Is Quantum Physics Proof of God?

I don’t have a cite, because I don’t even remember where I first heard it. But it goes something like this.

Quantum Physics says in order for something to exist it first has to be observed (?—or ‘measured’?).

In the beginning there were no sentient humans to observe anything. Therefore it must’ve been God who was the first observer. Is that at least possible?

I have to also tell you all, about 30 or more years ago, I was having a real crisis of faith. And I came across the American Academic Encyclopedia in the U of M, Dearborn Mardigian Library, while I was taking a class there. It said God could be rationalized on scientific grounds.

Anyway, FWIW at the present time I believe in God and being good. But not much else.

Thoughts? Arguments? :slight_smile:


By the same logic, for God to exist he must’ve first been observed. By whom?

I can’t recall specifics, but recall a famous physicist stating that physicist aren’t all atheists because they see the universe as intelligent.

But then religious people picked up on that, and started claiming physicists understand that God created the universe.

My Google fu is weak. I just remember hearing it from a JPL/Caltech guy on KPCC, then months later hearing it from pseudo physicist in other outlets.

To follow on from this. Quantum physics doesn’t state that something has to be measured for it to exist, it’s just that the state of the particle isn’t defined until measured, but that’s a property of small particles, not macro objects. Get a bunch of small particles together and they form a chair. We may not know the exact state of each particle but on aggregate they form a chair. So the “theory” is dead in the water because its foundation is flawed.

Further, even allowing for the flawed premise, the logic isn’t consistent. the counter to my terse initial response might be that God is outside the laws of physics. But you can’t prove the existence of God if the proof relies on God not obeying the very laws you are using to prove God’s existence.

No, it doesn’t.

A Creator is unable to be proven nor disproven because the level of existence/knowledge/perception is beyond the capacity of modern humans to understand. Its like asking a cat to try to understand how a cellphone works.

This Nobel Prize winning physicist thinks

Matter changing when it is observed is cool, but the interaction/communication going on between the particles is more interesting to me. It seems like it must be interacting at a higher dimensional level than our own.

Not a proof exactly, but some passages in the Bible appear to come from a perspective higher than 3 dimensions. I don’t think any cultures had knowledge/theories of hyper-dimensional space when the new testament was written. I could be wrong about that.


Remember back when Liberal/Libertarian used to post logical proofs of god? IIRC, They all had the hidden flaw that they had to assume god to prove its existence. (Or maybe some or many other flaws. Suffice it to say that he never got anyone to agree with him.)

The same flaw applies to statements that quantum mechanics proves a god exists. It doesn’t, and it can’t. If you want god, apply faith. It obviously works.

Some of the ontological arguments for God’s existence are fairly good.

I’m of the school that says there probably is some sort of an uncaused causer, but if we really understood it, atheists would feel vindicated as much as theists would.

You certainly can’t prove specifics about God or Gods, as in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Actually, using that very faulty logic it can be said that God cannot exist because he cannot be observed.

That’s greatly debatable. Ontological arguments tend to only be ‘good’ in the sense that they are ‘complex’, which is to say, ‘confusing’ - and they rely on that confusion to try and push their conclusions. The difficulty in refuting ontological arguments is not because they lack flaws. but because the flaws can be difficult to describe clearly.

As I understood it, Quantum Physics has proven that Godott does not exist, but that if she did she would play dice.

By Himself? By “first” are you assuming that there was a time before God existed?

This reminds me of Einstein’s famous quote about God playing dice (implying there had to be a problem with Quantum Physics because of the non-determinism).

I couldn’t have said clearer.

A cat may not understand how a cellphone works, but he can be startled by its ring. If God and his effects cannot be perceived, it is just the same as saying God does not exist for all practical purposes.
If God rearranged the stars to spell out “Hi Voyager,” I may not be able to understand how he did it but I’d sure have evidence that he did.

You should read “The End of Everything” by a cosmologist, whose name I forget. She lists a whole bunch of speculations on how the universe began, some of which I’d never heard before, and many of which don’t require an uncaused cause.
Most ontological arguments seem to show a failure of imagination.

Wouldnt the universe be evidence of its existence? I see your question of if humans cant recognize the existence of a Creator the same as there is no Creator at all as part of the narcissism of Homo Sapiens. There is no need for any of the Universe to know that a Creator exists. The universe operates under its own rules.

You didn’t understand my argument. God having no impact on us is not the same as him not existing. A deistic god is invisible by definition, but I can’t say I know he doesn’t exist - just that the universe is the same whether or not he does.
Back when we didn’t know how the universe worked the universe was evidence for god. Now it isn’t. Thomas Paine believed in a god (just not the Christian one) because he couldn’t imagine how the solar system would be formed without a creator. I assume that today this wouldn’t be an issue.