KingdomInsight

Creating a Learning Network for Kingdom Builders!

Take a look at this Wikipedia article on the double-slit experiment.

I found this portion of the article very interesting, and I think it could be used as proof of a higher power at work to non-believers: "...the remarkable consequence discovered by this experiment is that anything that one does to try to locate a photon between the emitter and the detection screen will change the results of the experiment in a way that everyday experience would not lead one to expect. If, for instance, any device is used in any way that can determine whether a particle has passed through one slit or the other, the interference pattern formerly produced will then disappear."

In other words, the very act of viewing the particle changes the results!

What are your thoughts on the double-slit experiment?

Views: 52

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you! Excellent material for outreach to the skeptics among us!
Has anyone here looked at Quantum Physics and how it relates to God?

I did some research... You know there was a time when being a scientist and an atheist was almost the same. They couldn't 'find' God, so he didn't exist. Or so they thought. Quantum Physics predicts the existence of multiple, parallel universes. Guess what - that is where can be. At least, that is what they are thinking. There is a growing number of scientists that believe that God can exist. That is a good move in the right direction!
I saw a special on the History Channel about a month ago that had scientists and astronomers talking about the possible existence of parallel universes. That kind of stuff really interests me! It's amazing how big the universe is, and how much stuff is out there that we have yet to discover, yet so many people deny a higher power at work.
This thread has too much potential to let go unentertained.

Let's take time to consider what truths can be revealed with the Double Slit Experiment. I would like to focus first on just the part of the experiment where the second slit is added because this is the first evidence of unexpected behavior:

When the extra slit is added to the experiment, the behavior of the particle changes. What is it about the slit that causes the particle to behave differently? Is this interactive between the presence of the slit and the particle or re-active of the particle?

The third possibility is neither. Is it possible the particle makes a decision on what it should do based on the situation it sees in front of it? How would a particle "know" how to behave in different circumstances?

There are *some* who would argue that because the results of this portion of the experiment refutes what humans have identified as "natural law" (that being that there is a pre-determined nature that elements follow that are bound by an accompanied set of rules for that nature), that this experiment disproves omniscience because not everything can be known about the expected behavior of a particle.

However, my thoughts on this would be that because this portion of the experiment defies natural law (think Newton), it actually presents evidence that there IS omniscience. My arguments are scriptural - I do not claim any degree in science. I may miss a few arguments, because I am fallible, however the Word of God is not :)

1) Romans 1:20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal powers and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Consider what can be meant by "invisible qualities", "eternal powers" and "divine nature". Divine nature is supernatural. Natural laws are boxes men have created to attempt to provide meaning to what they see as evidence of patterned occurances. The last part of the scripture is the zinger. We can see this - and we are without excuse (for denying Him) Do electrons have invisible qualities? The qualities must be invisible if scientists cannot identify why a particle behaves like a wave. Eternal powers - eternal is without end, much like the possible combinations of the behavior of the particle. I like how scientists have called this "coincidental nature" - as if anything is coincidental. Just because man cannot predict, does not mean God isn't directing.

2) Genisis 1:3-4 And God said "Let there be light" and there was light. God saw that the light was good and he separated light from darkness. (go back and watch the experiment again to see God separate the light)

If God spoke the light into existence, is it possible the WORD of God is in the light? If the light contains a portion of God in it, then the light has the knowledge of God. It has meaning. It has reason. It has understanding. Ever hear anyone say "he spoke life into me"? Think about what that means.

I just want to point out that this experiment was first done with light :-D

3) John 3:20b For God is greater than our hearts and he knows everything. Job 37:16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge? Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

This is scriptural evidence that even though natural and quantum science cannot know what course the particle will take when a second slit is introduced, God does. God is not a god of natural law, but God of Divine Law. God is omniscient.

What ideas do you have?
Well, I'm no scientist; but I could have saved them a lot of time (and probably money) spent on this experiment.
Darkness is merely the absence of light. So if one doubles the amount of light shone within any given radius (spot), the darkness will appear as being proportionately intensified to the same degree.
This can be experienced when one enters a movie theater or other partially-darkened room.
When you first enter the room, it appears to be totally dark; but as your eyes adjust to the level of light being emitted, the amount of darkness decreases, as the amount of light increases.
Looking at this from a spiritual viewpoint can have a significant impact to the reality of Gods existence.
(Have you ever noticed, the Word of God never says: "And God said, Let there be darkness, and there was darkness, and God said it was good"? )
We tend to compare our sinful nature (darkness), against that of those around us.
Have you ever heard people say that another individual deserves to "rot in hell" for what they did? Or maybe the old standby "Well, at least I'm not as bad as_______, or I haven't _______ (fill in the blanks.)
We are allowing our "eyes" to adjust to the darkness. Lucifer continues to decrease the amount of "light" around us a little at a time. Allowing our "eyes" to adjust to the new level of darkness.
This is commonly known as desensitizing.
However, when God sees the "darkness" (sin) in the world, He does so as against (compared to) His light.
Since with Him there is no darkness, guess where that places us?
Jesus said that He is "the light of the world", and that we are to "let (y)our light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify (y)our Father which is in Heaven."
The only way we can let our light shine, is if we allow the Light of the World to shine through us.
I could go on, but me thinks those reading this understands what I'm getting at.
Jim Gardner said:

Astronomer Fred Hoyle had originally been a strong advocate of the fixed constants argument, because as a religious person he felt this pointed to a grand scheme, instigated by a designer. This also made him a strong opponent of big bang theory. However, he was later compelled to concede that both big bang theory had been proven more likely than his "steady state" theory

The big bang theory more suggests the existence of God than "steady state". Explosions and randomness would not predict anything more than the creation of a black hole but that this somehow "caused" a universe is inexplicable in any frame of reference other than a designer. Astrophysicists admit that if ANY the "cosmological constants" had been even slightly different, a black hole would have resulted from "the big bang" and of course, if one acknowledges "the big bang" (which is the prevailing theory today) one must question what was there BEFORE.

In other words, the production of the fundamental particles of which all things are made, within stars, doesn't actually hinge upon fixed values at all. The "goldilocks" argument is a neat parable, but it doesn't actually deal with all of the evidence.

You might not want to go there, Jim... I don't see that the cited experiment is suggesting the existence of God but "Intelligent Design" greatly suggests the existence of God (to the point it has converted some rather big names in science like Anthony Flew away from atheism) and there is a strong body of evidence for that theory and NO body of evidence whatsoever, for evolution at all. (a theory which was devised 150 years ago to cut God out of the equation).

And furthermore, I've discussed the "Cosmological constants" with several evolutionists i.e. astrophysicists and they also agree they exist and that there is strong evidence that the smallest change in one (there are many of these) would cause an implosion. Of course, the suggestion there, is not only did God create but He maintains.

Similarly, it should be noted, that most of the universe is completely inhospitable to any kind of DNA based life. Only our pale blue dot Earth, as far as we know, is conducive to or contains any life at all. If, then, it is to be argued that the universe was created with DNA based life in mind, the immediate problem posed is why it was necessary to create the entire rest of the universe?

This is of course suggesting the amazing fact that the set of circumstances required to host life are so unique that to assume this happened "randomly" is a bit ridiculous - nay, more than a bit!

As for questioning the 'why' (an argument Tyson has brought up against "Intelligent Design") is rather foolish - like we tiny creations could understand either a "Master Plan" or a "raison d'etre"?

Please see the three articles at the following link:

evolution... or not

I personally don't believe the double-slit experiment really goes beyond the physics of the experiment. The sub-atomic world is extremely sensitive to the forces emitted by other sub-atomic particles so that at the micro-level it looks like it is all over the place; however, I am certain that there are laws in effect; however, we are unable to measure the forces involved because they are extremely small.

Atheists and Theist alike have attempted to argue for free will on the basis that they are unpredictable; however, the unpredictability is merely a matter of ignorance on the matter rather than any credible research which has confirmed this. Theists believe we have a free will because we have a soul. Our soul is not made up of sub-atomic particles; rather, our soul provides the form for the body which is very different.

I think the point to realize with sub-atomic theory is that these particles go smaller. The fact that there are numerous sub-atomic particles means that they can be broken down even further; however, we just don't have the instruments to peer into them. When you look at a tree, you are looking at a group of cells, the cells can be broken down into molecules, molecules into atoms and atoms into sub-atomic particles and sub-atomic particle can be reduced to ? (yet to be known)

The point that should be made is that our visible reality rest on an invisible reality. Theists argue that God is currently causing our existence. In order for our existence to be caused now, the mind of God would ultimately be the invisible reality that sustains reality making our existence possible. Atheists have replaced God with string theory in order to explain everything; however, string theory cannot be falsified or verified since a string is beyond comprehension. In fact, if you took an atom and made it the size of our universe, the string would only be the size of a tree in that atomic universe (extremely small). The reason for the very attempt is because everyone knows that our visible reality rests on an invisible reality.

When an atheist argues that we are not justified in believing in a God who we can't see, you can point either to Jesus or just point to current scientific theory which says our visible reality rests on an invisible reality.
Amen! You can't see the air you breathe, but you know it is there. You may not be able to see God, or His love, but if you truly believe in Him, then you FEEL HIM in your heart! At least that is MY experience! He is with me always and He helps me throughout the day. I speak to Him several time daily.....and I KNOW he is listening!! God is Great!!
Juanita wrote

I did some research... You know there was a time when being a scientist and an atheist was almost the same. They couldn't 'find' God, so he didn't exist.

Actually this is not true at all. On the contrary, most of the great names in science throughout history were not only men of faith but FINANCED by the Catholic church! The idea of cutting God out of the equation is relatively recent - in the so called "Age of Reason" - the theory of evolution was actually devised to cut God out. Darwin who early in his career, stated that he didn't see where a scientist could observe the wonders of nature and doubt the existence of God, apparently became angry at God for the early demise of his daughter. One of Darwin's ardent followers, Thomas Huxley crowed, "in the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is no longer a need or room for the supernatural."

(There are some who have stated that Darwin did a 'deathbed' confession type thing but I've not been able to find proof of this... or proof that he died an atheist)

Richard Dawkins, a militant atheist and others like him, hang on to evolution despite the fact that it's never been proven in the laboratory nor observed in any part because as Dawkins puts it:

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

Neil DeGrasse Tyson (director of the Hayden Planetarium) admits that

"15 percent of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world accept Intelligent Design and this is troubling."

Dawkins details some of his arguments against God and Intelligent Design in his book, "THE GOD DELUSION", arguments which theologian and Catholic convert, Scott Hahn, (former Presbyterian minister) absolutely demolishes in his book, "ANSWERING THE NEW ATHEISM". That a philosopher and theologian and NON biologist can demolish the arguments of one of the top scientists of our time tends to suggest that the arguments for evolution are rather lacking.

Just goes to show that when science becomes dogmatic (as it does in attempting to "prove" evolution), it can trip even the greatest of scientists. :)

Neil De Grasse Tyson also makes an attempt to refute "Intelligent Design" in his youtube video "Stupid Design" which ends up being the usual rant against God i.e. if there is a God why is there suffering, natural disasters etc - and these arguments assume that small creatures like ourselves could understand a grand scheme and also assumes that suffering is deleterious (forgetting of course, that any great achievement like going to med school or becoming an Olympic athlete, involves a great DEAL of pain and suffering). Tyson's rant is humorous and entertaining but disproves nothing. However, he's an interesting person and very knowledgeable and worth listening to even if we don't agree with his take on "Intelligent Design". I ended up listening to several videos of his and also a show in which he was interviewed called "The Pluto Files" (which details the "Pluto-is-not-a-planet" controversy some may have heard about but during the interview, many of Tyson's thoughts about evolution and Intelligent Design also come up).

Yah, when you put it like that, atheism is simply not an intellectual position to hold. In fact, the "a" on atheism simply means "no" theism. At its heart it is just a reaction against God or as the Bible says, "rebellion against God" The definition is very appropriate for sure and really captures the heart of atheism.
I think Jim is correct that the blanket statement may be a little simplified. For instance, an atheist believes that something began to expand rather than nothing came from nothing. The fact is that no one was there and we have no idea how something came from nothing or how something began to expand. The creation of the universe only happened once and cannot be repeated.

I think the important point to know about the beginning is that the universe had a beginning. Atheist generally believe in the eternality of the universe; however, mankind has blown up atoms; however, this did not result in a universe; rather, it simply results a huge explosion. The same thing happens with super novas and they don't create a universe either. In fact, nothing in our experience justifies the position that something (already existing) began to expand in the beginning resulting in a universe. As a result, it is more rational to believe that something came from nothing since God spoke it into existence.

In fact, all the evidence that we currently have appears to result in the belief that the universe had a beginning as evidenced by big bang theory. In other words, the universe had a beginning just as the Bible predicted. However, a large explosion does not appear to create a universe at any level in the universe from an existing infinite point. The last hope for atheism is that black holes explode resulting in another universe so they have another faith position which is similar to string theory for which we have no evidence for either.

The fact is that Christians support science and we love to explore the universe. A Christian led the Genome project that was the first to map the Genome. A Christian is also leading the Mars project with the rovers that are running around the surface. We have learned from Climate Gate that when you don't have Christians in charge, you can end up with some pretty unethical practices taking place. Science cannot be done in a godless way; rather, science has to be done by highly ethical people who hold a worldview that actually supports the progress of science in an honest and ethical manner. I personally do not believe that the godless are qualified because they lack moral integrity. We see this lack of moral integrity out of Dawkins himself who believes that Darwinian evolution is a proven fact when in fact it has never been demonstrated or observed. Dawkins even holds the non-scientific view that you should ridicule those who critize your undemonstrated science which is outrageous!!

The bottom line for Atheists is that instead of recognizing the obvious and accepting the hypothesis stated in Scripture, they simply replace God with a future faith in another explanation that is material in nature. However, the basis of their belief is a blind faith in materialism which theories lack any evidential support and stands outside the realm of an observable quantity. As a result, Jim is putting his whole life on the line for the sake of science which he will never know nor will never know which is clearly irrational.

A person has to have beliefs that accord with the most rational beliefs. However, since Jim has currently closed His mind to all possible explanation and reduce His belief to only materialistic ones, he has closed his mind to an aspect of reality that best explains the data based on the predictions made by the Bible itself. The bottom line is how did those cavemen (like Moses) get it right? How did Moses know that the universe had a beginning? How did Moses know that creation followed a process that we can see today in the Genome as well as the Fossil record? The fact is that it defies a natural explanation. Perhaps God did speak through Moses? The atheist has simply closed his mind to all possible explanation holding to a blind faith that a material explanation may someday explain it; however, it is a blind faith on the part of the atheist. The very thing they supposedly reject and accuse Theist of.

God Bless
Check this out!

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Latest Activity

James Bartlett posted a status
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdsVZ6VLsk This is my 1st attempt at doing a teaching on Youtube"
Jun 1
Juanita added a discussion to the group March to Honor
Aug 19, 2020
Juanita posted a group
Aug 19, 2020
Profile IconAlexandria, Kacee Holmes, Trish and 2 more joined KingdomInsight
Aug 19, 2020
Juanita and Pascal Musore are now friends
Jul 13, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"Lets change our world"
Jul 4, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"Prayer that you have made acquaintances with the project, for more information or questions, write to me I am at your disposal"
Jul 4, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"electricity in Africa and around the world, we already have several projects that are in progress, we lack some support from you"
Jul 4, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"People from around the world, I come to you to talk about my humanitarian association which aims to fight against famines, no drinking water"
Jul 4, 2019
Ginny Reid Radtke replied to Juanita's discussion Chapter 3. Not my job. in the group 2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication
"What a thought provoking chapter! Interesting that change is only possible if there is hope; Yes I…"
Jun 20, 2019
James Bartlett joined Juanita's group
Thumbnail

Prayer. Learning to be Intentional.

This is a Call to Prayer!When God intends to move, He calls us to prayer.  He is calling.  Let's be…See More
Jun 18, 2019
Ginny Reid Radtke joined Juanita's group
Thumbnail

2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication

People are confused.   We know how to 'do church'.  Church happens every Sunday morning.   How do…See More
Jun 16, 2019
Michael is now a member of KingdomInsight
Jun 15, 2019
Ginny Reid Radtke and Juanita are now friends
Jun 14, 2019
James Bartlett replied to Juanita's discussion Preface - The Seed 2019 Pre-Launch in the group 2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication
"A "Church" House, Building, Temple, etc. is the House of the Lord, it is a place we come…"
Jun 11, 2019
James Bartlett liked Juanita's discussion Preface - The Seed 2019 Pre-Launch
Jun 11, 2019
James Bartlett joined Juanita's group
Thumbnail

2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication

People are confused.   We know how to 'do church'.  Church happens every Sunday morning.   How do…See More
Jun 11, 2019
James Bartlett and Robert H Patrick are now friends
Jun 11, 2019
Profile IconGinny Reid Radtke, James Pollard, Tom Christensen and 2 more joined KingdomInsight
Jun 8, 2019
Juanita's group was featured
Thumbnail

2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication

People are confused.   We know how to 'do church'.  Church happens every Sunday morning.   How do…See More
Jun 8, 2019

© 2021   Created by Juanita.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service