Quantum mechanics supported proof for the existence of an omnipotent being

[fosio]

I think this argument is more intuitively appealing and also has some support in science.

By possibility I mean “metaphysical possibility” which many people simply equate with “logically possibility.” The important idea is that it is actually, really possible – not just possibly true in our minds, but really in fact something that could have been.

1. If something is possible but not actual, something must account for why that is.
2. If something is possible, then unless something obstructs its coming into being, it is actual.
3. If something is possible for something to obstruct it from coming into being, the obstructor must be at least as powerful as the obstructed.
4. An omnipotent thing is possible.
5. Ergo, either an omnipotent thing exists or something at least as powerful exists that obstructs it from coming into being.
6. Therefore either an omnipotent thing exists or something more powerful exists.
7. Nothing can be more powerful than an omnipotent thing, so therefore an omnipotent thing exists.

If 4 is controversial, then replace it and the following with the following:

4’ There is no finite upper bound to the power of possible things.
5’ So for each of these finitely powerful things, there must exist something at least as powerful that obstructs it from coming into being.
6’ So there is on finite upper bound to the power of actual things.

So the original argument proves an infinitely powerful being and the primed argument proves that there are beings more powerful than any finite being that we can conceive. I think both are a sufficient ground for religion or spirituality.

And quantum mechanics seems to support some of the premises in this argument since we see that in a void, things just pop into existence. My premises give a good explanation for that – nothing at least as powerful as those things is obstructing them from popping into existence (so for ex. God is not obstructing them from coming into being). So I think my argument not only works logically but also has explanatory power for the quantum mechanics of the void.

 

[liquidpele]

I think this argument is more intuitively appealing and also has some support in science.

By possibility I mean “metaphysical possibility” which many people simply equate with “logically possibility.” The important idea is that it is actually, really possible – not just possibly true in our minds, but really in fact something that could have been.

1. If something is possible but not actual, something must account for why that is.
2. If something is possible, then unless something obstructs its coming into being, it is actual.
3. If something is possible for something to obstruct it from coming into being, the obstructor must be at least as powerful as the obstructed.
4. An omnipotent thing is possible.
5. Ergo, either an omnipotent thing exists or something at least as powerful exists that obstructs it from coming into being.
6. Therefore either an omnipotent thing exists or something more powerful exists.
7. Nothing can be more powerful than an omnipotent thing, so therefore an omnipotent thing exists.

If 4 is controversial, then replace it and the following with the following:

4’ There is no finite upper bound to the power of possible things.
5’ So for each of these finitely powerful things, there must exist something at least as powerful that obstructs it from coming into being.
6’ So there is on finite upper bound to the power of actual things.

So the original argument proves an infinitely powerful being and the primed argument proves that there are beings more powerful than any finite being that we can conceive. I think both are a sufficient ground for religion or spirituality.

And quantum mechanics seems to support some of the premises in this argument since we see that in a void, things just pop into existence. My premises give a good explanation for that – nothing at least as powerful as those things is obstructing them from popping into existence (so for ex. God is not obstructing them from coming into being). So I think my argument not only works logically but also has explanatory power for the quantum mechanics of the void.

That’s just horrible logic. Lets take the existence of unicorns… they don’t exist… why not? Your assumption is that something “stopped” them from existing. That’s ridiculous, the only reason is because they were one of the infinite possibilities of animals that didn’t evolve. So maybe you could claim randomness or genetics were more powerful? Okay, so if we evolved to where we can control genetics in ourselves… then it’s a 2 way street.

Point being, there doesn’t have to be something directing everything with a “yes” or “no”, and there are many examples of symbiotic relationships where there is no direct case of X allows or denies Y but instead X and Y both allow or cause each other.

Besides, virtual particles are just a theory to explain the casimir effect, they very likely might not be the correct answer to that phenomenon.

 

[E_F_G]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

O

 

[JDaniel]

I think this argument is more intuitively appealing and also has some support in science.

By possibility I mean “metaphysical possibility” which many people simply equate with “logically possibility.” The important idea is that it is actually, really possible – not just possibly true in our minds, but really in fact something that could have been.

1. If something is possible but not actual, something must account for why that is.
2. If something is possible, then unless something obstructs its coming into being, it is actual.
3. If something is possible for something to obstruct it from coming into being, the obstructor must be at least as powerful as the obstructed.
4. An omnipotent thing is possible.
5. Ergo, either an omnipotent thing exists or something at least as powerful exists that obstructs it from coming into being.
6. Therefore either an omnipotent thing exists or something more powerful exists.
7. Nothing can be more powerful than an omnipotent thing, so therefore an omnipotent thing exists.

If 4 is controversial, then replace it and the following with the following:

4’ There is no finite upper bound to the power of possible things.
5’ So for each of these finitely powerful things, there must exist something at least as powerful that obstructs it from coming into being.
6’ So there is on finite upper bound to the power of actual things.

So the original argument proves an infinitely powerful being and the primed argument proves that there are beings more powerful than any finite being that we can conceive. I think both are a sufficient ground for religion or spirituality.

And quantum mechanics seems to support some of the premises in this argument since we see that in a void, things just pop into existence. My premises give a good explanation for that – nothing at least as powerful as those things is obstructing them from popping into existence (so for ex. God is not obstructing them from coming into being). So I think my argument not only works logically but also has explanatory power for the quantum mechanics of the void.

An interesting argument. I think the primary hurdle is with Premise # 1. It appears that it can be falsified. It can be said:
“1. If something is possible but not actual, nothing must account for why that is.”

The rest of the argument depends upon a “something”, not a “nothing”.

Also, Pele is correct. Virtual particles are called “virtual” for a reason. They are not real particles; they are postulated particles.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

An interesting argument. I think the primary hurdle is with Premise # 1. It appears that it can be falsified. It can be said:
“1. If something is possible but not actual, nothing must account for why that is.”

jd

Daniel… I have to say i disagree with you about premise 1.

If something is causally possible, but not actual, then there must be that which precedes possibility; and thus one can say that there must be that which precedes and is the ultimate cause all possibilities, since in nothing, nothing is causally possible. This cause is eternal being. If a possibility cannot actualize itself, because a possibility by itself has no being, it then requires either a mechanism, which is itself a produce of causally related possibilities, or a personal will in order to actualize that which is possible. Therefore that which is the root of all possibilities has a personal will.

This arguement is Inspired by Augustine.

 

[fosio]

That’s just horrible logic. Lets take the existence of unicorns… they don’t exist… why not? Your assumption is that something “stopped” them from existing. That’s ridiculous, the only reason is because they were one of the infinite possibilities of animals that didn’t evolve. So maybe you could claim randomness or genetics were more powerful? Okay, so if we evolved to where we can control genetics in ourselves… then it’s a 2 way street.

Sure, the emergent feature of the world which we call natural selection is powerful enough to inhibit certain organisms from existing. That’s what selective pressure is all about. Your hypothesis that we have evolved to transcend natural selection is wrong. Other animals affect the environment and thus affect selective pressures. We also affect the environment and thus affect selective pressures on other animals and on ourselves. That our effect may usually be greater than that of other species does not mean we transcend natural selection. Whatever selective pressures we elect to employ on ourselves (in choosing egg donors, etc.) are themselves product of natural selection since we are as much a part of nature as anything else and our crafting of the environment as much a product of nature as a beaver’s.

But this has nothing to do with my argument. My argument was in regard to why unicorns simply don’t pop into existence, not in regard to why they didn’t evolve under the constraints of the world as we know it. None of what you have written attempts to give any kind of account for why unicorns simply don’t pop into existence. For that matter, why doesn’t a new law of physics simply not pop into existence? For that matter, why doesn’t another universe simply not pop into existence?

There must be something powerful enough to obstruct whole universes from popping into existence.

Not only existence, but non-existence must be accounted for. For your theory of the world to be complete, it must run afoul of Occam’s Razor and for every possible thing, add a law that says: “This does not exist.” Mathematically speaking your theory in a formal language could not form a maximally consistent set since the collection of all possible things is too large to be a set (or a class). So mathematically your theory has the vicious feature of not being able to be proved consistent in any (meta)theory whatsoever. Godel’s theorems allow for theories to be proved consistent in a metatheory, but yours can’t even manage that.

In my theory, one need not include sentences such as “This does not exist” for everything that happens to not exist for my theory is not a description of the world, but a description of the laws that govern the world which laws can be encapsulated as “The makeup of the world is decided by God” So the theory can be agnostic on what that makeup is and yet explain fully the laws that govern the world. Your theory cannot afford to be agnostic in this way since you need all these laws that say “This logical possibility does not exist” … which are highly implausible as fundamental laws of the world and as I have shown, mathematically problematic.

 

[liquidpele]

Sure, the emergent feature of the world which we call natural selection is powerful enough to inhibit certain organisms from existing. That’s what selective pressure is all about. Your hypothesis that we have evolved to transcend natural selection is wrong. Other animals affect the environment and thus affect selective pressures. We also affect the environment and thus affect selective pressures on other animals and on ourselves. That our effect may usually be greater than that of other species does not mean we transcend natural selection. Whatever selective pressures we elect to employ on ourselves (in choosing egg donors, etc.) are themselves product of natural selection since we are as much a part of nature as anything else and our crafting of the environment as much a product of nature as a beaver’s.

But selective pressures are just relationships between things, not something sitting there making a choice about it… which is what you were implying. Of course causality is important in evolution and selection (and everything else) but causality itself does not apply something has to be “more powerful” than what it’s causing - an example is a tree limb falling and killing me, or me cutting down a tree - which is more powerful? The situation is what matters, not your personal definitions of power you apply to things.

But this has nothing to do with my argument. My argument was in regard to why unicorns simply don’t pop into existence, not in regard to why they didn’t evolve under the constraints of the world as we know it. None of what you have written attempts to give any kind of account for why unicorns simply don’t pop into existence. For that matter, why doesn’t a new law of physics simply not pop into existence? For that matter, why doesn’t another universe simply not pop into existence?

There must be something powerful enough to obstruct whole universes from popping into existence.

Nothing more complex than hypothetical “virtual particles” pops into existence (and they don’t stick around)… that we know of. Another universe might pop into existence… but time and space are very very large things - beyond what you or I can fathom. In short, I don’t know, and neither do you. Why must you assume something must be powerful enough to obstruct whole universes from popping into existence, when we barely even understand the universe in the first place? Humans can create fission in a lab, but we can’t stop the Sun from doing it.

Not only existence, but non-existence must be accounted for. For your theory of the world to be complete, it must run afoul of Occam’s Razor and for every possible thing, add a law that says: “This does not exist.” Mathematically speaking your theory in a formal language could not form a maximally consistent set since the collection of all possible things is too large to be a set (or a class). So mathematically your theory has the vicious feature of not being able to be proved consistent in any (meta)theory whatsoever. Godel’s theorems allow for theories to be proved consistent in a metatheory, but yours can’t even manage that.

My theory? Non-existence need not be accounted for because there are infinite things that don’t exist. Trying to explain why they don’t is a fools errand because it’s a job without an end. Defining the limits of what can exist is what should be done.

In my theory, one need not include sentences such as “This does not exist” for everything that happens to not exist for my theory is not a description of the world, but a description of the laws that govern the world which laws can be encapsulated as “The makeup of the world is decided by God” So the theory can be agnostic on what that makeup is and yet explain fully the laws that govern the world. Your theory cannot afford to be agnostic in this way since you need all these laws that say “This logical possibility does not exist” … which are highly implausible as fundamental laws of the world and as I have shown, mathematically problematic.

No one knows for sure about anything. all we can do is take evidence and make the best choices about what to believe that we can. In this respect, I don’t know that unicorns don’t exist and that they don’t pop into existence somewhere. That said, I don’t see them doing so or any evidence of such animals or actions, so I don’t waste time thinking about it. With the universe, there is one here (as we are in it) and thus we debate it. However, you claim that it can’t just pop into existence when the truth is that you don’t know and neither do I. What I do know is that due to red-shifts we believe the universe all came from a central point, and that I have not see any evidence of anything that would have created it beyond the opinions of men.

 

[fosio]

However, you claim that it can’t just pop into existence when the truth is that you don’t know and neither do I. What I do know is that due to red-shifts we believe the universe all came from a central point, and that I have not see any evidence of anything that would have created it beyond the opinions of men.

I was saying that something must account for why they do NOT just pop into existence. You opine that they don’t. But why do they not? That’s a question which for your theory to answer would make your theory lack some useful mathematical properties.

 

[wanstronian]

I was saying that something must account for why they do NOT just pop into existence. You opine that they don’t. But why do they not? That’s a question which for your theory to answer would make your theory lack some useful mathematical properties.

Nonsense - the burden of proof is upon those who claim something must be preventing “arbitrary item n” from existing, not upon those who claim that nothing is necessary to prevent it.

Premise 1 in your original argument is flawed (as is 2, 3 and 4, and - by logical dependency - 5, 6 and 7. Congratulations, a full house! )

 

[fosio]

Nonsense - the burden of proof is upon those who claim something must be preventing “arbitrary item n” from existing, not upon those who claim that nothing is necessary to prevent it.

“Burden of proof” has no place in mathematics and science is to be based on mathematics.

“Burden of proof” is a rule of rhetoric and is not something of epistemological, logical, or scientific relevance.

If one wishes to prove something, one must obviously prove it to fulfill that wish. You have admitted that you have no proof for your position. But that is not all. You not only have no proof but have no reason at all for your position as you have admitted. I have reasons for it. You cannot make up for your lack of support for your position by a rhetorical move claiming that your position needs no support. Whether your position needs support by the rules of rhetoric has no bearing on whether your position has support or is reasonable.

If one wants to say that one assumption is more reasonable than the other, one must give an account for why that is so.

It is confusion to take rules of rhetoric to be ways of enlightenment in dialectic.

Premise 1 in your original argument is flawed

You have asserted it is false without giving a reason why you think so. Do you have an intuition that it is false or is it merely the consequences of its truth that seem to you implausible? If it is the latter, then one must consider whether it is the unpalatableness of the consequences that is driving you as opposed to your true unfettered intuitions.

 

[wanstronian]

You have admitted that you have no proof for your position.

I think you’re mistaking me for someone else here!

You have asserted it is false without giving a reason why you think so.

I don’t think you’re in a position to criticise here! You have not given a sensible reason for why you think your assertion is true!

What you seem to be saying is, “There must be a reason why everything that doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist.” The implication being that all these hypothetically possible entities are metaphorically beating down the door to pop into existence, but something is holding them back. This is pure drivel. There are, for each of the infinite possible entities to which you allude, infinite reasons why each of them don’t exist. Just because something is possible, that doesn’t mean it’s obliged to exist unless some positive action is being taken to prevent it.

liquidpele’s original response to your OP gives a perfect example of how your initial premise is flawed.

 

[TheWhim]

I think your argument is fairly intriguing. However, jdaniel and warstronian have already made their point. One must not account for anything that does not have actual existence. Rather, one should account for anything that has actual existence and thus perhaps arrive at a creator(as is done in the cosmological argument). Why should one, indeed, how could one account for anything that has not even come into being?

“All things, if not prevented, would come into being”, so you say. But how so? How can they be prevented from coming into being if they haven’t come into being yet, if they are not? You can only prevent or promote anything that actually exists. You cannot prevent or promote existential nothingness.

 

[JDaniel]

Daniel… I have to say i disagree with you about premise 1.

Are you sure?

If something is causally possible, but not actual, then there must be that which precedes possibility; and thus one can say that there must be that which precedes and is the ultimate cause all possibilities, since in nothing, nothing is causally possible. This cause is eternal being. If a possibility cannot actualize itself, because a possibility by itself has no being, it then requires either a mechanism, which is itself a produce of causally related possibilities, or a personal will in order to actualize that which is possible. Therefore that which is the root of all possibilities has a personal will.

(I vaguely remember this argument.) However, since all things that are, and all things that have been, and all things that will come to be, are finite (except for spiritual things) and part of a finite (and, physical) system; and, all physical things within that system are immersed in time, and since “time” is a continuum, and since the continuum has not played out yet (as we experience that we are still here, playing), then a simple explanation might be that it’s not time for the thing to be here yet. If that’s the case, the thing remains merely possible, and, it may remain in potency for a potential infinity.

For God, possibilities are infinite. This universe has only been here for a finite time. It is impossible for every possibility to have actualized yet. Of course, it could actualize tomorrow or, the next day, but then, it might not ever actualize.

This argument is Inspired by Augustine.

Which Augustine, the Saint or the City?

jd

 

[Fran65]

I’ve just been reading an argument that by saying God exists we are ascribing characteristics of the known universe to Him and thereby diminishing Him. As God is beyond all he neither exists nor does not exist.

This kind of argument is meant to challenge our conception of God and bring us into a state of expierencing the ineffability of God. According to the argument, by ascribing characteristics such as Good, Loving, Omniscient etc we are risking idolatry and limiting what cannot be limited.

I find these ideas interesting, especially since the writer Karen Armstrong ascribes some of this to Thomas Aquinas, who, whe says would be horrified and dismayed by what we have done to God in the modern age.

 

[liquidpele]

I’ve just been reading an argument that by saying God exists we are ascribing characteristics of the known universe to Him and thereby diminishing Him. As God is beyond all he neither exists nor does not exist.

This kind of argument is meant to challenge our conception of God and bring us into a state of experiencing the ineffability of God. According to the argument, by ascribing characteristics such as Good, Loving, Omniscient etc we are risking idolatry and limiting what cannot be limited.

I find these ideas interesting, especially since the writer Karen Armstrong ascribes some of this to Thomas Aquinas, who, whe says would be horrified and dismayed by what we have done to God in the modern age.

That is an interesting argument… but without attributing some kind of characteristic, how would you have a personal relationship with God? Are you claiming that the personal God is a bastardization of God’s true nature? Such an unfathomable God as you describe seems like we have no way to even consider such a thing - would that mean much the the bible where God interacts with us is untrue, or that even God becomes somewhat irrelevant to us if we can’t even seem to fathom such a thing?

 

[mikethekey]

As Shakespeare would say, “Much ado about nothing” , or is it “something” (LOL)

 

[Fran65]

Unfortunately - and you might not be talking to a representative Catholic here! - much of the Bible is not literally true. It is only fairly recently that ‘we’ (the religious) have been expected (by some) to accept the literal truth of scripture. I read it as mythological (in its original meaning) and as having a great deal to tell us about the world, its challenges and a possible relationship with God.

God does have some characteristics that we can know - He is the creator, He is perfect, He is good - but He is not ‘a being’ in the same sense as we are beings. Rather He is Being and we cannot imagine this. I have a personal relationship with God, I talk to Him, think about Him, but this does not mean that He is a person.

It does not mean that He is irrelevant to us, He created us and sustains us; and He is also the source of good and perfection. This means that He is measure against which we can develop our compassion for others.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Which Augustine, the Saint or the City?

jd

Thanks for the reply.

Both really. Since the city is the actuality of a possibility.

I think the OP arguement is possibly flawed only in the sense that it could lead to the idea that possibilities exists by themselves. But they don’t exist. There is no such thing as an actual possibility, if one means to say that possibilities exist simply because they are possibilities. I think if somebody formulated it differently i think it might have a chance.

This is why i like coming to this forums, because i like trying out arguments.
Back again to my Augustinian inspired arguement. In fact his arguement for the existence of an ultimate immutable mind that expresses all truth, is not much different for Aquinas’s five ways. Check out Copleston’s history of philosophy book two.

First let me explain that when i talk of “emergent-possibilities” i am talking about beings or qualities that could possibly begin to exist. When i speak of “existential possibilities” i am talking about beings that might exist irrespective of any causal considerations; for instance “God”.

Would you not agree that the mere fact that there are emergent possibilities implies the existence of a being that lies outside of that which is emergently possible, and is as such that things are possible? We must account for why there are emergent-possibilities. Since possibilities have no existence by themselves, then we must account for why things become actual. We cannot use an infinite chain of emergent actualities, because they all exist as emergent possibilities, and thus an infinite chain cannot account for their actuality or the possibility of their actuality. In other words, a thing cannot be infinitely possible.

If this is so, then anyone who speaks of emergent possibilities must admit that there is a being whom accounts for all emergent possibilities, irrespective of an infinite past. This being must be eternal, perfect, and must have a personal and timeless will in order to account for the actuality any possibility since possibilities cannot actualize themselves.

Can you disprove my arguement?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I have a personal relationship with God, I talk to Him, think about Him, but this does not mean that He is a person.

But neither can we say that God is less then personal. God is a perfect person. I guess one could say that God is more then personal relative to what a human being is, but not to the extent that we are no longer talking about a personal being.

 

[Fran65]

I didn’t mean that God is ‘less than’ personal. My understanding is that God has all of the characteristics of everything he created as it all comes from Him. I simply meant that he is not an ‘individual’ in the same sense that we are, He is what He is.