Im not convinced that we know how the universe operates. We know some things but we dont know how much of the picture we understand. We dont even know that we understand all the things that make up the universe. We are still struggling with dark matter. Things that are outside of our ability to measure/notice might never be known to us.
We may understand the basics of how the solar system was formed but we have no clue how the universe was formed. And us understanding how anything in the natural world works is neither proof nor disproof of a Creator. Its just the laws under which a system operates.
The point is, of the astronomical phenomena that we can see, we have a good understanding of a large proportion of them.
Maybe we’re in some kind of pocket universe, and outside of that are many phenomenon that we have no idea about. Who knows. But that “unknown unknown” will always be there. When we say understanding how the universe operates we mean the phenomena we can see.
This is a very misleading way of phrasing it.
We understand a great deal about how the universe formed, from when the universe was less than one second old to now. And these models have made testable predictions, and been validated.
Now, it’s true that the philosophical question of how/why anything exists at all has not been answered. But that’s a whole other level of explanation, and probably untouchable to science.
That page reiterates that the ontological argument is fundamentally a religious argument, usually attributed to St. Anselm, who of course started with the assumption of god and managed to - surprise - work his way to a proof of that assumption.
St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists —can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.
More modern philosophers have secularized the argument but the addition of formal logic doesn’t change it. All hinge on the definition of the greatest being that can be conceived being god.
But what if you change “god” to “superhero”? Nothing about the argument changes. A superhero can be defined as the greatest being that can be conceived. But all the religious baggage is removed from it.
Would anybody spend years on such an argument? Wouldn’t it been see as ludicrous, a joke, a parody? Yet this is the inevitable result of adding English to a logic proof. If you don’t start with religion you don’t wind up with religion.
That linked page gives other parodies of the ontological argument, but not this one. I like it because, in general, a huge number of internet arguments “work” only because their terms are vaguely or wrongly defined. That’s true of all the people who want to falsify Einstein just by using words and the people who make political arguments by piling on “isms” and many more. If you can’t assume that every (knowledgeable, understanding) reader will agree with your terms you don’t have a proof of any kind.
Right- statistically speaking, the particles will be in certain distributions(?) that give whatever its properties, but a *specific" particle’s state isn’t defined until it’s measured. That’s what the famous Schroedinger’s Cat thought experiment illustrates; there’s no way to know the state of the radioactive decay OR the cat, until we open the box and observe it, therefore locking it (the radioactive decay) down one way or the other. And as such, the cat can be considered simultaneously alive AND dead until it’s measured.
As I understand it, (I’m not a physicist) in a larger sense, we know the likelihood of radioactive decay based on things like the half-life of the element, how much of it is present, and the time that has elapsed. So if the atom in question is Pu-242, the half-life is 375,000 years, and it’s likely that any single atom of it is extremely unlikely to radioactively decay within any human lifetime. But get enough of them together, and it’s also extremely likely that some will decay within that time frame. We don’t know the state of any specific ones, until we check though.
As for proof of God? I’m not sure how that would work; typically proofs of the Divine aren’t just simply the existence of oddities or things that can’t be adequately explained through current scientific inquiry.
It should be clear that only someone with poor or no understanding of formal logic or quantum mechanics would attempt to use either to prove “God’s existence”. Though, that begs the question, why would one try it? I would start from a mystic point of view.
BTW that does not mean thinking about philosophical arguments (arising from physics and/or logic) is a waste of time, though. Quite the contrary. Even in one recreational logic puzzles book there occurs the problem:
I’m just using the OP’s logic. For something to exist it must be observed by something else. Therefore, if God exists he must’ve been observed by something else.
If you want to try and say God has always existed and observed himself then I counter that the universe without God always existed and observed itself (by particles interacting).
If you want to say that God is outside the laws of physics, then I say you can’t use the laws of physics to prove the existence of something that is outside the laws of physics.
All of it is moot anyway, because, as I understand it, quantum theory doesn’t require an outside observer for something to exist. The OP misunderstands the theory and then uses faulty logic.
I agree that we don’t know totally, and some things, like galaxies beyond the event horizon, are unknowable by definition. But there is noting about the origin and structure of the universe which looks so impossible that we need to resort to supernatural causes. That should always be the very least alternative because we have not seen anything supernatural so far.
I think we have plenty of clues. No suspects we;'d bring in for questioning, but definitely clues. And we are never going to find anything that will disprove all types of gods. I trust you agree that we have found enough to disprove the god of the literal Bible, though. Switching to evolution, I think the Catholic view is that evolution proceeds just as science says, but that God invisibly interferes so that we are the result. Unfalsifiable, but since science is the study of how god did it, good science is not incompatible with religion.
I’ve got another disproof. The greatest being I can conceive is both omnipotent and omniscient. Plenty of believers have conceived of such a being. But this being is logically inconsistent, and so can’t exist.
Say you back off to the greatest being either omniscient or omnipotent. But an existing omniscient being implies that there can be no omnipotent being (since omniscience implies that you’d know what the omnipotent being will do, which means no free will, which means not omnipotent) and vice versa for omnipotence.
Greatness appears to be a lattice if I remember my college math correctly, which implies no greatest.
Ive always believed that knowing the origin and the structure of the universe tells us nothing about the existence of a creator because the O&S could have been by design. Or not.
Sure. It could be by natural forces only, or by some god, or by some grad student in a really advanced class.
As I’ve said several times none of this disproves a god, it just makes a god unnecessary.
It should be clear that only someone with poor or no understanding of formal logic would use the logical term of art “begs the question” to mean “raises the question.”
Going back to the OP a little, in discussing the double slit experiment at Fermilab, Dr Don Lincoln explains that although consciousness was once proposed as being integral to the detection concept, we now know that it is not.
I think it’s pretty telling that when some tentative hypothesis seemed to give support (if you squinted hard enough) to some kind of spiritual metaphysics, it was, and still is, jumped on by a large number of religious leaders and authors. ISTM that though they are often happy to handwave vast bodies of scientific knowledge, at a certain level they do understand that science is where the rubber meets the road.
This (besides the whole defining God into existence part) is the most infuriating aspect of these proofs. They wind up bridging from a completely amorphous God to a completely specific God without any intervening steps.
)