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

[Shamsher1990]

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.

No, you can use the same reasoning there. Why? Aliens are lifeforms evolved outside the planet earth. Now we have seen life forms on earth, we also have a natural explainnation of how they come about. So yes, you can make probablistic models predict possiblity of aliens as well.

God, as in the make of universe, all knowing all powerful being, prayer answering, uncreated entity/non-entity is unprecedented. There is no known natural explanation for 'Gods' beginning or how it came about. Neither there is an analogous entity which we know about.

So, no, we cann't apply same rules as aliens or extraterrestrial life-forms to it. Infact we do not even know what rules will apply to it.

The probablity is defined as

n(E)/n(U)

i.e. E is a random experiment set and U is the universe of discourse. Like throwing a die and getting even number on the top. n(E) will be 3 and n(u) will be 6. Probablity will be 1/2.

We know nothing about God to describe E for god, ie Existance of God. Heck people here are arguing that God exists outside this universe, so we do not even know what is U for God. We do not know where god exists. So U is also unknown for us.

No, we cann't estimate porbablity for god.

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:

If quran has a description of an experiment which humanity can do to verify that 'God created life' or 'god created universe' by repeating the procedure God followed and allows us to verify creation of life or creation of universe ourselves, then yes, it provides scientific explanation for God and universe and life. If not, then yes, it is unscientific. The final arbiter in science is experiment.

The biggest issue with likes of quran is that it describes god and universe and god creating universe but it does not describe an experiment which we can do and verify if god's work is even possible.

 

[Hamza913]

There is no known natural explanation for 'Gods' beginning or how it came about. Neither there is an analogous entity which we know about.

God doesn't need a beginning, he exists outside of the universe and therefore it's rules of time do not apply to him (after all, he was the one that designed them).

God has to exist because the universe is not eternal, it started at some point. It's also pretty much impossible for the universe to create itself (such a suggestion is as ludicrous as claiming that a newborn baby gave birth to itself), therefore, it must have been made by something outside of the universe, that 'something' would be God.

A good analogy would be a watch and a watchmaker. The watch wouldn't have simply popped into existence on its own, it would have been made by a watchmaker. If something like a watch cannot just pop into existence out of nothing, what makes you think something far more complex like our universe did? This analogy also brings another excellent point, that the onus of proof is on the atheists to prove that the universe could come into existence from nothing, because for every other object in existence, we know they come from something so we can reasonably assume the same would be true for the universe.

No, we cann't estimate porbablity for god.

Yes we can, the probability of the universe being made by chance has been calculated several times. The number is so low it might as well be zero, one of my previous videos mentioned it.

The biggest issue with likes of quran is that it describes god and universe and god creating universe but it does not describe an experiment which we can do and verify if god's work is even possible.

Again, the fact that you make such silly claims shows how ignorant you are about Islam. It provides several falsification tests to prove the Quran is false, but the fact that nobody can actually meet the challenges set only proves the Quran is true.

One such challenge is the famous "produce a Surah like it" challenge:

https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/miracle/ijaz

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/the-qurans-unique-literary-form/

https://suralikeitrefuted.wordpress.com/

I will once again advise you to research further on Islam using the sources I previously gave you, as well as the internet as a whole. You clearly lack an understanding of the religion.

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.

Alright genius, by that logic, why do you believe in history? You haven't seen it. Same goes for the Earth being round, outer space, the theory of evolution, etc.

Observations are just one part of figuring out what does and what doesn't exist. There are a plethora of other methods that can be and sometimes must be utilised.

 

[kalakaar]

Alright genius, by that logic, why do you believe in history? You haven't seen it. Same goes for the Earth being round, outer space, the theory of evolution, etc.

And what do you want to say?
Earth being round, outer space are materials and their origin can be found

But God?

Observations are just one part of figuring out what does and what doesn't exist. There are a plethora of other methods that can be and sometimes must be utilised.

You can compute whatever you want, but what tells a DNA to function exactly the way it has to? That you will grow and breath and walk. Who programs the DNA that it has to do such function exactly the way it's fed.

intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science.

 

[Hamza913]

And what do you want to say?
Earth being round, outer space are materials and their origin can be found

But God?


You can compute whatever you want, but what tells a DNA to function exactly the way it has to? That you will grow and breath and walk. Who programs the DNA that it has to do such function exactly the way it's fed.

intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science.

We can find ample evidence for God, see my previous posts as well as the sources linked.

Science could discover why in the future, but if it doesn't, that would prove the scientific method is not the end all be all method to discover things.

 

[kalakaar]

We can find ample evidence for God, see my previous posts as well as the sources linked.

Science could discover why in the future, but if it doesn't, that would prove the scientific method is not the end all be all method to discover things.

See evidence is one thing. But building a mathematical model to prove is another.

 

[Hamza913]

See evidence is one thing. But building a mathematical model to prove is another.

Both exist as proof for the existence of God, see my previous posts.

 

[Shamsher1990]

God doesn't need a beginning, he exists outside of the universe and therefore it's rules of time do not apply to him (after all, he was the one that designed them).

Thats what we don't do in science, because to explain a complex universe and its beginning, you chose to hide that complexity in a maker. So now you have to explain this super complex maker which is also outside the universe and how it came about. Otherwise you explanation is worthless as it does not explain anything but is a cop-out.

God has to exist because the universe is not eternal, it started at some point. It's also pretty much impossible for the universe to create itself (such a suggestion is as ludicrous as claiming that a newborn baby gave birth to itself), therefore, it must have been made by something outside of the universe, that 'something' would be God.

No, not necessarily. You have to prove that only explanation for universe's beginning is existence of god. That is saying you have to prove NO other way is possible. What is also not evident is that only explanation of universe beginning are :

1. God creating universe.
2. Universe creating itself.

Unless we prove that no other way is possible, we cannot limit the set of possibilities to these two. So, to adapt 1 as a default choice you need to prove that there is no choice 3 possible.

A good analogy would be a watch and a watchmaker. The watch wouldn't have simply popped into existence on its own, it would have been made by a watchmaker. If something like a watch cannot just pop into existence out of nothing, what makes you think something far more complex like our universe did? This analogy also brings another excellent point, that the onus of proof is on the atheists to prove that the universe could come into existence from nothing, because for every other object in existence, we know they come from something so we can reasonably assume the same would be true for the universe.

The 'Watchmaker' argument has been beaten quite a few time. And it is a self-defeating argument. I will quote someone else's word who has done the hard work for me:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So in short we cann't say a universe was designed because we haven't seen something to compare the universe with. Since we cann't prove the universe to be designed, we cann't claim that it needs a designer.

Again, the fact that you make such silly claims shows how ignorant you are about Islam. It provides several falsification tests to prove the Quran is false, but the fact that nobody can actually meet the challenges set only proves the Quran is true.

I am not even bothering to prove or disprove that Quran is true or false. All I am asking is does Quran contains a description of experiment which we mortals can repeat and recreate a/the universe to prove that universe was created by the person/entity/non-entity who claims to have created the universe. All the experiments that we mortals do are repeatable and no one among us believe someone who says they have done something but they refuse to provide steps to repeat that.

 

[Hamza913]

Thats what we don't do in science, because to explain a complex universe and its beginning, you chose to hide that complexity in a maker. So now you have to explain this super complex maker which is also outside the universe and how it came about. Otherwise you explanation is worthless as it does not explain anything but is a cop-out.


No, not necessarily. You have to prove that only explanation for universe's beginning is existence of god. That is saying you have to prove NO other way is possible. What is also not evident is that only explanation of universe beginning are :

1. God creating universe.
2. Universe creating itself.

Unless we prove that no other way is possible, we cannot limit the set of possibilities to these two. So, to adapt 1 as a default choice you need to prove that there is no choice 3 possible.



The 'Watchmaker' argument has been beaten quite a few time. And it is a self-defeating argument. I will quote someone else's word who has done the hard work for me:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html


So in short we cann't say a universe was designed because we haven't seen something to compare the universe with. Since we cann't prove the universe to be designed, we cann't claim that it needs a designer.


I am not even bothering to prove or disprove that Quran is true or false. All I am asking is does Quran contains a description of experiment which we mortals can repeat and recreate a/the universe to prove that universe was created by the person/entity/non-entity who claims to have created the universe. All the experiments that we mortals do are repeatable and no one among us believe someone who says they have done something but they refuse to provide steps to repeat that.

It's not a cop-out, there is no other possibility. Something made the Universe since it started at some point and cannot have made itself. That something would be called God.

I already gave you a test which you can use to prove whether or not the Quran is true or false. You can look at the sources I've given (as well as the internet as a whole) to find more.

 

[Shamsher1990]

It's not a cop-out, there is no other possibility. Something made the Universe since it started at some point and cannot have made itself. That something would be called God.

You see simply stating "there is no other possibility" is not enough. You have to prove it.

I already gave you a test which you can use to prove whether or not the Quran is true or false. You can look at the sources I've given (as well as the internet as a whole) to find more.

I am not asking for a test to prove if quran is right or wrong. I am simply asking for an experiment that will let me repeat the procedure that God followed to construct the universe. If followed and repeated that will prove that the process documented in quran is indeed the process.

Let me put it like this. I claim that steam is just water. I described an experiment that I took ice in a box of metal and let steam touch the metal surface and I saw droplets of water on the surface. Proved! You can also repeat the experiment.

Now Quran says god made the universe. So it should provide the process that god followed. Now I can repeat the process and prove that indeed that god made the universe because the process was a right one.

 

[Hamza913]

You see simply stating "there is no other possibility" is not enough. You have to prove it.


I am not asking for a test to prove if quran is right or wrong. I am simply asking for an experiment that will let me repeat the procedure that God followed to construct the universe. If followed and repeated that will prove that the process documented in quran is indeed the process.

Let me put it like this. I claim that steam is just water. I described an experiment that I took ice in a box of metal and let steam touch the metal surface and I saw droplets of water on the surface. Proved! You can also repeat the experiment.

Now Quran says god made the universe. So it should provide the process that god followed. Now I can repeat the process and prove that indeed that god made the universe because the process was a right one.

What proof is required lol? Name me one other possibility that I have not considered.

Why do you require such ludicrous evidence? Also, why won't you accept other forms of evidence?

 

[Shamsher1990]

What proof is required lol? Name me one other possibility that I have not considered.

The burden of proof is usually on the person who asks the questions. That said, I will be generous.

Another set of possiblities can be :-

Space and Time are unified and arise from a common underlying natural phenomenon (yet to be understood). (some what similar to matter/energy duality and unification of forces leaving weak forces). This means for beginning of universe only that fundamental underlying natural phenomenon and laws governing it need to be understood. The moment of beginning (usually called big-bang) may be spontaneous transformation of this phenomenon into space and time.

OR

May be it is possible to decompose dark-energy/dark-matter into space and time. 'Before' the beginning of universe, there was massive amount of dark energy/matter which converted itself into space and time. The process is ongoing and is fueled by the same. We might discover fundamental laws linking time and space to dark energy/dark matter.

These are to name a few. And all of them do not require a complex God as you say it is needed.

So, LOL, your attempt to argument by ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) is failed.

Why do you require such ludicrous evidence? Also, why won't you accept other forms of evidence?

I am nobody. Usually in scientific and logical discourse it is considered wrong to argument by transferring burden of proof into a all power even more complex thing like god, unless ofcourse you specify how god works.

 

[Hamza913]

The burden of proof is usually on the person who asks the questions. That said, I will be generous.

Another set of possiblities can be :-

Space and Time are unified and arise from a common underlying natural phenomenon (yet to be understood). (some what similar to matter/energy duality and unification of forces leaving weak forces). This means for beginning of universe only that fundamental underlying natural phenomenon and laws governing it need to be understood. The moment of beginning (usually called big-bang) may be spontaneous transformation of this phenomenon into space and time.

OR

May be it is possible to decompose dark-energy/dark-matter into space and time. 'Before' the beginning of universe, there was massive amount of dark energy/matter which converted itself into space and time. The process is ongoing and is fueled by the same. We might discover fundamental laws linking time and space to dark energy/dark matter.

These are to name a few. And all of them do not require a complex God as you say it is needed.

That "underlying natural phenomenon" is YOUR interpretation of what God may be from a deistic perspective, assuming he is not a conscious being.

As for the latter point, what CAUSED them to decompose in the first place? Surely it did not occur randomly, something had to have caused the matter to start to decompose at some point (since the Universe is not eternal).

You don't understand what God is. God is who/what created the Universe and exists outside of it, not bound by any of its rules or limitations.

I am nobody. Usually in scientific and logical discourse it is considered wrong to argument by transferring burden of proof into a all power even more complex thing like god, unless ofcourse you specify how god works.

Please elaborate.

 

[Shamsher1990]

That "underlying natural phenomenon" is YOUR interpretation of what God may be from a deistic perspective, assuming he is not a conscious being.

Well, if you are ready to accept something like Dark Energy or Dark Matter which *might be* responsible for creation of universe as God of Quran then the argument is over. The only caveat that remains is, science is seldom done so in future we might learn something even more fundamental. I don't know where will you draw the line for 'acceptable god' and how many people will accept that 'discovered god'.

As for the latter point, what CAUSED them to decompose in the first place? Surely it did not occur randomly, something had to have caused the matter to start to decompose at some point (since the Universe is not eternal).

Thats a good point. For that people will have to understand what laws govern that phenomenon or may be what laws govern the behaviour of Dark Energy or Matter. Its essentially like how we discovered the laws which govern behaviour of electron and proton and chemical reactivty and how electronic configuration decides chemical and physical properties. Once you learn it, and if there is a place for manipulation in them, you will be able to do things that you want using those laws.

Please elaborate.

It simply means that I do not decide what I will accept. Usually, I delegate this choice to logic or science. The standard usually is experiment and repeatability.

 

[Hamza913]

Well, if you are ready to accept something like Dark Energy or Dark Matter which *might be* responsible for creation of universe as God of Quran then the argument is over. The only caveat that remains is, science is seldom done so in future we might learn something even more fundamental. I don't know where will you draw the line for 'acceptable god' and how many people will accept that 'discovered god'.




It simply means that I do not decide what I will accept. Usually, I delegate this choice to logic or science. The standard usually is experiment and repeatability.

It's not over, we are speaking from a deistic perspective. From a theistic perspective, this obviously cannot be the case, hence why it's important to establish whether or not a religion is correct.

Not everything can be or has to be realised by this method you have described. Open up your mind to other forms of proof.

Even if you are so obsessed with doing a test, I already gave you one and my sources (that I previously linked) can give you others.

 

[TMA]

It's not over, we are speaking from a deistic perspective. From a theistic perspective, this obviously cannot be the case, hence why it's important to establish whether or not a religion is correct.

Not everything can be or has to be realised by this method you have described. Open up your mind to other forms of proof.

Even you are so obsessed with doing a test, I already gave you one and my sources (that I previously linked) can give you others.

It seems people these days have a limited epistemology. Only empirical evidence is evidence...when in many cases this type of evidence is not possible...