God Exists

Quantum Mechanics Argument- Very interesting argument, and in fact, it has the potential to be true. The problem is that it rests on some major assumptions that I will argue are dubious at best and false at worst. First of all, there are some who argue that observation is not practically necessary for the collapse of a wave-function. It is actually possible, that there is not really a collapse in the traditional sense at all. http://en.wikipedia.org... Read the "History and Context" section of the article. Also, I would bring up the Many World Interpretation of QM which treats collapse differently. In this scenario, there is no real "collapse" only a split in the worlds, such that every possibility is itself realized. Therefore, it is not enough to argue from QM, you have to argue from a specific interpretation of QM in order to make your argument sound. http://plato.stanford.edu...Next, you say the universe could either be collapsed by a "conscious observer" or a "physical system." Now, you say "the idea of a particle or photons existing outside the universe seems absurd." However, this is unfounded. It is true, that a photon or particle of this universe outside of this universe is a self-contradiction. However, that is different from saying that there is an external sort of universe with particles that exists outside of this one. In fact, many scientists speculate that our universe emerged from a multiverse http://bigscience.fm.... If this is the case, it is entirely reasonable to assume that a physical system exists outside of our universe. Now you say we end up with an infinite regress. However, why should an infinite regress be problematic in this case? You argue that it is because infinite time is impossible. But I suggest that an atemporal universe is at least logically possible. Even if it is not, suppose the universe exists as a four-dimensional block (length, width, height, time). We tend to think of time as a series of progressing events. However, if we reconsider it as a mere dimension, then it may proceed to infinity in any direction. Scientists for a long time considered this to be the case as did philosophers. http://en.wikipedia.org.... You could never count to infinity, but that assumes you could count all universes, which begs the question as it assumes a finite past time. Further, there is a way to avoid this regress. First, suppose outside of this universe there exists a physical system which could collapse a wave function that need not be collapsed. Maybe in this other universe, the laws of QM are not applicable, at least not in the same way. Suppose in this other universe, the laws of QM emerge from a physical system that is in principle classical, even in small scale items. There is no way to know this is false, and therefore, your argument fails.There is another possibility. That is that our own observation of the material world creates the past as it were. Thus, the wave function of the universe is not collapsed until our observation of the universe collapses the wave function, which entails a creation of the past. Thus, we would be considered "god" in your argument, however, I think that would render the concept essentially meaningless. On a side note, I know that I agreed to debate "the conscious being responsible for the universe" However, this is an odd definition. It is possible that a conscious being collapsed the wave function that had more rudimentary knowledge than we have, perhaps a higher end animal like thing. This is an odd candidate for "god" in any sense. Now sure, it satisfies your definition, although, it might just make your argument meaningless. In any case, what if you are right? What collapsed the wave function of this observer? If it is physical, and the laws of QM apply (which you need to be the case for your argument to work) then it seems we must appeal to an immaterial obsever. However, how do you know that an immaterial observer even can collapse a wave function by its knowledge? How does a purely immaterial being interact with a material world? A final problem with your argument is that most physicists aren't theists. If it were this simple that our universe needed an observer it would seem that every physicist would be forced to conclude that some sort of god exists. I understand how a physicist could be bad at philosophy, but how could physicists be bad at physics to resist the obvious conclusion? Physicists like Hawking and Krauss who are outspoken atheists would be lauged out of work...Also, a Catholic physicist here discusses QM and materialism. Even here, he is arguing against materialism, but does not make the argument you made which is very odd considering he is a Catholic arguing against materialism and says "QM does not make it easier to believe in God in any direct way..."https://www.bigquestionsonline.com... Now, for your next argument. You assume that the mind is immaterial without giving arguemnt for it, which means your argument is unfounded. Further, even if the mind is immaterial, it need not have an idential property with the brain in order to function. Perhaps, the mind acts as a "formal cause" of actions and the brain as "efficient cause" http://faculty.washington.edu... Or what if our immaterial mind collapses a wave function within the brain in order to act, thus, an immaterial mind interacts with a material body. (i.e. mind acts as observer of wave function within brain)Maybe, our mind is like an "interprative eye" of some sort. In other words, consciousness is the immateiral eye reading and understanding the function of the brain. If the brain stops working, the eye sees nothing, and consciousness is off. So consciousness depends on the brain and the brain's "eye" as it were. There is no reason to suppose that this sight is impossible. Otherwise, you have to say that immaterial cannot in any way detect the material, which would undermine your argument for God. This is all speculation, nothing I say here is necessarily true, but it shows that you have not proved your case. There is no reason to deny the external real world and therefore your argument fails.Finally, "If we are the creators of the reality we see, then we should be able to control it at all (like we can with other things in our mind). " this statement is false. You commit a fallacy of equivocation on "create." In the first instance, you use create to mean some sort of non-realist position, where all that exists is in your mind. This would entail you are deluded as to your sensory perception of some sort. You aren't actually "creating" or causing the external world, only imaginining an external world which is true TO YOU. However, in the second sense, you use create to mean willfully causing something to exist. It is entirely intelligable that all that exists is in our heads as some sort of deulsion and at the same time we cannot control this delusion. The reason you say otherwise is that you misuse the term "create." Also, simply because we can control some things in our mind it does not follow that we can control other things. This is arguing from a particular to a universal which is fallacious. Therefore, the argument fails. Your turn