325]

I agree, and think that some type of quantum mechanical argument would probably have the most force in attempting to show God exists.

I have read (and also made) many arguments which propose just that. I also believe it is a good point when made reasonably. Not every physicist believes that a wave collapse requires actual sentient consciousness, but could occur from natural processes, but so far I haven't seen anything that really explains how that might really happen.

"The death of Schrodinger's cat and of consciousness based quantum wave-function collapse"

http://aflb.ensmp.fr...

Read that. They show that the measuring device causes the collapse regardless of any conscious observation. This means, that conscious doesn't cause collapse, it is simply an interaction with an external system that does it; its all physical.

I've read that argument, but the problem is that a measuring device inserts the possibility of later conscious observation of the collapse.

This proves you didn't read that argument, because they ruled that out.

I did read that argument, and I've read their objection before, as well. I've also read objections to their objections, which is what I was saying to you. There are two sides to that debate, and you are quoting one source as if it were the definitive one. That question alone could keep both of us occupied for the next month, but since (as you showed) quantum mechanics and the wave collapse are not fully understood, then every argument made about them is largely based on opinion and personal perception. I argued that point for months on YouTube. I do not want to repeat that here.

"A potential objection to the above experiment is that the state of the ball, and hence Observer B"s perception of the state of the ball, may exist as a superposition until such time as Observer A becomes conscious of the measurement result. Therefore, we designed an extra experiment to investigate this possibility..." - R. H. S. CARPENTER, and ANDREW J. ANDERSON


When you think about it, even our observation is merely recording it into our brain.

Exactly, its not actually collapsing the wave-function. The unconscious measurement device, made of atoms does that. Also, a quantum system can bath in photons and collapse wave-functions.

Somewhere you and I are crossing words, or at least our meaning of those words. We seem to be saying much the same thing in our own ways. What I was suggesting was the possibility of a recording device "passing-along" its recording could lead to a continuous regress in what we call conscious observation.

The results of a measurement must be observed to know that it actually collapses the wave, so in this respect the measuring device is actually observing the process.

False. Read the paper I cited.

Sorry, it didn't. With all due respect, I wish you would consider the thoughts of others more carefully before asserting your own.

Sorry, I don't respect ideas that have been ruled out by experiment.

Saying that just shows that you haven't bothered to really consider what I said, or else you totally misinterpreted or misunderstood it. It simply means that I also cannot respect your arguments. It's totally unnecessary, especially for someone with the username "Rational_Thinker9119".

My username suits me fine, as I adhere to the conclusions of scientific experiments. You say there are "objections", well, then post some! Without any counter evidence I am in my right to accept experimental results.