Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Eudaimonist]

Anyway, since Wikipedia quotes seem okay to post in one's defense, here is an important one.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that affects the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[1]

According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[2] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[3] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement.

As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Your definition of an observer cannot be true. If one takes a photon of light and passes in through a slot in a box, the box would be the observer and the wave would collapse into a particle, but this is not the case.

The observer in the double slit experiment is the photographic film in the other side of the slits.

 

[Hieronymus]

You obviously haven't begun to research any of the quantum physics experiments; matter does not become a particle without the observer.

You think i was born yesterday?
I used to be one of those dreamers.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Remember in grade school math class where they taught the concepts of algebra? Whatever you do to one side of an equation, must be done to the other side as well yes?

If one is to infer the existence of a God by using the argument that the universe could not have come from nothing, one must also apply that same argument to God.

No, according to logic something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore not need a cause. And that is what God is, He is a cause but not an effect. This is true of anything not just God.

mur: Also, you state that a void could not produce anything.. That's argumentative as we know that galaxies are moving further away from us, not because the galaxies are actually moving, but because new space is popping into existence between the galaxies. That is to say, the "void" is creating more "void". That seems to make your statement incorrect, on that level anyhow.

And just so you know, the answer to the universe really is 42! We can measure the expansion of the universe and it is expanding at about 42 miles per second, per 3.2 million light years.

Also, the Bible is the only religious book that teaches that the universe is expanding, this is evidence that it is of divine origin. Since it was written 3000 years before science discovered this fact.

mur: The fact is, we don't actually know the conditions or events "before".. but that does not infer the existence of a God who then comes to earth and speaks to a bunch of quasi-cavemen who wipe their butts with their hands, enslave others, and have sex with little girls.
(sorry, but I had to paint the proper picture to make my point)

So were does it all come from? We don't know.. and that's OK !

Since the universe is an effect, we actually CAN logically infer what caused the universe. Scientists do this everyday with other effects, of course most of them will not do this with the universe because then they would be labeled a fundie and railroaded out of academia. So while we can't PROVE that the Christian God created the universe, we can demonstrate that He IS the most likely cause using the law of Causality and the BB theory.

 

[Radrook]

No, according to logic something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore not need a cause. And that is what God is, He is a cause but not an effect. This is true of anything not just God.



Also, the Bible is the only religious book that teaches that the universe is expanding, this is evidence that it is of divine origin. Since it was written 3000 years before science discovered this fact.



Since the universe is an effect, we actually CAN logically infer what caused the universe. Scientists do this everyday with other effects, of course most of them will not do this with the universe because then they would be labeled a fundie and railroaded out of academia. So while we can't PROVE that the Christian God created the universe, we can demonstrate that He IS the most likely cause using the law of Causality and the BB theory.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Albert Einstein

 

[SkyWriting]

How did you establish that?

Most researchers have embraced the idea that all effects have causes.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're misunderstanding that study. Consciousness doesn't affect reality. When they say they "observed" light particles...they mean they used an instrument to measure it's position. You can't actually "see" photons.

I can. That's how I know to respond to your post.
There are some dark areas, I perceive as words.
The rest are photons.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can. That's how I know to respond to your post.
There are some dark areas, I perceive as words.
The rest are photons.

Was this meant as a joke?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Anyway, since Wikipedia quotes seem okay to post in one's defense, here is an important one.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that affects the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[1]

According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[2] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[3] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement.

As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)


eudaimonia,

Mark

The whole "my mind can control physics" flim flam appeals to the same people that snake-handling or speaking in tongues appeals to...at least in my opinion...

These always seem to be the kind of folks who aren't able to accept that there's nothing substantially significant about them...so the idea of "super powers" or at least unusual abilities is something that they rather desperately want in their lives.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Most researchers have embraced the idea that all effects have causes.

That's true by definition. But you might want to flesh the argument out a little more.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

That's true by definition. But you might want to flesh the argument out a little more.


eudaimonia,

Mark

-Experiment-
Cause -------------> Effect

-Theories-
Effect -----------> Cause?

 

[SkyWriting]

Was this meant as a joke?

I have specialized cells in my eyes that detect photons.
I see everything upside-down, then my amazing brain
actually flips the image giving the illusion that what I
see is right-side up.

 

[expos4ever]

There must be an eternal first cause, the question is what is it.

While I understand the temptation to think this way, I think you cannot just assume this. All we really can say is the human mind cannot make sense of something "uncaused". But that it is an entirely different matter than claiming that there "must be an eternal firs cause".

 

[Eudaimonist]

-Experiment-
Cause -------------> Effect

-Theories-
Effect -----------> Cause?

No, I meant supporting the claim that "There must be an eternal first cause"


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

No, I meant supporting the claim that "There must be an eternal first cause"


eudaimonia,

Mark

-Theories-
Effect -----------> Cause?

Reason for theories?
Cause ------> Effect

 

[expos4ever]

Have you ever taken a look at any of the quantum physics studies? They took a photon of light and wanted to understand if it traveled as a particle or as a wave and what they clearly observed is that the photon moves as a wave until one becomes aware of it and then in that instance it becomes a particle. The experiment clearly shows that what you see only takes on physical characteristics because of consciousness. In other words, what you see only exists when one observes it and otherwise it doesn't physically exist.

I know that at least one other poster has challenged this, as do I. Here is a statement from the lips (or pen) of no less than Werner Heisenberg:

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.

 

[Eudaimonist]

-Theories-
Effect -----------> Cause?

Reason for theories?
Cause ------> Effect

You might want to explain that. I have no idea what you are trying to say.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

You might want to explain that. I have no idea what you are trying to say.


eudaimonia,

Mark

-Theories-
Effect -----------> Cause?

Reason for theories?
Cause ------> Effect

We see "the results." The sun, the moon, the cosmos, matter.
We create Theories about how what we see, came to be.

Why do we wonder what the causes are?
Becasue we know reality is cause and effect based.
A "Cause" produces and "effect" or result.
Knowing that to be correct, we must create theories
on every effect that we see.

We can show that all results have causes.
So there must have been a "First Cause" for all that we see.
Becasue of this dilemma, the "First cause" must be outside
of our current reality.
Science confirmed this with two observations:
1. Reality before the big bang cannot be known.
2. Our current reality started and will end.

Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death

Heat death of the universe

 

[expos4ever]

Why do we wonder what the causes are?
Becasue we know reality is cause and effect based.
A "Cause" produces and "effect" or result.

I don't think this is really the full story. We, as agents who try to understand our world, seem forced to think in cause and effect terms. But just because we cannot imagine how something can happen without an antecedent cause does not mean that reality itself shares this property of the necessary connection of "cause" and "effect". I think you may be illegimately projecting the limitations of human reasoning (i.e. that we cannot even conceive of an "uncaused" something) onto the universe itself.

Granted, we are faced with a big mystery, but I believe it is a mistake to argue that there must have been a "first cause"

Becasue of this dilemma, the "First cause" must be outside
of our current reality.
Science confirmed this with two observations:
1. Reality before the big bang cannot be known.
2. Our current reality started and will end.

How does item (1) establish that there has to have been a "first" cause?

Same for item (2).