Could God both exist and not exist?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We have man-made models, equations and theories which postulate the idea that a thing can both exist and not exist. For example, the classic case is one where an "atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes".

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics "said that a quantum system remained in this superposition until it interacted with, or was observed by, the external world, at which time the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states"


Could God not also fall into this kind of realm of 'existence'?

Perhaps God only exists when he is seen by an observer.

 

[quatona]

Seeing how flexibly we use the word "existing", anyway, I don´t think it lends itself to two value logic.

 

[juvenissun]

We have man-made models, equations and theories which postulate the idea that a thing can both exist and not exist. For example, the classic case is one where an "atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes".

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics "said that a quantum system remained in this superposition until it interacted with, or was observed by, the external world, at which time the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states"


Could God not also fall into this kind of realm of 'existence'?

Perhaps God only exists when he is seen by an observer.

It could be a working model. But it is not important to us. There are more important natures of God.

When you see a person, he exists. When you do not see him, he does not exist in relative to you, until some communication takes place. Same to God.

As a consequence, atheist does not communicate with God, so God does not exist to them.

 

[Hieronymus]

Obviously it's a logical fallacy that something can both exist and not exist.
Since God is the Original Cause of everything, He must exist for anything else to exist, like entities who might observe Him.

 

[tulipbee]

interferrance cancel things out so something exists. ive read in many metaphysics books that everything is an illusion. i think it means that we respond too slowly meaning the present already passed by when we think of it. like touching a hot stove, it takes time to signal the brain and then we pull back. its too late and we get burned.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We have man-made models, equations and theories which postulate the idea that a thing can both exist and not exist. For example, the classic case is one where an "atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes".

Although quantum mechanics is weird, it is not quite that weird. An atom may be in a superposition where it simultaneously has components with different spin, but it is still an atom.

Virtual particles may not-exist, and then exist for a short time, and then not-exist again. But that is different from existing and not-existing simultaneously.

 

[durangodawood]

Seeing how flexibly we use the word "existing", anyway, I don´t think it lends itself to two value logic.

Excellent point.

The word "exist" has too many different flavors to be philosophically useful without elaboration.

 

[quatona]

Excellent point.

The word "exist" has too many different flavors to be philosophically useful without elaboration.

Thanks for understanding my point!
It gets ever more prevalent in my thinking, as it affects not only "existence" but a lot of other philosophical key-terms/concepts, as well.

Where I currently stand, I do not really see the problem in those terms/concepts, though, but in the traditional idea of philosophy that reality is best explored by (Aristotelean) two value logic/digital thinking (i.e. the idea that epistemological understanding is the result of a series of yes/no-questions and -answers).

 

[JoeP222w]

No, of course not, as that would be a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

 

[Chriliman]

We have man-made models, equations and theories which postulate the idea that a thing can both exist and not exist. For example, the classic case is one where an "atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes".

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics "said that a quantum system remained in this superposition until it interacted with, or was observed by, the external world, at which time the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states"


Could God not also fall into this kind of realm of 'existence'?

Perhaps God only exists when he is seen by an observer.

It's impossible for us humans to know that something does not exist because when it appears to go out of existence, it may just be that it moved into another realm that is inaccessible to us. You cannot know for sure.

However, God can know that something does not exist because he will have personally removed it from all possible realms of existence.

This is what he will do with evil. He's like a light shining in all possible darkness so as to remove the darkness from existence. Thank you Lord!

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, of course not, as that would be a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Right, QM doesn't violate the Law of Non-Contradiction at all, as weird as it may be.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Soyeong]

We have man-made models, equations and theories which postulate the idea that a thing can both exist and not exist. For example, the classic case is one where an "atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes".

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics "said that a quantum system remained in this superposition until it interacted with, or was observed by, the external world, at which time the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states"


Could God not also fall into this kind of realm of 'existence'?

Perhaps God only exists when he is seen by an observer.

If God only exists when He is seen by an observer, then how do we account for the existence of an observer in the first place?

 

[tulipbee]

we know God exist cause no one else can inspire men to write the bible like that

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Although quantum mechanics is weird, it is not quite that weird. An atom may be in a superposition where it simultaneously has components with different spin, but it is still an atom.

Virtual particles may not-exist, and then exist for a short time, and then not-exist again. But that is different from existing and not-existing simultaneously.

We have a case in quantum mechanics where a thing can have both a property X and a property not-X at the same time.

The classic case would be Schrodinger's cat where the cat can theoretically have the property of being alive and not alive simultaneously until observation.

If we have come up with an ontological framework such as this for QM, then why would/should a god-concept be limited to a binary yes/no with regards to this god's properties?

And I guess a secondary question here is whether 'existence' is a property of a thing.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No, of course not, as that would be a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Right, QM doesn't violate the Law of Non-Contradiction at all, as weird as it may be.


eudaimonia,

Mark

In QM, a thing can have both a property X and property ~X until it is observed. QM gets around the law of non-contradiction via the italicized portion of the previous sentence. So for example, in the double slit experiment, you have two slits, A and B. If a photon goes through slit B, then it is not going through slit A. If you don't observe the slits it seems that individual atoms are passing through both slits at the same time (both A and ~A). However, if you observe the slits, then the individual atoms are forced to pass through only one slit (either A or ~A).

So the 'until it is observed' is the key component in ensuring that QM does not violate the law of contradiction.

In the same way, God could have the property of existence and not existence until God is observed.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Seeing how flexibly we use the word "existing", anyway, I don´t think it lends itself to two value logic.

Excellent point.

The word "exist" has too many different flavors to be philosophically useful without elaboration.

I think you guys are out-philosophizing me. Can you elaborate on this point?

 

[Chriliman]

In QM, a thing can have both a property X and property ~X until it is observed. QM gets around the law of non-contradiction via the italicized portion of the previous sentence. So for example, in the double slit experiment, you have two slits, A and B. If a photon goes through slit B, then it is not going through slit A. If you don't observe the slits it seems that individual atoms are passing through both slits at the same time (both A and ~A). However, if you observe the slits, then the individual atoms are forced to pass through only one slit (either A or ~A).

So the 'until it is observed' is the key component in ensuring that QM does not violate the law of contradiction.

In the same way, God could have the property of existence and not existence until God is observed.

If a photon is passing through both slits before observation then this means the photon exists in at least two places simultaniously. It does not mean the photon can both exist and not exist at the same time.

God can exist in multiple places simultaniously, but He is One being to the observer. It's not that he both exists and does not exist simultaniously.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We have a case in quantum mechanics where a thing can have both a property X and a property not-X at the same time.

The classic case would be Schrodinger's cat where the cat can theoretically have the property of being alive and not alive simultaneously until observation.

The existence of the cat is not in question. The state of the cat is indeterminate.

And I guess a secondary question here is whether 'existence' is a property of a thing.

It is, but not in any sense that would be relevant to the question at hand. If god were a virtual particle, then sometimes he would exist and sometimes he wouldn't, but this is not the same as both existing and not-existing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In QM, a thing can have both a property X and property ~X until it is observed.

QM can be modeled mathematically without contradiction. The double-slit experiment doesn't mean that A and ~A are true at the same time and in the same respect, because it is A that has those weird QM properties.

In the same way, God could have the property of existence and not existence until God is observed.

If we want to ditch the Law of Non-Contradiction, then your argument is also wrong.

So, how did this existing/non-existing God create anything until an observer (that didn't exist yet) collapse his wave function?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I think you guys are out-philosophizing me. Can you elaborate on this point?

There are ways we naturally accept something as "being there" or "existing" that - if applied consistently - would mean we also have to admit that all Gods exist, too. E.g. concepts, thoughts, feelings, abstractions.