Refuting God's existence via "matter and energy" argument

[TheManWithNoName]

I just saw a youtube video refuting God's existence with an argument I've never heard before. Basically, he states that existence, by definition, means that something must be composed of matter or energy. Therefore, if a God exists, he must be composed of matter and energy, and as result be subject to physical laws. If that is the case, then miracles, as well as the being all-knowing and all-powerful would be impossible.

I liked this guy's other youtube videos (he goes under the name "Fighting Atheist"). Upon first viewing, it seems pretty logical, although I don't necessarily agree with everything he said. Why don't I hear this argument more often? Is it because it's not logically sound? Is it used somewhat often, but I'm just not catching it? What are your thoughts on it?

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWu ... re=channel

[petesampras]

There are better arguments against god, getting into the same kind of sophistry the creationist types use is not helpful, in my opinion. Anyway, the existential quantifier can be applied in situations which have nothing to do with matter and energy. For example, there exists are prime number which is greater than ten.

[Darth Lucifer]

Funny spam while video was playing

[Darth Ruinus]

I heard this argument in my philosophy class, but it was only mentioned in passing and as such we didn't go over counter-claims for it or against it. Of course, the argument probably doesn't work because people then simply claim "But God exists OUTSIDE space and time! He doesn't need matter and energy!"

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I heard this argument in my philosophy class, but it was only mentioned in passing and as such we didn't go over counter-claims for it or against it. Of course, the argument probably doesn't work because people then simply claim "But God exists OUTSIDE space and time! He doesn't need matter and energy!"

To which, one ought to immediately counter:

That is because he has never seriously considered the concept of what it means to exist in our universe. How do we determine that the desk in front of you exists? By interacting with it. Simply looking at it involves physical interaction: photons bounce off its surface and are reflected to our eyes. If something interacts with our universe, it exists in our universe, in the same sense that anything can exist in our universe: the entire concept of existence is bound up in interaction with our universe.

Perhaps this logic will bounce off his iron skull, so let's try a different approach: to say that something can interact with our universe without existing in it is like saying that you can use an outside term to alter a mathematical equation but that outside term was never part of the equation (and no, multiplying both sides by two is not a real alteration; it's still the same equation). It simply doesn't work that way: the only way to alter an equation with an outside term is to put that term into the equation. It won't have any effect on the equation otherwise. If you write the equation y=2x+5 and you have a 4x term floating around outside the equation, it will not have any effect on the equation unless you stick it in there.

(Ed. note. From here:)

[Dooey Jo]

It's not a very good argument. Firstly, his premises are flawed:
- Only matter and energy can exist (oh really? I'm pretty sure time and space, for instance, are quite measurable despite being neither)
- Physical laws must be broken in order to perform miracles (oh really? It's not a proper miracle if the god would use currently unknown physical processes instead of "true" magic?)

Secondly, he's basically defining gods out of existence, which is little better than theists trying to define them into existence.

[OsirisLord]

It's not a very good argument. Firstly, his premises are flawed:
- Only matter and energy can exist (oh really? I'm pretty sure time and space, for instance, are quite measurable despite being neither)
- Physical laws must be broken in order to perform miracles (oh really? It's not a proper miracle if the god would use currently unknown physical processes instead of "true" magic?)

Secondly, he's basically defining gods out of existence, which is little better than theists trying to define them into existence.

I agree with your second point. There are numerous things we can do today that 1000 years ago people would say are miracles,without having to violate the laws of nature. Many of the things in the Bible that are miracles can be natural phenomenon behaving in a way that people at the time didn't understand. I remember the book Bones of the Magi which basically attributed many of the miracles in the Bible, especially those performed by Jesus such, to m-state gold matter, which today can do things that we don't fully understand.

[kinnison]

It's a very poor argument. One argument against is that the entire universe, or the entire multivese if you prefer that word, is actually part of the being of God; or to put it another way, God is just a word for the totality of physical law, energy and matter, operating by rules that we have no way of ever understanding because we are part of it. Has a single cell in your brain any way of understanding what you are thinking?

Also, God could break physical laws in a way undetectable to us. From his point of view, one moment the mountain was there and the next it wasn't; from ours, it never was there in the first place, because he also altered the memories and brains of anyone who has ever interacted with it in any way to erase it from history.

A simpler way to put it (I'm sure I've seen this somewhere): The Universe is a dream in the mind of God.

[Surlethe]

It's a very poor argument. One argument against is that the entire universe, or the entire multivese if you prefer that word, is actually part of the being of God; or to put it another way, God is just a word for the totality of physical law, energy and matter, operating by rules that we have no way of ever understanding because we are part of it. Has a single cell in your brain any way of understanding what you are thinking?

Also, God could break physical laws in a way undetectable to us. From his point of view, one moment the mountain was there and the next it wasn't; from ours, it never was there in the first place, because he also altered the memories and brains of anyone who has ever interacted with it in any way to erase it from history.

A simpler way to put it (I'm sure I've seen this somewhere): The Universe is a dream in the mind of God.

Actually, this is a pretty poor counterargument. The OP's argument may be poor, but at least its heart is in the right place: keep it measurable and quantifiable. Your proposed counter is simply solipsist; it makes a set of claims whose truth cannot be known, and it expects the listener to accept them on your personal authority or on the listener's personal credulity.

[Junghalli]

Possible counterarguments I can think of.

I just saw a youtube video refuting God's existence with an argument I've never heard before. Basically, he states that existence, by definition, means that something must be composed of matter or energy.

Must it? How sure are we that matter and energy as we understand them are all that can possibly exist? I don't know but I know that there's dark matter and dark energy, which don't seem to be matter or energy as we understand it. It seems concievable that there are also other kinds of stuff out there we don't understand.

Therefore, if a God exists, he must be composed of matter and energy, and as result be subject to physical laws. If that is the case, then miracles, as well as the being all-knowing and all-powerful would be impossible.

Must miracles disobey physical laws? They disobey physical laws as we understand them, but then an electric light would probably have seemed "miraculous" to people back in Jesus's time.

The argument seems to rely on several questionable assumptions (that familiar forms of matter and energy are all that is possible, and that miracles must violate physics).

As arguments against the existence of God go, this seems one of the weaker ones.

[Feil]

Its embarrassing to see people at this board suggesting that the argument in the OP has any merits at all. The argument, properly framed, goes like this:

1 If God exists, God is part of the universe (definition).
2 The universe is internally consistent (observation).
3 Therefore if God exists then God's properties are consistent with the properties of the universe.
4 Therefore God is subject to physical laws.
5 Therefore acts of God (miracles) are physical processes, and the properties of God are physical properties with physical limitations.
6 Therefore God probably doesn't exist.

6 is an indefensible non-sequitor, as should become blatantly obvious if you replace "God" above with something known to exist. The fact that he comes to the right conclusion by the wrong process, and the fact that the process is sound all the way up to step 5, doesn't change the fact that the argument isn't just "weaker" - it's just plain wrong.

[Patrick Degan]

Must miracles disobey physical laws? They disobey physical laws as we understand them, but then an electric light would probably have seemed "miraculous" to people back in Jesus's time.

Give us a naturalistic explanation for the sun standing still in the sky (literally) then.

[Starglider]

This is a non-starter for the same reasons that the simulation argument works. We already have a real-world example of an apparently closed system that is nonetheless vulnerable to external influence; computer simulations. Apparent 'miracles' can occur in a virtual world due to programmers manipulating the code, and there isn't necessarily any way to measure or access that code from within the simulation. Of course the mere fact that we could be embedded in a larger system that can influence us but not vice versa is no reason to believe that we actually do exist in such a system, much less any specific kind (such as one where there is a singular 'god'). But it does render this argument incorrect.

[Ender]

Don't relativity and Quantum theory essentially refute the existence of a god? If it were omniscient, it would have knowledge of the state of all quanta, collapsing them to a known state. Also, knowing everything would imply a preferential state of reference, which is against relativity. Or am I off base here?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Don't relativity and Quantum theory essentially refute the existence of a god? If it were omniscient, it would have knowledge of the state of all quanta, collapsing them to a known state. Also, knowing everything would imply a preferential state of reference, which is against relativity. Or am I off base here?

I've tried the quantum mechanical argument, at least. The problem is, that without a firm definition of God and with their disdain for Occam's' razor, the believers just start moving the goalposts and coming up with rationalizations. Either they say ( at least for the duration of that particular argument ) that God is not quite omniscient enough to collapse the universe's collective wave functions, or that being omnipotent he can just make them not collapse, or that he knew already how everything was going to go when he created the universe and doesn't need to actually look, and so on.

You can't really rule out God with any argument when the opposition is willing to redefine him on the fly.

[Kuroneko]

Why is that moving the goalpoasts? If QM is essentially correct, then all there is to know about a physical system is its quantum state (wavefunction). Even mere mortals can deduce future quantum states without any sort of collapse by calculating from a previously known one (e.g., the eigenstate corresponding to a past measurement result). Besides, in many versions of QM, wavefunctions don't collapse. Ever.

[Rye]

Don't relativity and Quantum theory essentially refute the existence of a god? If it were omniscient, it would have knowledge of the state of all quanta, collapsing them to a known state. Also, knowing everything would imply a preferential state of reference, which is against relativity. Or am I off base here?

I don't think they work for a couple of reasons, namely the supposed omnipresence of God. If it's in observation is in all frames of reference, it would apply across the board and its effects would be universal, and all frames of reference would be included in its knowledge. On the other hand, from that, I would also conclude that there should be no light in the universe, because it would be observing it all in absolute clarity, which would mean absorbing it.

[Ender]

Why is that moving the goalpoasts? If QM is essentially correct, then all there is to know about a physical system is its quantum state (wavefunction). Even mere mortals can deduce future quantum states without any sort of collapse by calculating from a previously known one (e.g., the eigenstate corresponding to a past measurement result). Besides, in many versions of QM, wavefunctions don't collapse. Ever.

But wouldn't true omniscience mean knowing both the position and momentum of a particle, in contradiction of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

[Darth Wong]

This is a non-starter for the same reasons that the simulation argument works. We already have a real-world example of an apparently closed system that is nonetheless vulnerable to external influence; computer simulations.

The universe is not really an "apparently closed" system. It encapsulates everything that exists by definition, so if something were to be found outside the known universe, it would only mean that the universe is larger or different than we thought.

[Surlethe]

Why is that moving the goalpoasts? If QM is essentially correct, then all there is to know about a physical system is its quantum state (wavefunction). Even mere mortals can deduce future quantum states without any sort of collapse by calculating from a previously known one (e.g., the eigenstate corresponding to a past measurement result). Besides, in many versions of QM, wavefunctions don't collapse. Ever.

But wouldn't true omniscience mean knowing both the position and momentum of a particle, in contradiction of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

That's assuming that QM is a method of describing with wavefunctions particles that are actually little billiard balls bouncing around. I recall from my textbook (but I unfortunately do not have it handy) that the wavefunction is actually fundamental; there have been experiments done to show that particles are actually wavefunctions, and not just point particles.

[Serafina]

Another argument:

A miracle is, by definition, a supernatural act.
This means that it can not be part of the natural world, otherwise, it would be natural.

A miracle-performing god is a supernatural being.
Thus, he can not be part of the natural world.

Now we have to define "natural".
Possible definitions include:
1: part of the ecological enviorment ("nature")
2: part of the universe
3: part of the scientific observable universe

Definition 1 obviously limits the power of a supposedly supernatural being: It could only interact with "nature", i.e. "natural" plants, animals etc.
Definition 3 may look like a possbile "gap for god" - but if a supernatural being can influence the scientific observable universe, it HAS to be in this universe. Thus, it is not supernatural.

Any kind of deistic god CAN be supernatural: This god could have created the universe without being part of it.
Any "supernatural being" that interacts with the universe is by definition not supernatural.

The universe is not really an "apparently closed" system. It encapsulates everything that exists by definition, so if something were to be found outside the known universe, it would only mean that the universe is larger or different than we thought.

I think this makes a fine addition to my argument:
A "supernatural being" may not be part of the known universe, but it has to be part of the universe to influence it.
If we ever discover such a supernatural being, it is by definiton not supernatural.

[RedImperator]

This is a non-starter for the same reasons that the simulation argument works. We already have a real-world example of an apparently closed system that is nonetheless vulnerable to external influence; computer simulations. Apparent 'miracles' can occur in a virtual world due to programmers manipulating the code, and there isn't necessarily any way to measure or access that code from within the simulation. Of course the mere fact that we could be embedded in a larger system that can influence us but not vice versa is no reason to believe that we actually do exist in such a system, much less any specific kind (such as one where there is a singular 'god'). But it does render this argument incorrect.

Though, as a philosophy professor I know said recently, given the existence of computer simulations, if a genuine miracle did occur (sun stopping in the sky, for instance), "we're all living in a computer simulation" would be a better explanation than "God exists".

[Kuroneko]

But wouldn't true omniscience mean knowing both the position and momentum of a particle, in contradiction of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

No, not at all, since the wavefunction nature of the quantum state is what forces the uncertainty principle in first place, with momentum corresponding to the wavelength. The extreme cases are particularly simple. For the wave φ(t,x) = sin(kx+ωt), there is a well-defined wavelength (2π/k), but the position is ill-defined (the wave is 'everywhere'). Physically, imagine a long rope with an end that's being oscillated smoothly, sending a wave downward. On the other hand, a 'spike' caused by a sharp jerk has a fairly well-defined position, but lacking even approximate periodicity, ill-defined wavelength. The limiting case would be the Dirac delta.

Treating the wavefunction as fundamental denies the reality of sharply-defined position and momentum pairs, among other things. Not knowing them doesn't break omniscience any more than not knowing the name of the current King of France. There simply aren't any such things in the first place--for waves, 'where is it?' and 'what is its wavelength?' are ambiguous.

If you mean omniscience as in knowing the result of some experiment, then this is still possible in a certain sense. According to this interpretation, if a particle in is measured to be in some state, it's not so much as the electron is in that state absolutely, but that the interaction between the apparatus (which could be the observer), a quantum system in its own right, and the particle produces a superposition of the possible outcomes of the entangled particle-and-apparatus pair. The wavefunction doesn't collapse, but the entangled pairs can decohere from one another, i.e., they don't interfere with one another (this is a matter of degree), which is why the apparatus doesn't register more than one state. All of that can be calculated from the wavefunction of the apparatus and particle, although for practical purposes it's impossible for most values of 'apparatus'.

[Surlethe]

There is a discussion in the Griffiths QM book about this in section 1-2. I have no intention of transcribing it; here is a summary.

If I make a measurement and find a particle at point C, I can ask the question, "where was the particle just before I made the measurement?" There are three basic responses.

1. Realist: the particle was at C. This is a sensible response, and the one Einstein advocated. Consequence: quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, since the particle was at C but the theory could not tell us so. Therefore, quantum indeterminacy is not a fundamental fact of nature, but a result of our ignorance.
2. Orthodox (Copenhagen): the particle wasn't really anywhere. The act of measurement compels it to "take a stand" and collapses the wavefunction. Luminaries like Bohr held this position. Consequence: there is something peculiar about the act of measurement that forces a wavefunction to collapse.
3. Agnostic: since it's impossible to test the question, because doing so would result in a measurement, which would beg the question, it is meaningless to ask where the particle was just before the measurement. "For decades, this was the 'fall-back' position of most physicists: They'd try to sell you the orthodox answer, but if you were persistent they'd retreat to the agnostic response, and terminate the conversation."

Griffiths goes on to relate that in 1964, John Bell showed that it makes an observable difference whether th eparticle had a precise, though unknown, position prior to the measurement, or not. Thus, whether (1) or (2) is correct is actually an experimental question! Apparently, experiments have decisively confirmed the Copenhagen interpretation. Prior to experiment, a particle simply does not have a precise position or momentum.

I wonder what the implications of this are for omniscience: if God knows everything, he is in a sense observing everything at once and therefore all wavefunctions are under continuous surveillance.

[Kuroneko]

Apparently, experiments have decisively confirmed the Copenhagen interpretation.

Not quite. Bell's theorem shows that any local theory compatible with quantum mechanics must abandon counter-factural definiteness, i.e., adopt the position that the results of experiments not actually performed are meaningless. The Copenhagen interpretation does this (that's the "wasn't really anywhere" part), but there are several other options, some in some of which the collapse doesn't happen (come to think of it, there are some in which collapse happens but not through any particular role of any observer). As for Griffiths, check the footnotes.

I wonder what the implications of this are for omniscience: if God knows everything, he is in a sense observing everything at once and therefore all wavefunctions are under continuous surveillance.

Again, not so. If we can know the wavefunction of a system without continuous measurement, surely God can as well.

In QM, an isolated system has a quantum state that evolves unitarily with some time-independent Hamiltonian--that's just Schrödinger's equation, which is deterministic. Since the universe is an isolated system, the most straightforward view would be that it has some truly gigantic wavefunction that also evolves deterministically. Knowing everything about the universe would be equivalent to knowing this wavefunction and either having the ability to calculate the answer to every well-posed question about it or already knowing the answer to any such question.