I hope to make this blog posts more regularly as I get my weeks become more organized. However, for now, I want to expand on a thought I had recently about the arguments about religion. A correlation in my mind was drawn between these debates and a thought experiment devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, often called Schrödinger's cat. In laymen terms, a cat is placed in a box which houses a bit of radioactive substance, that if any decay occurs, will trigger a system that will lead to the death of the cat. This system established runs on the likelihood that it is just as likely for the cat to be dead as it is to be alive. This thought experiment, thus, provides that the cat is therefore both alive and dead seeing that both possibilities are as sustainable.
The conclusion of this experiment is that both realities exist concurrently as long as the box remains closed. I think, in many arguments, this same can be said about a belief in God, at least in my mind. One is just as likely to be able to explain that there is no God, as there is one. In my mind, logic leans as much to one as it does to the either since both fail to answer many of the same questions. The thought experiment by Schrödinger discussed a time frame of an hour, and that this dualistic nature of truth exists within the moments of this period. That is where the differences begin.
In the sense of the world, as opposed to the experiment, there must be one constant truth. For God to exist, at least under any theory generally accepted by any sect, He must exist constantly. The same goes for a lack of God. If the world began without one, then it would needs be that it continued as such. So, in turn, we are basically the scientists conjecturing about the state of the cat in the box as the hour lapses. Most importantly, the hour will come to an end for each of us. In the coming morning I'll be attending a funeral for a sweet older, not elderly, lady from my families religious congregation. For her, the hour is up and the box is opened. No amount of postulating will change what has always been the truth. Nevertheless, each of us are left to figure out what is the actual truth.
With all of this being true, I guess my question is just to wonder if it is better to err on the side of hope. Yes, under the theoretical structure, the cat is both dead and alive; however, is it wrong to hope that the cat is still alive inside the box knowing that the hour will come, the box will open, and the two possible realities will merge to become the actual reality? And, seeing that individuals throughout time have been making arguments for and against God, is it wrong to hope for the former of the options? Because, when all is said and done and the hour is up, the only options are a permanent death or immortality.
