# Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288 "2013-02-04T04:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![koufax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@koufax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/koufax)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/141 "2013-02-05T02:26:28Z")
But is THIS possible? (trying to lighten up the subject a bit) > **[God Freaks Self Out By Lying Awake Contemplating Own Immortality](https://www.theonion.com/god-freaks-self-out-by-lying-awake-contemplating-own-im-1819574462)** > > THE HEAVENS—Sources close to God reported Thursday that the Creator of the Universe and Author of Our Eternal Salvation suffered a crippling bout of existential dread this week, lying awake all night as He pondered His own immortality. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/142 "2013-02-05T02:26:34Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > [It is not.](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html) > Hawking Radiation is the release of one of a pair of two Virtual Particles due to its partner being swallowed by the event horizon. The creation of the VP’s is ex nihilo, but Hawking Radiation is not. It’s actually more complicated than that, if you read the link you posted: > [@John 'cousin of Joan' Baez](#): > > In fact this argument also does not correspond in any clear way to the actual computation. Or at least I’ve never seen how the standard computation can be transmuted into one involving virtual particles sneaking over the horizon, and in the last talk I was at on this it was emphasized that nobody has ever worked out a “local” description of Hawking radiation in terms of stuff like this happening at the horizon. Virtual particles have a rather tenuous ontological existence anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/143 "2013-02-05T02:28:57Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > But is THIS possible? (trying to lighten up the subject a bit) > > [http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-freaks-self-out-by-lying-awake-contemplating-o,31097/](http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-freaks-self-out-by-lying-awake-contemplating-o,31097/) So, how do _you_ define “atheism”? ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/144 "2013-02-05T02:32:30Z")
Gentlemen, All these mechanisms, ingenious as they are, about how the universe was created are irrelevant to atheism. I think that an atheist can easily say “I don’t know how the universe was created. I’m as curious as anyone”. I’m going to sleep now. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/145 "2013-02-05T02:33:54Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > It looks like scientists are running into a problem similar to what religions are experiencing. People with a general science background are unable to personally confirm or deny the findings of a specialist. > > I for one would be unable to confirm or deny the findings of a cosmologist, so basically I have to have faith in his findings. I certainly don’t have the laboratory or the funds to re-create the experiments a cosmologist conducts. I was just thinking the other day about the fact that whereas I had a rudimentary understanding about how old cathode rate tube televisions worked, I really have no idea about how my current Sharp flatscreen tv works. Yet it does, and I don’t personally know why, so therefore God. Flatscreen tvs are a matter of faith. Ooh, you know what else I don’t personally know? How to speak any Slavic languages. I have to take it on faith that it can be translated into English. I wouldn’t have the first idea how to say, “Please fondle my buttocks” for instance. This is also just like faith in god, right? ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/146 "2013-02-05T02:36:47Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I wouldn’t have the first idea how to say, “Please fondle my buttocks” for instance. You are a barbarian.😃 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/147 "2013-02-05T02:38:06Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > if you read the link you posted I read the link I posted, note its publication date. [It’s not really all that more complicated.](http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/22/analogue-hawking-radiation-spotted-in-the-lab) ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/148 "2013-02-05T02:40:08Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Ooh, you know what else I don’t personally know? How to speak any Slavic languages. I have to take it on faith that it can be translated into English. I wouldn’t have the first idea how to say, “Please fondle my buttocks” for instance. This is also just like faith in god, right? Google translate says: Пожалуйста, ласкать мои ягодицы ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/149 "2013-02-05T02:44:45Z")
[Or, if you prefer.](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm) Virtual Particles are not at all shaky ontologically. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/150 "2013-02-05T02:58:39Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I read the link I posted, note its publication date. > [It’s not really all that more complicated.](http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/22/analogue-hawking-radiation-spotted-in-the-lab) It is actually seriously complicated, the arguments for Hawking radiation are not easy to follow and don’t usually mention virtual particles, it’s only the heuristic explanations that do. Arguably it’s actually due to the ambiguity of definition of ‘particle’ more than anything else. That article from Physicsworld is not so relevant to whether we really should see Hawking radiation as creation ex nihilo of particles. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/151 "2013-02-05T03:02:44Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > It is actually seriously complicated, the arguments for Hawking radiation are not easy to follow and don’t usually mention virtual particles, it’s only the heuristic explanations that do. Arguably it’s actually due to the ambiguity of definition of ‘particle’ more than anything else. [Imma go with Hawking on this one, maself.](http://greiterweb.de/spw/Black_Holes_and_Virtual_Particles.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/152 "2013-02-05T03:08:26Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > [Or, if you prefer.](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm) > > Virtual Particles are not at all shaky ontologically. There’s actually quite a lot of disagreement among physicists over the exact ontological status of virtual particles. Many, if not most, physicists would say they are just a calculational device if pushed and there’s good reasons for having this point of view. Again the Sciencedaily article is not so relevant to the ontological existence of virtual particles as the issue is not whether we should be able to observe the Casimir effect. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/153 "2013-02-05T03:13:38Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > There’s actually quite a lot of disagreement among physicists over the exact ontological status of virtual particles. Yes, and there is quite a lot of disagreement on whether the collapse of the state vector is an epiphenomenon. But disagreement does not mean that one can’t, or shouldn’t, choose to accept a model as preferred. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Again the Sciencedaily article is not so relevant to the ontological existence of virtual particles as the issue is not whether we should be able to observe the Casimir effect. What mechanism do you hypothesize is behind the Casamir Effect and Zero Point Energy? ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/154 "2013-02-05T03:34:06Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes, and there is quite a lot of disagreement on whether the collapse of the state vector is an epiphenomenon. > But disagreement does not mean that one can’t, or shouldn’t, choose to accept a model as preferred. The collapse of the state vector is a postulate of the original theory (QM) and if you don’t take it as a postulate of QM you have to make it a prediction that collapse or apparent collapse should occur. Virtual particles are neither a postulate of quantum field theory nor are they predictions (there’s no experiment you could perform to demonstrate that they exist). Virtual particles arise from a very useful calculational method and they have the added bonus that they can make simple (if arguably sometimes misleading) heuristic explanations. > [@](#): > > What mechanism do you hypothesize is behind the Casamir Effect and Zero Point Energy? Virtual particles are not a mechanism, whether you take them as ontologically real or not, the results are the same. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/155 "2013-02-05T03:39:43Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > [Imma go with Hawking on this one, maself.](http://greiterweb.de/spw/Black_Holes_and_Virtual_Particles.htm) > [@Stephen Hawking](#): > > It should be emphasized that these pictures of the mechanism responsible for the thermal emission and area decrease are heuristic only and should not be taken too literally. Pg 202: [Page Not Found](http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.cmp/1103899181) ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/156 "2013-02-05T03:46:34Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > . Virtual particles are neither a postulate of quantum field theory nor are they predictions (there’s no experiment you could perform to demonstrate that they exist). Except, of course, for the Chalmers experiment that I already cited, which showed the actual existence of virtual photons, which you then handwaved. But other than that, definitely, it’s impossible. [ > [@](#): > > Scientists at Chalmers have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results have been published in the journal Nature. In an innovative experiment, the scientists have managed to capture some of the photons that are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum. > > […] > > “The result was that photons appeared in pairs from the vacuum, which we were able to measure in the form of microwave radiation,” says Per Delsing. “We were also able to establish that the radiation had precisely the same properties that quantum theory says it should have when photons appear in pairs in this way.” ]([News](http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/pages/chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx)) It’s a good thing you didn’t let them know it was impossible, they might have been discouraged. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Virtual particles are not a mechanism Unless you’re using an idiosyncratic definition of “mechanism”, they are. And what’s your alternate hypothesis to explain the Casamir Effect and Zero Point Energy? It’s well and good for you to claim that the evidence that shows the existence of VP’s should be ignored, or what have you, but here we have an experimentally verified phenomena which is consistent with the predictions of some of the greatest living physicists. Again, imma go with Hawking and the actual data. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/157 "2013-02-05T04:09:09Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Except, of course, for the Chalmers experiment that I already cited, which showed the actual existence of virtual photons, which you then handwaved. > But other than that, definitely, it’s impossible. > > [url=[News](http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/pages/chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx)] > > It’s a good thing you didn’t let them know it was impossible, they might have been discouraged. The particles they detected were real particles, not virtual particles. > [@](#): > > Unless you’re using an idiosyncratic definition of “mechanism”, they are. > And what’s your alternate hypothesis to explain the Casamir Effect and Zero Point Energy? It’s well and good for you to claim that the evidence that shows the existence of VP’s should be ignored, or what have you, but here we have an experimentally verified phenomena which is consistent with the predictions of some of the greatest living physicists. > > Again, imma go with Hawking and the actual data. I would say a ‘mechanism’ is something that can be tested and that is mostly independent of ontology. Admittedly that may not always be how the word is used. The predictions come from quantum field theory, so they’re independent of whether you view virtual particles as real or not. I believe you can do the same calculations without having to use the concept of virtual particles (or at least certainly in principle that is the case), even if you do use petrubation theory in your calculations, it doesn’t mean you have to assign an ontological existence to the terms in the petrubation series. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/158 "2013-02-05T04:13:44Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Sorry, I was overwhelmed by all the posts and did have to get some work done today. So atheists, if I understand this correctly, DO believe that “god”, “force”, a “power”, whatever you want to call it, could POSSIBLY exist and be the cause of matter and our existence. > > This is what I could never understand as I watched Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais and others attack organized religion (and rightfully so in my opinion). > > I thought that they believed that this all came about all on its own with nothing causing it to happen. Sure, a god could exist. I’ll need evidence to believe that, though. As for “force” or “power”, a deity would need to have a will and agency to be considered such. Gravity is a force, but not a deity. Power is measurable in watts, it’s not a deity. Atheism refers only to the lack of belief in a deity. > [@pchaos](#): > > It looks like scientists are running into a problem similar to what religions are experiencing. People with a general science background are unable to personally confirm or deny the findings of a specialist. > > I for one would be unable to confirm or deny the findings of a cosmologist, so basically I have to have faith in his findings. I certainly don’t have the laboratory or the funds to re-create the experiments a cosmologist conducts. Eh, to some degree. Both involve the consultation of authorities for knowledge that is onerous to gain by oneself, but that’s the extent of the similarity, because science is concerned only with testable explanations, which means the tests can be done by others. Processes like peer review allow a layman to grasp the acceptance or rejection of scientific ideas. Religion has no such processes. It cannot be tested by any means other than what feels right or wrong to the believer. > [@doubleminus](#): > > I think that an atheist can easily say “I don’t know how the universe was created. I’m as curious as anyone”. As an atheist, I can and do say that. We’re getting closer to an answer, though. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/159 "2013-02-05T04:14:17Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > The particles they detected were real particles, not virtual particles. And you have evidence to back that up? And an hypothesis to explain “That photons appeared in pairs from the vacuum" and “the radiation had precisely the same properties that quantum theory says it should have when photons appear in pairs in this way”? ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/160 "2013-02-05T04:37:36Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And you have evidence to back that up? The evidence? I’m not sure I need evidence when no-one (apart from you possibly) is claiming that particles in a ‘virtual state’ have been detected. > [@](#): > > And an hypothesis to explain “That photons appeared in pairs from the vacuum" and “the radiation had precisely the same properties that quantum theory says it should have when photons appear in pairs in this way”? Like I said it all comes from QFT, nothing changes whether you view virtual particles as ‘real things’ or not. Here’s a 64 page review on the theory behind the dynamical Casimir effect, note the word “virtual” is not used once: > **[Nonstationary Casimir Effect and analytical solutions for quantum fields in...](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106081)** > > This is a review of publications on classical and quantum electrodynamics in cavities with moving boundaries (in the quantum case this subject is labeled frequently as "nonstationary Casimir effect" or "dynamical Casimir effect"), from 1921 to... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=9)