Can Quantum Physics and Observer Effect prove the existence of God ?

[Shamsher1990]

The existence of an uncreated Creator is a "self evident truth"...similar to the "self evident truth" that I am a being with consciousness...

Not quite exactly. How do you know you are talking to a conscious being to begin with. Rather a bigger question is "Do you really need a conscious being to talk to?". Its not self evident.
This kind of arguments are called proof by lack of imagination.
You can certainly prove things by rejecting other possibilities but then you will have to prove that only these possibilities exist and nothing else. Then by rejecting other options, you make the remaining option a self evident truth. Somewhat similar to what kids do in maths proof : ie proving a theorem by contradiction. Unless you have a tight bound on all the possiblities you cann't claim anything to be self evident.

 

[TMA]

Not quite exactly. How do you know you are talking to a conscious being to begin with. Rather a bigger question is "Do you really need a conscious being to talk to?". Its not self evident.
This kind of arguments are called proof by lack of imagination.
You can certainly prove things by rejecting other possibilities but then you will have to prove that only these possibilities exist and nothing else. Then by rejecting other options, you make the remaining option a self evident truth. Somewhat similar to what kids do in maths proof : ie proving a theorem by contradiction. Unless you have a tight bound on all the possiblities you cann't claim anything to be self evident.

So are you saying that I am not a being with consciousness?

 

[Shamsher1990]

So are you saying that I am not being with consciousness?

Well, it could be a simple PHP script answering your question. Remember, Chinese Room thought-experiment?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

Also folks, in all these arguments "We need an uncreated God to explain a seemingly really old universe" is what is called a complexity hiding arguments.

You start trying to explain a really complex universe and how it came into being.
And you replace that question with another question of trying to explain a really complex and even older god which you claim to have no beginning.

So in the end you have moved the complexity of universe and its birth into the god. And you have discovered no useful information or provided any useful explanation.

 

[kalakaar]

Well, it could be a simple PHP script answering your question. Remember, Chinese Room thought-experiment?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

Also folks, in all these arguments "We need an uncreated God to explain a seemingly really old universe" is what is called a complexity hiding arguments.

You start trying to explain a really complex universe and how it came into being.
And you replace that question with another question of trying to explain a really complex and even older god which you claim to have no beginning.

So in the end you have moved the complexity of universe and its birth into the god. And you have discovered no useful information or provided any useful explanation.

The logic behind this is , I draw a circle at home bring it to the college and ask my classmates to find it's beginning and the end. They spend hours and days looking for it but can't find any clue for the problem. They finally come to me and ask me and I tell them.

 

[Shamsher1990]

The logic behind this is , I draw a circle at home bring it to the college and ask my classmates to find it's beginning and the end. They spend hours and days looking for it but can't find any clue for the problem. They finally come to me and ask me and I tell them.

Well there are more dialectic words for what you just described but where I come from, it is usually called beating around the bush in a more civilized tongue or more commonly : Swining your D$#@ round and round.

 

[kalakaar]

Well there are more dialectic words for what you just described but where I come from, it is usually called beating around the bush in a more civilized tongue or more commonly : Swining your D$#@ round and round.

Even they could use all lagrangian , poisson brackets or eculidean matrix . It would have not helped them find any beginning or end. Just a simple circle drawn by me. Forget universe created by some energy.

 

[denel]

I have a very limited Background of Science and Physics , but i am very very much interested in learning newly Scientific model's and theories .. browsing through the videos i came across this interesting video about how God can possibly be All knowing Observant which Creates a Conscious based Reality . The Idea explained in this video seems probabilistic but not crazy as it sounds , if someone have studied Quantum Physics can tell me how relevant this is or could be possible .

The second Video is about a Possible explanation of Prophet's night journey , as some believe it to be a Physical but some believe it to be a Spiritual journey .

The Discussion would be strictly based on Scientific reasoning , not on blind faith or believes .. any Religious insults or trolling baits will be reported to Mods , and will result in a temporary ban . Please Tag people's whom you think have a academic background in Physics or Science .

@django @Signalian @war&peace @Oscar @Horus @HAKIKAT @BHarwana

Friend, firstly dont rely on youtube for seeking divine answers.

I will urge you to take up courses in physics and mathematics to realise the potential of human brain and how one is able to transcend knowledge; right there lies the notion of God - hashem - the unseen as we say it in Torah.

Man was given the gift to learn, if that does not answer this paradox, i will leave rest to you.
thank you. shalom/salam.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Friend, firstly dont rely on youtube for seeking divine answers.

I will urge you to take up courses in physics and mathematics to realise the potential of human brain and how one is able to transcend knowledge; right there lies the notion of God - hashem - the unseen as we say it in Torah.

Man was given the gift to learn, if that does not answer this paradox, i will leave rest to you.
thank you. shalom/salam.

Have you seen those convincing videos about flat earth on youtube?

 

[denel]

Have you seen those convincing videos about flat earth on youtube?

I dont watch youtube.

 

[my2cents]

I am not sure if your god hypothesis will advance science in any way.

 

[gambit]

Have you seen those convincing videos about flat earth on youtube?

Fools...All of you...!!!

 

[TMA]

Then that self evident truth is applicable only to us or to God, respectively.

You see yourself in the mirror. You know your physical being. You see results of your actions. And so on...

Same thing for God, except that God is able to see us but not us to God. So the self evident argument is not applicable to assuming the existence of God. It is faith that God exist. Not logic.

It seems this is a question of epistemology.

One can know through empiricism, one can know through reason/intellect,one can know intuitively or one can know through an external source (e.g.testimony)...
Now they are not mutually exclusive, e.g. Science is a combination of empiricism and reason (at least for the Scientist, for us it is a matter of testimony...), Maths is pretty much reason/intellect...

I know intuitively that I am a being with consciousness, even if I am in a "Matrix" styled world...hence I call it self evident truth...
Your example about the mirror and seeing my physical being is an example of empiricism and not intuition...
my consciousness is not a physical entity....even if I was a blind fella, I would still KNOW that I am a being with consciousness.

Similarly an uncreated Creator is a self evident truth....the question is really then, what evidence does one have to disprove such an entity...?
Just like what evidence does one have to disprove the self evident truth that I am a being with consciousness?

 

[kalakaar]

Have you seen those convincing videos about flat earth on youtube?

Yes earth is flat ( conditions applied) or you can say many small and tiny flat land came together to form earth. Why I say this because, the smallest part of a curve is a Line.

So smallest part of a curved plane has to be a euclidean smooth plane

 

[Hamza913]

Issue is, any god or spiritual being by definition is 'unverifiable'

Wrong, you can still prove God using pretty basic probability and logic. It's similar to believing in aliens to some extent. We've never seen aliens, but we know that they almost certainly exist because of reasons based on probability. It's the same with God.

I will, if I were asked, will say that I believe in any particular " god's " existence as much as I believe in existence of Voldemart or Dumbledore or An Invisible Pink Unicorn.

That only shows the height of your ignorance when it comes to other religions. Here's some material explaining why us Muslims believe Islam is the truth, as well as countering common misconceptions:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7F4B62A190046A64

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx420FfPBbEboBvnYjIemzw

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnZPtuya_yUUqGZGHk1nEOA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHDFNoOk8WOXtHo8DIc8efQ

http://www.answering-christianity.com/

https://www.letmeturnthetables.com/

https://alfinlandi.wordpress.com/author/alfinlandi/

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/

https://www.islamic-awareness.org/

https://suralikeitrefuted.wordpress.com/

 

[kalakaar]

Even if we have a particular mathematical model to explain God it would NOT harvest us a lot of knowledge. For example there is an equation of heat or specific heat in thermodynamics. You can't experience heat unless until you feel what heat is? Isn't it?
Or simply have an equation to define a particular colour for example red. What is a definition of red colour. As per laws when human eye sees a light with wavelength of 625-740nm and frequency of 480-400THz and energy 1.77eV.

What actually the fu*k would these equations and definitions do unless until you experience the red colour by seeing with your eyes.

Same is the concept of God.