How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #9]

If that's another way to say it, then it has to be wrong. A tree can fall in the forest without any eyeballs or instrumentation around to observe it. To know it has fallen would require an observation or measurement of some sort, but for it to fall due to whatever cause (rot, death, etc.) there is no observation required.

But that is what the Copenhagen interpretation states. That is also why Einstein was so against Bohr interpretation. Einstein put the following question to Bohr. “Do you really believe that the moon isn’t there when nobody looks?”

Was the point of this OP to claim that objective reality requires an observer, the only observer that could constantly observe everything, everywhere is a god of some sort, therefore for objective reality to exist there must be a god? If so, you're missing one key point in the argument ... what/where is this all-observing god being and how do you know it really exists? Without that, the argument completely falls apart.

You are missing the point that the fact that there is an objective reality is proof that there has to be a God observing the affairs of the universe and of men.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #11]

But that is what the Copenhagen interpretation states. That is also why Einstein was so against Bohr interpretation. Einstein put the following question to Bohr. “Do you really believe that the moon isn’t there when nobody looks?”

My point was that the tree can fall without any observer present, but to know it had fallen would require observation. A tree isn't a quantum item in a superposition (nor is the moon) so is not in the states of standing and fallen simultaneously, only to be resolved (wavefunction collapse) with observation.

You are missing the point that the fact that there is an objective reality is proof that there has to be a God observing the affairs of the universe and of men.

It isn't proof ... it is a claim. Objective reality can exist without any gods at all, as it apparently does.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #12]

My point was that the tree can fall without any observer present, but to know it had fallen would require observation. A tree isn't a quantum item in a superposition (nor is the moon) so is not in the states of standing and fallen simultaneously, only to be resolved (wavefunction collapse) with observation.

Not according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Talk to Bohr if you do not like the implications.

Objective reality can exist without any gods at all, as it apparently does.

This is a claim. Because this give no solution to how this works with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #13]

Not according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Talk to Bohr if you do not like the implications.

My seance skills are lacking so I can't talk to Bohr, but the Copenhagen interpretation only applies to the quantum realm. It does not apply to things like trees. A tree is never in a state where there is a nonzero probability of it being both standing and fallen. And if it dies or rots gravity will ensure that it falls whether there are any observers around or not. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says nothing about classical objects like trees.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #14]

My seance skills are lacking so I can't talk to Bohr, but the Copenhagen interpretation only applies to the quantum realm.

I thought you might like that one.

It does not apply to things like trees. A tree is never in a state where there is a nonzero probability of it being both standing and fallen. And if it dies or rots gravity will ensure that it falls whether there are any observers around or not. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says nothing about classical objects like trees.

You really cannot say this because you do not know now quantum mechanics and relativity interact.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #15]

You really cannot say this because you do not know now quantum mechanics and relativity interact.

I'm pretty certain that the mechanics and physics of a tree falling in the forest has nothing to do with how quantum mechanics and relativity interact. If it does, then we're in deep trouble with our understanding of any of this. But I suppose this claim is no less bizzare than the claim that the existence of objective reality proves that a god exists.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #16]

I'm pretty certain that the mechanics and physics of a tree falling in the forest has nothing to do with how quantum mechanics and relativity interact. If it does, then we're in deep trouble with our understanding of any of this. But I suppose this claim is no less bizzare than the claim that the existence of objective reality proves that a god exists.

But scientists with your type of belief system have trouble describing a universe in which reality actually does exist. We are everything from numbers in an alien program to thoughts in some big brain somewhere and others. To actually being gods making new universes with every decision we make.

So when I say that Theistic Cosmology is the only cosmology that has a solution in which there is only one universe and one reality. I mean the ONLY one.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #17]

But scientists with your type of belief system have trouble describing a universe in which reality actually does exist. We are everything from numbers in an alien program to thoughts in some big brain somewhere and others. To actually being gods making new universes with every decision we make.

I'm not a theoretical physicist and have no particular "belief system" regarding descriptions of the universe. I accept that we don't yet know the exact details of a Big Bang scenario, whether there was anything before that, what dark matter and dark energy are, and many other unsolved problems. But I know that our planet and solar system exist, stars and galaxies exist, and that I exist and my relatives, house, car etc. exist. These are all objective, real things that clearly exist as objects in the real world, per my belief system.

Applying quantum realm properties like superposition and the uncertainty principle to macro objects like trees and the moon just doesn't make any sense. They don't apply on those scales of matter, even though the atoms that make up a tree are small enough to be in the quantum realm. Any argument that applies quantum weirdness to macro objects is on shaky footing from the start.

[JoeyKnothead]

But scientists with your type of belief system have trouble describing a universe in which reality actually does exist. We are everything from numbers in an alien program to thoughts in some big brain somewhere and others. To actually being gods making new universes with every decision we make.

So when I say that Theistic Cosmology is the only cosmology that has a solution in which there is only one universe and one reality. I mean the ONLY one.

All you're doing here is replacing "science doesn't know" with "there's this god, see".

Even if your theistic cosmology is the only proposition that says there's only one reality, that doesn't put truth to there being a god involved. It just recognizes the one reality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #18]

I'm not a theoretical physicist and have no particular "belief system" regarding descriptions of the universe. I accept that we don't yet know the exact details of a Big Bang scenario, whether there was anything before that, what dark matter and dark energy are, and many other unsolved problems. But I know that our planet and solar system exist, stars and galaxies exist, and that I exist and my relatives, house, car etc. exist. These are all objective, real things that clearly exist as objects in the real world, per my belief system.

Yes you do. You are a materialist or naturalist. You believe that the only thing that exists is matter and energy and they obey the laws of nature that we experience. And you believe that man will be able, one day, to describe everything in terms of matter and energy. So in the end a materialist is nothing more than a humanist.

You can say that you believe that there is only one universe and that everything you see is real. But that is not at all what current cosmology is saying. That would be a belief system based on nothing. It would not be based on mathematics or any cosmological theory. You have no foundation for your belief. Your belief system is more akin to those that believed in Zeus, Bacca's, and Athena than it does to science.

Applying quantum realm properties like superposition and the uncertainty principle to macro objects like trees and the moon just doesn't make any sense. They don't apply on those scales of matter, even though the atoms that make up a tree are small enough to be in the quantum realm. Any argument that applies quantum weirdness to macro objects is on shaky footing from the start.

I am not the one that is making any of these claims. These are men and women that have the same humanistic beliefs that you have. It is not logical to have two sets of laws that govern what we observe. At one point the quantum weirdness does need to be explained because I believe that we only live in one universe.