Evidence for God from Science

SweetMonkeyLove wrote: It is also an ultimate leap of faith as you put it to assume a purpose to everything. I feel it stems from mankinds inherit fear of death. And fair enough we all need comfort on some level be it human interaction or belief in God. In no way do I claim a higher ground I am just very interested in what makes people tick (so to speak). I hold no malicious intent for anyone who does no intentional harm to others. I am no better than the next person. I like speaking with you Danny in no way are you condescending or closed minded. If more people carried themselves like you have here I think the church would grow in leaps and bounds and start on the path of tolerance of all people. Thats what I am intersted in - not the abolishment of religion but the growth of tolerance within it. Religion isn't going anywhere. Whether God exists or not is not the point IMO the point is that people seem to like killing each other over beliefs. Many justify the deaths of people in non Christian countrys as punishment from God as a result of idolitry or infidelity. This closed minded approach breeds apathy and hatred.
ty for the discussion DannyM

Ah but humans have always seen purpose to life and existence. It requires an astonishing amount of faith to believe there is NOTHING behind our existence. The wishful thinking argument has also been dispelled. As your very own Steven Pinker said, a freezing cold man gains no comfort by believing he is warm. Sociologist Peter Berger, in his The Desecularisation of the World: Resurgent Religion and World politics, said "The religious impulse, the quest for meaning that transcends the restricted space of empirical existence in this world, has been a perennial feature of humanity." The strict empiricist, who believes himself to be "enlightened" and super-rational, has indeed succumbed to the ego of pure reason. Kant destroyed this illusion. "Tolerance" is also something which the CofE has shown in abundance for years and years now. The result: dwindling congregations and further scorn from atheists. Christianity in the world is actually on the rise- has been for some time. Religion across the world is thriving.

Thanks for your kind words, SML, and straight back atcha! Do stick around because, if you truly have an open mind, then this is the place for answers to searching questions and for robust debate.

FL,

We can all agree that we view atheism as an irrational position. We can even agree that, at some level, they reject God, whether they know it and are aware of it. Obviously some are more agnostic in their positions whether or not they want to claim that term. However we have seen some civil discourse here and it would be a shame for that to erode because of name-calling.

Being a windbag is not something that is a sole characteristic of atheists. I have been in the company of some world class Christian windbags. And obviously there are some world-class atheist windbags.

Let's stick to arguing the points and let's all avoid being windbags.

zoegirl wrote:FL,

We can all agree that we view atheism as an irrational position. We can even agree that, at some level, they reject God, whether they know it and are aware of it. Obviously some are more agnostic in their positions whether or not they want to claim that term. However we have seen some civil discourse here and it would be a shame for that to erode because of name-calling.

Being a windbag is not something that is a sole characteristic of atheists. I have been in the company of some world class Christian windbags. And obviously there are some world-class atheist windbags.

Let's stick to arguing the points and let's all avoid being windbags.

You make a lot of sense, as usual.

My apologies to all whose feelings were hurt.

FL

zoegirl wrote:

Being a windbag is not something that is a sole characteristic of atheists. I have been in the company of some world class Christian windbags. And obviously there are some world-class atheist windbags.

Let's stick to arguing the points and let's all avoid being windbags.

Well put Zoegirl.
No worries FL

First off, what Byblos described is just an interpretation. There are other interpretations, such as the hidden variables. Our knowledge about quantum physics is not complete. That doesn't mean God exists.

Byblos wrote:The shocker is that when very small particles like photons for example are sent through, many columns are formed on the back board, as if the particles were behaving like waves, not solid elements. At first, scientists were baffled and thought that it was due to interference. So they fired the photons one at a time to completely eliminate interference. Several hours later they observed the same thing, many columns on the back board. What? What does this mean? Solid matter is behaving as a wave? At least at the quantum level? Hold on to your hats, this was only the beginning of their shock.

Next they thought they were clever so they set up instruments to detect which slits the photons were going through. Imagine their shock to discover that when the photons were being observed they went back to behaving like solid particles and form 2 columns on the back board. It's as if the particles were aware of when they were being observed and adjusted accordingly.

Welcome to the weird world of quantum physics, of questioning what is really matter. What is reality?

If at the most basic level particles are really waves and become solid matter only when observed, and if we and everything around us is solid matter, then who is observing us? Would it not follow, scientifically as it were, that since for solid matter to exist it must be observed, that therefore an observer is required and by definition must be from outside of this universe?

Is the science of quantum physics pointing us to God?

Thoughts?

I think your conclusion is faulty. If God is watching everything, then how do you expect for any electron to ever behave like a wave if there is a constant observer? Also, the measuring device that humans used was mechanical - it had no consciousness; we ourselves did not directly observe an electron since that would be impossible. Or is God a robot?

There is something that we're missing here, and to claim that it's God is a non-sequitur. Besides, "Particle" and "Wave" are simply terms that we ascribe to things that we see in nature. This does not mean that everything in nature is obliged to nicely fit into these categories we have created. There is nothing illogical about something acting as both a particle and a wave on the quantum level.

Kynaros wrote:First off, what Byblos described is just an interpretation. There are other interpretations, such as the hidden variables.

As far as I know, the hidden variable theory has been experimentally ruled out.

To the original question, I will quote experimental physicist Leonard Mandel:
""... in an experiment the state reflects not what is actualy known about the system, but rather what is knowable, in principle, with the help of auxiliary measurements that do not disturb the original experiment. By focusing on what is knowable in principle, and treating what is known as largely irrelevant, one completely avoids the anthropomorphism and any reference to consciousness that some physicists have tried to inject into quantum mechanics"

It is from this article (http://xian.name/en/eBook/Quantum%20eff ... erence.pdf). I am afraid, that to see why Mandel wrote what he wrote, one has to look into the article. (I will help you with it.)

1over137 wrote:

Kynaros wrote:First off, what Byblos described is just an interpretation. There are other interpretations, such as the hidden variables.

As far as I know, the hidden variable theory has been experimentally ruled out.

To the original question, I will quote experimental physicist Leonard Mandel:
""... in an experiment the state reflects not what is actualy known about the system, but rather what is knowable, in principle, with the help of auxiliary measurements that do not disturb the original experiment. By focusing on what is knowable in principle, and treating what is known as largely irrelevant, one completely avoids the anthropomorphism and any reference to consciousness that some physicists have tried to inject into quantum mechanics"

It is from this article (http://xian.name/en/eBook/Quantum%20eff ... erence.pdf). I am afraid, that to see why Mandel wrote what he wrote, one has to look into the article. (I will help you with it.)

I attempted to read it, gave up and went straight to the conclusion. Okay so how do we determine what is knowable without having any kind of consciousness interfere with the process?

Sorry for not telling you before, but focus on the experiment on Figure 6. The relevant text starts with sentence

"Figure 6 illustrates a one-photon interference experiment with two downconverters that exhibits interesting nonclassical features."

and end with sentence

"By focusing on what is knowable in principle, and treating what is known as largely irrelevant, one completely avoids the anthropomorphism and any reference to consciousness that some physicists have tried to inject into quantum mechanics."

In the experiment we either let the idler photon i1 allow to reach the crystal NL2 or we block it. If we allow to reach the crystal it produces further signal photon s2 and idler photon i2. The consequence is that we cannot distinguish whether photon s1 or photon s2 ended up in the detector Ds. Thus an interference pattern is observed as we move the beam splitter Bs in a direction normal to its face.

If we block the idler photon i2 we ask whether we can distinguish whether photon s1 or photon s2 ended up in the decector Ds. It turns out that we can by placing the second detector Di on the place as depicted on the Figure. If the detection of the singal photon by detector Ds is accompanied by the simultaneous detection of an idler photon by detector Di, then the signal photon must have come from crystal NL2 and we do not observe an interference pattern.

The point is, that we do not have to carry out the auxiliary measurement with Di, the mere possibility, in principle, that such a measurement could determine the source of the signal photon is sufficient to kill the interference of s1 and s2.

I didn't read the thread at all so forgive me if this has been discussed.

Some are saying that something has to be observing everything in order for all the matter to stay put. If God is in fact watching everything and making everything be matter, then why are there waves when we stop looking? Wouldn't everything behave the way we observe when watching it because God is always watching it?