God Exists

Quantum Mechanics ArgumentFirst of all, this argument as you note requires an interpretation of QM with an actual wave function collapse, something which not all interpretations require (for example, the MWI which I linked to in my last argument). Now, this kind of interpretation may be true, as you noted, there is experimental evidence (however I would question any experimental evidence that attempts to show an interpretation of QM because this is usually regarded as outside of the realm of physics). Also, most physicists hold to the Copenhagen school. However, this should not be a surprise given its founder is the most prominent (Bohr) and given that it is nice for practical purposes which is what many physicists are concerned about. Even so, the interpretation of QM is more a matter of the philosophy of physics rather than physics itself. So even though it may be the correct way to look at the results of QM, you haven't shown that it is. Second, it is entirely possible that we act as the observers of the function of the universe. The wave function does not collapse until we enter the picture to collapse it. In doing this, our observation creates a past history for the universe. This is a realistic possibility and I see no reason why we must exclude this. You state that it has to be collapsed by something outside of the universe, however, physicist John Wheeler poses the question "Does looking back now give reality to what happened then?" Implying that we can create past realities in our own universe. Further, you say that many physicists might just not realize the implications of their work. However, this is such a glaring implication that any physicist should consider. The anthropic coincidences http://www.firstthings.com... are at least acknowledged by most physicists even though some would argue that they point to a designer. However, there is a good enough objection at least on the surface (multiverse) that physicists don't have to conclude there is a designer. On the other hand, with your argument, it appears as though if you are correct, the physicist should see the obvious necessity of a conscious observer to collapse the wave function of the universe and posit some sort of immaterial, outside the universe, consciousness. Quentim Smith himself who you quote is in fact an atheist. "This assumes that if something is logically possible to the contrary to A, we cannot say A is true" Actually, there is a difference. In your example of you being 100 ft tall, you have to distrust your senses and basically say "I am under a delusion of some sort" Which is r.e. skepticism. What I did was provide logical alternatives that do not involve delusion or anything like that. Therefore, these might be true, we might find out they are true, and they involve no delusion or extreme skepticism. Finally, there can be an actual infinite amount of anything. I agree with your argument (finite + finite= finite). Where you go wrong is that this argument shows that you can never count to or reach infinity. Not however that it cannot exist. Infinity would mean that you would always have one more. True you would never reach it, as it is not a meaningful number. But it is a meaningful concept and could be a reality. Mathemeticians discuss infinities all the time, as do physicists who postulate infinite universes, an infinitely large universe, and not so much anymore but in the past an infinitely old universe. Introspection Argument I'll concede that we are part immaterial and certain mental acts are immaterial. My proposals were possible alternatives to your argument that if something is immaterial it cannot interact with the material world. For instance, my proposal that the immaterial is a "formal cause" is one possible solution to the interaction problem. Another, is the internal wave-function collapse (the immaterial mind acts as an observer of some wave function within the brain). You say that these presupose matter and that your argument shows that matter is an illusion. HOWEVER, this begs the question because my proposals are ALTERNATIVES to your premise that the immaterial cannot interact with the material. Therefore, you cannot counter my alternatives with the conclusion of your argument as this would be begging the question (assuming your conclusion). My alternative proposals are not meant as proofs but just demonstrations that the immaterial might be said to interact with the material. Even if my proposals turned out false, I do not know why in order for two substances to interact they must have an idential property.http://www.closertotruth.com...http://plato.stanford.edu...; The above links discuss possible solutions to the mind-body interaction problem as it is known.