God, if He exists, cannot be omniscient, Proof Options

[Rick]

A world view that denies the property of divinity in the universe is called atheism, and a theistic world view affirms divinity. So deciding which is true requires determining whether or not there is divinity in the universe. The problem comes down to answering the question "is a world without divinity observably different than a world with that property?"

In physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, accepted as true by all practicing physicists, holds that for a quantum particle, knowledge of position precludes knowledge of momentum. More precisely, the more we know about a particle's location, the less we can know about its momentum. However, an omniscient being would, by definition, know both position and momentum of all particles, in violation of known physics.

Further, in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (the majority view of physicists), a state of quantum superposition, in which particles can exist in two states simultaneously, requires that a particle's quantum state be unobserved. Hence, the existence of an omniscient being would short-circuit attempts to establish ambiguous quantum states, as is routinely done in physics research laboratories.

Therefore, the question above is answered in the affirmative, if we assume divinity involves omniscience: we can tell there is no divinity in the world because if there were, quantum mechanics would be very different than what we have found to be the case. QED.

[Lindsay]

FROM http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum
==================================
One poster asked us to discuss the fundamentals of philosophy, science and religion.
I (LGKing) wrote: One of the fundamentals, as I see it, is the bringing together of science and religion. Thus I referred to the following:
============
ABOUT MICHAEL DOWD and his work on bringing science and faith together.
=========================================================
http://www.thegreatstory.org/who_we_are.html
==============================================
Praise for Michael's 2007 book from NOBEL LAUREATES

#1. "The universe took 13.7 billion years to produce this amazing book. I heartily recommend it."� JOHN MATHER, NASA CHIEF SCIENTIST, 2006 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS

#2. "The science vs. religion debate is over! Michael Dowd masterfully unites rationality and spirituality in a world view that celebrates the mysteries of existence and inspires each human being to achieve a higher purpose in life. A must read for all, including scientists." � CRAIG MELLO, 2006 Nobel PRIZE IN PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE

#3. "Dowd has given us a bridge across one of the major chasms of our times: religion and evolution. His passion for both science and religion is contagious. Reading his book, one can see that the discourse itself has just evolved to a whole new level!" � REV. MARLIN LAVAHNAR, SENIOR MINISTER, ALL SOULS UNITARIAN CHURCH, TULSA

# 4. "If anyone can persuade a monotheist that the science of evolution � biological, geological, or cosmological � can enrich his or her faith, I'm betting on Michael Dowd." � THOMAS C. SCHELLING, 2005 NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS

#5. "At last, someone who understands that all of reality is sacred and science is our method of comprehending it." � LEE HARTWELL, 2001 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE

#6. "Honest students of God should welcome the revelations of science as insights, not fear them as threats. Here is a book in that spirit by an ardent believer, who takes evolution to heart, and celebrates it."� FRANK WILCZEK, 2004 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS
_________________________
Tue Jan 29 2008 09:28 PM

Re: Focusing on Understanding the Fundamentals

Ellis, who usually writes as an atheist wrote: Take out 'is sacred' and substitute 'exists' and it makes a lot of sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed Jan 30 2008 03:15 PM I. RevLgking wrote back and said:

Ellis, you mean something like this: "At last, someone who understands that all of reality simply IS...and science is our method of comprehending it."

Ellis, for me, GOD is not a three-dimensional and personal being with any human-like form--like an idol. It is the term that I give to all the reality that IS... and experience, with my senses. I think of myself as a piece--that is, a son, or a daughter--of that reality, which I feel is a process, not an event.