God is Easily disproven through Quantum mechanics.

1. The Heisenburg uncertainty priciple states that it is impossible to know the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. You can know one or the other but not both. An all knowing god is a direct contridiction to this

2. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says that untill a quantum system is observed it exists in a superposition of all posible states. It has been measured in expeiments that superposition of states does exist. If god is some all seeing observer he would cause the superposition of states to end so therefore no experiments would show these results.

3. The outcome of a quantum reaction is totally random so therefore unknowable. Meaning god cant predict it.

4. For god to "see" what is going on everywhere else he must exchange a particle with it. Since nothing can travel faster than light he can't "see" anything that the light hasen't reached him for. It would also require an infinite number of particle interactions which should be easily detectable.

5. The observer is an important part of any quantum system. As the ultimate observer god would show up in every quantum experiment which he dosen't.

6. Quantum mechanics eliminates the need for a god in one of two ways. In the Copenhagen interpretation the universe exsists in a superposition of sates until intelligent life becomes possible. That possibility causes the waveform collapse in such a way so intelligent life evolves. the other possibility is that there are a near infinite number of multiple universes so its amolst inevitable for intelegent life to evolve in some of them.

If God exists quantum mechanics must be wrong and there is a lot more experimental evidence for quantum mechanics than god.

Neutrino,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

Nice try but I think your suggestion rests on material interactions. Gods are defined as being immaterial; a form of existence that is beyond our comprehension. Presumably such a god would not need to exchange particles to observe quantum states.

So you would need to show that an immaterial god must become material in some form for it to interact at the quantum level.

Cris

Some do require material existance but the ones involving the role of the observer do not, and my point that there dose not need to be a god still holds. Anywayanything that is not material dosent exist so by your own argument there is no god.

[QUOTE]Some do require material existance but the ones involving the role of the observer do not, and my point that there dose not need to be a god still holds. Anywayanything that is not material dosent exist so by your own argument there is no god.[QUOTE]

The trouble here is that you're trying to prove a negative "God doesn't exist." which is impossible... unless, of course, you're omniscient. ;)

However, you can say that God does not have a omniscient, omnipresent, physical manifestation in this time/space continuum. But that's kind of obvious. We'd bump into him all the time.

Likewise, proof that God is not necessary for <insert your example here> is not disproof of God. Only that he's not necessary for <previous example>. Which is rather circular.

Of course, neither of these things in any suggests that God does exist.

~Raithere

Neutrino,

Anyway anything that is not material doesn’t exist so by your own argument there is no god.That’s true but only as far as science is concerned since science only studies the material universe.

Can we be sure that there isn’t another form of existence that is not material?

Cris

Can we be sure that there isn’t another form of existence that is not material?

Can we be sure that there is no Tooth Fairy? No Puff the Magic Dragon? Can we be absolutely sure of anything?

Reminds me of a poem!

The Sceptic

My Father Christmas passed away
When I was barely seven.
At twenty-one, alack-a-day,
I lost my hope of heaven.

Yet not in either lies the curse:
The hell of it's because
I don't know which loss hurt the worse --
My God or Santa Claus.

Robert Service.

Xev,

Can we be sure that there is no Tooth Fairy? No Puff the Magic Dragon? Can we be absolutely sure of anything? Ah ha, you haven’t seen my earlier posts about my IIFGE (Invisible Immaterial Flying Green Elephant).

You see, using inductive logic and the statements from truthseeker who says that anything is possible (probably using love), then my IIFGE must exist, and if an IIFGE can exist well then so can gods, right? :D

Cris

Well, I'm ready to convert! What are the tenents of 'Invisible Flying Green Elephent -ism'?

Oh wait, there is Cthulhu....

I shall confess, this is what got me started on my babbling about Great Cthulhu.

I attempted to clarify Aquinas' 'proof' of God's existance by substituting 'Great Cthulhu' for 'God'.

I don't think the word "god" refers to a being which is intrinsically immaterial. Check out Cthulhu.

As for that Uncertainty thing and not being able to measure both position and motion at the same time, well, maybe some day we'll be able to. It's really not such a great big whopping LAW.

Um, actually Adam, this uncertainty thing *is* a law. We will never ever ever be able to measure the exact position and momentum of a particle. If you think this isn't a law, go ask a physicist. As for god being immaterial... for god to know anything about the universe he'd have to interact with it. Just drop me an email when we measure the god interaction. (And please don't post saying we already have, we haven't.) Stay out of trouble you crazy kids. :p

Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
Um, actually Adam, this uncertainty thing *is* a law. We will never ever ever be able to measure the exact position and momentum of a particle. If you think this isn't a law, go ask a physicist.

Nice future-telling abilities you have there. :p

Spyfox,

I agree with Adam, laws can change. I believe Newton had some nice laws of motion until Einstein pointed out a need to change them.

Never say never, since we cannot know what the future holds.

Cris

Quantum Physics.

The issue here is that the process of observing affects what is being observed so we can never obtain an accurate observation.

The limitation comes from our current methods of observation, i.e. an exchange of particles. And I will admit I can't imagine any other potential method, but the human race has proved itself ingenious in many ways, so maybe there will be a way one day.

In the meantime we have little choice but to assume the law is true and work with it until we have evidence that indicates a change is needed.

The Supernatural.

The issue with an alleged supernatural realm is again one of observation and detection. All the time it is allegedly immaterial then it can never interact with our material universe. It will have all the properties identical to an item that does not exist, in which case as far as we are concerned it doesn’t exist.

If an alleged supernatural entity (e.g. gods and souls) can be shown to interact with the material universe then that entity will have become material or have a material component. At that point the phenomena will lose its mystery and will move from the realm of superstition and into the realm of science where it can be studied and understood.

So far no such material interactions have been detected and there seems to be no credible reason to expect such interactions will ever be detected.

Note that this isn't a law that one day might change, but the supernatural is just another unsubstantiated hypothesis that has so far not been able to attract any supporting evidence.

Cris

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle is a fundemental law of nature. If you can disprove it (HAHAHAHAHA), then I might consider believing in a god.

Actualy its easy to prove something is wrong, 2+2=5 is wrong and easily proven wrong. Its actually impossible to prove anything right, all you can do is keep experimenting untill an experiment disproves the theory.

For those of you who say that the uncertainty principle is wrong you should know that all experimental evidence suggests that the uncertainty priciple is in fact the most fundemental law of the universe. I accept that it may be wrong but not according to any current evidence which is the only thing that counts.


However I will accept an immaterial god that dosent show up in experiments. This would require that god is incapable of interacting with normal matter so not only could he not have created the universe he cant control it or even see whats going on in it.

If nessesary i can give exact experimental evidence for anyof my points. Id just like to see any of you give me evidence for god.

P.S. Cant any of you attack my other points they're so much more interesting to argue about:)

Yea, waveform collapse owns!
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

1) The Heisenburg uncertainty priciple states that it is impossible to know the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

This would be true if you were not that particle and only observing it.

2) Holism or non-seperability of physics would create a scenario where this principle would not contradict God. God would be the in part the superimposed state rather than externally observing the state.

3) Nothing is wholely random as in chaos theory it never returns to the state once travelled. Over time the predictability would increase until the last position would be known prior to the event.

4) For god to "see" what is going on everywhere else he must exchange a particle with it. Since nothing can travel faster than light he can't "see" anything that the light hasen't reached him for.

Well one thing does travel faster than light. Quantum communication exchanging information under the conditions of quantum entanglement. Appearing instantaneous. So again if God was the greater whole than the sum of the parts and was a superposition on All real members of exisatnce and quantumly entagled with All real members then it is possible for such a definition of God to be "Aware" of all real members of existance.

5) As the ultimate observer god would show up in every quantum experiment which he dosen't.

Doesn't God. What if God was the greater whole of the sum of the parts and as such entangled with all parts in a holisitc system. Everything we would see would be part of such a God.

6) Intelligence has not eliminated the process of superposition and entanglement proves it. In fact entanglement of awareness on a universal scale would create a situation where the observed knew to react to the observer. Why would it happen? Possibly becuase awareness is a system wide event and inter-dependent.

Originally posted by Neutrino_Albatross
If God exists quantum mechanics must be wrong and there is a lot more experimental evidence for quantum mechanics than god. No. If God(s) exist it/they are not subject to the laws of physics. In other words, you've noted that a supernatural deity must be supernatural - a somewhat underwhelming announcement.

Adam, do you even know what a scientific law is? If not, kindly leave and kiss a camel's ass.

So sick of those idiots who don't know what a scientific theory is and what a scientific law is.

World famous N00b quote:
"But it's just a theory and not a LAW, so THERE!"

It exudes a powerful stench of mental retardation ......


And same insult goes to those idiots who think science is static.

The one massive advantage science has over religion in explaining this world is PROGRESS: science constantly changes and corrects itself as new info comes in. Religion just yells It contradicts my GOD it's BLASPHEMY and HERESY and ends up looking as moronic as the RCC.

Consider this.

Can a logical system adapt it's indemonstratable premises under the theories of foundationalism?

It may adapt it's conclusions but not the foundation premises.

A God believer could be considered person who adheres to logical systems that merely assume in the indemonstratable axiomic set the premise that God exists.

Religions go one further to assume in their logical sets the various scriptures they assume to be true.

Though all axiomic systems must have premises which must be assumed true because backward validation would be circular in nature and inconsistant.

Granted even math is not internally consistant and all quantitative logical systems assume it as a indemonstratable premise in their axiomic sets.

The old argument that my belief is better than yours because I make better assumptions is hardly valid when you cannot demonstrate those assumptions.

Perhaps the Heisenberg principle applies not only to quantom physics but also to any microscopic endevour that man undertakes. When we get down to the miniutia of any declared statement we hit a nebulous, uncertain and incomplete understaning of what is exactly stated. Do you get my drift guys?

Logical systems have certain premises that must be assumed true. They cannot be proven to be true by other axioms in the set.

If possible to be proven then they are not assumed and cannot be used as a base assumption to derive initial conclusions as they are a conclusion themself. Without base assumptions you have no basis to derive any conclusions on which to build the Logical system and these "must" be indemostratable.

Hence I concurr with your statement: .incomplete understanding

and further propose it is necessary to any system in order for it to maintain a consistancy without infinite regress.

A similar example of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is the the inexact value of Pi. Since we dont know the exact value of Pi all measurements dealing with circles are approximations. No matter how many places Pi is calculated is still an approximation. We will simply never know the exact value of a circle.

A perfect circle is unknown in nature, could it be that Pi is telling us that we will never know the universe exactly?That the truth will always evade us? Maybe Pi was put there to show our limitations.

Is this circular logic?:confused:

Nice work, Greco.

I think the Many Worlds theory as necessitated by the Uncertainty principle also does a lot for explaining what happened in the garden of Eden.

Neutrino,

If God created everything and set it into motion she would not need to observe. She would know without looking where all of her precious little particles are at all times. It is just a mater mathmatics.

pointed out. Pie is incmplete.

Though Math is incomplete and cannot be anymore than an approximation.

Indeed if it was resolved it would be illogical and invalidate itself.


Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules an axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html (Godel)

Whereas Aristotle noticed the inconsistancy far earlier and created foundationalism to escape the self validation problem. Aristotle deduced there would be no system which could prove it's own first axioms. If they are provable from the existing first axioms then they are not first premises and should be removed from the initial set and concluded later. What you end up with are premises you must assume and cannot be proven by the system to arrive at any future conclusions. To prove them within the system you would have to use the conclusions you derived from them and fall into the trap of circular logical validation. Invalidation by internal consistancy.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I think the Many Worlds theory as necessitated by the Uncertainty principle ... Buffoon. :D