It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No God?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I was unsure of which board to post this on but decided that this was the best place as it would have the most people in it who are knowledgable in the subject. Anyway I'm sure that some of you are familar with John Bell. John Bell was most famous for the Bell's Theorem and the Bell Test Experiments. Bell's theorem basically says that either local realism or quantum mechanics is incorrect. The test experiments were devised to see which of the two it was(more accurately it was designed to see if there were any hidden variables is present that makes quantum mechanics incomplete). Of the number of Bell test experiments performed none have shown proof of this hidden variable. If these tests are accurate it would seem that there is no hidden variable and that everything is bound by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This seems to refute the idea of a God, or at least an omnipotent and omnipresent God as it indicates that if there is a God he is bound by the uncertainty priniciple and thus even he cannot know the exact future of the universe. I myself am not a theist and do not consider myself a athiest. I do not intend for this to be a religious topic and this is why i have not posted it in a board related to religion, rather i just seek the answer to a question that eludes me. Thank you.




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Assuming that this "God" was omnipotent, could he not toy with science, and make it appear that he is bound by the uncertainty principle? If not, then is he really omnipotent?


*Edit - Removed previous poster's text

[edit on 11-8-2006 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
That seems to be a valid point as omnipotent would mean he is capable of anything(which itself gives rise to a number of paradoxes). But i don't understand how this would be done as everything that is seems to be bound by this principle. Perhaps it is just difficult for my mind to comprehend omnitpotence. I guess this is a answer that will continue to elude me.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
If you seek God, why in a test tube? why through a telescope?

I do not wish to hijack your thread but you seem to jump to conclusions.

what do you fear more? that there is no God....or That there is and you simply cannot find him and thus not know him?

God gave us free will...would it not undermine that free will if he was constantly present?

perhaps our understanding of God is flawd? perhaps he is something we could never really comprehend and thus never really be proven by our methods.

Think of it this way.....one day you will have your answer until then, live the best you can.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I am not sure that anything will ever just be "revealed" to me. I am skeptic and thus when there is a question i will often times ask it. I have done much research in my life on philosophy and religion and have come to the conclusion that i do not like it or maybe just that it isn't for me. Free will is a concept of philosophy that can be debated so i do not wish to get into it. For the most part i believe only that which is provable by science, which is why I asked if god was able to be disproved by the uncertainty principle. I now understand that this is a flawed question. I have no problem with you stating your beliefs but please remember that i do not want this to turn into a relgious/philisophical arguement.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I think it also depends upon whether one considers the uncertainty principle from an epistemological or metaphysical position. From an epistemological perspective, the question is whether the uncertainty principle renders it impossible for us to know with certainty the exact state of quantum fluctuations. From a metaphysical perspective, the question is whether the uncertainty principle works because reality is in fact indeterminate at that quantum level.

In other words, is it our inability to know or determine the state of quantum flunctuations that makes it uncertain, or is it the case that reality is in fact uncertain at that quantum level.

If it's an epistemological issue, then an ominicient God would not have any problem with determining with exactitude what, for finite creatures like us, is uncertain. However, if the uncertainty is a metaphysical reality, then the issue of God's omniscience becomes more problematic.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Toromos]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Way to bend the brain man! Just when you think you're starting to understand everything, someone has to spoil it for you....


AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
The Bell experiments is not proof that the quantum world is not deterministic. It may be that there are hidden variables, but of their nature is such that the Bell experiments could not caught.

One possibility is that the hidden variables that affect the quantum states are hidden from our instruments.

Another possibility is that the universe is a lattice, where each node is connected to their neighbours. When we observe something, we also affect it, and therefore randomness arises.

I, for one, don't believe that God plays dice. Just like Einstein did.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   


posted by Liquid Swords1

I am not sure anything will ever be "revealed" to me. I am [a] skeptic . . I have done much research in my life on philosophy and religion and have come to the conclusion that I do not like it or maybe just that it isn't for me.” [Edited by Don W]



I can recall holding a ‘Jonah and the Whale’ Sunday school card in my hand and wondering, “Why did not God do it the direct way?” If He wanted to convert Nineveh, then why not snap His (or Her) fingers and zap, it is done!

While stationed in Korea I had time to read a lot of books in Dewey Decimal’s Category 1+. I came away knowing I was no philosopher and certain that God did not create man, au contraire, man created God!



I believe only that which is provable by science, which is why I asked if God was able to be disproved by the uncertainty principle. I now understand that this is a flawed question . . “



Me too! I love science. Just last year “we” science buffs were certain the universe was 13.4 billion years after the Big Bang, 150 billion light years across and 25 billion light years thick. A new theory on how to measure large distances now points toward a slightly larger - by 15% - Hubble Constant, which will enlarge and age the universe by a like amount. Not yet universally accepted, but the theory looks good. It may be the Universe is really 15.4 billion years past the Big Bang, 180 billion light years across and 30 billion light years thick. OTOH, the old time religion would have us stuck with Bishop Ussher at around 5,500 years old.

Sure, it’s hard for me to comprehend there is nothing out past the edge or end of the Universe. Just as there was nothing before the Big Bang. Nothing is a very difficult concept to get your head around. In truth, I have not been able to do it. But I still try, sometimes.

Aside: The Big Bang - which is not an ordinary explosion but is instead an ultra quick expansion - was so-named by a primary detractor, Sir Fred Hoyle. It’s in his book, “The Steady State Universe.” He meant it to mock the theory the universe began with a rapid expansion he dubbed a “Big Bang” and it stuck. Ironically Sir Fred backed away from his own alternate theory even before the book explaining it was in the bookstores, but he could not withdraw it. Sales were brisk. He regretted that. A Christian, he became a “Big Bang” proponent, if that is not an oxymoron.



[edit on 8/11/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I think our problem is that we try to use God as an answer, when really God is the question. Who says God MUST be omnipotent? All-powerful? I think it's much more noble to think of God as a human, and that at our centers we are all God, living out our own creation.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   


posted by Yarium

[The] problem is that we try to use God as an answer, when really God is the question. I think it's much more noble to think of God as a human, and that at our center we are all God, living out our own creation.
[Edited by Don W]



Although there is about 1 inch of merit in the theists’ ten mile trip who claim we science types are as much faith based as they; it is a much more substantial base. For example, we can tell you ahead of time that we will send a camera equipped spacecraft to fly-by Jupiter’s moon, Io, and return color pics of live volcanoes in eruption!

That’s about 10 predictions in a row! How many times can a true believer predict a healing of a really desperate person? Like replacing a missing limb, for example - the one ‘miracle’ not even Jesus could perform. Hmm?

Nope, true believers are like Nostradamus, or Bible code readers, good only when looking back! No help in looking forward. Hmm?



[edit on 8/11/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
This seems to refute the idea of a God, or at least an omnipotent and omnipresent God as it indicates that if there is a God he is bound by the uncertainty priniciple and thus even he cannot know the exact future of the universe.


Omnipotence implies that God (in this case, the Observer) not only has knowledge of a particular collapsed wave function that defines a quantum state, but all of them, at the same time. In fact, because he can observe all possible outcomes, he moves them from virtual to actual. Well, I guess you could say that this creates a paradox, but doesn't God nullify paradoxes because he isn't limited by semantics? With God, black can be white. On can also be off. He can create a rock too heavy for even himself to lift. With no paradox.

At least that's the way I understood it.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Snake Pliskin]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   


posted by Snake Pliskin

Omnipotence implies that God not only has knowledge of a particular collapsed wave function that defines a quantum state, but all of them, at the same time. With God, black can be white. On can also be off. He can create a rock too heavy for even himself to lift. With no paradox. That's the way I understood it. [Edited by Don W]


One Q. Mr S/P. Where did you learn to speak with such authority and clarity? Are you one of the 12 Apostles reincarnated? Or by the Grace of God, all 12 into 1?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join