Atheist Physicists VS God our Creator

[Steven Merten]

Yes I am a Catholic but not a halfwit. You are not listening to a word I say and you are talking stupid crap. I have not endorsed, in any way at all, this imbecile idea of yours that QM says the world does not exist unless observed by Man.

Why are you constantly repeating this nonsense, instead of responding to the points made in my posts? Are you a robot? Demented? Or just an idiot? Whichever it is, you have exhausted my patience and my goodwill towards you.

I will however continue to point out to other readers the falsehoods you are trying to promote on this forum.

‘I’m not afraid’: What Stephen Hawking said about God, his atheism and his own death​

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-his-atheism-and-his-own-death/?noredirect=on​

Hello Exchemist,

What I see Stephen Hawking trying to teach us is this; I, the brilliant Hawking have discovered that there is no God. I, the brilliant Hawking, have discovered that being, the brilliant Hawking, is like being a god. Now bow down and obey my, the brilliant Hawking, authoritarian, decree, that there is no other God, only me, the brilliant Hawking, a god.

On this thread, you are very proud of the fact that you are a physicist. You insult me as inferior, you said, “Are you a robot? Demented? Or just an idiot?”, if I do not bow to your education level.

Due to the scientific proof of the double slit experiment, the internet is filled with all kinds of discussion and thoughts of just what reality really is. This huge debate on reality started one hundred years ago between Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr, and it is just as strong, and even far stronger today. Especially now that scientists have accomplished dual realities in the lab. (subatomic particles producing two different realities, to two different observers, simultaneously.)

I once gave a Bible to a Catholic homeless shelter. A woman immediately hide the Bible away, to protect it. I said, no, no, no, let the common people read and contemplate our Lord’s Word on their own, without a Cannon Lawyer carefully monitoring their every word. Similarly, we want to discuss science without any of the, science guys, who think they are science gods, policing our every word, to protect their 'Realism' scientific philosophy, side of the big debate.

If you are coming here to apologize for calling me, “Are you a robot? Demented? Or just an idiot?”, then I forgive you. Common in Catholic brother, as a humble participant sharing your ideas as our equals. If you are not repentant for demeaning me, then, you seemed to indicate, you were leaving and not coming back when you said, “you have exhausted my patience and my goodwill towards you”. The internet is full of physicists debating what reality really means (similar to, is there a universe when man is not looking at it), they need your policing and protection from these physicists who are on Neils Bohr side of the big debate.

 

[exchemist]

‘I’m not afraid’: What Stephen Hawking said about God, his atheism and his own death​

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-his-atheism-and-his-own-death/?noredirect=on​

Hello Exchemist,

What I see Stephen Hawking trying to teach us is this; I, the brilliant Hawking have discovered that there is no God. I, the brilliant Hawking, have discovered that being, the brilliant Hawking, is like being a god. Now bow down and obey my, the brilliant Hawking, authoritarian, decree, that there is no other God, only me, the brilliant Hawking, a god.

On this thread, you are very proud of the fact that you are a physicist. You insult me as inferior, you said, “Are you a robot? Demented? Or just an idiot?”, if I do not bow to your education level.

Due to the scientific proof of the double slit experiment, the internet is filled with all kinds of discussion and thoughts of just what reality really is. This huge debate on reality started one hundred years ago between Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr, and it is just as strong, and even far stronger today. Especially now that scientists have accomplished dual realities in the lab. (subatomic particles producing two different realities, to two different observers, simultaneously.)

I once gave a Bible to a Catholic homeless shelter. A woman immediately hide the Bible away, to protect it. I said, no, no, no, let the common people read and contemplate our Lord’s Word on their own. Similarly, we want to discuss science without any of the, science guys, who think they are science gods, policing our every word, to protect their 'Realism' scientific philosophy, side of the big debate.

If you are coming here to apologize for calling me, “Are you a robot? Demented? Or just an idiot?”, then I forgive you. Common in Catholic brother, as a humble participant sharing your ideas as our equals. If you are not repentant for demeaning me, then, you seemed to indicate, you were leaving and not coming back when you said, “you have exhausted my patience and my goodwill towards you”. The internet is full of physicists debating what reality really means (similar to, is there a universe when man is not looking at it), they need your policing and protection from these physicists who are on Neils Bohr side of the big debate.

I am not a physicist. But I have a degree in physical science (chemistry) and I am consequently educated in quantum theory, as almost all of modern chemistry depends on it. I have twice tried to explain to you, patiently, politely and at some length, why it is incorrect to think QM claims reality does not exist unless Man observes it.

In response, :

1) you have not engaged with anything I have said,
2) you have instead simply reasserted your incorrect claim, just as if I had never responded to you at all, and
3) worst of all, you have deliberately put false words into my mouth, by claiming I agreed with your incorrect claim, when all I said was that the presenter of your pet video was a serious scientist.

You seem to have no conception of how rude that is. Consequently I have lost patience with you.

And now, for good measure, you throw in a sarcastic and unfair description of Hawking, based apparently on nothing more than ill-informed prejudice against the man because of his atheism.

Being also a Catholic does not give you a free pass to behave like this, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Steven Merten]

Bishop Baron, Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, corrects Stephen Hawking's misrepresentation of the word “nothing”. Bishop Baron describes Stephen Hawking's new book as, “Dripping with the worst of arrogant scientism." Please watch the video.

Stephen Hawking,
“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”​

 

[metis]

Stephen Hawking,
“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”

But this can be misleading because it's based on Hawking's premise that there still was something physical in the probable form of a "multiverse" prior to the BB with our universe. Therefore, his hypothesis still does not negate the possibility of Divine Creation.

Matter of fact, Aquinas referred to this as God being the "Immoveable Mover" that started everything.

 

[`mud]

Ahh yes.....the being that was.... before a beginning.
Even before water ?

 

[ChristineM]

Bishop Baron, Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, corrects Stephen Hawking's misrepresentation of the word “nothing”. Bishop Baron describes Stephen Hawking's new book as, “Dripping with the worst of arrogant scientism." Please watch the video.

Stephen Hawking,
“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”​

And a bishop would know all about QM, multiverse, pre big bang, cosmic inflation, reheating, budding universes, colliding universes, string theory, m theory, vacuum bubbles...

My goodness, they educate these theists well nowadays. Its a wonder they had time to study god magic

 

[night912]

And a bishop would know all about QM, multiverse, pre big bang, cosmic inflation, reheating, budding universes, colliding universes, string theory, m theory, vacuum bubbles...

My goodness, they educate these theists well nowadays. Its a wonder they had time to study god magic

Those type of theists don't care about those topics in regards to it being correctly explained. They only care about the "who" that does the explaining.

 

[ratiocinator]

In the double slit experiment, subatomic particles are in superposition wave state, where they are in all possible places, with all possible properties. It is not until man observes/measures subatomic particles, that they materialize into a specific physical particle, in a specific place.

There is nothing at all in quantum mechanics that says anything about "man" (conscious observers). The formalism deals with measurements. Any identification of a measurement with humans or conscious observers is a minority interpretation. In fact decoherence goes a long way to explaining why interaction with a classical scale object causes wave function collapse.

Also, the "possible places" and "possible properties" are generally severely restricted by the form of the wave function and "physical particles" (in the classical sense) never "materialize" at all. You can't, for example, know both a precise position and momentum at the same time.

 

[Steven Merten]

But this can be misleading because it's based on Hawking's premise that there still was something physical in the probable form of a "multiverse" prior to the BB with our universe. Therefore, his hypothesis still does not negate the possibility of Divine Creation.

Matter of fact, Aquinas referred to this as God being the "Immoveable Mover" that started everything.

Stephen Hawking,
“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”​

Hello metis,

Can a physicist say, ”‘I put a tray of water in the freezer. A couple hours later I pulled it out. ‘I have created ice, from nothing! I am like a god!’”? I have googled in search of clear, meticulous, definitions, in the science world, to the words ‘creation’ and ‘nothing’, which scientists use to explain to us the Laws of Thermodynamics, and the universe, to us. I can find none. My science heart is broken, over this total ambiguous freedom science seems to allow on the words ‘creation’ and ‘nothing’, which allows for great deception from atheist physicists.

The most mesmerizing thing I ever learned in grade school was, (the Law of Thermodynamics), that matter and energy cannot be ‘created’ or destroyed, but only transforms from one form to another; This and its effects on the ‘big bang’. My uncle was a science teacher. He taught me that the entire mass of our present universe, was on the head of a needle, even at the very first moment of the ‘big bang’. This was the most mesmerizing thing I ever learned in grade school.

Nowadays I hear many cosmos physicists throwing the word ‘creation’ around like its candy at a parade. Let us use the term, ‘everything in physical existence’, encompassing all ‘Multiverses’ (if you believe in Multiverses), as our Thermodynamics ‘isolated system’, to keep the deceptive atheist physicist mischief makers at bay.

We as Catholics believe that God Created all that exists, from nothing. 'Nothing', to a Christian, means, no electrons, no strings, no quarks, no empty space, no laws of gravity, Nothing! The whole physical realm was Created by God, upon Creation.

Nothingness, defined by Wikipedia
"Nothingness" is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence, sometimes reified as a domain or dimension into which things pass when they cease to exist or out of which they may come to exist, e.g., God is understood to have created the universe ex nihilo, "out of nothing".
Nothing - Wikipedia

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia​

So what do you think metis? In the meticulous, detailed world of physics, are the words ‘creation’ and ‘nothing’ totally unbridled? And physicists are free to use them in any way, even for deception, as they desire?

 

[ChristineM]

Stephen Hawking,
“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”

Possible

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

As are any of the myriad other valid hypothesis on how the universe began.

I think it was Neil Turok who said something along the lines of "we don't know how the universe began but it is certain that no god did it"

 

[night912]

Can a physicist say, ”‘I put a tray of water in the freezer. A couple hours later I pulled it out. ‘I have created ice, from nothing!

The real question(s) is, 'Was there a creator that created the ice?' 'Did the physicist create the ice or did the water just changed into a different form?' 'Was the ice created or did it just exist?'

Also something to think about..... Before there was ice, there was nothing (no ice), then there is ice.

 

[Steven Merten]

The real question(s) is, 'Was there a creator that created the ice?' 'Did the physicist create the ice or did the water just changed into a different form?' 'Was the ice created or did it just exist?'

Also something to think about..... Before there was ice, there was nothing (no ice), then there is ice.

Hello night912,

Welcome! I think you get my point. We have the science laws of Thermodynamics, that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Stephen Hawking is saying that if you just have all this matter and energy, along with the law of gravity, you will have a ‘big bang’ ‘creation’. Well that is covered already by the laws of Thermodynamics of conservation of energy, where, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics, nothing was created, it only ‘changed to a different form’ as you have pointed out. No ‘creation’ of anything happened.

Stephen Hawking is totally trying to deceive us into thinking that our God’s Creation, where God Created our universe from nothing, nothing meaning no electrons, no empty space, no strings, no quarks, no gravity, in fact no physical realm exits, could spontaneously happen on its own without God. This is deception by Stephen Hawking. In a situation of nothingness, no empty space, no mass, no energy, no quarks no strings, absolutely nothing physical at all, this ‘spontaneous creation’ that Stephen Hawking is talking about cannot happen on its own.

 

[Steven Merten]

Does everyone understand that, if all the subatomic particles in the universe are in superposition, wave state, there is no universe?

Did everyone watch the PBS Video? What did you think of their, Neils Bohr's 'Peek A Boo' universe, a universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it?

 

[osgart]

From what I've read Science and the evidence and proof for God are two separate issues. Mainly because Science cannot tell you about what happened before The Big Bang.

Quantum mechanics has too much fantasy associated with it when explanations for QM are yet to be confirmed or rejected, and so much of that is in question.

Evolution tells a starkly different story than a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore that interpretation is ruled out. However evolution has nothing to say about other ways God would have created life.

I don't believe there is a God because of what I see in nature though. And how else would someone explain all those hominid discoveries?

Much of what religion is lies outside the scope of observation and testability. But The Bible is totally refutable.

Unless you are a field scientist, then much of what people know is second hand information. And why would God leave Salvation to the expert analysis of reality?
Or a spoon fed article? Or the telling of stories that can be so easily doubted with the slightest bit of critical thinking?

 

[Firemorphic]

I love nothing, that's all I have to say

 

[ratiocinator]

What did you think of their, Neils Bohr's 'Peek A Boo' universe, a universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it?

See #28.

 

[metis]

Stephen Hawking,
“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”​

Hello metis,

Can a physicist say, ”‘I put a tray of water in the freezer. A couple hours later I pulled it out. ‘I have created ice, from nothing! I am like a god!’”? I have googled in search of clear, meticulous, definitions, in the science world, to the words ‘creation’ and ‘nothing’, which scientists use to explain to us the Laws of Thermodynamics, and the universe, to us. I can find none. My science heart is broken, over this total ambiguous freedom science seems to allow on the words ‘creation’ and ‘nothing’, which allows for great deception from atheist physicists.

The most mesmerizing thing I ever learned in grade school was, (the Law of Thermodynamics), that matter and energy cannot be ‘created’ or destroyed, but only transforms from one form to another; This and its effects on the ‘big bang’. My uncle was a science teacher. He taught me that the entire mass of our present universe, was on the head of a needle, even at the very first moment of the ‘big bang’. This was the most mesmerizing thing I ever learned in grade school.

Nowadays I hear many cosmos physicists throwing the word ‘creation’ around like its candy at a parade. Let us use the term, ‘everything in physical existence’, encompassing all ‘Multiverses’ (if you believe in Multiverses), as our Thermodynamics ‘isolated system’, to keep the deceptive atheist physicist mischief makers at bay.

We as Catholics believe that God Created all that exists, from nothing. 'Nothing', to a Christian, means, no electrons, no strings, no quarks, no empty space, no laws of gravity, Nothing! The whole physical realm was Created by God, upon Creation.

Nothingness, defined by Wikipedia
"Nothingness" is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence, sometimes reified as a domain or dimension into which things pass when they cease to exist or out of which they may come to exist, e.g., God is understood to have created the universe ex nihilo, "out of nothing".
Nothing - Wikipedia

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia​

So what do you think metis? In the meticulous, detailed world of physics, are the words ‘creation’ and ‘nothing’ totally unbridled? And physicists are free to use them in any way, even for deception, as they desire?

You are misinterpreting what I was saying as I do not deny that God made it all.

I am a scientist (retired anthropologist) that has also read quite a bit on cosmology and quantum physics, and what Hawking stated is his hypothesis, not a slam-dunk scientific theory.

Quantum mechanics as very complicated and still largely conjectural in many different areas, especially in its application. It defies what we pretty much assumed with how mega-matter changes. An MRI, for example, goes against conventional laws of physics, and yet it certainly works. Quantum physicists are now working on developing a q. m. computer that they believe will be many times faster than a conventional one.

The world of sub-atomic particles is very strange.

 

[Nakosis]

​

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)​

In Quantum Mechanics (the study of subatomic particles), there are two lines of thought. Neils Bohr sees the universe as not existing when man is not looking at it. This is a very Creationist viewpoint. Then you have Albert Einsteins ‘Realism’, where he believes we are missing something about the actions of subatomic particles.

The quote makes sense to me, not to say the universe is non-existent when not observed, but why claim the reality of the unobserved?

As far as OM goes, probably shouldn't consider one's self an expert by watching videos on QM. It's not about being superior/inferior. It's about experience, time invested, self verification and validation.

There's knowledge I have from personal experience which I understand to the point there's no reason to question it's accuracy. However to folks less experienced there is a lot for them to question. It is very hard to get someone up to speed in a vacuum of experience. They ask questions which have long since be resolved in the field but to achieve that personal sense of resolution is just not possible through Q&A, watching videos etc.

I don't know enough about QM to justify any belief I might have about the universe. Just not a field I have any experience with. Nothing wrong with asking but I don't think many people are in the position to challenge the responses.

 

[Steven Merten]

From what I've read Science and the evidence and proof for God are two separate issues. Mainly because Science cannot tell you about what happened before The Big Bang.

Quantum mechanics has too much fantasy associated with it when explanations for QM are yet to be confirmed or rejected, and so much of that is in question.

Evolution tells a starkly different story than a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore that interpretation is ruled out. However evolution has nothing to say about other ways God would have created life.

I don't believe there is a God because of what I see in nature though. And how else would someone explain all those hominid discoveries?

Much of what religion is lies outside the scope of observation and testability. But The Bible is totally refutable.

Unless you are a field scientist, then much of what people know is second hand information. And why would God leave Salvation to the expert analysis of reality?
Or a spoon fed article? Or the telling of stories that can be so easily doubted with the slightest bit of critical thinking?

Hello Osgart,

I hope you had a chance to watch the PBS videos I have linked to.

Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein debated the double slit experiment results for decades, and their huge debate still continues on today in heated debates. In the double slit experiment, electrons know when man is looking at them, and thus go back in physical time to change their course of travel, from that of a wave, to that of a particle. In fact, now they see it, according to the previous PBS video, that when you observe a star, even 13 billion light years away, and thus 13 billion light years into our past, subatomic particles all instantaneously switch from superposition wave form, to particle form, all the way back 13 billion light years, so we can see the star, in our present day reality. Wow! Then, when we are no longer looking at this reality, subatomic particles switch back to superposition wave form again. Now science has accomplished multiple realities in the lab. So two different observers could be looking at two different realities, even two different realities 13 billion light years away from earth, simultaneously! Wow! Wow! Wow!

In the PBS Space Time video of ‘Neils Bohr vs Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr’s position is described as a ‘Peek A Boo’ universe, a universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it. Well if the universe does not exist until Adam opens his eyes to observe it, doesn't that sound like a very, very, Creationist, according to the bible, view on the Creation of universe? If the universe does not come into physical existence, reality, until Adam looks at it, then evolution never physically happened. Evolution could be a part of our reality, but it never physically existed, due to haveing no conscious observer, during that period, to cause wave collapse.

The incredible injustice is that atheist scientists can have all the bizarre theories they like, and no one complains. Christian Creationists simply want to have the same dignity and respect, for simply believing in Neils Bohr’s ‘Peek A Boo’ universe, a universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it. You will not believe the tremendous number of wolves out there, in an overwhelming attack on Christians, for Christians simply taking Neils Bohr’s side of how the universe works. What on earth is so hard to ask for! Please atheists, give us the same respect you do for other scientists. We simply want to aligning ourselves with Neils Bohr’s, scientific side of the century long debate on Quantum Theory. If atheist scientists do not like Neils Bohr's 'Peek A Boo' universe, a universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it, then attack, 'Father of Quantum Theory) Neils Bohr!

 

[ratiocinator]

In the double slit experiment, electrons know when man is looking at them, and thus go back in physical time to change their course of travel, from that of a wave, to that of a particle.

No matter how often you repeat this, it is still (at best) evidence-free speculation. There is nothing whatsoever in the formalism about conscious observers (or "man" as you keep saying). Even those interpretations that do involve consciousness do not generally posit this back in time to change course of travel that you're speaking of.

See: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Then, when we are no longer looking at this reality, subatomic particles switch back to superposition wave form again.

This is just nonsense. Observables (such as energy, momentum and so on) are represented by linear operators. The values you can observe are eigenvalues of the operator and when a measurement is made, the wave function collapses to the eigenstate associated with the value of the observation, so it will no longer be in a superposition, at least with respect to the observable that was measured. It never stops being a wave function and it never goes back.

See: Wave function collapse - Wikipedia