No, but virtual particles are uncaused.
Please respond to my previous post. Also, can you point to the opinion that states that QM events are, in fact, causeless? A random appearance, in my mind, does not lead you there. Certainly not necessarily.
Oh, I see now. It’s because you say so. You’re talking about DioWorld; I was talking about the actual universe. Thanks for clearing that up. I knew we must be talking past one another. Have a nice day. May gravity be present with every step you take. I know it’s not much to worry about, but, hey, you never know, right?
It’s not me that says so, it’s the physicists who understand this stuff a lot better than I do.
I don’t think this is a reasonable extrapolation. What we see evidence of is that every already existing thing that changes it’s physical properties has a cause.
We have NO experience with ‘nothing’.
So to say that because we experience pre-existing matter/energy changing in time/space because of an agent is NOT the same thing as saying that everything has a cause therefore the universe has a cause.
I’m not sure that you would argue this point (it seems related, but not directly related to what you are arguing).
None of which are applicable to the universe.
I’m not sure it does - with regard to the universe. Then again, I don’t hold that there was ever a point when the universe didn’t exist.
Here you go…
Oh, so you take it on faith. Okay, I guess we all do that to a degree. So, please share with me from what you’ve read that leads you to believe that QM effects are causeless. You know a leading physicist stating fairy clearly that QM particles are causeless.
While much of that is admittedly over my head, I really didn’t see where the findings led to the conclusion that the events are causeless. And the degree to which that can even be read into it, it’s certainly not necessarily causeless. Is that your takeaway, as well?
See post #225.
That’s trust in the experts to know what they are doing in the area of their expertise, not faith.
Okay. So, you do not have what was requested of you. So, you’re taking it on faith. That’s what I thought.
The problem is then to understand exactly what they are saying. And I don’t see them actually saying that they know that Quantum events are causeless. So, you can’t point to clear statements that go directly to what we’re discussing (as opposed to what their testing), you are taking it on faith that they agree with you. With a heaping dose of Confirmation Bias thrown in for good measure.
When they say, “No physical theory which assumes a deterministic variable inside the particle that determines the outcome, can account for the experimental results,” that’s physicists talk for “uncaused.” “No deterministic variable” means “no cause.”
Well, Meatros already addressed this partially, but the thing is, if we say that you can’t get “something from nothing”, then you also have to address that when we try to “make” nothing, we instead do end up with virtual particles that don’t [seem to] have any cause. I’m leaving the reasoning behind that for the physicists, but it certainly looks like there’s no intelligent intent that creates virtual particles, which in turn makes it at least somewhat plausible that a universe could “pop up” without intent too.
And as often pointed out in these arguments, pushing the origin question back to “God” just changes the question to “where did God come from”. And if you answer that he came from nowhere or has been around eternally, that answer can be applied to universes just as easily without a character from primitive myths being involved.
I see it exactly the opposite. We know of two things that come into existence: the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, and sub-atomic particles. We don’t know what caused the universe, but we know that sub-atomic particles are uncaused.
The simplest explanation for the universe would be one where it was uncaused. Don’t have the data to prove that’s the correct one, but it’s consistent with everything else we know and doesn’t depend on magic.
Actually, I’d quibble with the first of your two things. I don’t think that the Big Bang does show that the universe came into existence. I think that if we assume it does, then we are begging the question with regard to the A theory of time.
I think the B theory of time is more parsimonious. It seems to make sense of relativity theory (It’s hard to see how the A theory does) and the concept of simultaneous presents. It also does away with the whole necessity to postulate a state of ‘nothingness’.
No they don’t. Sorry. If you disagree, then point to an “objective moral law” and prove that it can exist outside of human thought.
[/QUOTE]
I have…an abhorrence towards child abuse
Nonsense. The evolutionary response to protect offspring is a fiction…look at animals who kill their young.
Behe, Dembski, Strobel? Here’s some homework for you. Fred Hoyle, George Ellis, Paul davies, Alan Sandage, John O’Keefe, George Greenstein, Arthur Eddington, Arno Penzias, Roger Penriose, Tony Rothman…the list is long.
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”
You will need to explain why a God who allows man to break His laws is not all powerful.