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.

[The Barbarian]

Again, by "random" biologists mean that favorable mutations don't happen in response to selective pressure.

So yes, biologist are using the word "random" not to portray true randomness as the explanation,

No, they mean favorable mutations happen truly randomly, not in response to selective pressure.

The unknown is WHY it will work every time, if indeed there is such a thing as "truly random".

Quantum events such as radioactive decay, are truly random.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... tive-decay

Which begs the question "How can anything coherent, derive from an incoherent source?"

A mutation can happen from a single quantum event. But a mutation is a "coherent" thing. It is understandable and definable. Even if the cause is random and the mutation therefore random, the result is coherent. Do you realize that chaos has order?

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

It's not just some mathematical curiosity; it has applications:

Barishal University Journal
Part 1, 5(1&2): 123-140 (2018) ISSN 2411-247X 123
CHAOS THEORY AND ITS APPLICATIONS IN OUR REAL LIFE
Chaos theory is a mathematical field of study which states that non-linear dynamical
systems that are seemingly random are actually deterministic from much simpler
equations. Chaos theory was developed by inputs of various mathematicians and
scientists; its applications are found in a large number of scientific fields. The purpose of
this paper is to provide an introduction to chaos theory together with fractals, the
elaborate patterns which have become its emblem. This paper we discuss chaotic
systems, Fractals and its application, real life application of chaos theory and limitations
of chaos theory. Finally we establish the idea of control of chaos.

[Difflugia]

You are not showing why this follows necessarily, and it doesn't. Here is why.

God doesn't observe the universe in a way that he comes to know new things. He knows all things as one eternal act. God's observation thus would have no effect on waveforms. Waveforms are affected by observations which change the knowledge base of the system. We are part of the system, not eternally all knowing, so if the observation makes available data to us, then that affects the system.

Are you agreeing with EarthScienceguy or not? If he's right about the properties of an omniscient observer and God is such an observer, then we should never be able to detect the existence of unresolved quantum states. Since we can, then God doesn't exist if EarthScienceguy's right. If he's not, then his argument just doesn't matter.

You seem to be saying that God is a different kind of observer. That's "possible," at least in the apologetic sense, but that just means that God doesn't satisfy the requirement for an observer in EarthScienceguy's argument. If that's the case, then you and I are just agreeing that EarthScienceguy's argument is wrong. You seem to be implying, though, that God somehow satisfies the role of observer in EarthScienceguy's claim despite behaving differently than the observer must for the argument to succeed.

[The Barbarian]

You are not showing why this follows necessarily, and it doesn't. Here is why.

God doesn't observe the universe in a way that he comes to know new things. He knows all things as one eternal act. God's observation thus would have no effect on waveforms. Waveforms are affected by observations which change the knowledge base of the system. We are part of the system, not eternally all knowing, so if the observation makes available data to us, then that affects the system.

Are you agreeing with EarthScienceguy or not? If he's right about the properties of an omniscient observer and God is such an observer, then we should never be able to detect the existence of unresolved quantum states. Since we can, then God doesn't exist if EarthScienceguy's right. If he's not, then his argument just doesn't matter.

You seem to be saying that God is a different kind of observer. That's "possible," at least in the apologetic sense, but that just means that God doesn't satisfy the requirement for an observer in EarthScienceguy's argument. If that's the case, then you and I are just agreeing that EarthScienceguy's argument is wrong. You seem to be implying, though, that God somehow satisfies the role of observer in EarthScienceguy's claim despite behaving differently than the observer must for the argument to succeed.

Since an omnipotent Creator would be apart from His creation, and not contained by it, His observation of it would not be like ours, perhaps to the point that "observation" would not even be an accurate description of what He does in that sense. We are part of the universe, and so we are subject to the rules. By definition, an omnipotent Creator would not be.

[William]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #301]
I am satisfied that we are on the same page, even that it appears by your response, that we are not.

OAIC: Yes, it seems that P1 and P2 are on the same page, with P1 stating that biologists use the term "random" to mean that mutations do not happen in response to selective pressure, and P2 pointing out that this does not mean that true randomness is the explanation for these mutations, but rather that it appears to be random based on current understanding and limitations in human perception. They both agree that the use of the term "random" in this context should not be taken to mean that true randomness is being proven or that the biologists are being misleading.{SOURCE}

[William]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #303]

Since an omnipotent Creator would be apart from His creation, and not contained by it,

We should not forget that this entity is also said to be Omnipresent, which would nulify your premise.

His observation of it would not be like ours, perhaps to the point that "observation" would not even be an accurate description of what He does in that sense. We are part of the universe, and so we are subject to the rules. By definition, an omnipotent Creator would not be.

In this you are pointing out a possible contradiction. How can an omnipotent entity also be an omnipresent entity?

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #303]

Since an omnipotent Creator would be apart from His creation, and not contained by it,

We should not forget that this entity is also said to be Omnipresent, which would nulify your premise.

Which is like saying that if I'm not actually in a drawing I made, then I'm not there with it when I draw it.

His observation of it would not be like ours, perhaps to the point that "observation" would not even be an accurate description of what He does in that sense. We are part of the universe, and so we are subject to the rules. By definition, an omnipotent Creator would not be.

In this you are pointing out a possible contradiction. How can an omnipotent entity also be an omnipresent entity?

You think an omnipotent being can't be omnipresent? That's a contradiction.

[William]

We should not forget that this entity is also said to be Omnipresent, which would nulify your premise.

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #306]

Which is like saying that if I'm not actually in a drawing I made, then I'm not there with it when I draw it.

No.

In this you are pointing out a possible contradiction. How can an omnipotent entity also be an omnipresent entity?

You think an omnipotent being can't be omnipresent?

No.

That's a contradiction.

Possibly. How are we to determine this is or is not a contradiction, if your premise is that an omnipotent Creator would be apart from His creation, and not contained by it?

Are you suggesting that it can be both?

If so, I can agree with that, depending on how you explain it.

[AquinasForGod]

You are not showing why this follows necessarily, and it doesn't. Here is why.

God doesn't observe the universe in a way that he comes to know new things. He knows all things as one eternal act. God's observation thus would have no effect on waveforms. Waveforms are affected by observations which change the knowledge base of the system. We are part of the system, not eternally all knowing, so if the observation makes available data to us, then that affects the system.

Are you agreeing with EarthScienceguy or not? If he's right about the properties of an omniscient observer and God is such an observer, then we should never be able to detect the existence of unresolved quantum states. Since we can, then God doesn't exist if EarthScienceguy's right. If he's not, then his argument just doesn't matter.

You seem to be saying that God is a different kind of observer. That's "possible," at least in the apologetic sense, but that just means that God doesn't satisfy the requirement for an observer in EarthScienceguy's argument. If that's the case, then you and I are just agreeing that EarthScienceguy's argument is wrong. You seem to be implying, though, that God somehow satisfies the role of observer in EarthScienceguy's claim despite behaving differently than the observer must for the argument to succeed.

Correct. I don't agree that God is a necessary observer in the sense Earthguy is saying.

[The Barbarian]

We should not forget that this entity is also said to be Omnipresent, which would nulify your premise.

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #306]

Which is like saying that if I'm not actually in a drawing I made, then I'm not there with it when I draw it.

No.

In this you are pointing out a possible contradiction. How can an omnipotent entity also be an omnipresent entity?

You think an omnipotent being can't be omnipresent?

No.

That's a contradiction.

Possibly. How are we to determine this is or is not a contradiction, if your premise is that an omnipotent Creator would be apart from His creation, and not contained by it?

Are you suggesting that it can be both?

If so, I can agree with that, depending on how you explain it.

By definition, an omnipotent entity can be omnipresent, since it would not be omnipotent, otherwise.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #302]

Are you agreeing with EarthScienceguy or not? If he's right about the properties of an omniscient observer and God is such an observer, then we should never be able to detect the existence of unresolved quantum states. Since we can, then God doesn't exist if EarthScienceguy's right. If he's not, then his argument just doesn't matter.

If God did observe all quantum states then there would be no such thing as free will. Would the observation of a cat collapse the wave function or does it take a human with a soul to collapse the wave function? Is an observation that collapses the wave function evidence of the soul of man interacting with the physical world? And why does there have to be a limitation on how God observes an event?