I didn’t say a “quantum state” I said “from the quantum field.” These particle are created from nothing. These particles don’t exist and then they do exist. At the quantum level, that can happen. Sorry. No need for your wizard.
I will willingly debate many of your supposed probelms with the God hypotehsis, however there is something more fundamentally flawed in your assumptions.
Your argument seems to be that a lack of evidence FOR something contradicts that hypothesis. But there is no evidence for the multiverse. Therefore by your own logic, this lack of evidence contradicts the multiverse hypothesis.
No; he (and I) have been saying that the “God hypothesis” not only has no evidence for itself, but that it contradicts various things that we do have evidence of. That is not true of the multiverse hypothesis.
And again; we know that universes are possible because we live in one. Where is your evidence that gods are possible? Not even evidence for them being real; just that they are even possible?
No they are not.
‘Virtual’ particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing.
What happens (or at least what is theorised) is that the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum.
In that regard I will invoke the Zero One, Infinity rule of software design. Which implies you can have exactly 0, 1 or infinitely many instances of any class of entities. And you’d better have a damn good reason to go for 0 or, especially, 1.
This is not any kind of persuasive argument, except that if you’re a designer, you ignore it at your peril.
No such argument was made. The argument was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.
Read the number of times the expression “There is no evidence” is quoted in the post I responded to. No evidence for is not evidence against. So to be consistent, you must discount those paticular points.
This is a hypothesis. What is actually knwn is that particles don’t exist, and then they do exist, and then they don’t exist.
The existence of things which contradict a hypothesis are proof against that hypothesis. The lack of evidence for a hypothesis doesn’t effect the plausibility of the hypothesis one way or the other.
I.e. there can be evidence for and against.
Multiverses - Evidence for: 0 - Evidence against: 0
Deities - Evidence for: 0 - Evidence against: lots
<<There’s no evidence of a guiding hand.>>
<<There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome.>>
<<There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being.>>
<<There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided.>>
How so? And please don’t quote ‘there is no evidence…’
Agreed.
Evidence for God…
- Design
That’s it?! Jesus H. Fucking Christ.
Design of what?!
Please note I’ve seen most “arguments from design” already. Make it interesting.
This argument was never made. The argument was that a hypothesis is stronger if it at least consistent with observable reality. A multiverse is consistent with the obeservable universe. The sky god hypothesis is not.
Even if it were, the specific religious explanations developed by humans are all very provably false. Even if you could prove the universe needed a creator (and that has still never been proven), that would not alter the fact that the Bible, for instance, is demonstrably a human composition with no reliable scientific or historical value (and that’s putting it kindly).
Say that I hypothesize that a particular wall is pink. I then go and look at the wall, and discover that it is white. I have no evidence of pinkess, because for it to be pink, it would have to contradict what I have already observed. I have observed that the hypothesis contradicts reality.
The hypothesis proposed something that could be observed. When I went to check, those observations failed to manifest. Instead, they were contradicted.
The claim was <<The argument was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.>>
I am simply asking how so?
Well, to start with, lack of necessity is de facto evidence against all by itself. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like that. As long as you can explain the universe without magic, there is no reason to hypothesize it. Magic i impossible, and impossible things should be preseumed to be impossible until proven otherwise.
Beyond that, many of the claims made about this creator god are deonstrably false. For instance, the universe shows no conscious design (and in the case of biology, often very poor design), it has never been shown to intearct with the universe or answer prayers, it logically can’t be omnimax, and magic is impossible. Just to name a few things.
Don’t make up quotes, dammit. Quote with names and numbers or leave it alone.
Firstly, the quotes above were not mine. I was quoting them to make a point.
Secondly Merriam Wedster defines hypothesis as “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”. The greek origin of the word is conneected to ‘suppose’. In science, however, an hypothesis requires some empirical observation. On that basis, your suggestion that the wall is pink is more akin to a ‘guess’ than an hypothesis.