Typo: The belief that their is nothing after we die has been defeated once and 4 all.

The idea that God is from the future proves that believing nothing exists after we die is wrong.

I'm obviously just practicing theology here

Darwin's theory of evolution stating that we were created through science and the big bang without God can co exist with God being from the future.
We become like God if we make it to heaven because we too can then live forever in God's grace....
This just means God is the smartest and nicest man from the future.

And our ancestors exist as genes within us, and they see the world through us and through nature.
For if we exist now, surely our genes can bring back the dead in 7000 years from now. ....micro processing of our blood and genes in 7000 years can bring the dead back to life, and heaven and hell is the game of reincarnated karma.

And God exists from the future.
The ultimate battle between being able to live forever but then dying and from living forever through technology never ends.
That concept creates God in the future!

Imagine describing quantum computing code to a person in 500 BC. The rate at which we will develop as a species is going to be way way faster then in previous centuries.

There's no reason to deny the existence of the after life when we can look to the future for our faith. Looking to the future denies atheism their proofs, and it makes many more people nicer.

And we exist now as evidence of the afterlife.

Amen

How can it be defeated when there are still hundreds of millions of people being atheists?

An idea is not a proof.

Honestly don't know what Darwin believed in exactly, but modern atheism is not just believing what Darwin believed in.
Darwin got the ball rolling and gave atheism a big boost but we have come far from there.

I don't think "they see" through us. We are existing because of our ancestors were reproducing. But they can't see because they are dead.

What? So you say that genetical information of us gets discovered in 7000 years bringing back people who are dead today to life in 7000 years?
If you mean this then no, a person is not only it's genes. We can clone life but the individual will be another than the individual it was made of. The consciousness is another.

So I really don't get how you come to this conclusion. What is a God in your eyes? Is it having the ability of bringing back the dead? How long must they be dead before we bring them back to life so we are Gods? Because people are bringing back the dead for some thousands of years now (source).

Now what if I told you there is no faith?

Sorry, no. You don't bring proofs but science is. Also how can you look into the future? Please proof me that you can see what the future is like and also proof faith.

So you say there are no nice atheists? I can proof you wrong for sure and it is not even difficult.

That was an amazingly incoherent post, OP with many errors in your logic. Calling him a smart and kind "man" is also a huge oversimplification of the God concept.
I still feel good as an atheist.

Atheism is not the belief that nothing exists after death. There are even atheistic religions with reincarnation as a concept. Anyway here's a short story that agrees with your general point, if I interpreted it right:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html

Atheism in the grand context I believe has been defeated. The leading atheists of the west have been circling around the "God" equation for sometime and are beginning to bang there heads on the wall with new theories of "coming from nothing", but they claim it to be quantum physics...a physical science we do not understand in the slightest.

But atheism is very much alive and I do not worry about it. I love debating/ discussing with atheists if they can take their emotions out of the equation and have a logical discussion of life/ death in relation to them and their loved ones. The theist argument is at minimum 2,000 yrs old, so a some what knowledgeable atheist will regurgitate a few straws of their own, but relate to their own life and logic often becomes lost in a plethora of their feelings that do not exist and count for nothing because the claim is that the world must be material to begin with.

Sorry but your post is pretty much utter BS. We certainly understand quantum mechanics. Maybe YOU don’t but it is certainly well understood. I understand it completely. I studied it in college for several semesters. You may not like what it says. You may think it flies in the face of common sense. Well, too bad; it’s the way the universe works and all observations agree with quantum mechanics, not with your notions.

There may or may not be any “something from nothing” needed. There is no indication in modern cosmology that there was ever “nothing”. Modern cosmology hypothesizes an inflation field that led to a period of exponential expansion. This expansion wipes out any possibility of observing anything about the universe prior to the expansion so we don’t truly know what might have existed prior. However there is no reason to think it was “nothing”. BTW a quantum field is a something, not a nothing, and it can most certainly lead to a universe full of matter and radiation.

As for emotion, well again you have it backwards. Athiesm merely is a application of AOC ham’s Razor; nothing emotional whatsoever about it. There is no need to posit a deity to explain the universe atlround us, so we simply do not posit one. No emotions needed, simple logic. The emotional position is the theist one. The longevity of that position is not evidence of its correctness, but rather evidence of human emotion and wishful thinking, namely the very understandable emotion of fear of death. Nobody wants to believe that they will one day be dead, so humans have made up stories to reassure themselves that they won’t actually die. Whether it’s the resurrection into heaven of Christians, the Hindu reincarnation, or some other story, theism has its root in this fear of death.

If one wants to believe in a theistic universe because they feel comforted by it, I have no issue. Just don’t try to turn it around and tell me that it’s based on logic and evidence. There is no evidence; you guys even make a VIRTUE of that fact — you gotta have faith. What is faith, if not belief in the absence of evidence?

i don't think you are actually sorry, but ok, cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ZRLllWgHI

25 second mark

All that I speak to on this forum is just one big fear-of-death cope? You sure about that?

Maybe that’s not your personal motivation. How the heck should I know why you do things? My contention is that theistic religions in general developed due to the very natural desire of humans to avoid death. People see others around them dying and realize they are going to die. They don’t want to contemplate their own mortality so they made up stories about why they won’t REALLY die. Reincarnation, resurrection into heaven, you get beamed aboard an alien spaceship or whatever else is out there.

Question: what religion out there teaches that when you die, that is it. You should just strive to make the best of you life here on earth because there is nothing else? I honestly don’t know of any, which is why I am asserting that the root of religious belief is the fear of death. I was not responding to anyone’s belief system now, but rather to a poster who seemed to think that there must be some truth to theism because people have believed in it for thousands of years. My assertion is that theism has been an almost constant component of human belief due to the desire to not die. That obviously does not mean it’s true - wishing does not make it so.

https://www.quora.com/What-did-Richa...ntum-mechanics

Sure, QM is a counterintuitive theory, but to say nobody understands it is inaccurate. People donÂ’t understand it because they try to shoehorn common sense notions into it and that leads to incorrect results. One common sense notion that leads to difficulty is the notion that spatially separated bodies cannot be part of a single physical system. This is incorrect as delayed choice experiments and entanglement prove. Particles seperated from each other can most certainly share a quantum state.

Another common sense idea that leads to trouble is the notion that Pericles and waves are two completely different types of entities. This also is false, and giving up this notion allows one to understand the behavior of light, electrons and other quantum entities better.

In any case, FeynmanÂ’s quote is over 70 years old. We have made a lot of progress in understanding quantum mechanics in the meantime. Quantum mechanics gives a correct explanation of particle interactions in all cases; there has never been an exception found. Sometimes the math is difficult and an approximate solution must be found, but it is safe to say that quantum mechanics is well understood.

In fact, believe it or not, there is a very simple physical principle that entails all of quantum mechanics, including all of the counterintuitive features. Much like special relativity is fully derived from the principle that there is a maximum observable speed in nature, QM can be fully derived from the principle that there is a minimum, nonzero, observable change in any physical system. When we look at something and look at it again a moment later, it can never be quite the same. For macroscopic systems, this minimum change is unnoticeable, which is why our common sense notions do not encompass QM. But for very small systems, the minimum change is significant and has all the consequences detailed by QM.

NERD ALERT: the technical term for change in physics is action, which is defined as energy multiplied by time. For anyone with any familiarity with QM, you would know that PlanckÂ’s constant is a fundamental quantity in QM. Not coincidentally, the units of that constant are the units of action, and the minimum action is equal to the reduced Planck constant.

Do you not realize that there is already an easy way to not concern yourself with death and it operates automatically? It’s called denial. Your attention simply gets diverted. Everyone does this almost all of the time. No new truths or narratives are necessary for this.

You would be able to see this if you would push back on your view in the name of truth.

Why does the double slit experiment results depend on whether there is an observer?

Why do certain things have certain half lives?

The double slit experiment result doesnÂ’t depend on an observer; it depends on how a detector is placed. The detector interacts with the quantum system differently depending on where it is located. Placing a detector in front of a slit destroys the interference pattern and reveals the particle-like aspect of the quantum system; removing it keeps the interference pattern revealing the wave-like aspect. The difficulty in understanding this result comes again clinging to common sense notions. In this case we cling to two such notions; namely that waves and particles are inherently distinct entities and that a system can be measured without changing it. Reject those notions, and the double slit result is not that difficult to comprehend.

Half lives are determined primary by the potential barrier that a decay particle (usually an alpha or beta particle) must tunnel through to escape the nucleus. The math is pretty involved, but in general the larger the potential barrier, the less likely it is that a decay particle will tunnel through, and the longer the half life will be.

To the larger point, though, in any area of science we reach a point where we just have to accept things as given and it would be just as accurate to say that we donÂ’t understand it as it is to say we donÂ’t understand QM. For example, in classical electromagnetism, why are there two types of charge rather than one, three, four or more? Why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract instead of vice-versa? Why do moving charges create magnetic fields?

Nobody says “we don’t understand electromagnetism” despite there being no satisfactory answers to these questions. That’s because electromagnetism provides a good description of a large array of phenomena and it more readily comports with common sense notions. I suggest that the situation with QM is similar except that it flies completely in the face of common sense. Give up common sense notions when they are shown to be inaccurate based on experiment and QM will be much more understandable.

You remind me of a guy who has seen a youtube video or two and claims to be an expert, but unaware legitimate experts lurk the thread too...

I have never watched a YouTube video on quantum mechanics (or any other science topic) in my life. I am a scientist (a chemist to be precise). I am not an expert on QM per per se, but I have studied it and have more than just a layman’s knowledge of it. I have no doubt that there are others with more expertise than I, and I certainly welcome them to correct anything I post on here that is incorrect.

Never heard that before.

I dunno how intuitive the following description is to people unfamiliar with the idea, but this is from some people at the forefront of experimental research, you will have come across these guys no doubt:


"The possibility of obtaining path information" determines the integrity or collapse of the interference pattern. So the notion of physical interaction wiping out the interference pattern is not causative. This leads some religious folk to interpret Richard Feynman's statement that "nobody understands QM" as his refusal, as an atheist presumably, to accept the ramifications of experimental results - *knowing* the path information causes matter to exist otherwise it's a mere sea of potentiality. Thereby placing the human experience at the centre of the universe and by extension higher authorities, all-knowing architect/s etc to "program" the information in the first instance, which/who precede the material world as we know it. It's a reasonable interpretation, because we know full well Ricky understood QM - besides the idea that obviously human beings understand basically nothing about anything as this applies to all knowledge, special reservation is reserved for QM because of the philosophical ramifications.

It was "common sense" for Aristotle to observe that objects tend towards rest. It was "common sense" for Galileo to observe them as continuing with constant velocity etc. So common sense is somewhat related to the kinds of ideas prevalent in society at any given time. In a more spiritual society, the findings of QM might be more intuitive.

For a different view, Ken Wheeler's take on QM is interesting and hilarious (find him on.. youtube).

There is an "intuitive" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, assuming having a particle with a position and momentum at all times is intuitive to you, called Bohmian Mechanics or de Broglie–Bohm theory. I'm going to assume you're most familiar with the Newton's laws version of classical mechanics, in which one could roughly summarize a particle's trajectory by saying it follows a straight line path, i.e. it's velocity is a constant, unless acted on by a force which can be modeled, in many cases, as a potential energy field, e.g. the gravitational potential, or electric potential:

x = x(t); V = V(x), m = mass.
m * d^2(x)/dt^2 = -dV/dx,

I.e. the particle accelerates proportional to how steeply the potential energy field is sloped. It's as though this field is guiding the particle's acceleration.

In contrast, in Bohmian mechanics, the particle's velocity, not it's acceleration, is guided by the "steepness" of a field (See the Overview section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bro...ory#Overview):

W = W(x, t), h = constant, Im[ Z ] = the imaginary part of a complex variable Z.
m * dx/dt = h * Im[ (dW(x, t)/dx) / W(x, t) ],

where I wrote h instead of h_bar = h/(2*pi) to save space, and W(x,t) is the standard Quantum Mechanics wavefunction which obeys the Schrodinger equation:

i * h * dW/dt = -(h^2/(2 * m)) * d^2W/dx^2 + V*W,

where V = V(x) is the same potential as in classical physics.

For the difference between the single and double slit experiments within Bohmian mechanics, see section 2 "Example: The Double-Slit Experiment": https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.08017.pdf...%20is%20shown.

For the case when there are two slits and a detector is placed at one, the momentum transferred from the detector to the particle behaves in part as if the slit was partially blocked, depending on how much momentum is transferred, which also effects how accurately you measure the particle's position. See the answer to this post:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...he-double-slit

The Derivations section of the Wikipedia article has more perspectives on connections between classical and Bohmian mechanics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bro...ry#Derivations.
The method which shows the complex Schodinger equation to be two real equations, one for conservation of probability, and the other a version of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with an extra Potential function, the "Quantum Potential", is especially interesting, though it depends on how intuitive the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of classical mechanics is for you.