Does quantum mechanics make God's existence more or less likely?

[Marc Anthony]

It means nothing to the question of God's existence. Physics, quantum or otherwise, is not metaphysics, and the existence of God is proven through metaphysics.

[Bobby Jim]

Originally Posted by pbecke

I believe he is. When the materialist physicists, i.e. the establishment, talk about one of the ever-growing proliferation of paradoxes they meet, the further they penetrate the quantum world*, they talk of its being 'counter-intuitive', when the reality is that it is 'counter-rational', totally repugnant to logic, impossible; in other words, an oxymoron that happens to be true.

Since you are quoting the OP's reply to me, I presume you are referring to me as "he"???

Basically my point is that quantum mechanics describes the motions & energetics of subatomic particles, using a mathematical "language". It is meaningless when you try to apply it out of context, or without the mathematics. Like taking the physical principle that "opposites attract" (i.e. Coulomb's Law) and applying it to romantic relationships - it's pretty bad advice. One has to be careful about applying scientific principles beyond the very narrow range of phenomena they are meant to describe.

[trapper1]

Originally Posted by snarflemike

QM tells us that there are things that we cannot, even in principle, know. An example would be when a particular atom will undogo radioactive decay. And yet atoms do decay. So reality behaves in ways that we cannot even in principle explain or predict scientifically (other than in probablistic terms). Does this situation affect the likelyhood of God's existence, in your view?

To phras the question another way, would God's existence be more or less likely if there were no such impossible to know, even in principle, events or behaviors?

I'm currently reading Modern Physics and Achient Faith by Stephan Barr, head of the physics department at the University of Delaware. Barr talks at length about this. Basically, QM severely undermines Materialism, which is the underlying philosophy of many atheists. Of course,quantuum non-determinism or the role of the observer in QM, in themselves, don't prove the existence of God...merely, they cast (serious) doubt on some of the plausible alternatives.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by trapper1

I'm currently reading Modern Physics and Achient Faith by Stephan Barr, head of the physics department at the University of Delaware. Barr talks at length about this. Basically, QM severely undermines Materialism, which is the underlying philosophy of many atheists. Of course,quantuum non-determinism or the role of the observer in QM, in themselves, don't prove the existence of God...merely, they cast (serious) doubt on some of the plausible alternatives.

Barr goes on to show the frames of reference eventually point to God.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jim

Since you are quoting the OP's reply to me, I presume you are referring to me as "he"???

Basically my point is that quantum mechanics describes the motions & energetics of subatomic particles, using a mathematical "language". It is meaningless when you try to apply it out of context, or without the mathematics. Like taking the physical principle that "opposites attract" (i.e. Coulomb's Law) and applying it to romantic relationships - it's pretty bad advice. One has to be careful about applying scientific principles beyond the very narrow range of phenomena they are meant to describe.

A practical application.

When you stand at the edge of a pond and look down - what determines if the photons go to the bottom or reflect off the surface?

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jim

As I re-read your original post, I think the example you give of not knowing when a particular atom will undergo radioactive decay, is a different thing from the "uncertainy principle" of quantum mechanics. A lot of things appear to us to be "stochastic", meaning individually random but leading to predictable behavior at the population or ensemble level.

But QM says that we can never know, even in principle, when an atom will decay. No matter how much information we have about that atom, we can never know. Of course there are many other examples of QM "unknowableness", such as, if we fire a single particle at a double slit, exactly where it will impact a detector behind the double slit.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the existence of God. Either God exists or doesn't exist. Probabilities and likelihoods describe ensemble phenomena. Not that existence of God is like a coin flip. But if you flip a coin, it is either heads or tails. If you flip it many times, you get 50% heads, 50% tails, but each individual flip is one or the other. Even though you can't predict in advance what the result will be, you know it will be one or the other. Quantum mechanics and uncertainy principle has nothing to do with that.

The classical position would be that we could know with absolute certainty the result of every coin flip if we had enough information about the coin, the exact force vector of the flipping impulse, ect.

[snarflemike]

What prompted my question was thinking about the "God of the Gaps" argument. QM says there are "gaps" that can never be filled, can never by spanned. What are the theological implications, if any, of such a fact?

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by snarflemike

What prompted my question was thinking about the "God of the Gaps" argument. QM says there are "gaps" that can never be filled, can never by spanned. What are the theological implications, if any, of such a fact?

In addition, QM postulates the universe to be porous, a place where God operates and sustains the universe.

[300WhiteKnights]

Scientists who try to disprove God via quantum mechanics are simply overstepping their boundaries. Philosophers of science have repeatedly pointed out fundamental fallacies and flaws with arguments from quantum mechanics.


There is an excellent Christian debater who has doctorate in philosophy who has built his life's work around answering these questions. Here are some resources:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media...eliminated-god

Father Robert Barron has also dealt with this question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo

There is absolutely no reason to be concerned with arguments with quantum mechanics. They commonly formulated by scientists with no background in philosophy.

[pbecke]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jim

This is using a physical theory to describe something metaphysical. It can be helpful as an analogy, like thinking of a dance or a shamrock to help understand the trinity, but beware of reading too much into the analogy, which will break down at some point.

You really don't understand this at all, Bobby Jim. You have the boot on the wrong foot. To us, the metaphysical position was never in doubt. What quantum physics does is corroborate it empirically and mathematically. The world is anything but clockwork and routinely measurable; it is utterly dynamic and fretted through with ever more numerous mysteries, unfathomable in very principle.

Moreover, quantum physics is more than a theory. It has proved to be the most successful paradigm ever, and continues to be vindicated experimentally, all the time. Indeed, it has reached the very bounds of physics at the subatomic level. It will not, unlike earlier paradigms, which were superseded in terms of profundity - although not rendered irrelevant at the mundane, human level - be superseded by a new physical paradigm, since we are at the interface between matter and Spirit.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

- Max Planck, father of quantum physics.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...-the-designer/

[pbecke]

The proof of theism is actually quite plain to see. Light always hits the observer at its absolute speed, irrespective of the (constant) speed, at which he might be travelling in the same direction, or if he is just stationary.

What agency could ensure this action on the part of light, other than an omniscient, omnipotent, PERSONAL God.

[Bobby Jim]

Originally Posted by pbecke

You really don't understand this at all, Bobby Jim. You have the boot on the wrong foot. To us, the metaphysical position was never in doubt. What quantum physics does is corroborate it empirically and mathematically. The world is anything but clockwork and routinely measurable; it is utterly dynamic and fretted through with ever more numerous mysteries, unfathomable in very principle.

Moreover, quantum physics is more than a theory. It has proved to be the most successful paradigm ever, and continues to be vindicated experimentally, all the time. Indeed, it has reached the very bounds of physics at the subatomic level. It will not, unlike earlier paradigms, which were superseded in terms of profundity - although not rendered irrelevant at the mundane, human level - be superseded by a new physical paradigm, since we are at the interface between matter and Spirit.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

- Max Planck, father of quantum physics.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...-the-designer/

Perhaps you mistake me for someone else? I'm Catholic; I believe in God, and I believe that we can know something about God through reason, but that fundamentally God has revealed Himself to us, as taught by the Catholic Church.

I just don't know why we have to adopt the language of quantum mechanics to bolster our belief in God. It seems cheap and tawdry, and likely to lead to errors in understanding both God and quantum mechanics.

Back to the OP's question - long ago, I read a book called "Irrational Man" by someone or other Barrett, about the development of existentialism, and how that affected art of the Modern period (early 20th century). Two of the critical turning points (or so the author proposed) were the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, along with Goedel's Incompleteness theorem. At least in the popular imagination, these undermined a lot of the certainty people felt about the universe (of all things, even mathematics itself was now in question - this would be one popular spin of the time on Goedel's theorem), leading to feelings of despair, isolation, and so forth underlying Modernism (and hence Modern art). So on that grounds as well I now find it curious that quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle are now being turned around in the popular imagination into things that support our belief in God. I think the point it makes is that it can make any point you want, and is thus not helpful to belief (or unbelief).

[ReapReason]

Originally Posted by Gods_Peace

God exists

Thats not an arguement; thats an assertion of your faith.

[ReapReason]

Originally Posted by pbecke

Moreover, quantum physics is more than a theory.

Lets see here...

There are hypothesis, and then are scientific theories like the theory of evolution. Are you suggesting that there is somethig higher than a scientific theory in science?

[ReapReason]

Originally Posted by pbecke

The proof of theism is actually quite plain to see. Light always hits the observer at its absolute speed, irrespective of the (constant) speed, at which he might be travelling in the same direction, or if he is just stationary.

What agency could ensure this action on the part of light, other than an omniscient, omnipotent, PERSONAL God.

That sounds like a God of the gaps arguement.