Quantum arguments for God

As someone who was raised christian I still don't understand this. Why knowingly and purposefully believe in something that you do not hope to rationalize. (OTOH, I'm always glad to see religious people who actually and clearly follow their beliefs.)

edit: removed edit

As opposed to "irrational" I would be willing to settle for "unscientific." There might be knowledge unattainable through observation and experiment, but attainable through revelation from someone not subject to our limitations. Such a belief is obviously unscientific, but I do not think "irrational" is accurate. I think you would need to find some incompatibility between premises and conclusions to claim that.

i can't think of anything a leap of faith in the existence of god provides which couldn't otherwise have been rationalized.

god tells one man to kill his neighbors, and another to befriend them. don't we determine the value of each religious practice by rationally evaluating their effects?

He's not trying to prove God exists, he's trying to show how an active God, one that is still involved in human affairs, can exist without breaking the laws of science and nature.

He's making it easier for people who believe in evolution, relativity etc. to reconcile their faith in God with their faith in science.

Well said.

Because some incredibly intelligent people have spent their lives working out the implications of belief in God. Had, say, Pascal decided to write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of God, perhaps we'd be having a different discussion right now.

Proving the existence of God is as simple as looking around you (nature, sun, water etc)

My favourite proof is as follows: - A group of atheists approached to meet with the ruler of the land and asked him to bring forth his best scholar to debate with them on the existence of god.

- The ruler summoned the scholar to meet at location x on date y @ time z. - On that date and time everyone showed up except the scholar. He was late. Very late. - The atheists were now belitting the scholars great status (he didnt' even show up!) - The scholar showed up and the ruler immediately questioned his absence. - He explained that on his way to this meeting he had to cross a river where there is usually a boat. The boat was not there. So he had to wait and wait and wait. Eventually he noticed branches falling from a nearby tree. The branches kept falling and fashioned themselves into a boat and the boat came over to him. So he used to to cross the river. - At this point everyone was quite amused espeically the atheists who replied "you expect us to believe this??" - The scholar replied, "If you can't believe a boat made itself, then how can you believe this world made itself"

Because you were taught so from an early age. Because everyone else around you believed so. And it is the sophistication of religion that makes it more believable over Santa Claus or flying spaghetti.

Some people have a direct, personal, subjective experience of God.

'I can’t really explain what happened next. I was standing there looking at the statue, and then I discovered I was on my knees. I could hear an interior voice speaking to me. Not with my ears–it was more like a radio inside suddenly clicked on. The voice was both intimate and authoritative, and it filled me.

It said, “I am your life. You think that your life is your name, your personality, your history. But that is not your life. I am your life.” It went on, naming that “life force” notion I admired: “Beyond that, you think that your life is the fact that you are alive, that your breath goes in and out, that energy courses in your veins. But even that is not your life. I am your life.

“I am the foundation of everything else in your life.”'

http://www.frederica.com/east-now-excerpt-1/

If you had this experience, would you still find God just "a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon?" Understandably, this might not convince you, because you did not have this experience, so you have the right to be skeptical.

The Gospels are accounts of these kinds of experiences, except even more tangible. Instead of a voice in the head of one individual, the communication channel was an entire human life, and events incompatible with our normal experience of reality.

So, here are two potential reasons to believe in God. Either a direct, personal experience of God. Or the witness of others having this kind of experience, who you find credible.

You seem to be saying that no testimony could possibly convince you, without observable, repeatable evidence. A few billion people have a different view of the matter, and I guess we just need to amiably agree to disagree.

This is not entirely true.

You are simplifying thousands of years of research, both experimentally and theoretically. The reason why there is so much debate is because most people have an uneasiness believing in something that isn't entirely proven.

With that said, there is lots of scientific research going into proving atleast the historical presence of Jesus. See for example, The Shroud of Turin.

Also, if you ever get the chance, take a tour of the catacombs in Rome beneath St. Peter's Basilica. This is sure to give you an appreciation for the vast tradition regarding religious beliefs.

YOU may not believe any of this, but you have to agree that the shear number of people over the course of THOUSANDS of years atleast deems that it is worthy of investigating.

Just to put a little twist on this discussion.

I never understood alternate theories of how the world came into being. I never understood the theory of Evolution, nor the Big Bang Theory. My logic has always led me to conclude that there must be a G-d.

Disclaimer: What I have to say is so simple, that due to its simplicity people may tend to discredit it. As a group of Hackers though, I figure you will appreciate the simplicity. Realize that this topic is much simpler than Philosophers/Scientists like to make it. (If things were so simple philosophers would be out of a profession:-))

Disclaimer #2: These types of discussions are usually a waste of time because for some reason people have emotional attachments to either side. I figure that this is a group of intellectuals who may be able to divorce their emotional attachments from this discussion and talk about basic logic and sensibility.

There is a basic logical axiom that everything we understand, everything that we can quantify, everything we can touch with the fingers of our hands or the 'fingers' of our minds must come from somewhere. Everyone agrees that the table that their computer is sitting on was put there by someone, was built by someone, or manufactured by something. Anything definable must have a source. Your table. Your computer. Your actions. Your feelings. Your thoughts. A tiny atom.

Based on this axiom we ask ourselves the age old question, "What is the source of this world?" Generations have grappled with this question. People ponder this question. Solutions are offered. Evolution. The Big Bang Theory. So on and so forth.

I don't understand them.

Evolution. We evolved from something. Go back to the first thing. Whether it was an atom or a quark or anything else. Can you define it? If it is, than you still have the question, "How did that get there?!" Remember, anything definable falls under the axiom of needing a source. Where did that first thing come from?

Big Bang. Same question. Where did all of the matter that came together to create the 'big bang' come from? There was matter? How did it get there?

So we track back. We have a world. How did it get here? There must have been 'something', alright, we don't know what that something was but it was something. So where did that 'something' come from? Alright, so 'something' created that 'something' which created the world. Alright, well what created THAT 'something', you get the drift.

However, here is the catch. You already don't know what that something is. You can't define that something. So now who says that 'something' is bound by the axiom of having to have had a source. Once you are dealing with a dimension beyond your comprehension you are no longer able to ascribe rules that applied in a dimension that you did comprehend! Rules that applied here, can not be applied there.

G-d is that something. G-d created the world. 'Something' created the world.

What is G-d? The moment I give any sort of definition I have left what S/He is. G-d isn't anything. G-d is everything and nothing - at the same time. You ask how that works? You can't ask that. You have just committed the same mistake that you were trying to avoid. Applying a set of logic to a dimension you have no conception of whatsoever. The question of where does G-d come from doesn't apply. The question of how can I say G-d is nothing and everything at the same time doesn't apply.

This is just a tip of the iceberg. There is more to say but for the sake of this discussion I think that this is sufficient.

(What I mean when I say that this is just the tip of the iceberg...in Judaism there is a very large study that discusses the inner workings of creation and it is a fascinating study. For example, Dan Benjamin - Hivelogic - recently put up a post about meditation. I found it interesting. In Chassidut/Kabbalah one of the faculties of the soul are the "Ruach" which literally means breath in Hebrew. It is one of the more external aspects of the soul. These concepts of breath and tuning into a deeper part of your psyche/soul than the standard drone of day to day life allow are basic basic concepts in Chassidic/Kabbalistic thought)

How the heck does "who he is" have to do _anything_ with the scientific evidence and argument he presented? This is worthless "cargo-cult" science and it's exactly what should be avoided in the scientific community. The article does it too...

Laudable aim or not, the argument seems an odd one for Collins to make, given that he's such a renowned scientist and led such a pioneering project, one grounded so deeply in the principles of scientific enquiry and discipline.

And thus begins the effects of "cargo cult science" which Feynman once talked about. Collins will be slowly removed from further scientific inquiry for disagreeing with his peers, his reputation will be debased, and he will be ostracized from the scientific community. All because (gasp!), the man may have a religious bent!

Yet another example:

It disappoints me that such a gifted scientist could make this argument.

Two character attacks in less than 1000 words that have nothing to do with the science presented. How dare Collins question the status quo? How dare he try to demonstrate scientific integrity by showing any and all sides of the matter? Either you're for us or you're against us, that's how the cult of science works these days. Especially if you're religious, then clearly you're in another cult and you need to leave the science cult now.

As Feynman once said, science should "...give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

Regardless of whether Collins is right or not, I hope that everyone can see how this pitiful system of cult "science" that we have functions to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the worldview provided by scientific naturalism. The scary thing is that it has been like this for many years. Scientists are so used to being logically "right" within the empirical domain that they quickly forget their worldview holds no more water than religion does in the realm of explaining the unempirical.

"he still makes remarks to him knowing answers to something that is a current problem."

I was unable to parse this sentence. What remarks is he making to whom, and what is the content of those remarks?

<blockquote>If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they?... If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?</blockquote>

Agreed. The idea that God could tinker with quantum physics without our knowing is interesting, but parting the Red Sea would still require a suspension of nature's laws. And as a Christian, I don't see any logical problem with that.

A God who created the universe from nothing would be no more bound by its laws than a writer is bound by the rules of poetry.

It's understandable that scientists balk at supernatural explanations - they fall outside of the scientific method of investigation. It's the same reason that "God created that evidence" won't help you in court; it's an assertion that can't be proved or disproved and therefore must be disregarded.

A scientist would attempt to explain miracles by natural, observable causes, because that is the method of science. But - interestingly - the supernatural explanation could still be the true one. If God exists, He may not care to sit on our examination table.

"If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?"

Why do you suppose this? Perhaps it trapped itself in.

I understand and to an extent agree with the gist of your argument, but I can't agree with this:

> Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature.

In fact I don't understand why you would make such a statement, unless you have a very different description of nature (or failure, or both) to what I have. Mathematics has many applications beyond modelling physical reality. This topic has the potential to raise many philosophical questions, but even at the most superficial level there is a difference between "describing" and "solving".

This doesn't sit quite well with me either:

> it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well.

Pure mathematics isn't created to describe nature. Physical applications of pure mathematical concepts are usually only found many years after they are devised.

Totally agree.