Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:In a word, No.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

Yes.

I find it interesting that when something behaves in a way we don't expect our first response is that it is gods work and we treat it as evidence of god. There was a time in humanitys history when we believed that there were four basic 'elements' that made up the universe (earth wind air water) but of course we know today that this is preposterous and that the universe is made up of chemical elements like hydrogen and helium. This does not point to god it means that there is a force acting that we don't understand yet. Don't get me wrong I am not a physisist, however the only eveidence I see here is that something is happening that we don't understand yet. That could be anything.

touchingcloth wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:In a word, No.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

Yes.

Apparently you don't. If I see another response like this from you TC, I will issue a warning, at minimum.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:I find it interesting that when something behaves in a way we don't expect our first response is that it is gods work and we treat it as evidence of god. There was a time in humanitys history when we believed that there were four basic 'elements' that made up the universe (earth wind air water) but of course we know today that this is preposterous and that the universe is made up of chemical elements like hydrogen and helium. This does not point to god it means that there is a force acting that we don't understand yet. Don't get me wrong I am not a physisist, however the only evidence I see here is that something is happening that we don't understand yet. That could be anything.

Not everyone see's unexplained things as "God's work," although for the Christian, all is God's work. . . . I don't know, your concern here seems really irrelevant to me. I don't mean to be insulting, but as a Christian, I don't really know anyone who talks like what you're saying here.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:I find it interesting that when something behaves in a way we don't expect our first response is that it is gods work and we treat it as evidence of god. There was a time in humanitys history when we believed that there were four basic 'elements' that made up the universe (earth wind air water) but of course we know today that this is preposterous and that the universe is made up of chemical elements like hydrogen and helium. This does not point to god it means that there is a force acting that we don't understand yet. Don't get me wrong I am not a physisist, however the only eveidence I see here is that something is happening that we don't understand yet. That could be anything.

I am simply going where the evidence is pointing. The double slit experiment proves that particles behave differently when they are being observed than when they are not. That's a fact. So much so in fact that scientists already stated that no experiment can be done without the mere observation of it not interfere with the results.

So if particles need observation to behave like matter instead of a wave, and we are all matter, the next logical question any scientist should be asking themselves is well, who is observing us and all the matter in the universe? Moreover, for all matter in the universe to behave like matter, it necessarily must be observable from OUTSIDE the universe. It could be God (that's the first hypothesis I had in mind). But it could also be aliens or invisible green unicorns for all I care, I don't know. I'm just asking questions and making hypotheses. What is the issue with that?

Byblos wrote:So if particles need observation to behave like matter instead of a wave, and we are all matter, the next logical question any scientist should be asking themselves is well, who is observing us and all the matter in the universe? Moreover, for all matter in the universe to behave like matter, it necessarily must be observable from OUTSIDE the universe. It could be God (that's the first hypothesis I had in mind). But it could also be aliens or invisible green unicorns for all I care, I don't know. I'm just asking questions and making hypotheses. What is the issue with that?

For an atheist, it is a very big issue. Any possible evidence of God would has to be explained away either with a theory, or with the mantra of «there are unexplained processes at work.»

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Byblos wrote:So if particles need observation to behave like matter instead of a wave, and we are all matter, the next logical question any scientist should be asking themselves is well, who is observing us and all the matter in the universe? Moreover, for all matter in the universe to behave like matter, it necessarily must be observable from OUTSIDE the universe. It could be God (that's the first hypothesis I had in mind). But it could also be aliens or invisible green unicorns for all I care, I don't know. I'm just asking questions and making hypotheses. What is the issue with that?

For an atheist, it is a very big issue. Any possible evidence of God would has to be explained away either with a theory, or with the mantra of «there are unexplained processes at work.»

FL

Yes, of course.

Except in this case the scientific evidence is leading straight to an observer, not a theory nor an unexplained phenomenon. The most logical conclusion is that someone (and here's the rub, it cannot be a something, it must be an intelligent, self-aware someone) is in the process of constantly observing us, even right now. And here's the other startling conclusion I draw: imagine this someone stops observing us for a mere non-second. We become wave energy instead of matter, our reality as we know it would instantaneously cease to exist. It would really explain in incredible clarity how God literally holds the very fabric of our existence together with His mere thought, how closely engaged He is with his creation, how truly omniscient He is in the real sense of the word, and how He can end it just as quickly by sort of looking away. Boy my mother was so right when she told me God is everywhere. Like any silly kid I asked 'even in the bathroom ma?'. Yes, even in the bathroom, came the answer. She was wise beyond imagination. We are literally held together by His will and watchful eye: absolutely mind-numbing.

Is this a far-fetched hypothesis? Some might say so but I think not; it's as good as any, based on the scientific facts.

Byblos wrote:And here's the other startling conclusion I draw: imagine this someone stops observing us for a mere non-second. We become wave energy instead of matter, our reality as we know it would instantaneously cease to exist.

In quantum experiments like the double-slit "observe" has a different meaning to the colloquial of "see". If you or I observe a plane flying, then we see it because photons are reflecting off it and onto our eyes. Particles like photons don't emit or reflect anything by which we can see the path they take, so "observing" them means sticking a detector in their path to directly interfere with in order to find out where they are (I guess an analogy would be a blind person having to touch something physically to find out where it is, not being able to rely on reflected light). Because observing in this case involves an interaction with the particle, it changes some properties of the particle (it doesn't convert the particle from energy into matter).

In the double slit experiment (or any quantum experiment) you can think of the source of the particle being experimented with (call it X) and the destination of the particle (or where it is being detected, call it Y). In the version of the double slit experiment without detectors to find which slit the photon passed through photons are emitted at X, are allowed to interfere with themselves or each other after passing through the slits and and arrive at the screen Y (we'd say they behave as waves all the way through, because they produce interference patterns on the screen in the way that sound or water waves do.
In the version of the experiment where one or both slits have a detector, we have introduced a new Y into the experiment; the photons are emitted as waves at X and arrive at the detector Y (we'd say they behave as particles or matter when they hit Y, as they have physically bumped into it). However the photons haven't been converted into a particle at this point - between the detector and the screen the photon behaves again like a wave, and you could put a detectorless double slit between the initial double slit and the screen and the interference pattern would be restored.

touchingcloth wrote:

Byblos wrote:And here's the other startling conclusion I draw: imagine this someone stops observing us for a mere non-second. We become wave energy instead of matter, our reality as we know it would instantaneously cease to exist.

In quantum experiments like the double-slit "observe" has a different meaning to the colloquial of "see". If you or I observe a plane flying, then we see it because photons are reflecting off it and onto our eyes. Particles like photons don't emit or reflect anything by which we can see the path they take, so "observing" them means sticking a detector in their path to directly interfere with in order to find out where they are (I guess an analogy would be a blind person having to touch something physically to find out where it is, not being able to rely on reflected light). Because observing in this case involves an interaction with the particle, it changes some properties of the particle (it doesn't convert the particle from energy into matter).

In the double slit experiment (or any quantum experiment) you can think of the source of the particle being experimented with (call it X) and the destination of the particle (or where it is being detected, call it Y). In the version of the double slit experiment without detectors to find which slit the photon passed through photons are emitted at X, are allowed to interfere with themselves or each other after passing through the slits and and arrive at the screen Y (we'd say they behave as waves all the way through, because they produce interference patterns on the screen in the way that sound or water waves do.
In the version of the experiment where one or both slits have a detector, we have introduced a new Y into the experiment; the photons are emitted as waves at X and arrive at the detector Y (we'd say they behave as particles or matter when they hit Y, as they have physically bumped into it). However the photons haven't been converted into a particle at this point - between the detector and the screen the photon behaves again like a wave, and you could put a detectorless double slit between the initial double slit and the screen and the interference pattern would be restored.

I know, you honed in on the weakest point of my post but what you stated doesn't really change anything in the hypothesis I am proposing. I will have a more detailed answer soon.

Byblos wrote: I know, you honed in on the weakest point of my post but what you stated doesn't really change anything in the hypothesis I am proposing. I will have a more detailed answer soon.

The hypothesis you're proposing being that there needs to be an observer outside the universe to turn energy into matter?

Byblos wrote:I know, you honed in on the weakest point of my post but what you stated doesn't really change anything in the hypothesis I am proposing. I will have a more detailed answer soon.

Byblos I'm on the sidelines trying to wrap my head around all this but it is ever so interesting. Thanks.

Byblos wrote:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:I find it interesting that when something behaves in a way we don't expect our first response is that it is gods work and we treat it as evidence of god. There was a time in humanitys history when we believed that there were four basic 'elements' that made up the universe (earth wind air water) but of course we know today that this is preposterous and that the universe is made up of chemical elements like hydrogen and helium. This does not point to god it means that there is a force acting that we don't understand yet. Don't get me wrong I am not a physisist, however the only eveidence I see here is that something is happening that we don't understand yet. That could be anything.

I am simply going where the evidence is pointing. The double slit experiment proves that particles behave differently when they are being observed than when they are not. That's a fact. So much so in fact that scientists already stated that no experiment can be done without the mere observation of it not interfere with the results.

So if particles need observation to behave like matter instead of a wave, and we are all matter, the next logical question any scientist should be asking themselves is well, who is observing us and all the matter in the universe? Moreover, for all matter in the universe to behave like matter, it necessarily must be observable from OUTSIDE the universe. It could be God (that's the first hypothesis I had in mind). But it could also be aliens or invisible green unicorns for all I care, I don't know. I'm just asking questions and making hypotheses. What is the issue with that?

It just seems that whenever humanity is at the limit of our current understanding of any issue we attribute it to god. I don't see this as evidence I see it as the age old condition of explaining the unexplained with the supernatural.

""""Not everyone see's unexplained things as "God's work," although for the Christian, all is God's work. . . . I don't know, your concern here seems really irrelevant to me. I don't mean to be insulting, but as a Christian, I don't really know anyone who talks like what you're saying here.""""

I am not sure what you mean. My concern is not irrelevant, at least to me. I am not sure what I said that is so origional that you have never heard it before. I am not alone in my beliefs. My intention is not to offend, just to point out that the verdict is not in because of something humans can't explain. We used to explain the ailments of micro organisms as punishment for sins. Now we know that there is life on a microscopic level. Who's to say there isn't another discovery around the corner. The unknown is what keeps mankind motivated and vigorous and when our collective predisposition to explain the unknown as supernatural arises, we tend to stop learning becuase we think we have the answers.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:It just seems that whenever humanity is at the limit of our current understanding of any issue we attribute it to god. I don't see this as evidence I see it as the age old condition of explaining the unexplained with the supernatural.

As opposed to the age-old condition of "Well, science may not be able to explain this but we are still working on it"? Do you believe that no truths can be found outside of science?

And what is so wrong with the Christian *asking* the question regarding such a thing as this? I see nothing but honest investigation on this thread; I don't see anyone throwing their hands up and saying Well God "must" be the explanation...

Sorry danny I posted too quick and was editing while you responded.

There is nothing wrong with debate of any kind. The title of this forum is 'Does quantum physics point to god' So the inflection is in the title. My point is simply that because we don't yet understand something does not mean it is god. That is all. It is not an attack on anyone it is my point of view. I am not the kind of person to attack anothers beliefs. Some of the best people I know are religous. This does not mean I have to agree with them. The must accept my views as I accept theirs and if we have a friendly debate along the way then great. Maybe we both learn something.