Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
Can those who do not believe in any god prove that he does not exist.
It's much easier to understand the double slit experiment if you see a demonstration of it (search for "Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment" on YouTube.com) and I'm no expert, but I'll try to explain. Imagine an experiment with a marble shooting gun. You aim it at a wall, but place a barrier with a vertical slit in it between the gun and the wall. After a while of shooting marbles through the slit, a slit-shaped pattern emerges on the wall behind, corresponding to slit in the barrier. Likewise, if you put two vertical slits in the barrier, you'll get two stripes on the wall behind.
Now imagine that instead of using marbles you submerge the experiment about half way in a tub of water and make waves. Once again you start with one slit in the barrier. As the waves of water hit the barrier, the portion of the wave that is not blocked goes through the vertical slit and then hits the wall behind. This leaves a pattern that is similar to the single marble pattern, but more diffuse: you get a vertical stripe that fades to either side. But, when you use the two slit barrier a major difference emerges. As the water passes through both slits the arcs of the waves that form on the other side interfere with each other - they form a wave interference pattern - and on the wall behind they leave not two, but many vertical stripes due to this interference pattern. So we see a clear difference between particles (marbles) and waves on the macro level.
But, on the micro, or sub-atomic, level some unfamiliar things happen. Shooting a stream of electron through a single slit to the "back wall" (a sensor) results in the classic single stripe marble (particle) pattern. But shooting the stream through two slits results in an interference pattern with many stripes instead of the expected two. Zounds! Electrons were supposed (by classical physics) to be particles. But it gets even stranger. Shooting individual electrons, one at a time, through the two slits formed a multiple stripe interference pattern - the way a wave would! How could this be? The given explanation is that the electrons have a wave function and are interfering with themselves - that is, they exist in more than one place at a time (superposition) and since they do, they can bump into themselves (like two waves bumping into each other) and form interference patterns like waves. After thousands of experiments like this quantum physicists have concluded that, in fact, electrons exist in "fields of probability" rather than at any one spot at one time. As they are shot toward the sensor each electron either goes through the barrier's left slit, or the right slit, or BOTH slits or neither slit. When the electron goes through both slits it emerges and interferes with itself and, thus, a wave pattern emerges on the sensor.
Finally, and here I get to the nub of your question, when you try to measure exactly which slit each electron is going through (or as it is sometimes put - the exact position and path of the electron), using just enough force to actually achieve a measurement, the electrons you alter the path and position of the electron so that it Stops Acting Like a Wave and stops forming interference patterns. In Q.M. lingo, the wave function collapses, or as Turchin says "you get a false result" (sic. like you'd get a false result if you bumped into a seismograph). In other words it is impossible to measure both the position and path of an electron.
Thus, as I said previously, "since quantum mechanics proves that some things in the universe cannot be measured no matter what, the universe is a place in which an 'all powerful being' is impossible because the use of the phrase 'all powerful' must apply to all types of power, including measuring, and to those powers in all situations, including subatomic ones."
"Also, an all knowing being would know what it's like to be 'all powerful.' Specifically, for example, He would know what it's like to measure the above electron trajectory. Since that trajectory is unknowable an 'all knowing' being is, likewise, impossible."
Q. How do we know god doesn't know the measure of all electrons? A. Wave functions haven't universally collapsed. Had they been measured they would have collapsed and no transistors (for example) would have ever functioned properly.
Q. Why do they call god "him?" A. Only us guys have that much hubris.
P.S. I like your artwork. Is it pastels?
It was a rhetorical question... I know they cannot jibe... and like I said... the concept of free will is not compatible with an omnipresent god... but this is a tenet of certain religions nonetheless... it only changes the definitions of god... and I am fine with the abstraction.
The God of determinism sounds a lot like the idea of a fatalist's god... so fatalists be damned... wonder if they saw that coming?
So we have scratched an omnipresent god along with an omniscient one... or at least our current perceptions... should there be a point in the future when an amalgamation occurs and a reconciliation of all knowledge and presence. Right now that isn't the case... and I agree that these definitions of a god are incorrect.
Omnipotence is harder to distinguish and I can't speak to its establishment... but again free will speaks to the matter... if a shepherd doesnt have hold of the reins of the flock... he has a diminished power.. but this doesn't tell us the ease with which the reins can be regained.
"As Valentin F. Turchin, and many other quantum physicists point out, if minimally sufficient, or greater, power (of any kind) is used to know the trajectory of an electron in the double slit experiment, it will change that trajectory and, therefor, give a false result. If less than minimally sufficient power is used to measure the electron's trajectory, then it will not measure the trajectory of the electron"
Obvious question... how can it can be concluded that a false result occurs when a power is used to observe the electrons trajectory? Is he saying that the result didn't happen... is he arguing that a predetermined path was interfered with... which seems to be arguing both for and against determinism at the same time... how can he speak to the mechanism of spontaneity?
You define "God" then use logical arguments to disprove the definition... obvious since you can't prove a negative... but your conclusion contains a flawed premise... at least in my estimation... by suggesting that the "big three" disallow free will. Regardless... their definition of 'God" is still only a definition. If this satisfies your requirement to nullify any god... fine... but these arguments are centuries old... and are still being argued... for good reason.
Since determinism is dead... we are left with variables... uncertainty. How do we account for the uncertainty?... that's as subjective as observer-caused wave collapse... as long as it is acknowledged. If we acknowledge it... then the argument that empirical evidence is absolutely necessary to come to a conclusion one way or the other on the existence of a god is baseless. If something exists that is unaccounted for... the possibility is there for more.
Forgive the rambling... my mind is all over the place... not excusing myself.
Addendum to my just prior answer: As Valentin F. Turchin, and many other quantum physicists point out, if minimally sufficient, or greater, power (of any kind) is used to know the trajectory of an electron in the double slit experiment, it will change that trajectory and, therefor, give a false result. If less than minimally sufficient power is used to measure the electron's trajectory, then it will not measure the trajectory of the electron. Therefore, I conclude, the trajectory of the electron is inherently unknowable, even to a supposedly "all knowing" being. Indeed, reality is such that calling a being "all knowing" is, on its face, false.
To which theists will probably answer, "But God doesn't have to measure stuff to know it. He just knows it." They would, in reality, be describing a cobbled God, a less than all-powerful God, because they would limit God to not being able to know by measuring. In the face of Q.M. the "all powerful" God evaporates.
Summary: Since quantum mechanics proves that some things in the universe cannot be measured no matter what, the universe is a place in which an "all powerful being" is impossible because the use of the phrase "all powerful" must apply to all types of power, including measuring, and to those powers in all situations, including subatomic ones.
Also, an all knowing being would know what it's like to be "all powerful." Specifically, for example, "He" would know what it's like to measure the above electron trajectory. Since that power is unknowable an "all knowing" being is, likewise, impossible. Without the phases "all powerful" and "all knowing" the description of the God of modern monotheism is reduced to "omnipresent." The universe is omnipresent, is that what is meant by God? If so the idea of God is a tautology. Can I get a "rem acu tetigisti?"
Conclusion: Therefor, I believe that the concept of an all powerful, all knowing God, as the three major monotheisms of the world conceive "Him" to be, has been disproved by quantum physics to the extent and to the degree that anything can be disproved.
Note: In order to avoid having to put quotes around god and him in the future, and to avoid the confusion inherent in an Atheist applying the honorific of capitalization to a concept he feels is thoroughly discredited, but with no disrespect to the faithful intended, I shall heretofore not capitalize the words god or references to god.
Your Cell Phone Proves That God Does Not Exist
There are many logical proofs for the non-existence of a God, but I favor a more scientific approach.
In order to disprove the existence of a supreme being we first must define it. Modern monotheistic religions seem to all agree on a few necessary characteristics: God is all-knowing, God is all-powerful, God is omnipresent. Ask yourself, would I worship a God that did not know everything? Would I worship a God that had some weaknesses? Would I worship a God who only existed in some places, and not in others? While there have been many people who would have answered yes to those questions (ancient Greeks for example) modern monotheists usually would find any limitations to their God objectionable. The following is a disproof of such a "super" God.
Quantum physics discloses that matter (particles like electrons) have a "wave function." There is a wonderful animated video (an out-take from the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know") explaining, far better than I can, the wave function and its collapse caused by observation. To watch the video just do a search for "Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment" on YouTube.com. Go ahead and do it now, I'll wait.
Now that you understand that anyone or anything that observes or measures a wave function collapses it, please ponder the following fact: many of our modern electronic devices, like your cell phone, could not work if their wave functions collapse.
Putting It All Together
If God exists everywhere then it must exist in your cell phone. If God knows everything then it must know the full measure of the wave functions in your cell phone. If God is all powerful then the wave functions in your cell phone must be effected by God and must, therefor, have collapsed. However, if they did collapse, then you couldn't ever have made any calls on it, because intact wave functions are necessary for a cell phone to work. Thus, if you, or anyone else, has ever made a phone call on a cell phone then an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent God cannot possibly exit. You are now free, have a happy day.
Your Cell Phone Proves That God Does Not Exist
There are many logical proofs for the non-existence of a God, but I favor a more scientific approach.
In order to disprove the existence of a supreme being we first must define it. Modern monotheistic religions seem to all agree on a few necessary characteristics: God is all-knowing, God is all-powerful, God is omnipresent. Ask yourself, would I worship a God that did not know everything? Would I worship a God that had some weaknesses? Would I worship a God who only existed in some places, and not in others? While there have been many people who would have answered yes to those questions (ancient Greeks for example) modern monotheists usually would find any limitations to their God objectionable. The following is a disproof of such a "super" God.
Quantum physics discloses that matter (particles like electrons) have a "wave function." There is a wonderful animated video (an out-take from the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know") explaining, far better than I can, the wave function and its collapse caused by observation. To watch the video just do a search for "Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment" on YouTube.com. Go ahead and do it now, I'll wait.
Now that you understand that anyone or anything that observes or measures a wave function collapses it, please ponder the following fact: many of our modern electronic devices, like your cell phone, could not work if their wave functions collapse.
Putting It All Together
If God exists everywhere then it must exist in your cell phone. If God knows everything then it must know the full measure of the wave functions in your cell phone. If God is all powerful then the wave functions in your cell phone must be effected by God and must, therefor, have collapsed. However, if they did collapse, then you couldn't ever have made any calls on it, because intact wave functions are necessary for a cell phone to work. Thus, if you, or anyone else, has ever made a phone call on a cell phone then an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent God cannot possibly exit. You are now free, have a happy day.
A detector collapses the wave... and the result is that the experiment exhibits the properties of a particle... I suppose it can be considered a false result... I think that the detector acts as a de facto observer and collapses the wave function vicariously. Why when the second slit is left open do the particles that enter the slit act as if they have also been collapsed when the detector cannot interfere through any action upon their trajectories? They were never detected... so this would suggest their waves never came into range of the detector... they were observed entering the second slit by process of elimination.
The rub of the nub... this is all subjective... If a god necessarily manifests the same phenomena upon the observation of any possibility... this doesnt necessarily mean that an objective observer has his or her wave collapsed when the omniscient god collapses them all... you wouldn't collapse my wave functions and I wouldn't collapse yours... they are subjective and perhaps denote individual realities or a plethora of them that are dependent upon the observations made.
Or god doesnt necessarily have the same affect on the collapse of the wavefunction... who says he has to?... No hubris intended... its just easier. Any number of explanations could be given... one of which is as the author of the set of possibilities... the end result... no matter infinitely complex... can still be utterly knowable outside of the confines of the human mind. We anthropomorphize god.
The death of determinism is the resurrection of free will. Free will is not anathema to the christianity that I was taught growing up.. I can't speak to all denominations and to the other big religions...
Thanks for the compliment... I had meant to compliment you on the incredible work of the bust at your profile...it is amazing... my kind of art.
The avatar here was actually created on the paint program... intentionally mimicking pastels.
I must agree. I don't understand why most people seem to think the existence of God cannot be disproven.
There is overwhelming evidence that the universe wasn't created. If the universe wasn't created, the concept of "God" goes away. A God that didn't created the universe, and is a part of it, isn't really "God" at all, just a more powerful life form. As the evidence piles up, we may in fact, reach a point where we can disprove the existence of God completely. People should answer "no" with a caveat. No, not now. Perhaps. But soon. And yes, the original poster does need to at least present his idea of what "God" is. I'm assuming he means all-powerful creator.
General relativity, the Big Bang, and the Wave Function all tell us that A) time doesn't exist outside the universe, but is rather a property of it, that B) the universe was, in fact, in a much different state than it used to be eons ago, and C) that this universe actually had a very high probability of coming into existence with the constants that it has now. Quantum mechanics, although not yet reconciled with relativity, at least tells us that at the smallest level, the universe operates randomly, and is based on uncertainty.
Empirically, all of this is valid. Scientists are working on a "Theory of Everything" and have been for several years. I think once we reach that point, the concept of God will be disproven completely, or at least, compared to the theory, God will have no proof.
First you have to define what god is. That much I said in my response, as did a couple other people. Then we can answer this question with greater certainty.
Pick your favorite definition...
Also, the statement that God's nonexistence cannot be proven, itself cannot be proven.
You are now talking in circles, with circular logic. That's why you can't apply logic to God... the concept defies logic. The principal states that a conclusion CANNOT be made, and since that statement in itself IS a conclusion, then IT cannot be made either, and so on, and so on. This is like playing tic-tac-toe with yourself. The only winning move is to NOT PLAY (Wargames, 1983).
A person can take as many laps as they want, the only conclusion is to give up, and conclude that the information is unknowable.
No amount of finite intelligence, or manmade technology, will be able to find answers partaining to an ideal that is theoretically INFINITE, and beyond human comprehension or imagination. The only... cough ...logical method, would be for the ideal (in this case, God) to provide the answers DIRECTLY.
Irrelevant. You can claim anything you want, that doesn't make it valid, or true.
Its totally relevant. It means scientific claims about God, are just as unprovable as theirs.
Determinism is dead. It was killed by 20th century philosophy and quantum mechanics. A brilliant, and far more thorough, answer to your question than I can ever hope to give can be found by reading chapter 13 of Valentin F. Turchin's "The Phenomenon of Science" in a section called "The Collapse of Determinism." If you do a web search for the phase "quantum mechanics destroyed determinism" you should find it. I point you to that source also because it speaks most directly to your question of "how wave collapse and determinism jibe."
It seems to me that since determinism is dead, so is the God of determinism. What can a God that is all knowing know in a universe that is, at it most fundamental level, completely indeterminate? What is the focus of its knowledge when all objects - "all things "visible or tangible and relatively stable in form" - don't, as such, exist? In a world where probability rules, will we see the idea of "God" morph into a statistician nonpareil? Will God now become an omnipresent, all powerful, all calculating being, the ultimate deus ex machina (computer)? When that happens please expect some quantum scientist to point out that since the universe-as-we-know-it began as a singularity, everywhere is the same place. Aum?
Why can't you prove or disprove god? there's no reason for a god to hide from us if it wants us to believe it exists. I myself can show that god is either nonexistent, an evil wackjob, or that there's no rational reason to believe in it.
The holy books say that god created the earth and heavens, which is just another word for the sky where the ancients thought gods lived. The ancients didn't know about outerspace.
You can accept that the universe just is as it makes sense, or believe that god for some odd reason made the universe that way. There are many things about god creating the universe that don't make any sense, the evidence and logic points to the universe developing naturally.
The area of mythmaking, the origins of the universe, has only recently become a true science. I'm sure theories will develope further as new things are discovered.
No. But in a scientific view the lack of evidence of something allows for its non existence until such fact based evidence is found. Since there is no real proof of God he doesn't exist. Kingofpop has a good point too. The fact that God of any kind can not exist is more proof that God doesn't exist. Your question "Can you prove God doesn't exist suggest that you would like a scientific answer but the problem is that in the scientific world the question isn't can you prove God doesn't exist cause the lack of evidence is already there the right question to ask is can you prove the existence of God. Prettyshy: science as a whole is not interested in proving or not proving God's existence. The fact that science has found evidence, in pursuit of other things, of the improbably of the existence of a God is not to say its the purpose of science.
Can those who do not believe in any god prove that he does not exist.
No... they can't...
Just as those who DO believe in God, can't prove that he DOES exist.
science is there to prove that God does not exist..
Uhhh no... Science is a method for analyzing, understanding, and explaining things that ARE. Things that exist around us, how the world, and the rest of the cosmos work.
Just because many scientific findings, often debunk or just seem to contradict the traditional theistic explanations for various things; doesn't mean that science is 'trying' to disprove God's existence.
The scientific explanation of how the universe began, isn't any more/less believable or provable than the creationist explanation.
"It's very easy to understand... can YOU disprove God's existence? Or do you know anyone who can?"
First you have to define what god is. That much I said in my response, as did a couple other people. Then we can answer this question with greater certainty.
Also, the statement that God's nonexistence cannot be proven, itself cannot be proven.
"Theists claim the same amount of 'overwhelming evidence' to the contrary."
Irrelevant. You can claim anything you want, that doesn't make it valid, or true. Theists once claimed the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Observation of the natural world demonstrated otherwise. The same pattern is happening with the universe, and its origins.
Does God want us to believe in him/her/?? Is God all powerful? If the previous 2 statements are true, then why do some people not believe in God? If God is all-powerful, then why does he not force the atheists to believe in God, because he can't? Then does that mean that the will of some humans is stronger than God's? If it is, then God cannot be all-powerful. Therefore, at least 1 aspect of God is wrong. If 1 is wrong, who knows what else is also wrong.
If you will let me believe in what I want to believe, then I will let you believe what you want to believe.
Believes need faith, facts need proof.
I don't understand why most people seem to think the existence of God cannot be disproven.
It's very easy to understand... can YOU disprove God's existence? Or do you know anyone who can?
There is overwhelming evidence that the universe wasn't created.
Theists claim the same amount of 'overwhelming evidence' to the contrary.
The belief of Free Will conflicts with the notion of an omnipresent god as well the absence theodicy is in conflict... two logical arguments that deny a characteristic of someones definition of god... a ruse of sophistry... sounds good but proves nothing.
How do the theory of observer caused wave collapse and determinism jibe?
No one can proove that he DOES or DOES NOT exist.. period.
Although that being said, if you are talking about the Christian God, and you look at the bible and all of the things that it says - there is plenty of proof against many things in the bible itself that talks about God.
Can those who believe that "god" exsists prove it? Nope! The way I look at it is that all religion is bulls***...I mean if you wanna have an imaginary friend in the sky named "god" that's fine, but I refuse to. Believe in humans not in "god"!
I think there are several ways to prove something does not exist, and one of those ways is to prove it cannot exist. In your question, you need to define what god is, and then we can determine whether such a being could possibly exist.
*** Can those who do not believe in any god prove that he does not exist.
Well, you need to define your god first. Wooden idol type gods certainly exist.
It's a state of mind. Believing that God does not exist is a belief just like believing that he does exist. Who wrote the Bible anyways? Humans did.
Nope. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Can you prove he doesn't exist? If not, why don't you believe in him?
"What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence." Think about this one.
Nope
I don't believe in God...however, if science can prove he exists, I will change my belief.
I bet most of yall believe that the so.call spring water in the bottle is really spring water!
when God come let us alll tell him. we were waiting on someone to prove you exist.
No... His existence can't be proven or unproven... This is why I'm agnostic
science is there to prove that God does not exist..
the short answer? no.
Zeus does, too.
Nope.
:D
