Could God both exist and not exist?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

As has been said, the cat still exists (for it suddenly not to exist would violate conservation of energy), but it is in a superposition of states. In QM, systems in superposition exist and are fully described by their wavefunction.

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?

You might argue this is the case for a god-concept that has the traditional tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) properties, as these are logically incompatible with each other, and - arguably - logically inconsistent in themselves.

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

I think Kant knocked this one on the head in his criticism of the ontological argument (Anselm, et al.) arguing that existence is not a predicate, but the reification of a concept. Although having existence as a property would mean your original query about God both existing and not existing would be logical (e.g. if you said "God doesn't exist", you'd be saying that there is something called God that has the property of not existing).

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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.

God does not depend on being in or part of this Universe for His existence. He existed prior to this Universe (and any possible others, should they exist or have existed) and will exist after this Universe is no longer in existence (and others). So I don't think the 'physical laws of this Universe' either apply to or constrain Him in any way, save as He observes them for His purposes.

So from that standpoint, and the rather pragmatic view that God does not appear in a test tube or equation - or anything else of the sort - He 'does not exist'.

On the other hand, I talk with God all the time and He gives me guidance; I know He answers prayers. So from that point of view He does exist. My only 'explanation' - and that's a pretty strong word in this case - is He inserts and removes that part of Himself to do His will at His own pleasure.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Quantum physics is a tricky subject. I had to think a long hard time before I really understood the description of Schroedinger's cat...because it's counter intuitive to the way we experience reality. Yet, it is the way we know quantum particles exist...because of the math that shows this is the case.

Your problem is one of a lack of understanding. I think if you were to seriously study, research, or just attempt to understand some of the basic principles/discoveries of quantum physics...then you'd realize how silly this question about god existing and not existing sounds.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

You do realize that in the context of that experiment....the term "observe" has nothing at all to do with looking at it.

The "observer" is a device which records the position of the photons.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You do realize that in the context of that experiment....the term "observe" has nothing at all to do with looking at it.

The "observer" is a device which records the position of the photons.

A thought I've had since a very long time ago is that a human or "recording device" in the way we think of such is not required. For instance, prior to humans or 'recording devices', surely 'the ground' - in a very general sense - 'observed' rain fall. And so on.

But yes, "observe" does not require a human or even sentient 'looker'.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You do realize that in the context of that experiment....the term "observe" has nothing at all to do with looking at it.

The "observer" is a device which records the position of the photons.

Yes. What's your point?

The point I am trying to make is that we have man-made models, ideas and ontologies in which something can have multiple properties at the same time in superposition. For example, a particle can have both "up spin" and "not up spin" (i.e. down spin) in a superposed state until observation is made.

In another vein, light can be both a particle and a not particle (i.e. a wave). So does the particle exist or does it not? It is kind of both!

We accept these challenges and unintuitive ideas as valid ontologies with regard to quantum mechanics.

Could similar ideas be accepted vis a vis God?

Quantum physics is a tricky subject. I had to think a long hard time before I really understood the description of Schroedinger's cat...because it's counter intuitive to the way we experience reality. Yet, it is the way we know quantum particles exist...because of the math that shows this is the case.

Your problem is one of a lack of understanding. I think if you were to seriously study, research, or just attempt to understand some of the basic principles/discoveries of quantum physics...then you'd realize how silly this question about god existing and not existing sounds.

I am no expert in quantum mechanics, but I have a general understanding via undergrad physics. I have also read a few books on the subject. One of my favorites was Brian Cox's "The Quantum Universe".

Perhaps you could explain why it is silly rather than assuming a lack of understanding.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I talk with God all the time and He gives me guidance

What does "talking with God" mean in your case? Would you describe this for us in clear terms?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

What does "talking with God" mean in your case? Would you describe this for us in clear terms?Mark

Mark, probably not to your satisfaction. Since you deny God exists, it's hard for you to get the connections. Much like a person who has never studied arithmetic cannot grasp algebra or calculus. Not a matter of intellect or intelligence, but a matter of background and foundational understanding.

But I'll try and get as close as I can.

Normally, when I talk to God it is a mental exercise, sometimes audible, in which I tell God my feelings, aspirations, problems, failures - of all sorts - and expectations. That's the simple part.

When God speaks to me, it is in one of several ways. One is when I read the Bible. Not aways, but regularly when I read a passage - not in particular, but part of 'rotational' readings - suddenly a concept will become clear or present 'differently' than before. Another is what secular people would call 'meditation', a problem or concept will suddenly present a new aspect or facet which renders the whole matter clear; at least clear enough for the moment. A third manner is what secular people would call a 'hunch'. There have been many times when I turned this way instead of that way - walking, driving or searching shelves - and found what I sought. On very rare occasion, I've had a voice in my head giving me instructions; usually very terse and urgent. (Actually, once I can remember.)

To be clear, I've never had a conversation in the manner of Don Camillo with the painting of Christ behind the alter. I've never 'heard voices' like Joan 'Arc nor have I ever received a letter in a supernatural manner. It's all rather boring in some ways. Admittedly, I'm sure you or someone else could explain it all in purely physical terms, like brain function or something.

However, I know it was the Lord speaking to me because I was there and He was speaking to me. Which I agree, is germane to me but not to you. And at that point, I rather expect you to shy away.

 

[Eudaimonist]

When God speaks to me, it is in one of several ways. One is when I read the Bible. Not aways, but regularly when I read a passage - not in particular, but part of 'rotational' readings - suddenly a concept will become clear or present 'differently' than before. Another is what secular people would call 'meditation', a problem or concept will suddenly present a new aspect or facet which renders the whole matter clear; at least clear enough for the moment. A third manner is what secular people would call a 'hunch'. There have been many times when I turned this way instead of that way - walking, driving or searching shelves - and found what I sought. On very rare occasion, I've had a voice in my head giving me instructions; usually very terse and urgent. (Actually, once I can remember.)

Thanks. I do like to be clear on just what Christians experience.

However, I know it was the Lord speaking to me because I was there and He was speaking to me.

What makes you think that it was specifically the Lord speaking to you? This certainty of yours seems to come out of nowhere when I consider what you had described. There is nothing about insights and hunches that would lead one to conclude that there is divine communication taking place. Anyone can have hunches and insights.

The voices are a slightly different matter (although non-Christians can occasionally hear voices as well). Is there something about the voices that would make you think that it is specifically the Lord speaking, and not an angel or a saint?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Thanks. I do like to be clear on just what Christians experience.

However, I know it was the Lord speaking to me because I was there and He was speaking to me.

What makes you think that it was specifically the Lord speaking to you?

As I said before, perhaps you missed it, "... not to your satisfaction. Since you deny God exists, it's hard for you to get the connections. Much like a person who has never studied arithmetic cannot grasp algebra or calculus. Not a matter of intellect or intelligence, but a matter of background and foundational understanding."

And you - sure enough - don't get it. Nor will you as long as you lack any personal knowledge of God. So any further attempt on my part is futile. You asked a question and I answered it. We're done on the subject.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Normally, when I talk to God it is a mental exercise, sometimes audible, in which I tell God my feelings, aspirations, problems, failures - of all sorts - and expectations. That's the simple part.

When God speaks to me, it is in one of several ways. One is when I read the Bible. Not aways, but regularly when I read a passage - not in particular, but part of 'rotational' readings - suddenly a concept will become clear or present 'differently' than before. Another is what secular people would call 'meditation', a problem or concept will suddenly present a new aspect or facet which renders the whole matter clear; at least clear enough for the moment. A third manner is what secular people would call a 'hunch'. There have been many times when I turned this way instead of that way - walking, driving or searching shelves - and found what I sought. On very rare occasion, I've had a voice in my head giving me instructions; usually very terse and urgent. (Actually, once I can remember.)

To be clear, I've never had a conversation in the manner of Don Camillo with the painting of Christ behind the alter. I've never 'heard voices' like Joan 'Arc nor have I ever received a letter in a supernatural manner. It's all rather boring in some ways. Admittedly, I'm sure you or someone else could explain it all in purely physical terms, like brain function or something.

However, I know it was the Lord speaking to me because I was there and He was speaking to me. Which I agree, is germane to me but not to you. And at that point, I rather expect you to shy away.

Thanks Archie, that's very informative (and pretty much what I expected). For some reason it's extraordinarily difficult to get people here to articulate their personal experience of (or with) God that clearly.

And yes, I think the kind of insights, hunches, and intuitions you describe happen to almost everyone - I certainly have them; apparently even hearing disembodied voices is not uncommon, although I haven't had that experience. Different people interpret these things differently; people with some knowledge of neuroscience are probably more likely to see them as the normal activities of the subconscious brain breaching the threshold of conscious awareness, but I think for everyone there's a cultural as well as a contextual influence on both the experiences and our interpretations of them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. What's your point?

The point I am trying to make is that we have man-made models, ideas and ontologies in which something can have multiple properties at the same time in superposition. For example, a particle can have both "up spin" and "not up spin" (i.e. down spin) in a superposed state until observation is made.

In another vein, light can be both a particle and a not particle (i.e. a wave). So does the particle exist or does it not? It is kind of both!

We accept these challenges and unintuitive ideas as valid ontologies with regard to quantum mechanics.

Could similar ideas be accepted vis a vis God?



I am no expert in quantum mechanics, but I have a general understanding via undergrad physics. I have also read a few books on the subject. One of my favorites was Brian Cox's "The Quantum Universe".

Perhaps you could explain why it is silly rather than assuming a lack of understanding.

Ok...

It's silly because you're speaking about existing and not existing as if they are possible at the same time.

To compare it to two different states of existence...as with the photon being both particle and wave...is ridiculous. Regardless of its ability to exist in two different states, it has to exist.

If I were to suggest that the photon could both exist and not exist would be ridiculous.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Thanks Archie, that's very informative (and pretty much what I expected). For some reason it's extraordinarily difficult to get people here to articulate their personal experience of (or with) God that clearly.

And yes, I think the kind of insights, hunches, and intuitions you describe happen to almost everyone - I certainly have them; apparently even hearing disembodied voices is not uncommon, although I haven't had that experience. Different people interpret these things differently; people with some knowledge of neuroscience are probably more likely to see them as the normal activities of the subconscious brain breaching the threshold of conscious awareness, but I think for everyone there's a cultural as well as a contextual influence on both the experiences and our interpretations of them.

I expected something of this nature. And I admit, with some honesty on your part. I don't think either you or Eudaimonist are being deceitful or contrary, but neither of you have the needed background to grasp the reality.

And I am truly sorry I can't make it more real to you, but it's similar to a proper massage; I can tell you all about it, but until you experience it personally, it's not 'real'.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As I said before, perhaps you missed it, "... not to your satisfaction. Since you deny God exists, it's hard for you to get the connections.

Then what are the connections? Please don't tell me that I won't get it. Just tell me what those connections are. Maybe I will get it, and maybe I won't, but at least you will have tried.

And you - sure enough - don't get it.

Get what? You've told me about insights and hunches, and once you heard a voice. So, what is the connection? You haven't even tried to make any.

I'm sorry, but "hunches, therefore God" doesn't make any sense. That's not a connection. There is something missing there.

Nor will you as long as you lack any personal knowledge of God. So any further attempt on my part is futile. You asked a question and I answered it. We're done on the subject.

Then I conclude that there is no connection other than wishful thinking on your part. When pressed, you have nothing other than mundane experiences that would not impress psychologists. The connection isn't something objective -- it is your subjective desire that these experiences have to do with God.

In any case, thank you for sharing your experiences. I didn't mean to put you on the hot seat -- I just wanted to know what those connections are supposed to be. I've had plenty of insights and hunches (if not voices), and never had any reason to attribute any of that to divine beings, because experiences like those are not self-interpreting. Telling me that I just have to have the experiences for myself does not give me any reason whatsoever to think that I would conclude the same way as you do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Mark, thanks but no. I've been down this road before. Already you're arguing with what I said, even you admit you are not privy to any of it and therefore do not understand any of it. It isn't like learning arithmetic or even interpretive dance. Again, this is not to be insulting or demeaning, but it doesn't go anywhere.

 

[dysert]

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.

I'm quite far removed from quantum mechanics, but is this akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I'm quite far removed from quantum mechanics, but is this akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

It is related, but not directly. One of the unusual - simply because it isn't obvious on a visible-to-humans-normally level - property of very small bits of matter to exist 'virtually'. Which means they can 'pop' into existence and then 'pop' away again, usually in the period of micro-seconds. This is predicted in the grand scope of quantum mechanics and has be observed experimentally.

The Uncertainty Principle is part of the same discipline, but is a 'principle' or an observation which says - in simplest form - the more certain an observer of the position of a particle, the less certain one can be of its velocity. One cannot know both - exactly - at once. Before anyone gets all hot and bothered about 'God can!' that is no doubt true, but Dr. Heisenberg was dealing with human observers and human derived techniques.

If any of this is confusing, remember QM is a field of it's own and requires quite a bit of study.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Ok...

It's silly because you're speaking about existing and not existing as if they are possible at the same time.

To compare it to two different states of existence...as with the photon being both particle and wave...is ridiculous. Regardless of its ability to exist in two different states, it has to exist.

If I were to suggest that the photon could both exist and not exist would be ridiculous.

Is there a particular fallacy which I am committing by saying that existence is a property of a thing?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there a particular fallacy which I am committing by saying that existence is a property of a thing?

It's not a logical fallacy, but it is a philosophical judgment one could make. (It is one that I personally make.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Is there a particular fallacy which I am committing by saying that existence is a property of a thing?

Not from a physical - material - point of view. If a 'thing' has no existence, it doesn't exist. Which seems rather obvious when stated in such fashion.

For instance, one can imagine all sorts of 'things', from ideals of (a) civilization to monsters under the bed. But without substance, the only existence is that of imagination. Imaginary monsters can be scary, but they don't eat people. The Marxist (socialist) utopia looks good on paper, but doesn't exist anywhere and never has.