# "There is no evidence for the existence for God." Meaningful and true? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2011, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213 "2011-02-04T22:52:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/161 "2011-02-13T02:54:42Z")
> [@NCDane](#): > > I don’t know what you are getting at here, but I suspect it’s nothing. What I was getting at is basically Clarke’s Third Law. Depending on what you mean by a miracle, many can be easily accomplished by natural processes, including some we know how to do. ---
**Author:** ![UnluckyAccident](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f08c70/32.png) [@UnluckyAccident](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnluckyAccident)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/162 "2011-02-13T14:02:19Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I agree. And yet, I’ve seen some people insist that, when it comes to claims about God’s existence, the only type of evidence that is acceptable is “scientific” evidence. The reason for this is because some people did not grow up and influenced with families with extremely high believers of religion. Lets date back 100 years ago when the technology seemed far too astronomical compared to what we have now. Its more easy to believe that anything that is unexplainable must be a creation of a supernatural being. ---
**Author:** ![UnluckyAccident](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f08c70/32.png) [@UnluckyAccident](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnluckyAccident)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/163 "2011-02-13T14:06:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What I was getting at is basically Clarke’s Third Law. Depending on what you mean by a miracle, many can be easily accomplished by natural processes, including some we know how to do. By doing so in a natural process will not consider it a miracle. Its more of an accomplishment for all your hard work. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/164 "2011-02-13T17:54:15Z")
> [@NCDane](#): > > I may be on less firm ground by saying that Wigner implied the early universe required an observer to exist, but the citations I gave seem to me to suggest exactly that. If Wigner said that (which I doubt) then he was wrong. We have indirectly observed quantum systems that exist indefinitely in a state of superposition. If unobserved quantum systems can exist _right now_ in an uncollapsed state, they could certainly do so for billions of years before the first conscious observer appeared. > [@](#): > > Now, I think you would do better to advance your argument by providing citations of your own, and cutting back on the tantrums. The name of this forum is Great Debates. Someone explaining to you why you’re wrong is not a “tantrum”. I realize that if you’re accustomed to discussing things like this with theists, this concept may be foreign to you. Theists commonly accept all sorts of outlandish propositions that contradict logic and evidence with nary an eye blink, so being asked to explain and justify your claims may feel odd. > [@](#): > > According to one PhD they might do exactly that. Forgive me for doubting the vague speculations of one anonymous grad student. :rolleyes: Perhaps you can enlighten us by explaining his hypothesis in more detail. HOW does God use these rolled up dimensions to work miracles? WHAT sorts of miracles do they make possible? (BTW, you don’t need to use hard returns when you type in the text box. It screws up the formatting.) ---
**Author:** ![NCDane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecccb3/32.png) [@NCDane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NCDane)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/165 "2011-02-13T20:51:26Z")
[QUOTE=The Hamster King] If Wigner said that (which I doubt) then he was wrong. We have indirectly observed quantum systems that exist indefinitely in a state of superposition. If unobserved quantum systems can exist right now in an uncollapsed state, they could certainly do so for billions of years before the first conscious observer appeared. [/QUOTE] Wigner need not have said so in precisely those words. The requirement for an observer need only be an inevitable consequence of his view. The following passage does not mention Wigner by name, but is does, clearly, refer to the consequences of Wigner’s view that _if_ there is an observer (i.e. “measurer”), _then_ the dividing line between observer and observed “cannot be eliminated”. [link](http://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/measurement/) (from link, emphasis added): > [@](#): > > (John Stuart Bell): It would seem that the [quantum] theory is exclusively concerned about ‘results of measurement’, and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of ‘measurer’? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system…with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealised laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less ‘measurement-like’ processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere? Do we not have jumping then all the time? Bell earnestly desires eviction of the “measurer” from the list of fundamentally necessary items, and his view arises from personal distaste rather than scientific necessity. If someone of the staure of J.S. Bell cannot do better than that a priori, then there really is an urgent need for rigorous experimental underpinning. Now, I would really and truly like to read more about the “indirectly observed quantum systems that exist indefinitely in a state of superposition” so I may judge for myself whether or not an indirect observer is a superfluous item. Can you provide some documention? Please? Finally? [QUOTE=The Hamster King] The name of this forum is Great Debates. Someone explaining to you why you’re wrong is not a “tantrum”. [/QUOTE] Empty-headed rhetorical ejaculate is not a form of explanation, and can only result from a mental state where reason is clouded by emotion. My guess was that the emotion afflicting you was anger, the anger in turn being the result of wounded vanity, the wounded vanity in turn the result of having met your master in debate. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] I realize that if you’re accustomed to discussing things like this with theists, [/QUOTE] I have not actually discussed this with anyone except in one post on one other board years ago, (where it drew no replies). Nor do I conduct much theological debate anywhere any more. I reposted here in hope of eliciting more informed and level-headed commentary than might be expected at most internet forums. So far I have been disappointed. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] this concept may be foreign to you. Theists commonly accept all sorts of outlandish propositions that contradict logic and evidence with nary an eye blink, so being asked to explain and justify your claims may feel odd. [/QUOTE] I agree completely with your evaluation of most theistic argument. It gets so ridiculous most of the time that it makes _me_ angry. However, it does not follow that all theological argument is necessarily outlandish, and the QM measurement-observer issue has always struck me as a possible exception to the normal absurdity of theology. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] Forgive me for doubting the vague speculations of one anonymous grad student. [/QUOTE] Excuse me? PhD = “grad student”? You better try again on that one. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] Perhaps you can enlighten us by explaining his hypothesis in more detail. HOW does God use these rolled up dimensions to work miracles? WHAT sorts of miracles do they make possible? [/QUOTE] You perfectly within your right to ask for documentation from me, but are you ever going to provide any yourself? I have furnished ample citation for my other points, and I have spent and hour or two trying to track this guy down again (I have located him on the net before). I promise to continue trying. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] (BTW, you don’t need to use hard returns when you type in the text box. It screws up the formatting.) [/QUOTE] FYI I prefer to format my posts in short lines. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/166 "2011-02-13T21:32:07Z")
> [@NCDane](#): > > Now, I would really and truly like to read more about the “indirectly > observed quantum systems that exist indefinitely in a state of > superposition” so I may judge for myself whether or not an indirect > observer is a superfluous item. Just Google “quantum entanglement experiment” and you’ll find a wealth of articles. [Here’s one.](http://www.physorg.com/news132830327.html) Researchers maintained a set of photons in a state of quantum superposition as they shuttled them around between 3 Swiss towns. > [@](#): > > My guess was that the emotion afflicting you was > anger, the anger in turn being the result of wounded vanity, the > wounded vanity in turn the result of having met your master in debate. LOL. > [@](#): > > However, it does not follow that all theological argument is > necessarily outlandish, and the QM measurement-observer issue > has always struck me as a possible exception to the normal > absurdity of theology. Sadly, it isn’t. > [@](#): > > I have furnished ample citation for my other points, and I have > spent and hour or two trying to track this guy down again (I have > located him on the net before). In other words, you don’t actually \*understand \*the claim you’re making. You’re just parroting something some guy told you. > [@](#): > > FYI I prefer to format my posts in short lines. Thanks for not using Comic Sans. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/167 "2011-02-13T21:56:10Z")
> [@UnluckyAccident](#): > > By doing so in a natural process will not consider it a miracle. Its more of an accomplishment for all your hard work. It would be a miracle from the point of view of the people we do it for. Clearly, what people using the advanced technology do is not magic to them. A lot fewer things would be miracles for us than for our remote ancestors. ---
**Author:** ![NCDane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecccb3/32.png) [@NCDane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NCDane)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/168 "2011-02-13T23:56:51Z")
[QUOTE=The Hamster King] Just Google “quantum entanglement experiment” and you’ll find a wealth of articles. Here’s one. Researchers maintained a set of photons in a state of quantum superposition as they shuttled them around between 3 Swiss towns. > **[World's Largest Quantum Bell Test Spans Three Swiss Towns](https://phys.org/news/2008-06-world-largest-quantum-bell-spans.html)** > > In an attempt to rule out any kind of communication between entangled particles, physicists from the University of Geneva have sent two entangled photons traveling to different towns located 18 km apart – the longest distance for this type of quantum... [/QUOTE] I earlier googled “quantum entanglement”, and I did not find anything banishing that pesky observer who Wigner wants to attach to absolutely everything. Here again are Wigner’s words: [QUOTE=Eugene Wigner] All that quantum mechanics purports to provide are probability connections between subsequent impressions (also called “apperceptions”) of the consciousness, and even though the dividing line between the observer, whose consciousness is being affected, and the observed physical object can be shifted towards the one or the other to a considerable degree, it cannot be eliminated. [/QUOTE] Here are the concluding two paragraphs of your link: > [@](#): > > The significance of our experiment lies entirely in achieving space-like separation, even under the assumption that a quantum measurement is only finished after a macroscopic mass has moved, as in the Penrose-Diosi model,” Zbinden explained. > > Altogether, the experiment serves to fill a loophole by ruling out any kind of communication between two entangled particles separated by a distance, provided the collapse happens only after a mass has moved. By spatially separating the entangled photons, the test once again confirms the nonlocal nature of quantum correlations. Here is Another google hit at the same site for a “quantum entanglement” search, last two paragraphs quoted: [link](http://www.physorg.com/news8891.html) > [@](#): > > This entangled state can be stored in the atoms for a programmable time, and then transferred into propagating light fields, which had not been possible before now. The Caltech researchers devised a method to determine unambiguously the presence of entanglement for the propagating light fields, and hence for the atomic ensembles. > > The Caltech experiment confirms for the first time experimentally that entanglement between two independent, remote, massive quantum objects can be created by quantum interference in the detection of a photon emitted by one of the objects. The two “quantum entanglement” experiments seem to me to be of the same cloth as many others going back to those by Alain Aspect beginning about 40 years ago. They establish virtual certainly that non-local (i.e. superluminal) effects exist in nature. Perhaps this means that reality is independent of measurement, although that is not clear to me. Nor is it clear to me that reality must be independent of observation, even if the observer is somehow not measuring anything. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] LOL. [/QUOTE] “LOL” is never more than a completely juvenile response. It is only employed by those whose intellectual maturity is arrested at some Valley Girl stage of development, or the equivalent. In the context of adult debate it only connotes hopeless inadequacy: [link](http://www.tomveatch.com/else/humor/paper/node31.html) > [@](#): > > Embarrassment occurs in situations in which the violator initially doesn’t understand that there is a violation being committed. Only when they begin to perceive it does embarrassment occur. But in that moment, the violator’s view that they were doing nothing wrong is juxtaposed in their mind with the view that perhaps something really is wrong, and at this moment laughter occurs… > > Laughter can also be a strategic mechanism to minimize embarrassment. A person who laughs at something embarrassing that is happening to them projects to others a self that views the situation as normal or non-threatening. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] Sadly, it isn’t. [/QUOTE] There would be nothing sad about it if there weren’t. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] In other words, you don’t actually understand the claim you’re making. You’re just parroting something some guy told you. [/QUOTE] What I was doing was citing expert opinion. However, I do not need some guy to tell me a few things like: No, one, not even Edward Witten and Nima Arkani-Hamed “understands” String theory. Assuming String theory is correct (a really, really big assumption, I grant) the 6-7 dimensions over and above the one temporal and three special are likely to have practical application once our “understanding” is more complete. Such practical application might easily be employed by God in the conduct of activity not yet seeming to humans to be connected with any natural process. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] Thanks for not using Comic Sans. [/QUOTE] I won’t bother to look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Xenocrates](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f14d63/32.png) [@Xenocrates](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xenocrates)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/169 "2011-02-23T08:04:45Z")
While we do have to have some idea of what ‘God’ means before we can look for evidence, we don’t have to be perfectly precise. If we did, then it would be absurd for believers to think they could learn new things about God, but this is not absurd. An very powerful, very knowledgeable thinking thing with no physical basis seems like a pretty good working definition. What would count as evidence? Observations that are best explained by God. So, for instance, suppose every Christmas Eve a huge booming voice from above started talking about Christianity and current events, as the stars lined up to provide a Star Wars style rolling transcript and that billions of people around the world noticed. That, I think, would be pretty good evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/170 "2011-02-23T11:23:02Z")
> [@Xenocrates](#): > > While we do have to have some idea of what ‘God’ means before we can look for evidence, we don’t have to be perfectly precise. If we did, then it would be absurd for believers to think they could learn new things about God, but this is not absurd. An very powerful, very knowledgeable thinking thing with no physical basis seems like a pretty good working definition. > > What would count as evidence? Observations that are best explained by God. So, for instance, suppose every Christmas Eve a huge booming voice from above started talking about Christianity and current events, as the stars lined up to provide a Star Wars style rolling transcript and that billions of people around the world noticed. That, I think, would be pretty good evidence. Actually that evidence would not count, since sound (booming voice) is a physical thing. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/171 "2011-02-23T18:52:01Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Actually that evidence would not count, since sound (booming voice) is a physical thing. Sure it would count. The whole idea that God doesn’t have a physical manifestation is a recent invention to explain away why there are no physical manifestations of God. Such an occurrence wouldn’t be \*irrefutable \*evidence for the existence of God. (After all, it might be super-powerful aliens trying to mess with us. Or we might be in a Matrix-like simulation.) But it would be a good starting point. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/172 "2011-02-23T20:03:08Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Sure it would count. The whole idea that God doesn’t have a physical manifestation is a recent invention to explain away why there are no physical manifestations of God. > > Such an occurrence wouldn’t be \*irrefutable \*evidence for the existence of God. (After all, it might be super-powerful aliens trying to mess with us. Or we might be in a Matrix-like simulation.) But it would be a good starting point. Actually, I was referring to one of Xenocrates stipulations, “An very powerful, very knowledgeable thinking thing with **no physical basis** seems like a pretty good working definition.” In other words, by his definition, his God could not make a sound. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/173 "2011-02-23T20:06:58Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Actually, I was referring to one of Xenocrates stipulations, “An very powerful, very knowledgeable thinking thing with **no physical basis** seems like a pretty good working definition.” > > In other words, by his definition, his God could not make a sound. A thing with no physical basis could still have an impact on the physical world. Otherwise, this God would be pretty useless, not being a creator and not being in contact with us by definition. So I think his definition is fine. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/174 "2011-02-23T20:07:35Z")
In heaven, no one can hear you scream. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/175 "2011-02-23T21:15:12Z")
There is no absolute evidence for the existence of Galileo. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/176 "2011-02-23T21:22:28Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > There is no _absolute evidence_ for the existence of Galileo. (emphasis mine)If you are going to invent terminology, you should at least give us a working definition. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/177 "2011-02-23T21:26:57Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > There is no absolute evidence for the existence of Galileo. He’s mentioned in _Bohemian Rhapsody_, and that’s good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213/178 "2011-02-24T14:35:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > A thing with no physical basis could still have an impact on the physical world. Otherwise, this God would be pretty useless, not being a creator and not being in contact with us by definition. So I think his definition is fine. How can a thing with no physical basis interact with the physical? I agree with the outcome, if it were not possible that such a God would be useless - however that doesn’t mean that the description is any more coherent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-evidence-for-the-existence-for-god-meaningful-and-true/570213.md?page=8)