My proof for God. Critiques please

[glowingembers]

We don’t see the particle appearing from nowhere however…

Just because we at present cannot define what is causing it to be able to change its position when it seems not to have enough energy does not mean it is acting randomly - however.

To argue that it is essentially doing that is to make the same mistake as people did before they understood about Germs; and to make all sorts of absurd claims about how diseases spread.

Even if there was a cause that would direct the particle it seems that this cause would be irrelevant because the particle would still behave as if there were no cause, that is randomly.

A number of authors, like Stenger in the article I mentioned above, have suggested that the universe appeared as a quantum tunneling from a region smaller than Planck scale, which is a void where nothing is defined. Sure, it was not observed, but it is a possibility implied by well established and experimentally confirmed physical theory.

 

[rvilbig]

Even if there was a cause that would direct the particle it seems that this cause would be irrelevant because the particle would still behave as if there were no cause, that is randomly.

A number of authors, like Stenger in the article I mentioned above, have suggested that the universe appeared as a quantum tunneling from a region smaller than Planck scale, which is a void where nothing is defined. Sure, it was not observed, but it is a possibility implied by well established and experimentally confirmed physical theory.

Quantum mechanics is not random, as argued by Wolfgang Smith:

“For the collapse of the state vector associated with a determination of X presents itself as a discontinuity, and thus as an instantaneous event. And unlike the discontinuities one encounters in the classical domain, this quantum mechanical discontinuity does not arise from an underlying continuity by way of approximation, but proves to be irreducible in principle to any continuous temporal process. …] Continuity, one can say, is indicative of the material substrate, whereas discontinuity is indeed the hallmark of the creative act” (Quantum Enigma, page 106-7).

If the universe emerged from an uncaused quantum tunneling event, one must still explain the origin of the wavefunction describing that tunneling, all of which ultimately leads to the uncaused Cause, which is, by definition, God.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[glowingembers]

“For the collapse of the state vector associated with a determination of X presents itself as a discontinuity, and thus as an instantaneous event. And unlike the discontinuities one encounters in the classical domain, this quantum mechanical discontinuity does not arise from an underlying continuity by way of approximation, but proves to be irreducible in principle to any continuous temporal process. …] Continuity, one can say, is indicative of the material substrate, whereas discontinuity is indeed the hallmark of the creative act” (Quantum Enigma, page 106-7).

Well, not sure what he means by “creative act”? The collapse of the state vector of a measured object happens when this object interacts with a measuring object.

If the universe emerged from an uncaused quantum tunneling event, one must still explain the origin of the wavefunction describing that tunneling, all of which ultimately leads to the uncaused Cause, which is, by definition, God.

For Victor Stenger, it leads to nothingness. This is beyond my knowledge of physics, but he basically shows that laws of quantum mechanics can be derived from abstract symmetries, and nothingness is perfectly symmetric because in whatever coordinate system you describe it, it is always the same - nothing. So nothingness contains all imaginable symmetries and thus the laws of quantum mechanics are necessarily embedded in it, so goes his reasoning. If you understand quantum mechanics here are the details:
colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Laws.pdf
colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Lawhigh.ppt

 

[rvilbig]

Well, not sure what he means by “creative act”? The collapse of the state vector of a measured object happens when this object interacts with a measuring object.

For Victor Stenger, it leads to nothingness. This is beyond my knowledge of physics, but he basically shows that laws of quantum mechanics can be derived from abstract symmetries, and nothingness is perfectly symmetric because in whatever coordinate system you describe it, it is always the same - nothing. So nothingness contains all imaginable symmetries and thus the laws of quantum mechanics are necessarily embedded in it, so goes his reasoning. If you understand quantum mechanics here are the details:
colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Laws.pdf
colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Lawhigh.ppt

Hmm… Stenger’s definition of *nothing *includes *something *- “all imaginable symmetries;” really his definition of nothing includes everything, which is a contradiction. Furthermore, he supposes that the transition from “all imaginable symmetries” to only one imaginable symmetry (i.e. this particular universe) occurs without a cause; this is counterintuitive. It really seems that Stenger has stumbled upon the Aristotelean concept of potency and act (which is how Heisenberg described quantum mechanics). For example, right now I have the potential to pursue all imaginable, or potential, future courses of actions, however, I choose, or actualize, only one. The reduction of these potencies to act, requires that I already exist in actuality. This is because "“whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality.” (Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. 3, a. 1 ) Therefore, actuality always precedes potentiality. The pure actuality preceding everything is known by the Christian to be God (cf. ibid I, q. 3 art 2)

Hope this helps/ makes sense.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[coolduude]

bonzerdad;:

I hate to answer a question with another question. But what makes you think that the past can only have been created by successive addition? I ask this only because understanding the nature of time as finite is what your argument stands or falls on.

Well really, how else could the past have formed? Ideas?

I believe the past to have been formed by successive addition because that’s really how I see it:

An event was once in the future (say, the first 4th of July in 1776).On July 4th, 1776, that day was in the present. Ever since then it has been in the past. So, as you can see, the event was once in the future (July 3rd, 1776), then the present (July 4th, 1776), and then the past (July 5th, 1776 to the present).

As I demonstrated, the past has been formed by successive addition

 

[Moonstruck888]

Isn’t Quantum tunneling just a particle transferring through a barrier? I don’t see how it in any way shows a particle appearing ex-nihilo.

In Quantum Theory, every point in spacetime is potentially any particle at large, if the correct amount of energy is directed at it. For once I’m forced to agree with you. It does not follow from ideas about Quantum foam that anything is being gotten for nothing.

 

[Stylites]

Young’s Theorum: The probability of a phenomenon’s existence is directly proportional to how easy it is to observe.

There is nothing easier in the world than to directly observe God in heaven amid all His glory, supposing that it is also easy for the observer to surrender their ego first.

Stylites Law: “The ability to see God is inversely proportional to the amount of ego blocking the clear view.”

.

 

[glowingembers]

Hmm… Stenger’s definition of *nothing *includes *something *- “all imaginable symmetries;” really his definition of nothing includes everything, which is a contradiction.

However this definition seems equivalent to saying that in whatever coordinate system you describe nothing it looks always the same, namely as nothing, which seems pretty obvious. Nothingness has the property of perfect symmetry but this property is simply the property of being nothingness. Is it a contradiction to say that nothingness has a property of being nothingness? If so, then nothingness is logically impossible and we can instead label the state of perfect symmetry with a word like “potential”, but that’s just quibbling about labels.

Furthermore, he supposes that the transition from “all imaginable symmetries” to only one imaginable symmetry (i.e. this particular universe) occurs without a cause; this is counterintuitive.

It is counterintuitive to our everyday experience, which is governed by classical physics. In quantum physics however, you cannot derive an effect from a cause. If you measure the position of a particle, sometimes you find it here, sometimes there or over there, and there is no cause that determines that the particle is located in a particular place at a particular time.

 

[bonzerdad]

@Coolduude

If you’re in the USA, as I am Have a great weekend. Mary and I have houseguests who arrived here in Phoenix when the temperature yesterday at the airport was 114 F, which should let you know that we know some truly, probably certifiably, insane people.

I do have two of what Thomas A would call Objections in the Summa T, and one of them would constitute “another way” to offer for your response. And that will have to do with relativity theory and the space-time continuum concept. I will be back at you next week.

 

[rvilbig]

However this definition seems equivalent to saying that in whatever coordinate system you describe nothing it looks always the same, namely as nothing, which seems pretty obvious. Nothingness has the property of perfect symmetry but this property is simply the property of being nothingness. Is it a contradiction to say that nothingness has a property of being nothingness? If so, then nothingness is logically impossible and we can instead label the state of perfect symmetry with a word like “potential”, but that’s just quibbling about labels.

If nothingness can be described by a coordinate system, then it is not nothing, because it occupies space. Stenger needs to work through his definitions. Perhaps I’ll correspond with him when I have some time to look over his writings.

It is counterintuitive to our everyday experience, which is governed by classical physics. In quantum physics however, you cannot derive an effect from a cause. If you measure the position of a particle, sometimes you find it here, sometimes there or over there, and there is no cause that determines that the particle is located in a particular place at a particular time.

Do you see how you’re assuming your own conclusion? You assume that the selected value in the collapse of state function is without cause to prove that quantum mechanics operates without causes. It seems the fundamental problem is that we’ve failed to distinguish between physical determinism and Divine determinism. After all, the course of events that God chooses to actualize in the universe are often unknown to man: “Truly, you are a God who hide yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior” (Is 45:15). Perhaps Bohm’s hidden variables only exist in the mind of God.

Hopefully this was helpful,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[glowingembers]

If nothingness can be described by a coordinate system, then it is not nothing, because it occupies space. Stenger needs to work through his definitions. Perhaps I’ll correspond with him when I have some time to look over his writings.

I guess you can describe nothingness in any coordinate system by assigning it no values on the coordinate axes. That’s why the description of nothingness doesn’t differ in different coordinate systems.

Victor Stenger participates in an email discussion list called avoid-L. You can sign up for it on his webpage: colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html
I am a member too.

Do you see how you’re assuming your own conclusion? You assume that the selected value in the collapse of state function is without cause to prove that quantum mechanics operates without causes. It seems the fundamental problem is that we’ve failed to distinguish between physical determinism and Divine determinism. After all, the course of events that God chooses to actualize in the universe are often unknown to man: “Truly, you are a God who hide yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior” (Is 45:15). Perhaps Bohm’s hidden variables only exist in the mind of God.

Well, the only deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics that I heard of is this David Bohm interpretation, which has quite a problem - it is incompatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity (don’t ask me how, I just read that it is not Lorentz invariant and requires faster-than-light transfer of information).

 

[verum_peto_1]

Before I show my proof for God, I just want to say that I’m building on the Kalam argument. This isn’t an original argument, just my expansion on a pre-existent one.

1. The past is finite
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
3. Something had to create the universe
4. That something is God

Therefore,
5) God exists.

---

Premise 1). The past is finite.
Support: a) an actual infinite cannot be created by succesive addition (add one, add one, add one, etc.) Perhaps, but then there is an infinite number of rational numbers between just two integers. Therefore, this support for the premise is false, because infinity can exist even within the finite, and need not be accumulated in a piecewise fashion.
b) the past was created by succesive addition of events. Take, for example, your birth. At one time, it was in the future (i.e., when you were concieved). At the moment of your birth, it was in the present. Today, it’s in the past. So, the past was created by sucessive addition of eventsIf support a is false, then so is this.
c) Therefore, the past is finite.

Premise 2). There was a point when the universe did not exist.
Support: Based on the above proof (finitude of the past) there was a point when the universe did not exist. This conclusion is only logical once one accepts that the past had a definite beginning, and is therefore not infinite. There was a point when there was no existence then there was. Creation ex nihilo (sp.) if you will. First, you need to prove premise number one.

Premise 3). Something had to create the universe.
Support: Again, this is a logical conclusion once the finitude of the past is accepted. The universe could not have created itself if there was nothing there in the first place. Therefore, there must have been an outside force to create the universe. How am I doing so far? Not very well, because you are headed into the wall which is known and the “first cause” refutation of your argument.

Premise 4). That something is God.
Support: What else could it be? I know the support is lacking some on this premise, but I really don’t know how to formulate support. Once objections are raised, however, I’ll show better support. I just seem to be at a loss right now. The problem with this argument is that it implies that something must have created God, and then what created the thing that created God. I don’t think that a logical argument of this type can withstand the scrutiny of logic.

Premise 5). Therefore, God exists.
Support: After examining (sp.) the other 4 premises, this is a logical conclusion that can be drawn. I submit that all you have “proved” is that a “first cause” argument contradicts itself logically, and is therefore unsound. God exists, but cannot be proved with this sort of argument.

So, what are some objections and/or critques for this proof? I’m all ears!

 

[rvilbig]

I guess you can describe nothingness in any coordinate system by assigning it no values on the coordinate axes. That’s why the description of nothingness doesn’t differ in different coordinate systems.

Victor Stenger participates in an email discussion list called avoid-L. You can sign up for it on his webpage: colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html
I am a member too.

Thanks for the info. I will look into Stenger’s writings. Also, by assigning nothingness “no value on the coordinate axes” you haven’t described it at all in the coordinate system, so you can’t rotate it because it’s not there. His premises are flawed.

Well, the only deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics that I heard of is this David Bohm interpretation, which has quite a problem - it is incompatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity (don’t ask me how, I just read that it is not Lorentz invariant and requires faster-than-light transfer of information).

I’m actually not advocating Bohm’s interpretation. I think Smith’s interpretation is the most reasonable. I was just pointing out that quantum mechanics may plausibly be causally determined by God, and these determinative causes cannot be observed in the materially world; that is, they are hidden. This is certainly consistent with the Catholic understanding of God’s immanence: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work.” (Jn 5:17) Make sense?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[glowingembers]

Also, by assigning nothingness “no value on the coordinate axes” you haven’t described it at all in the coordinate system, so you can’t rotate it because it’s not there. His premises are flawed.

Then you can rotate the coordinate axes and nothingness will not change with respect to the rotated axes. What else can be a state of perfect symmetry?

I’m actually not advocating Bohm’s interpretation. I think Smith’s interpretation is the most reasonable. I was just pointing out that quantum mechanics may plausibly be causally determined by God, and these determinative causes cannot be observed in the materially world; that is, they are hidden. This is certainly consistent with the Catholic understanding of God’s immanence: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work.” (Jn 5:17) Make sense?

But how is it relevant when God’s actions are indistinguishable from randomness predicted by quantum mechanical formalism?

 

[rvilbig]

Then you can rotate the coordinate axes and nothingness will not change with respect to the rotated axes. What else can be a state of perfect symmetry?

“By your words you will be condemned” (Mt 12:37). Nothingness was neither on the axis before or after the rotation. You cannot graph nothingness. Speaking of its “rotation” is completely nonsensical.

But how is it relevant when God’s actions are indistinguishable from randomness predicted by quantum mechanical formalism?

Again you’re assuming that quantum mechanical formalism is random. Nothing is random. God is the Author of both the deterministic laws and indeterministic outcomes found in nature. For example, quantum mechanics underlies the genetic mutations of evolution, but as Newman says “evolution is accidental to us, but not to God.” Unless you’re trying to say that God did not create life, which would completely contradict thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching. Obviously, quantum mechanical outcomes are unpredictable from our limited perspective, but not God’s. The truths of the Faith demand it be so.

You need to get to confession quickly. “Hurry, make haste, stay not.” (1 Samuel 20:38)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[glowingembers]

“By your words you will be condemned” (Mt 12:37). Nothingness was neither on the axis before or after the rotation. You cannot graph nothingness. Speaking of its “rotation” is completely nonsensical.

Of course it was not there. And that’s why it couldn’t change no matter how you rotated coordinate axes. There is nothing to change.

 

[momor]

Perhaps, but then there is an infinite number of rational numbers between just two integers. Therefore, this support for the premise is false, because infinity can exist even within the finite, and need not be accumulated in a piecewise fashion.

How can a true infinity fit between 2 endpoints? We may not be able to count it but it’s countable by definition if it has a beginning and an end.

 

[momor]

Because we exist and have a beginning there are 2 concepts the human mind will never be able to truly understand IMO:

nothingness
always was

Perhaps we will understand in heaven or perhaps the understanding of it is so close to the nature of God that even in heaven it will never be understood by angels or humans.

 

[Moonstruck888]

How can a true infinity fit between 2 endpoints? We may not be able to count it but it’s countable by definition if it has a beginning and an end.

I can assure you, he’s quite right. There is an infinite set of numbers between any two numbers

 

[Moonstruck888]

There is nothing easier in the world than to directly observe God in heaven amid all His glory, supposing that it is also easy for the observer to surrender their ego first.

Stylites Law: “The ability to see God is inversely proportional to the amount of ego blocking the clear view.”

.

Excellent. What height is he? What weight is he? What colour is he?