Proving the Existence of God

[ManRay]

Basically, depending on how you set up the experiment, you can prove that photons (and other subatomic particles) are waves or particles, and that the two are not mutually exclusive, which is counter-intuitive in classical physics, but has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent observers shaping the nature of the universe.

The conflation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (quantum mechanics), the Observer Effect (anthropology), and wave/particle duality, and how these things supposedly amount to “the nature of reality is dictated by perception” is a product of pseudoscientific mystics, not actual scientific evidence. Experiments purporting to support this notion have been repeatedly debunked. Don’t let these people mislead you. The price of knowledge is eternal skepticism

Well from a scientific perspective here’s some newer evidence.

If you send an electron (either that or a split electron can’t remember and doesn’t matter) at a wall with random gaps in it it behaves like a particle. It will hit a flat wall on the other end and spread like baseballs would spread if the same situation was set up on a larger scale. This is how a particle behaves when you do that.

Here is where it get’s really cool : It only behaves in this way if a human is watching it.
If no one is watching, the pattern will end up exactly how a wave behaves.

It gets better! If you don’t watch it while it is in flight from the first wall with the gaps in it to the second wall, it behaves like a wave. If you let it pass through part of the space between the two walls, and then start watching before it hits the second wall… It behaves like a wave up until the INSTANT someone start’s watching. It changes instantly, before the human can see, from a wave to a particle.

If you understood what I just said and didn’t know it before I’m sure you are like what in the world. Go look it up it is no lie.

The Lord told us to pay attention to the physical world and we will see what is going on in the spiritual world.

The second we look at something it changes to mask it’s true nature from us and it becomes BASED ON FAITH. Science proves what our Lord says all the time. If you believe you will understand if you don’t it is impossible to see what is really going on which further adds to your disbelief. Our Lord said “to he who has more will be given. To he who does not what little he has left will be taken from him.” He is talking about faith. These two passages, combined with this new(ish) discovery, prove the existence of God.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Basically, depending on how you set up the experiment, you can prove that photons (and other subatomic particles) are waves or particles, and that the two are not mutually exclusive, which is counter-intuitive in classical physics, but has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent observers shaping the nature of the universe.

The conflation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (quantum mechanics), the Observer Effect (anthropology), and wave/particle duality, and how these things supposedly amount to “the nature of reality is dictated by perception” is a product of pseudoscientific mystics, not actual scientific evidence. Experiments purporting to support this notion have been repeatedly debunked. Don’t let these people mislead you. The price of knowledge is eternal skepticism

When are they waves and when are they particles? That is when the observer effect comes into effect.

The rest of it is linked you just don’t want to see it.

The only way it isn’t linked is if I’m wrong about how the experiment works and what the results were in which case I need more than your word on it because it seemed pretty clear to me.

clarity edit: Of course, we can’t look at them with our eyeballs can we? The point of it is our observation. There is nothing mystical about that.

Also I didn’t say we shape the universe in any way shape or form. Our observation is not what causes it because it is not us willing it to happen. When we observe, it does happen though does it not?

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Furthermore on the same subject as far as the science goes. Why is it that people can sense other people looking at them when they can’t even see them? Please don’t try to debunk that fact it has been proven. plus everyone knows it lol.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

They also “debunked” the fact that the world is round.

You have to have more support for your statements than “someone debunked it”. How did they debunk it what logic did they use. Can you post links to both sides of it because you seem well educated on the subject?

When they did the experiment the particles would behave differently based on whether or not they were being observed and it is instantaneous that is the only point I need to be true for my logic to be valid. Can you invalidate that point? I honestly don’t know a whole lot about it I just heard and read about the experiment.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

are waves or particles, and that the two are not mutually exclusive

Either you are implying that they are waves and particles at the same time, or you are implying that they are waves or particles and not both at the same time.

What decides?

If I’m wrong about what decides I’m very interested to know what it is I got wrong.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And I bet those scientists spent years, and billions - to find out what any mom in the world could have told them.

Put the cookie jar on the table and watch it - the cookies stay there.

Put the cookie jar on the table and turn your back - the cookies disappear.

Put the cookie jar on the table, turn your back, then turn round real quick, little pairs of hands drop cookies from the sky back into the jar.

Electrons, cookies, kids … they all behave differently depending on whether they’re being watched or not

Sarah x

You are now the grand pooba!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Far from it:

kiekeben.com/firstcause.html

Sarah x

One week from today our own Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha gets a promotion! I’m just curious how many others are in a diocese with a parish named after our own home grown saint? (Not our first, of course, but our first Native American!)

I know I broke the thread. But FYI only.

 

[ManRay]

The rest of it is linked you just don’t want to see it.

The only way it isn’t linked is if I’m wrong about how the experiment works and what the results were in which case I need more than your word on it because it seemed pretty clear to me.

clarity edit: Of course, we can’t look at them with our eyeballs can we? The point of it is our observation. There is nothing mystical about that.

Also I didn’t say we shape the universe in any way shape or form. Our observation is not what causes it because it is not us willing it to happen. When we observe, it does happen though does it not?

Please don’t tell me what I don’t want to see - I’ve arguing this quantum quackery for years - the fact that you called it ‘new’ is wrong from the start. Quantum physics has been around since the 1900’s and this is at least 50 years old. You relate the observer to someone watching a dog walk across the street. When a tester claims the “act of observing” collapses the wave pattern, they don’t tell you about the detector itself which measures EM waves and modifies the wave function of the light. If you stuck your eyeball next to the double slit it wouldn’t collapse the wave function. The “act of observing” is only “collapsing” the wave function because of what the detector itself is doing to detect the particle. But I’ll let some of these links explain it for you since you need some kind of link.
The first one is a from google tech talks and is really long - the others are shorter, and sometimes funny.

Observations and Observers

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wavefunction collapse occurs when a particle is observed. But what constitutes an observation, and who is observing it? In popular imagination, the observer must be a conscious human. But that’s not necessarily true. If we performed the double slit experiment with detectors on the slits, no interference pattern appears. This remains true whether we actually look at the data from the detectors. So do the detectors themselves count as observers? Further complicating matters are the experiments of quantum erasure. I will not cover the details, but it’s possible to set up detectors such that the information from the detectors is erased after it has been measured. If the information is erased carefully enough, the interference pattern reappears. So sometimes a detector counts as an observer, and sometimes it doesn’t?

At this point, I should clear up a common misconception about wavefunction collapse. Some people confuse wavefunction collapse with observer effect.* Observer effect occurs because in order to observe the particle, we must knock it with another particle. *Because we’re hitting the particle, we change it when we measure it. This is not the same as wavefunction collapse. There are actually other ways to observe a particle without knocking it with another particle. Wavefunction collapse can occur whether you physically touch the particle or not. I should also add that the observer in no way “decides” where the particle will appear. Wavefunction collapse is entirely random, and does not depend on the state of mind of the observer.

skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2008/03/intro-to-quantum-measurement-problem.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#Explanation_by_physical_optics

youtube.com/watch?v=IQpyA90noGs&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Please don’t tell me what I don’t want to see - I’ve arguing this quantum quackery for years - the fact that you called it ‘new’ is wrong from the start. Quantum physics has been around since the 1900’s and this is at least 50 years old. You relate the observer to someone watching a dog walk across the street. When a tester claims the “act of observing” collapses the wave pattern, they don’t tell you about the detector itself which measures EM waves and modifies the wave function of the light. If you stuck your eyeball next to the double slit it wouldn’t collapse the wave function. The “act of observing” is only “collapsing” the wave function because of what the detector itself is doing to detect the particle. But I’ll let some of these links explain it for you since you need some kind of link.
The first one is a from google tech talks and is really long - the others are shorter, and sometimes funny.

Observations and Observers

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wavefunction collapse occurs when a particle is observed. But what constitutes an observation, and who is observing it? In popular imagination, the observer must be a conscious human. But that’s not necessarily true. If we performed the double slit experiment with detectors on the slits, no interference pattern appears. This remains true whether we actually look at the data from the detectors. So do the detectors themselves count as observers? Further complicating matters are the experiments of quantum erasure. I will not cover the details, but it’s possible to set up detectors such that the information from the detectors is erased after it has been measured. If the information is erased carefully enough, the interference pattern reappears. So sometimes a detector counts as an observer, and sometimes it doesn’t?

At this point, I should clear up a common misconception about wavefunction collapse. Some people confuse wavefunction collapse with observer effect.* Observer effect occurs because in order to observe the particle, we must knock it with another particle. *Because we’re hitting the particle, we change it when we measure it. This is not the same as wavefunction collapse. There are actually other ways to observe a particle without knocking it with another particle. Wavefunction collapse can occur whether you physically touch the particle or not. I should also add that the observer in no way “decides” where the particle will appear. Wavefunction collapse is entirely random, and does not depend on the state of mind of the observer.

skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2008/03/intro-to-quantum-measurement-problem.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#Explanation_by_physical_optics

youtube.com/watch?v=IQpyA90noGs&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

Like I already said we can not see them with our eyeballs the universe knows that lol.

The detector IS the humans way of recording the results. Our way of detecting the particle isn’t turning it into a wave. THIS experiment has not been around that long because they couldn’t do it back in the day.

They have no evidence that it is the method of detection that causes the change. They just know it happens like that and have to draw one conclusion or another. There is evidence for both sides and from what I have heard from an electrical engineer (which I am not) there is MORE evidence that it is not the method of detection that is causing the change.

Faith based…When everything appears to be based on faith why have none?

 

[ManRay]

… a First Being who is Pure Actuality which has to exist or nothing in the universe will exist. That conclusion is not an assumption, it is a valid conclusion from a valid argument in which all the terms are absolutely true.

That’s like stating that you believe in unicorns. Some guy wrote a treatise on unicorns a while back ago, so we can conclude that it was a valid piece of work in argument for the existence of unicorns. Therefore it is without question that unicorns exist. Your rebuttal would be that everyone knows that unicorns don’t exist - so the argument isn’t valid - fine, but go back a millennia, and you could probably find quite a few people who were most certain that unicorns existed. I see no evidence for anything like the christian god you are purporting exists. Just because you do doesn’t qualify it to be an objective fact or true.

 

[ManRay]

Like I already said we can not see them with our eyeballs the universe knows that lol.

The detector IS the humans way of recording the results. Our way of detecting the particle isn’t turning it into a wave. THIS experiment has not been around that long because they couldn’t do it back in the day.

They have no evidence that it is the method of detection that causes the change. They just know it happens like that and have to draw one conclusion or another. There is evidence for both sides and from what I have heard from an electrical engineer (which I am not) there is MORE evidence that it is not the method of detection that is causing the change.

Faith based…When everything appears to be based on faith why have none?

The evidence is completely contrary to what you are having faith in. It’s proven that the method of detection is what is in fact changing the particle. Photons are everywhere dude. I find it troublesome when someone uses a little understood and often questioned experiment from a highly questionable field of study (quantum mechanics) to further their belief system. The human being is plagued with cognitive dissonance. Why don’t you carry it a little father? When you lose that pencil do you have faith that it exists and doesn’t exist - at the same time? Does the pencil only truly come into existence when you find it under your desk? When you observe it? Because these are the repercussions of quantum mechanics. It’s trying to undermine reality. You have faith that you will make it to work in the morning - this doesn’t mean that you won’t be murdered, killed in a car crash, have a heart attack et…etc…, Your faith didn’t create your reality. That is pure subjective absurdism (new word) - you might as well argue that the only reason that god exists is because you have faith that he does. I would argue that if a god does exists it has nothing to do with whether you believe in it or not.

 

[bobballen_18]

I would argue that if a god does exists it has nothing to do with whether you believe in it or not.

Well, you’re right about that! God exists whether or not we believe it.

Yeah yeah, I know this didn’t contribute to the discussion…I’ll be quiet now. I just wanted to say that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s like stating that you believe in unicorns. Some guy wrote a treatise on unicorns a while back ago, so we can conclude that it was a valid piece of work in argument for the existence of unicorns. Therefore it is without question that unicorns exist. Your rebuttal would be that everyone knows that unicorns don’t exist - so the argument isn’t valid - fine, but go back a millennia, and you could probably find quite a few people who were most certain that unicorns existed. I see no evidence for anything like the christian god you are purporting exists. Just because you do doesn’t qualify it to be an objective fact or true.

Of course, what I think doesn’t prove anything. But I do think " converging and convincing arguments " are enough to conclude validly that God exists. But if a person can’t " see " it, they can’t see it. Not much more can be said except to look at the history of the conviction that he does exist. Five thousand years is a long time for an idea to survive in the fashion this one has. And thousands of the most brillian minds in the world have been convinced. That should be worth a lot of serious thought.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

The evidence is completely contrary to what you are having faith in.
It’s proven that the method of detection is what is in fact changing the particle. Photons are everywhere dude.
I find it troublesome when someone uses a little understood and often questioned experiment from a highly questionable field of study (quantum mechanics) to further their belief system. The human being is plagued with cognitive dissonance. Why don’t you carry it a little father? When you lose that pencil do you have faith that it exists and doesn’t exist - at the same time? Does the pencil only truly come into existence when you find it under your desk? When you observe it? Because these are the repercussions of quantum mechanics. It’s trying to undermine reality. You have faith that you will make it to work in the morning - this doesn’t mean that you won’t be murdered, killed in a car crash, have a heart attack et…etc…, Your faith didn’t create your reality. That is pure subjective absurdism (new word) - you might as well argue that the only reason that god exists is because you have faith that he does. I would argue that if a god does exists it has nothing to do with whether you believe in it or not.

Your arguments are invalid let me break down why I feel this way for you:

1)I do not have faith one way or the other about what is causing the change. Just an understanding (which may or may not be false).
2)It is not close to proven. It is theorized. I’m sure the theory sounds very good. Both sides normally do.
3)The experiment is little understood because it is NEW(ish). Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is at the very least just now being explored. You seemed to act like Quantum mechanics and this experiment are the same thing in your last post. It is not my intention to offend you and I recognize that I might have misinterpreted what you were saying.
4) Quantum mechanics is questionable? It is applicable. That makes it valid as far as theories go.
5)Quantum mechanics is flawed. The theory of relativity is flawed. Everything is flawed. The truth is hidden from us. It becomes based on faith. We can dig deeper for infinity in the end we will never stop learning things. This proves the infinity of God.
6) I do not close to believe our faith shapes reality. I do not believe we shape reality at all in our current state. I believe that things happen that we do not understand (which you do too).

Think about this: The scale of things. You can go infinitely smaller or infinitely larger. The universe could possibly expand infinitely (or it might implode). This proves the infinity of God. He shows you infinite creation and you still reject the notion His existence.

I won’t lie I never went to college. I could be wrong about the science. I am not wrong about who I put faith in.

This is going to be a prideful sounding statement but it isn’t because I know it doesn’t prove anything but I feel a need to say it anyways - it is the year 2012 for a reason.

 

[atheistgirl]

I know I broke the thread. But FYI only.

I, like many other of us, have been aware of this story for a very long time. I suspect long before most Catholics even.

I, like the many others I know, continue to be totally unimpressed with the story, the events, the claims and the canonization.

I have a very very different view of the whole business than you do, I suspect.

FYI.

Now, back to the topic under discussion

Sarah x

 

[ManRay]

Of course, what I think doesn’t prove anything. But I do think " converging and convincing arguments " are enough to conclude validly that God exists. But if a person can’t " see " it, they can’t see it. Not much more can be said except to look at the history of the conviction that he does exist. Five thousand years is a long time for an idea to survive in the fashion this one has. And thousands of the most brillian minds in the world have been convinced. That should be worth a lot of serious thought.

Fair enough but if we follow that logic then Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism to name a couple should be convincing also - both predate Christianity, and Yahweh.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Fair enough but if we follow that logic then Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism to name a couple should be convincing also - both predate Christianity, and Yahweh.

They do not predate Yahweh only Christianity. Yahweh has always been there. By that logic, paganism predates all of this too but you chose not to include that. I would have to assume that is because you believe in a benevolent God and just don’t want to admit it.

 

[ManRay]

Semantics aside - belief doesn’t equate with truth. The experiment is an example of quantum mechanics at work. Quantum mechanics is questionable because it attempts to describe sub atomic particles mathematically for one - it actually attempts to describe everything mathematically, which is problematic, and counter intuitive regarding known laws and possibilities - You have to except a complete remake of reality.

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications

Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. Even fundamental issues, such as Max Born’s basic rules concerning probability amplitudes and probability distributions took decades to be appreciated by society and many leading scientists. Indeed, the renowned physicist Richard Feynman once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”[41]*

Another problem is because it is so impossible to understand every quack in the room starts to inject their own systems into it which leads us to something that you may very well be engaged in - no offense, and I’m not calling you a quack.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism. The rest of your post makes no sense to me, and I have no idea what this being the 2012 means at all. Sorry

Your arguments are invalid let me break down why I feel this way for you:

1)I do not have faith one way or the other about what is causing the change. Just an understanding (which may or may not be false).
2)It is not close to proven. It is theorized. I’m sure the theory sounds very good. Both sides normally do.
3)The experiment is little understood because it is NEW(ish). Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is at the very least just now being explored. You seemed to act like Quantum mechanics and this experiment are the same thing in your last post. It is not my intention to offend you and I recognize that I might have misinterpreted what you were saying.
4) Quantum mechanics is questionable? It is applicable. That makes it valid as far as theories go.
5)Quantum mechanics is flawed. The theory of relativity is flawed. Everything is flawed. The truth is hidden from us. It becomes based on faith. We can dig deeper for infinity in the end we will never stop learning things. This proves the infinity of God.
6) I do not close to believe our faith shapes reality. I do not believe we shape reality at all in our current state. I believe that things happen that we do not understand (which you do too).

Think about this: The scale of things. You can go infinitely smaller or infinitely larger. The universe could possibly expand infinitely (or it might implode). This proves the infinity of God. He shows you infinite creation and you still reject the notion His existence.

I won’t lie I never went to college. I could be wrong about the science. I am not wrong about who I put faith in.

This is going to be a prideful sounding statement but it isn’t because I know it doesn’t prove anything but I feel a need to say it anyways - it is the year 2012 for a reason.

 

[ManRay]

They do not predate Yahweh only Christianity. Yahweh has always been there. By that logic, paganism predates all of this too but you chose not to include that. I would have to assume that is because you believe in a benevolent God and just don’t want to admit it.

Wow - now you are telling me what I believe in. I’m talking about written history - Sure text tells us the Yahweh existed forever…cmon. I just picked two. please spare me. Zoroastrianism textually isn’t as old but much evidence that existed way before - some things just don’t physically survive.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Semantics aside - belief doesn’t equate with truth. The experiment is an example of quantum mechanics at work. Quantum mechanics is questionable because it attempts to describe sub atomic particles mathematically for one - it actually attempts to describe everything mathematically, which is problematic, and counter intuitive regarding known laws and possibilities - You have to except a complete remake of reality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications

Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. Even fundamental issues, such as Max Born’s basic rules concerning probability amplitudes and probability distributions took decades to be appreciated by society and many leading scientists. Indeed, the renowned physicist Richard Feynman once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”[41]

Another problem is because it is so impossible to understand every quack in the room starts to inject their own systems into it which leads us to something that you may very well be engaged in - no offense, and I’m not calling you a quack.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism. The rest of your post makes no sense to me, and I have no idea what this being the 2012 means at all. Sorry

Well, like I said. Both sides always sound convincing.

You understood it, you chose to ignore it. Read it again. I know I didn’t edit it for grammar but it still makes sense.

Most important point scientifically :

The theory of relativity has plenty of problems of it’s own. String theory is applicable. So is relativity. They contradict each other yet both are applicable.

Like I said i never went to college but isn’t string theory a part of quantum mechanics? I know that either way quantum mechanics are applicable.