Of course we know where matter came from - matter condensed out of the energy of the very hot early universe. If you’re going to say science can’t do this or that, you should really be up on what is known.
Now where the energy came from is another matter. But again, the commonsense rules of the macroworld don’t apply. An assertion that energy can’t spring from nowhere (assuming conservation is upheld) needs to be demonstrated, not just stated. Ditto for “everything must have a cause.” Time dilation doesn’t make any sense either, but it’s true.
The thing to ask is not whether all the answers exist, but how we’re progressing at finding them. Physics is doing quite nicely in getting to an understanding of the origin of the universe. The two major camps have merged into one. How is religion doing on understanding god? The sects just keep on coming. Have we really made any progress since Augustine? And that’s with a supposed sentient being around to give us clues. Every clue someone supposedly gets seems to contradict all the other ones.
If you say science says it “always was” you really don’t understand cosmology at all.
Who says that they do? Monotheists, for example, typically claim that God is an uncaused cause. For example, one common argument is the kalam cosmological argument, which maintains – based on philosophical/mathematical grounds – that one cannot have an infinite chain of causes. From this, theists conclude that there must ultimately be an uncaused cause.
One might disagree with that conclusion, but that doesn’t mean that theists simply shrug the question off.
Not true. Virtual particles are NOT uncaused. There is an element of randomness to their appearance, but they still require energy, and that energy must be drawn from somewhere. Without the energy, they cannot exist.
It’s a popular atheistic argument to say that virtual particles come from nothing–that they emerge from fluctuations in mere vacuum. This viewpoint comes from a severe misunderstanding of what the quantum vacuum is, though. Quantum vacuum is far from mere nothingness. In fact, this should be immediately obvious; after all, virtual particles emerge from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, and you cannot have fluctuations of nothingness!
Mackie says an infinite can not exist. Therefore god can not be all powerful ,all wise or everyplace at once. Seems to be contradictory. Therefore no god.
Thank you from offering this. I was not adequately versed in QM to put it so clearly. Not that it will change anything. But this should be turned into a sticky for every time this comes up.
You misunderstand this concept. Try Virtual particle - Wikipedia. Pairs of virtual particles come into existence with no net energy, so you are incorrect in saying that energy must be drawn from somewhere. When they annhiliate each other, there is no net change of energy.
As my link notes, virtual particles are represented by a probability distribution. I’m not sure how you get causality out of that. Note that the distribution is not from from unknown physical properties, like the roll of a die, but is inherent.
Even if you were correct about energy, going from requiring energy to having a cause is quite a leap, and not justified by your link.
First of all, Mackie is a harsh critic of the kalam argument, not a proponent (a misguided critic, IMO). No offense, but I think this shows that you haven’t properly read the article in question.
Second, the kalam cosmological argument refers to quantitative (i.e. countable) infinities. This does not include the infinite characteristics ascribed to God, which are not quantitative in nature. Hence, there is no inherent contradiction between saying that there are no quantitative infinities (i.e. infinities in the sense used by the kalam cosmological argument) and saying that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and so forth. (For example, many mathematical operations break down when you apply them to infinity, but these operations do not apply to qualitative “infinites.”)
And third… For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the kalam cosmological argument is indeed invalid. This still doesn’t prove the notion that theists simply “shrug off” the question of God’s causation. Quite the contrary; it demonstrates a cohesive attempt by theists to demonstrate that God is an uncaused cause. One might disagree with that particular conclusion, but this does not mean that theists simply shrug the question off, as the OP claimed.
What irks me is when one argues for the existence of God by virtue of design (yeah, I’m lookin’ at you Cameron & Comfort, you numbskulls) evidently unaware not only that the same arguments been made and refuted for a thousand years but, that if it was accepted that there MUST be a designer, they haven’t even won half of their battle. They have to then prove that the creator is the God they promote and worship rather than one of the 16,000 others or one/s who hasn’t/haven’t elected to reveal himself/herself/itself/themselves yet.
Each individual particle still requires energy, whether positive or negative. The net outcome might be equivalent to “breaking even,” but that does not mean that the particles themselves were created out of nothing. Moreover, virtual particles still require the proper conditions for their formation (the “fluctuations” in the aforementioned quantum vacuum), and so they cannot be properly described as “uncaused.”
And I don’t see how you get non-causality out of that. Is there creation probabilistic? Certainly. That does not, by any means, imply that they are uncaused. It’s like saying that the roll of a die – if it were completely random – was somehow uncaused. The final outcome might be uncertain, but something still had to roll the die.
BTW, physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler (who are themselves skeptics) addressed these misconceptions surrounding virtual particles. In their classic book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they said,
“. . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V’(O)= O, V”(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. **A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause **." (Emphasis added.)
Virtual particle pairs may indeed have zero net energy; however, each particle borrows its energy from the quantum vacuum in order to exist. They most certainly are NOT created out of mere nothingness.
I think you’re missing their point. By the Uncertainty Principle, true nothingness is impossible. The virtual particles spring into existence not out of nothingness but as a consequence of the fact that nothingness is impossible. They are virtual because the are immeasurable and directly undetectible, and only become real particles with an infusion of energy from the outside. They are indirectly detectable, though.
“Nothingness” is not particularly well defined here. A vacuum is seething with these particles, so it can’t be said to be composed of nothingness. However a particle pair don’t come from something already existing, so in a sense they can be said to arise from nothingness - but the nothingness between virtual pairs, in a sense. I suspect you can only express this mathematically.
Borrowing, btw, doesn’t mean there is a store of energy that gets borrowed against. Rather, there is uncertainty in the amount of energy in a vacuum, which means that they can exist without violating conservation laws. They steal the energy and put it back in under the minimum response time of the quantum energy cop.
The preceeding are posts from a vanquished thread which touched on atheism, religion and quantum mechanics. magellan01asked that the more interesting posts not be lost, so I proposed making a new thread (this one) and moving said posts to it.
Originally I was going to write a new OP and make these posts follow it, but apparently things have to stay in chronological order, so instead I’ll lock this. Anyone wanting to continue the discussion can start a new thread and link to this one as reference.
