Could God both exist and not exist?

[Eudaimonist]

Not from a physical - material - point of view. If a 'thing' has no existence, it doesn't exist.

The point is that existence isn't itself a property. It would be closer to correct to say that existence implies properties. To exist is to have properties, and nonexistence means that there are no properties.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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

Mark we went around on this and ended with a rather frustrating note for me. Presumably for you as well.

There is a way for you to understand. However, the 'solution' is scary, permanent and 'draconian' in the sense of being one and only one way with no appeal.

Become a Christian.

I somewhat suspect you have no intention of that at the moment, but I increasingly became aware God wanted me to mention this - 'solution'. I can assure you it will bring no regret to you, but that sounds much like a used car salesman; which I am trying to avoid. Presuming you don't die in the interim, there is no penalty for doing it later.

However, there is no 'thirty-day-free-home-trial' period in Christianity. To paraphrase Jerry Reed, "When You're In, You're IN!"

I now return control of this thread to the original topic and crave forgiveness for the drift.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The point is that existence isn't itself a property. It would be closer to correct to say that existence implies properties. To exist is to have properties, and nonexistence means that there are no properties.

I just did a quick check on line. The word 'property' is nearly synonymous with 'possession'. So your point is defensible. I suppose some serious philosophers could use up a great quantity of coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco; not to mention chalk boards and time, on the subject.

I don't see it as a great changer for the existence of God, so I'll let it go.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Become a Christian.

Sure, but I have to become a Scientologist first to study the issue of body thetans, and then there's that billion year contract. Oh, my.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Sure, but I have to become a Scientologist first to study the issue of body thetans, and then there's that billion year contract. Oh, my.

That will obviously have you busy for a bit. As I said, as long as you can avoid dying, there's no time penalty.

 

[MrSpikey]

QM can be modeled mathematically without contradiction.

Many things can be modelled mathematically. Mathematics is an abstraction of reality, and the fact that you can do something within the sphere of mathematics doesn't mean this is necessarily translatable back to reality.

As a trivial example, the mathematics we use for day to day arithmetic don't define the square root of a negative number - there isn't a number we can multiply by itself to give a negative result. At a more abstract level, however, it becomes convenient for us to define such a thing; and the results of doing so have been the groundwork for any enormous amount of subsequent results, in maths and other science fields. Some of these results can be related to reality, but it is by no means guaranteed.

 

[MrSpikey]

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

Thanks Joe. I've bookmarked this for the next time someone dares to contradict me!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Many things can be modelled mathematically. Mathematics is an abstraction of reality, and the fact that you can do something within the sphere of mathematics doesn't mean this is necessarily translatable back to reality.

True, but that's going well past my point.

I'm not saying that the mathematics somehow guarantees that reality does not contradict itself, but that the mathematics currently represents (or models) scientific understanding of quantum phenomena, and so claiming that modern physics shows a contradictory physical reality is simply false. The model shows no such thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MrSpikey]

True, but that's going well past my point.

I'm not saying that the mathematics somehow guarantees that reality does not contradict itself, but that the mathematics currently represents (or models) scientific understanding of quantum phenomena, and so claiming that modern physics shows a contradictory physical reality is simply false. The model shows no such thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The point is that the model is imperfect, and won't represent all observations that are made.

We model e.g. atomic decay time as an average over many atoms, as we cannot determine when an individual atom will decay. When one doesn't decay in that time, it is a fault of the model, not the atom itself.

 

[variant]

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"

I have a theory that when people appeal philosophically to quantum mechanics they are likely to be wrong.

So A and not A? If so then there are no valid logical statements.

Is anything true in a world with no valid logic?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I have a theory that when people appeal philosophically to quantum mechanics they are likely to be wrong.

I have a hunch most people who actually deal with quantum mechanics would agree with you.

So A and not A? If so then there are no valid logical statements. Is anything true in a world with no valid logic?

In fact, the 'logic' of QM is pretty well founded; BUT it requires certain conditions and has restrictions. And keeping track of it requires a knowledge of advanced mathematics.

Particles - itty bitty bits of matter which are smaller than the components of atoms - can 'pop' into being, but the restriction is they 'pop' out of being shortly - like nanoseconds - afterward. QM does not suggest that a planet, mountain, Cadillac or even extra hangers 'pop' into existence and stay. (Sometimes the hanger thing is confusing.) However, it does make sense to one who 'knows' what is going on. Also, one of the restrictions is the 'popping' feature is limited to basic particles, not assembled 'things'. I don't claim to fully and completely know and comprehend everything about God; but I'm pretty sure He isn't a particle.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I have a theory that when people appeal philosophically to quantum mechanics they are likely to be wrong.

It's not really about being wrong or right. Just an idea.

Anyway, I think I worded my OP poorly. And I knew that mentioning QM would probably muddy the waters of what I am trying to say.

My point is that we have no problem accepting that an entity can have contradictory properties in superposition until observed. So why limit God to have a certain set of properties? Couldn't God also have a set of contradictory properties dependent on observation?

The idea offers a somewhat unique explanation for why God would appear different to different people.

This isn't about the mechanisms of QM (that belongs in science subforum). This is about the ontological basis for how we determine what a thing is and what it means for something to exist. Everyone accepts that light exists even though it is defined as having contradictory properties. Non-theists often get frustrated because theists seem to purport that God exists even though God seems to have contradictory properties.

So A and not A? If so then there are no valid logical statements.

Is anything true in a world with no valid logic?

I should have worded my OP better.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

It's not really about being wrong or right. Just an idea.

Anyway, I think I worded my OP poorly. And I knew that mentioning QM would probably muddy the waters of what I am trying to say.

Without doubt. But I've done the same thing on occasion.

My point is that we have no problem accepting that an entity can have contradictory properties in superposition until observed.

I suppose that depends on 'we'. But yes, I get the idea.

So why limit God to have a certain set of properties? Couldn't God also have a set of contradictory properties dependent on observation?

I would word that as 'Why limit God to the properties I - or some other faction - want Him to have or possibly can understand?' I've noted far too many people and groups have decided that God works only in their considered opinion; in their minds.

The idea offers a somewhat unique explanation for why God would appear different to different people.

I am sure beyond question God 'deals' with different people in different ways. He probably 'speaks' to a ninety year old Polish woman a little differently than to a fifteen year old Japanese male, for instance.

This isn't about the mechanisms of QM (that belongs in science subforum). This is about the ontological basis for how we determine what a thing is and what it means for something to exist.

A metaphor, so to speak? I'll accept that.

Everyone accepts that light exists even though it is defined as having contradictory properties. Non-theists often get frustrated because theists seem to purport that God exists even though God seems to have contradictory properties.

Christian factions have the same problems, I've noted.

I should have worded my OP better.

There's a lot of that going around. Happily, we can post complimentary statements and clarify things. Or make them murkier, depending.

 

[variant]

The idea offers a somewhat unique explanation for why God would appear different to different people.

It's not the simplest "explanation" for that, to the extent that it would explain anything at all.

If God can't be said to have any fixed properties, how can it possibly be observed at all?

Take note that I think when you make an observation of something specific you would need some way of telling you that (A was observed) instead of (~A was observed).

Contradictory properties would make observing something an interesting task to say the least.

Without any solid definition or any given property the idea of "God" becomes nonsensical. This is because the idea of God would not lead you to expect certain observations and not others.

"Undefined" can not be conceptualized.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... neither of you have the needed background to grasp the reality.

What background would that be?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

What background would that be?

FB, I already announced I would not play that game any further. If you really wish to know, see the offer I made Eudaimonist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I think, strictly speaking, with complementarity, you can't know or measure both at once because it's not just that you can't be certain what both are at the same time, but that the more precisely one measures one property the more uncertain the other property really is. IOW, the particle doesn't really have those precise properties except as a consequence of the measurement.

There is a method,called 'weak measurement' where by making subtle measurements on multiple particles one can get very accurate measurements of both position & velocity, but it's arguable whether that tells you any more than what the position & velocity would be if it was a classical particle- which it isn't...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

FB, I already announced I would not play that game any further. If you really wish to know, see the offer I made Eudaimonist.

I don't see it as a game, I see it as a reasonable question in response to a vague claim about my background.

If the offer you made was the suggestion to, "Become a Christian", it seems to me that requires belief, the lack of which is the reason for the questions...

 

[variant]

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.

Unbridled arrogance. Coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist doesn't mean you don't understand the subject matter.

Suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of understanding Isn't the foundation for ANY discussion, just a massive display of your own intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I think, strictly speaking, with complementarity, you can't know or measure both at once because it's not just that you can't be certain what both are at the same time, but that the more precisely one measures one property the more uncertain the other property really is. IOW, the particle doesn't really have those precise properties except as a consequence of the measurement.

There is a method,called 'weak measurement' where by making subtle measurements on multiple particles one can get very accurate measurements of both position & velocity, but it's arguable whether that tells you any more than what the position & velocity would be if it was a classical particle- which it isn't...

For some reason, I was trying to keep it simple. I can't think of any 'clarification' or 'quibble' that would be productive. I agree with your statements as far as I can remember. Which is as far as I agree with my own statements.