Scylla:
Demonstrating, once again, that you have nothing substantive to contribute.
Thank you for playing. Bring in the next contestant, please.
Well, since you just named the theory in your two previous posts, I doubt your ignorance of the subject is sincere. Nobody is that dense.
Put up or shut up CB.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Scylla:
YOU asserted that these phenomena provided evidence that the universe self-created. I’m still waiting for your explanation. Which you are unable to provide.
You made an assertion. I challenged it.
Back it up, or shut up.
::
And then I replied with some longer explanations which you choose to ignore.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
I think you are misunderstanding a bit. Yes, you can think of a positron as an electron that’s going back in time. However, the “virtual particles” that we are referring to appear as loops in Feynman diagrams. No matter how you think of a positron, at some time t0 there are two particles (one the antiparticle of the other) that previously didn’t exist, and at some (very very short) time later those two particles do not exist any more.
jrf
Scylla:
You most assuredly did not.
You only made some ad hominem attacks on pashley.
Perhaps you are confused. 
again
But just so nobody says I didn’t try:
THe receding galaxies red-shift, echoes and cosmic rays are strong evidence that The big-bang occured.
Quantum theory and particle physics tell us how and why it occured at all.
Nothingness DOES fluctuate.
If you are ignorant of these theories it is not my inclination to enlighten you.
Like many things worthwhile, I had to work quite hard to gain what knowledge I have of these subjects. I doubt I could convey it in a post or two.
Oh CB, here’s those longer explanations that you say I didn’t make. Note that I copied them from you where YOU copied them just a few posts up.
Try not to get confused.
"
Receding galaxies and red shift allow us to plot the time and place of the
big bang.
Quantum mechanics describes how matter can come into and out of
existence on its own without any causative agent.
Scientists can still hear radio echoes from the big-bang.
Cosmic rays are high energy particles. The thing is outside of particle
accelerators there is no place with enough energy to create them. TH=hey
are holdovers form shortly after the big-bang when the energy levels were
high enough to bring them into existence.
Particle physicists are attempting to replicate conditions that occured
during or shortly after the big-bang in the hopes of understanding what
occured. The search for a predicted particle in particular, The Higgs-Bosun
may indeed unlock some of the secrets of creation for us."
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Scylla:
Yes, I agree with those statements. It is also generally accepted that not only time and space, but also the laws of physics began with the big bang.
However, I fail to see how they are any kind of evidence (we are talking about ‘evidence’, correct?) that the universe self-created. If you want to back away from that assertion, just say so.
::
Scylla:
To be more basic, you said:
This is only theoretical. If it could be proven by replication, however, it still is not a valid argument for the self-creation of the universe, since it is generally accepted that quantum mechanics and all physical law came into existence with the big bang. If it did not exist before the big bang, it could not have contributed to causation.
::
But particle-antiparticle pairs come into being without a causative agent all the time…
-Ben
CB:
Now were getting somewhere!
Just to be clear:
You are going to grant me the big-bang, and all of quantum physics, particle physics, Modern science, cosmology, evolution, etcetera, without argument.
What you want is evidence that it all started by itself, rather than having to be put in motion by God, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or some other entity outside of science.
Is this correct?
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Ben:
Perhaps they do *now,*post big bang. But if physical law began with the big bang, your postulate goes right out the proverbial window. See my continuing, unanswered question to Scylla above.
::
CB:
"To be more basic, you said:
quote:
Quantum mechanics describes how matter can come into and out of
existence on its own without any causative agent
This is only theoretical"
Nope. It’s been a fact for about 20 years. Replicated and well known through countless experiments, starting with the famed double slit experiment which showed the action of these “virtual particles” to be very very real indeed.
This goes all the way up to actual observed particle pairs “creating” themselves.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Scylla:
Yes. I will grant all of the above, *with the exception of macro-evolution, provided you can come up with hard evidence, as you purported, that it all happened by itself, spontaneously, and without any outside influence whatsoever.
Go right ahead. I await your response with quivering anticipation.
::
You know, I don’t think the title of this thread is “The Cosmos: Created by Chance.” Nor do I think that Scylla, Satan, Nen or anybody else has said that they can prove logically that God doesn’t exist.
The people making the extraordinary claim have the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one that they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim.
Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why creationism is right. It is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. When you are an outsider this is the price you have to pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
For every Galileo shown th instruments of torture for advocating truth a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose “truths” never gain acceptance with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be excpected to test every fantastic claim, especially when so many of them are logically inconsistent.
Theories of special creation (whether it is creation of man, or of the universe entire) must explain both the “normal” data explained by the accepted scientific theory (existence of the universe, and us within it) and the “anomalous” data not explained by it (in this case abiogenisis, and creation of a universe full of matter out of “nothing”). In order to do this, you must avoid circular logic (God may influence the closed system of the universe because he exists outside of it so therefore the universe isn’t a closed system), and appeals to ignorance (The skeptics admit that there is no evidence for random creation of the universe, therefore the universe was not randomly created.)
Belief must come from positive evidence in support of a claim, not a lack of evidence that disproves it.
One last question, how do you define macro-evolution?
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
If you came here with the intention of discussing an idea intelligently, then why didn’t you do so?
You weren’t “drummed out immediately”. When challenged, you simply restated your original premise. When challenged again, you simply referred back to your previous responses, rather than actually answering the question you were asked. You did this six times (or maybe it was seven, I kinda lost track). It wasn’t until you had repeatedly tried the “I already answered that” ploy over and over again that people became annoyed with you. In fact, when Spiritus Mundi pointed out the flaw in your logic (admittedly in a not particularly friendly matter), you insulted him. If you act rudely, expect to be treated rudely.
That’s a blatant lie. No one on this thread has insulted you because of your belief in God.
You have stated that everything has a cause. You have stated that God does not have a cause. That is a contradiction, and no amount of sophistry can erase that fact.
JdeMobray:
Thank you. This is precisely the point of view an open and rational ‘scientific mind’ would embrace. The majority of posters who espouse ‘science’ on this board have no such open mind, nor are they acquainted with scientific methodology. On the contrary, they prefer to employ their ignorance pursuing affirmation for their prejudices from equally inept fellow aspirants. They will, for example, assert abiogenisis as fact, pointing to our existence as proof. They use this irrational circular ‘logic’ as ‘evidence’ that no evidence exists for intelligent design, allowing them to sanctimoniously scoff at anyone who may suggest that possibility.
Scylla:
By ‘macro-evolution’ I mean this:
First there was nothing. Then the big bang created some primordial ooze that somehow came to life by itself and then after a long time became apes and we are the progeny thereof.
That is what I mean by macro evolution.
Micro-evolution, on the other hand, is substantively supported by scientific observation.
::
In addition to the previous posts on this topic (and I don’t think the double slit experiment proves virtual particles] the Casimir effect is a direct measurement of the existence of virtual particles.
jrf