I Believe God Exists

[Casparov]

I was pointing out, Tweedledum, that just because they appeared on the arXiv.org, that doesn't mean that they are peer-reviewed, or that just because it appears on the archive and then later appears in the peer review literature, that the paper appearing on the archive is the paper that is eventually accepted for publication.

OH WOW thanks for pointing that out to me. You're a pal. What would I have done without this knowledge that I already had? Thanks bud.

Quantum mechanics is a theory about the material in the universe. It is a materialistic theory. No result consistent with quantum mechanics can undermine materialism.

LOL Okay well first of all.... Quantum Mechanics is not a "theory," it is a branch of Physics. Perhaps you were thinking of "Quantum Theory" but that is not a "materialist theory" either. It is a means to test and accurately describe what we observe. It makes no philosophical claims about reality on its own, it just gives us evidence with which we can do so. Quantum Mechanics itself does not necessitate Materialism. Your sentence only makes sense when you first assume materialism and then start performing Quantum Experiments with that assumption in mind.

If Materialism states that actions in the future cannot effect the past, but quantum mechanics shows that this happens in our reality. Then which is wrong? Materialism or Quantum Mechanics, because they do not agree.

If Materialism states that as Newton put it: "It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact", but Quantum Mechanics shows that this does in fact happen in our reality, then which is wrong? Materialism or Quantum Mechanics? Because they do not agree on this matter.

"For the relative independence of spatially distant things (A and B), this idea is characteristic: an influence on A has no immediate effect on B; this is known as the “Principle of Local Action”. - Einstein

The Principle of Local Action is a requirement of a Material Universe, and yet Quantum Mechanics shows it does not hold water in our Universe, so which is wrong? materialism or Quantum Mechanics? Because they do not agree.

Materialism requires that material objects continue to exist unaffected whether or not an observer is present. Materialism says that we live in an observer-independent reality. But quantum mechanics shows that the reality we live in is conclusively observer dependent, and what we observe does not exist as anything resembling a material object when an observer is not observing, so which is wrong? Materialism or quantum mechanics? Because they do not agree.

"Quantum states are not physical objects: they exist only in our imagination." - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0310010.pdf

Materialism requires that material objects cannot exist in two places at once, yet quantum mechanics shows that is happens all the time in our reality. So which is wrong? materialism or quantum mechanics? Because they do not agree.

So you blindly assert that Quantum Mechanics "is a materialistic theory. No result consistent with quantum mechanics can undermine materialism" and yet almost every result consistent with quantum mechanics is not consistent with Materialism. How do you reconcile the two? What are you saying? Even results from Quantum Mechanics that are inconsistent with Materialism are now somehow consistent with Materialism because of the way you have defined Quantum Mechanics? That makes absolutely zero sense.

You cant just assert something and then magically make it true. That's not how this works. Let me show you something: This is how Quantum Mechanics could disprove Materialism:

When Quantum Mechanics generates results that show that reality behaves in a way inconsistent with Materialism.

Crazy isn't it?

The results are consistent with quantum mechanics, but it won't undermine materialism, because quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory.

That's like saying, "All scientific results are consistent with Creationism and no scientific result will ever undermine Creationism because all Science is ultimately a theory of Creationism."

Do you now get a glimpse of what you are actually doing? You can't just define yourself correct. 

You said, they "erased the information [the detector atoms] recorded", but in quantum mechanics, you can't erase information. If you could, the universe would instantly become a broth of superheated particles in a fraction of a second. So, no erasure of information for you.

Dude, what are you seriously talking about? Are you saying that the Quantum Eraser Experiment doesn't actually erase the which-path information? This is absolute nonsense....

A measuring device can record which slit the particle went through, and then destroy that information before anyone looks at it.... and even though the measuring device "measured' we still get a wave pattern. You are basically arguing that the experiment that was run, wasn't actually run, "because you can't erase information in Quantum Mechanics." And that's insanity. Go tell that to the scientists who actually conducted the experiment and got it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

In principle what you are saying is true, that "no information can be destroyed" but this is completely irrelivent when I am saying that the measuring device can erase it's which-path information after a measurement so that it becomes unobtainable to the scientists. come on dude...

So what was erased? The influence of the atoms. But the only way to erase their influence is to arrange things such that the probability amplitudes of the experiment on the other side looks just like the atoms weren't there at all. This is possible to do in a quantum system because atoms are quantum in nature, and as such, they were ensnarled in this entanglement malarky that affects all quantum mechanical objects. Nothing had actually been measured yet. The so-called welcher-weg information of those atoms had not yet been observed, and so the correlation on the other side reflected that.

A measuring device detects which slit the particle went through and then erases that information, and every single time we get a wave pattern. There are zero instances when the measuring device records the which-path information and erases it that we actually get a particle pattern. Zero.

If we run the exact same experiment, but tell the measuring devices to "not erase" the which-path information, we get the particle pattern. Every single time. Absolutely no change is made with how the measuring device detects the particle's which path information. The physical interaction is exactly the same in both instances. The only difference is whether we have the which-path information or erased it.

Now, why am I saying 'correlation,' and not 'information?' Because while quantum mechanics will allow you to say very precise things about the statistics of what two widely separated ends of a coherent system will do, it will not tell you what any individual particle will do. You only find these cases of "spooky action at a distance" when you bring all the parts of the observation together, using ordinary lightspeed means, and look at all the data as a whole. These effects cannot be used to send information backward in time or to create an ansible â€" you only know something interesting has happened when you swap notes, when the other fellow's light cone has reached you.

If you have two particles that are entangled, you can move them apart, let's say one is on earth and the other is on mars. Because they are entangled we know that one's spin is "up" and the other's is "down", they cannot both be "up" or both be "down" because they are entangled. In quantum mechanics, we can prove that they are both in superposition before we observe them, meaning that neither has decided yet whether it is "up" or "down". But as soon as we measure one, they both instantly collapse. Somehow the one on mars knew that we observed the one on earth instantaneously, and if we found the one on earth was "up", then we will see that the one on mars is "down". This is not allowable in a Material Universe.

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact... so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." - Newton

Funny that an event happening according to quantum mechanics, a materialist theory, would undermine materialism.

There you go defining yourself correct again.

Oh wait. That's just you reading into the paper what you want it to say.
Look chum, the only thing I'm disregarding is your interpretation of what these quantum experiments mean for materialism. I actually understand the paper as written, and I see that it does no such thing, and the only thing I reject is your interpretation.

No sir, you are not just rejecting my interpretation, you are also rejecting the interpretation of the Quantum Physicists who actually conducted the experiment.

"Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."

"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."

Go tell them they are wrong because even if the results contradict Materialism, they don't contradict Materialism, because Quantum Mechanics is a "materialist theory." 

[Casparov]

If it weren't for the underlined word, you would be correct in that this was a fallacy. But an appeal to authority in and of itself is not. If misused, it can lead to a fallacy, but in and of itself the appeal to authority is not.

The key word there is "probably" â€" the sylogism is statistical in nature. It's not meant to be taken as correct in all cases. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt to what it implies.

So boo to you for misidentifying a fallacy. In the way strom uses the argument from authority, it is not. The appeal to authority, correctly used, is a powerful argument. After all, that he's probably right when an expert speaks about his field is the reason he is considered an expert, for fuck's sake.

Here is the exact form of the argument from authority as stromboli used it:

B has provided evidence for position T.
A says position T is incorrect.
Therefore, B's evidence is false.

This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, it merely notes that there is disagreement with it.

[Casparov]

It would be rather hypocritical of some to ask me to put an end to this when so many are obviously enjoying the argument. Until that time, this may well head into the 50.

I for one am quite enjoying it. I feel like Neo fighting off a thousand Agent Smith's at the same time.

Aitm, would you be willing to Moderate a Formal Debate if one goes down?

[stromboli]

Dude, you're talking to yourself. Here, work on this one. 


Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent â€" all-observing â€" being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

[stromboli]

Oh, and this. Your much vaunted double slit experiment might actually disprove god.

Quantum Mechanics: Can the double slit experiment disprove the existence of a god?

In the double slit experiment, the act of observing seems to influence the results. So we can say that in this experiment the process was 'observed' and in that experiment it was not.
The traditional view of a god is that he sees everything. Given that we can say an experiment was not observed, does this disprove this aspect of a god?

[Sargon The Grape]

What you are doing is called an Appeal To Authority

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6YfJZ9hxLQ

Citing a source of information and stating how much stock you put into it is not an appeal to authority.

[stromboli]

since we're still going here....

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130206173137AACPHHg
"The total energy of the universe is precisely zero, because gravity can have negative energy. The negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. Only such a universe can begin from nothing. The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe."
- Lawrence Krauss, physicist

It used to be that science couldn't answer the question about the origin of the universe or of the Big Bang, but that didn't mean we should make up an answer (such as a god) and say that it was the cause. Within the last few decades scientists have discovered some good answers. Of course, a scientific explanation is more complex than simply saying, "God did it."

Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations. Quantum mechanics also shows that events can occur with no cause.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy â€" with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.

I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is â€" absurd."

For more about the Big Bang and its implications, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, read an interview with him (at the 2nd link), or get his new book (at the 3rd link). And, see the 4th link for "The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps."
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5...
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/every...
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...
http://www.space.com/13320-big-bang-univ...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.h...
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/or...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/0...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.h...
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/jesu...

Aand like a whole bunch of links and shit.

And the following people, according to Casparov, are wrong:

Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.

Damn. that is a whole lot of wrong.

[josephpalazzo]

@Gasparov,

It looks like you are very busy answering the many posts addressed to you, I can understand that you might have overlooked my post OR maybe you don't want to answer it as you have no answers. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here's my post again:
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4329.msg1009935#msg1009935 .

Care to answer?

On another note: page 24, we are nearing the stated goal of 31 pages as I proudly predicted. LOL.

[aitm]

Aitm, would you be willing to Moderate a Formal Debate if one goes down?

I am afraid that I have had only one formal debate in my life back around 73-74. I have no memory of how they work, and frankly my friend, have no interest in reading the to and fro's. If you find someone, I am sure we can find somebody willing.

[Solitary]

Gasparov, go play in traffic and see if you are a material object! Your having a mind doesn't prove you exist, it only proves you exist as a material object first that causes the illusion of a soul. The very fact that you never see a mind existing without a material body proves the mind is an illusion, and not actually real anymore than a thought is material and not an emerging property of a material body functioning. We do create the world around us from information from it, but that world is still made of particles of energy which are material in nature and not spiritual. There are many things in the world that are not material, but that does not prove material doesn't exist, or that the non material things make the world we live in that we all agree is real. The real question is what does real or reality mean. A thought is real, but it still requires a material body to exist. But a body doesn't require a thought to exist, even if it is in God's mind. You are hung up on mentalism that is putting the cart in front of the horse, a philosophy discarded by science. Solitary 

[stromboli]

"There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes."

As far as I'm concerned, that's it. The fact that men working in the fields from which Casparov has largely drawn his evidence can postulate a godless universe, anything beyond that is just posturing.

I have other stuff I haven't posted on here yet, but it amounts to the same thing.  After all this, god by definition is supernatural and beyond understanding. Any aspect of a god that we understand therefore renders it not supernatural and not a god.

And the "intelligent universe" thing I brought up here about 4 years ago. Same result, can't prove it.

[the_antithesis]

Quantum mechanics is the study of matter, you stupid fucking asshole. To say quantum mechanics contradicts materialism is like saying that German is not a language because it's not like English. German is a language, only a different language from English. Quantum mechanics is still the study of the material, only on a level where matter behaves in ways differently than it does on the macro level human beings are familiar with.

Now, do the world a favor and choke to death on your own considerable stupidity and dishonesty. Assholes like you are always pointing at Quantum mechanics and going, "Look! It's jesus! Herp! Derp! Derp!" You are wrong. You are ignorant. You are stupid. You are speaking on things you know nothing about and expect to be taken as an expert.

Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.

[stromboli]

Quantum mechanics is the study of matter, you stupid fucking asshole. To say quantum mechanics contradicts materialism is like saying that German is not a language because it's not like English. German is a language, only a different language from English. Quantum mechanics is still the study of the material, only on a level where matter behaves in ways differently than it does on the macro level human beings are familiar with.

Now, do the world a favor and choke to death on your own considerable stupidity and dishonesty. Assholes like you are always pointing at Quantum mechanics and going, "Look! It's jesus! Herp! Derp! Derp!" You are wrong. You are ignorant. You are stupid. You are speaking on things you know nothing about and expect to be taken as an expert.

Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.

Lol. 

I bet I read 20 different "interpretations" of that double slit experiment. Theist websites are pronouncing it a proof because it proves, quote "there has to be an observer, therefore Gawd!" And non theist interpretations fall down between indeterminate and proof that the observer precludes god, yada yada. In other words, any conclusion is based on the outlook of the interpreter.

But as I said in my previous post, the fact that scientists who work with quantum physics can describe a universe and give reason for its creation without the need for a god is it. That is conclusive enough for me.

Once again we have a case of someone trying to bend the facts to meet their beliefs. No different than Creationists or any other bunch of theists.

[Solitary]

Quantum mechanics proves something can exist even if we can't see it or understand it----proof God exists dumb atheists. Bought to you from the world of Deepak Chopra. He! He! Solitary

[La Dolce Vita]

To begin with, in order to claim that the brain produces mind, you will need to first demonstrate that the brain can exist as an objective external material object independent of mind. We are back to proving Materialism.

No, we're not actually. We're back to the concept of solipsism - which you reject. As you reject solipsism, there's no fucking reason to debate solipsism. Yes, solipsism is plausible - but nothing fucking implies it, and until something does, we operate in this world as it is. The brain existing and materialism are two fucking different things by your own fucking definition, you dishonest fuck.

Shit exists =//= Materialism.

Let's explain this to you: Your definition of materialism is that only matter(and hopefully: energy) exists, and that everything in this universe is run by natural processes.

That has nothing to do with shit existing.

So, disregarding solipsism, which is an unsupported (but possible, YAY me - center of the universe, you lovely fictional person) notion, means that brains exist in our reality. Now, very simply, we cut out the brain, and observe it, or we scan your brainwaves, etc. There, proven. 100% certtainty without the framework we have.

How do you know brains exist? They have to appear as images and sensations in your mind just like everything else.

Which is how we know they exist. :)

Even if you remove your own brain and place in front of you so you can perceive it, it is still just qualia, just a perception in your mind.

Unless we live in a sci-fi and/or fantasy world, eh, no, you'd be dead.

Until you can prove that materialism is true, you cannot prove that my mind is the result of something that appears in my mind. (a brain)

But ... I'm not a materialist ... Well, unless you are one as well I suppose. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about, do you?


Bu

t now just for kicks and giggles, for a moment I will grant your assumption of materialism and see what happens. The claim is that "because when you alter the brain, the abilities of the consciousness are altered, this proves that consciousness is a product of the brain."

So I will give you an analogy: The material object that is the brain, will be represented by a material object DVD. The immaterial consciousness, will be represented by the immaterial meaning and message conveyed by the movie that plays on the DVD.

Now then, if we scratch the DVD, we see that the meaning and message are no longer conveyed properly. THIS THEN PROVES THAT THE MEANING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE IS A PRODUCT OF THE DVD. Right? Just like altering a brain alters the consciousness?

Correct.

No. The immaterial meaning and message of the movie remain undamaged, but the ability to be conveyed through this material object that has been damaged, has also been damaged. Load the same movie onto a different DVD and behold the meaning and message are there. This is because the meaning and message of the movie are immaterial, they are INFORMATION which cannot be destroyed just because you destroy the material object that is conveying the information.

I have actually done this experiment with CDs. Placing it into my computer and copying the songs kept the damage. I think an example closer to human beings would be VHS/Cassettes though.

If you have a program that runs on a computer, if you cut the computer in half the program will not longer run properly, but this is not proof that the computer and the program are the same thing!!! (unless of course you are a materialist  )

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Can you truly be for real?

A program and a computer is not the same thing, however, the program runs on the computer. Your crazy "dogma" makes you see everything backwards. The analogy would be semi-correct in the sense that the program is running on a computer, but your dumb example is ... well, dumb. The brain creates the mind (or so it appears and is demonstrated to be). The computer does not create the program. See the fucking error, Sherlock? Do you see it? The program is made by a programmer and randomly placed onto the computer. It could have run on a different fucking program - and would have been added by an external source. Nothing implies an external source in regards to brains/minds.

Your examples also shows your main position wrong, which is brilliant. It shows that the program can be physically damaged. Remove part of it and the part will be gone. It is not a part of this individual program anymore and the program will be operating differently.

Now lets not forget the fact that before you can claim that "external material objects and their interactions" can produce mind, you must first be able to prove that they exist independent of mind.

We have, sans solipsism. And to repeat: IF SOLIPSISM IS TRUE, EVIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST WITHIN THIS UNIVERSE.

This is why you are such a fake, dishonest fuck. You have removed the possibility for evidence to exist. Which is handy when you have a fake fucking agenda. But if you do not accept that evidence for anything can exist - GET THE FUCK OUT. Discussing with you is then MEANINGLESS.

Your own mind cannot be doubted and you know exists with absolute certainty.

Does that mean you don't exist and that I am the sole person existing, or does it mean that you accept that everyone here exists. If so: WE DEMAND EVIDENCE!!!

Seriously though, you are a dishonest asshole. Go fuck yourself.

This was cathartic and wonderful. :)