If there was one thing my Environmental Science professor hoped for us to get through our heads, it was that "there is no AWAY." We build high smokestacks to get our air pollution to blow over the mountains. We flush our toilets and send the waste down the drain. We bag up our garbage, have it collected and buried in landfills, and build parks on top of it. We pay our "experts" to handle what we don't want to deal with. All these efforts help us feel we've dealt with our problem. Yet, somewhere in our soil, our air, our water, or that of our kids and grandkids, most of our pollution still exists.
I suggest that we are prone to employing this "out of sight, out of mind" tactic in the spiritual sphere, as well. The God of the Bible's attributes - perfect, infinite, and self-existent (to name just a few) - are impossible for our finite human minds to fully grasp, so many of us would reject him and invent an idol. Mormon religion founder Joseph Smith imagined a god that was easier to deal with, on the surface level. He said God grew up on an earth like ours and eventually progressed on to godhood by becoming sinless. God had a god who did the same, and so on and so forth with the gods before him. Worthy Mormons will be given as long as it takes in their post-earth lives to work up to god-like perfection, and keep the system going.
While this scenario seems interesting, and perhaps even viable at first, has it not pushed the problem of an unfathomable being further away while leaving the ultimate questions unanswered? Does the Mormon know what came first? Was it a human that evolved from dirt on a planet somewhere, righteously figured out the laws of godhood and perfectly obeyed them, and then went on to instill a system of humans, planets, and god-making? If so, how did the first planet get there, how did it produce a human, and where did the laws come from? Or was it a god that came first? If so, where did he come from? In my experience, the Mormon feels no need to ponder these questions, because the issues are not near enough to worry about.
The folks who don't want to believe in the existence of God have adopted similar "solutions." The theory of evolution cannot explain how life arose from nothing, or how complicated order arose from disorder, so it pushes the problem billions of years into the past. Even many of those who well understand the sophisticated computer-code-like nature of DNA, and KNOW we could not have evolved, still desire to get around the Intelligent Designer. Secular scientists Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins, for example, would reportedly rather theorize about how life on earth came from another planet - via aliens or asteroids - than acquiesce, "God did it." Have these "experts" answered the big questions or just pushed them away? Do they know where the aliens came from? Do they know why did they put us here? Did the aliens have a purpose for our existence? Do we go to Mars when we die?
I have many friends and family for whom "science" is a god. They believe, as is propagated in our schools and on TV, that the evidence we have confirms the idea that humankind evolved over much, much time. But isn't it possible that those persons who are responsible for these conclusions simply cannot or do not want to believe in God? Is it possible that they look at the evidence and see only as much as they want to imagine? Is it not possible they are attempting to push the questions science cannot answer... away?
YHWH has answered the big questions. He says in His Word that before time, space, and matter existed, He IS. He created all of this by Himself; and He Himself is beyond the limits of our imagination. We exist to have the opportunity to enjoy Him and have fellowship with Him; we are free to choose otherwise, as well. His perfect justice demands payment for our sin; He also knew we would sin and devised a plan to redeem us -- He took our penalty upon Himself. Those of us who accept Jesus's substitutionary payment and choose Him as Lord and Savior will live eternally in heaven when we die -- heaven being "with God." All of YHWH's answers may still be hard for us to comprehend, and many of us will be unwilling to accept them. But these are His answers. Will we listen to Him, or continue to think we have dealt with the issues by having sent them away?
Posts
70 comments:
Great post Staci!
I believe the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' mirrors what you say here:
1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2 The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3 Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
4 This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
5 This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
6 Therefore God exists.
This argument does not specify the Christian God, but it does describe something like him ;)
Paul, that argument is flawed, because it assumes that your god doesn't have a beginning.
You have no way of knowing this.
"4 This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality."
this is nothing more than conjecture. Your argument is flawed.
As for the article... if I have to read a piece that claims that scientists are just lying because they're rebelling against some god or other again I think I'll scream.
Staci, that line of reasoning is outright nonsense. It is a lie that creationists seem to have no problem repeating over and over despite it's complete failure to represent the truth.
Alex, I would love to take credit for the Kalam ;) but it is not my argument. William Lane Craig is the current authority on it if you would like a more detailed version of it.
I think it is safe to say that the very first cause would have no beginning. I would classify such a cause to be a deity. No natural thing can exist for infinity past.
For something to be able to cause all physical reality, it itself cannot be physical reality. Otherwise you are just taking it back another step (As Staci's article explains).
I would like to hear exactly how the Kalam is flawed.
"I would like to hear exactly how the Kalam is flawed."
Both the Casimir effect and radioactive decay disprove the first point, both have something happening without having a cause.
You also have a problem of infinite regress, there's no evidence that you can supply (beyond your beliefs) that your god is infinite.
"Both the Casimir effect and radioactive decay disprove the first point, both have something happening without having a cause."
Not being extraordinarily familiar with either of those, could you please explain how these 'things that have a beginning' have no cause?
"You also have a problem of infinite regress, there's no evidence that you can supply (beyond your beliefs) that your god is infinite."
I do not believe God existed for an infinite amount of time past, that would be an infinite regress, true. I believe God created space-time at a measurably past moment.
I think it has to be defined as to what is meant by not having a cause.
There is a random element, due to the uncertainty pricipal, but I highly doubt that you can say it is without a cause, or that science will never discover why radioactive decay occurs. I think physicists have a reasonably good explanation on why it happens.
I may be wrong, and physicists are just sitting in front of their whiteboard saying, "I have absolutely no idea what causes radioactive decay." but I doubt it.
@Trent, you make a good distinction of there being a difference between something not having a cause and simply not knowing what that cause is.
I posit that an uncaused first cause that transcends reality is necessary at some point to satisfy both causality and to avoid an infinite regress.
You claim that the Universe needs a cause, yet that the supposedly infinitely more complex deity that you claim created it doesn't.
Until you can explain WHY your god doesn't need a cause when the simpler universe does, then you're merely spinning your wheels.
Empirical evidence of the 'uncaused' nature of your god please, or pipe down.
I would like to note that you declined to articulate how the two examples you gave began to exist without a cause.
I am saying that everything that 'begins to exist' needs a cause. If you believe the universe has a 'beginning' then we should agree on that point.
I am also saying that in order to avoid the impossibility of an actual infinite regress, that there needs be an uncaused first cause somewhere along the line in the origin of everything.
This uncaused first cause 'could' be anything at all really, but when you look at the attributes of what this 'thing' is, you might be surprised at the striking similarities of the Judeo-Christian God.
Empirical evidence or pipe down? Check out this article on 'types of evidences' from a great guy ;) http://tinyurl.com/3vrxnfv
If empirical evidence is all you are interested in then I would l would like to know what your claim is on the matter. How do you deal with an infinite regress?
Paul, I apologise, I'd assumed you'd do what I'd do, and google both.
Let me help you - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Casimir+effect&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=radioactive+decay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
You should be able to find anything you need to there.
I don't deal with infinite regress because I acknowledge that we don't yet know how the Universe started. But that lack of current knowledge doesn't mean 'god did it'
"Empirical evidence or pipe down? Check out this article on 'types of evidences' from a great guy ;) http://tinyurl.com/3vrxnfv"
You'll excuse me if I don't think that a guy who claims the gospels to have been written by eye witnesses, in contradiction of ALL the available evidence, is much of an expert on the subject.
Thanks Alex, I did Google both and did not find any reason anyone would believe either has no cause. I was assuming you had a reason for bring both up and am still looking forward to hearing you out on it.
So do I understand you right in that you are simply foregoing belief in the origin of existence?
I did not claim that Jim is an expert per say, but let us not veer off point here: Do you have any problems with different types of evidences or a cumulative case? Both of which areas Jim *is* an expert by the way.
"So do I understand you right in that you are simply foregoing belief in the origin of existence?"
Obviously existence has an origin, but we don't yet understand what caused it. That doesn't mean there's any evidence for a god...at all.
Sorry that was poorly worded on my part.
Let me try again:
Are you foregoing a belief on how creation came into being?
From here - http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html
"since quantum events do not have a "cause", this also means that all possible quantum events must and will happen "
This is telling as well -
"[T]he energy involved in the phenomena of radioactivity...becomes manifest as an emission of rays which...occurs spontaneously without any known cause of excitation..."
-- Mme. Marie Curie, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1911
The bottom line is that, at a quantum level, things can happen without anything causing them to happen. They happen spontaneously and entirely randomly.
"Do you have any problems with different types of evidences or a cumulative case? Both of which areas Jim *is* an expert by the way."
I'll say it again, against accepted modern Biblical interpretation, Jim thinks that the gospels were eye witness accounts, despite being almost universally now thought to have been written by anonymous second or third generation writers. The section on the Gospels here - http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm - might prove illuminating to you.
"Are you foregoing a belief on how creation came into being?"
No, I'm saying (rather clearly I feel) that we do not yet understand how the Universe came to be....well, we understand what its state was a moment AFTER the beginning, but we don't yet know what caused that beginning. Again I'll say, that doesn't mean any deity did it.
I don't know how I could answer this more clearly.
I will look into your evidences thank you for sharing them.
I find it odd that you keep going back to the gospels when questioned about what types of evidence you would accept. Do you believe circumstantial evidence is valid evidence? Do you believe a cumulative case is a valid case?
I think I am understanding where your 'beef' with the argument lies.
"4 This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality."
Do you believe that it is possible for the cause of the universe to be, itself, physical reality? Is that an option?
"I find it odd that you keep going back to the gospels when questioned about what types of evidence you would accept. Do you believe circumstantial evidence is valid evidence? Do you believe a cumulative case is a valid case?"
Jim's entire argument rests on the gospels being eye witness accounts. If they are not then his evidence and argument collapses. The truth is they are not first generation eye witness accounts at all. Looking outside the Bible provides no convincing evidence that Jesus even existed. Jim's position is entirely faith based, as the reality is that there's no evidence that a) the gospels are eye witness accounts, or b) Jesus existed at all. At the risk of being accused of using these posts to advertise my own blog (something I've no intention of doing) I've written more fully about the historical Jesus in the following places-
http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/02/historical-texts-and-jesus.html
http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/03/wwwpleaseconvincemecom-unconvincing.html
http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/02/logic-and-fundies-not-friends.html
So, to answer your question, I would like to see verifiable, quantifiable, testable evidence.
The only risk I see being run here is going further off topic. The reliability of the gospels is a great conversation to have, but it is not what I asked.
Judging by your last statement I will conclude that those attributes are the only type of evidence you find valid. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you give me little to work with here :P
It was YOU, Paul who brought up the article Jim wrote about evidence, citing the gospels.
As for evidence, I want EVIDENCE, not 'faith', not 'I believe the Bible is right, and that makes it evidence', not articles that incorporate out and out lies into the argument.
If Christians had evidence they wouldn't need faith.
I cited the article for its merit in the current discussion. Namely the different types of evidences. If you thought I was trying to bring the gospel evidence into this discussion I would have hoped you would have called it out as it was: A distraction.
"As for evidence, I want EVIDENCE, not 'faith', not 'I believe the Bible is right, and that makes it evidence', not articles that incorporate out and out lies into the argument."
Oh, darn it, I was hoping you would be fond of 'out and out lies' here is where we must differ! /sarcasm
I will be the first to admit that I exercise faith in believing in God. But I do not have a "blind faith". My faith is an "evidential faith", one where I look at as much available data as I can and decide from there whether or not I believe God exists.
"If Christians had evidence they wouldn't need faith."
Simply not true. If a person is being tried for murder and the prosecutor gave one piece of evidence for his guilt, it would require faith for me to vote guilty as a juror.
Once more, in case you missed it: "Do you believe that it is possible for the cause of the universe to be, itself, physical reality? Is that an option?"
Paul, I've REPEATEDLY answered about the origins of the Universe and my views on it. I'm not going to do it again.
As a former believer, I know full well that you have NO evidence at all.
We're going round in circles here - you're repeatedly asking me something, I'm answering, then you're claiming I haven't answered.
Enough.
Why did you use a pre quantum theory quote to make a point about radioactivity?
The forces involved at the nuclear level weren't even defined in 1911. The author had no idea what the structure of an atom was.
In the other quote, why is cause in quotes?
Going back to the beginning - tell me why your god doesn't need a cause when the universe does.
Provide ACTUAL evidence.
Is the 1911 quote considered evidence?
Trent, you rely on 'witnesses' from 2000 years ago. I think 1911 would be considered modern in comparison.
The premise that an effect requires a cause is incorrect, quantum level events separate cause and effect.
You can read up about this as easily as anyone else, I'm assuming Canadians can use Google.
So, why does your god not need a cause when the simpler Universe does? Please provide me with evidence that your god is uncaused.
You don't like evidence that is recorded too far after the event, but is acceptable to use evidence that describes something that hasn't been discovered yet?
I think we have to differentiate here. Because Newtonian physics's use of classical causality is not strictly applicable at this level do to probablility and the uncertainty principle, does not mean that there isn't and understanding of why something happens. Lasers are quantum mechanical devices, and I think there is a good understanding of why a laser works.
When we say that something has a cause, are we saying that there is a clearly identifiable preceding causal event, or that we can say why something happened,
Why does your god not need a cause when the simpler Universe does?
Please provide me with evidence that your god is 'uncaused'
Personally, I didn't make that claim. I'm just curious about your definition of evidence.
So you don't think that your god made the Universe?
Or are you saying he isn't eternal?
I didn't say that either.
I just question your use of quotations made before there was any way to know that something was true as evidence that #1 was false.
And want to know what definition of cause is being used to define #1.
"Paul, I've REPEATEDLY answered about the origins of the Universe and my views on it. I'm not going to do it again."
Am I repeating myself? I apologize. I went through and re-read all of our communication and *still* cannot find where I have asked you to repeat yourself. (although I counted quite a few repeated answers to different questions where you either misinterpreted the question or were on a gospel tangent)
I cannot force you to answer me, but I will ask you to copy/paste where you responded to this question: "Do you believe that it is possible for the cause of the universe to be, itself, physical reality? Is that an option?" (What I am asking is in the 'we do not know' of the cause of the universe, would a physical cause belong in the list of possibilities?)
"Going back to the beginning - tell me why your god doesn't need a cause when the universe does. Provide ACTUAL evidence."
Now this, to me sounds familiar... I believe the first cause needs to have no beginning in order to satisfy infinite regression. If this does not meet your standards for 'EVIDENCE' I apologize. I find conceptual analysis and logical argumentation to be good enough when empirical evidence is nonextant. (Unless of course you do have any empirical data for the cause of the universe. I would be all eyes)
"but we don't yet know what caused that beginning"
Doesn't matter for proposition 1.
The fact that you are talking about a cause at all presupposes proposition 1.
Alex, if you want to attack the Kalam, your key is proposition 5, not 1.
If you want to prove the metaverse, you can do some arguments with 4, but with or without the metaverse the key objection is with 5.
Paul, I've told you several times now that we don't know yet what (if anything) 'caused' the Big Bang. As we don't know I'm not going to be drawn into guessing.
Go ask as physicist if you're desperate for someone to guess, you might find one somewhere who'll be willing to.
Trent, tell me why your god doesn't need a cause when the universe does.
Tell me why your standard of proof includes someone making a statements about radioactivity before the underlying principles of radioactivity were even discovered.
I think you are just picking fights to cover your mistake. If you want proof for the Kalam, ask the person who proposed it.
WHEN Curie made the comment doesn't matter, because it remains correct. Radioactive decay is random, spontaneous and without cause.
So, where is the evidence that your god is uncaused, or even exists?
And this is what you call evidence?
Someone making a statement that they have no idea if it is actually true, but seems right?
I think you've just invalidated all your calls for the authors here to give you evidence, with the quality of what you claim proves them wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to dimly remember from my university days that radioactivity having something to do with quantum tunneling, where the particle's wave function extends beyond the potential well of the nucleus. I think it was a homework problem many years ago.
It means that there is a small, but real, probability of finding the particle outside the nucleus. It is random and spontaneous. Unpredicable for a single atom, but for large numbers of atoms easy to predict how many will decay for any arbitrary time period. So, although random and spontaneous, there is a reason.
This is why I asked for clarification of the definition we were using for cause. Physicists can tell you why it happens without pointing to a temporally antecedent causal event.
I really think you should spend more time on proposition 5. If there is no consensus on the definition being used for cause, there is no way to determine the validity of proposition 1.
so you agree that some things occur without being caused?
I quoted Curie because she was right, there was no other meaning beyond that.
The proposition that all effects need a cause is demonstrably false, therefore the rest of the argument fails.
btw, understanding what something does is not the same as identifying a cause.
Still not a valid evidence.
Explain how the opinion of someone who is not in a position to know if something is true is evidence of anything.
So you are claiming there is absolutely no reason for radioactivity to occur, but it does anyway. Sounds a bit like a miracle to me.
I say that there is a reason. The timing of the occurrence, however, is random. It is caused by the wave function extending beyond the quantum well.
I have proposed an alternate explanation to your view that things just happen for no reason, and it doesn't include God or fairies. Just science.
"Paul, I've told you several times now that we don't know yet what (if anything) 'caused' the Big Bang. As we don't know I'm not going to be drawn into guessing."
I did not ask you to guess. I am specifically asking if you believe the cause of all physicality is itself physical. If the answer is "no", then the 'cause' of all physicality transcends physical reality, in other words, a supernatural cause.
If the answer is "Yes, the cause of all physical reality could itself be physical reality." it would show a great misunderstanding of our entire conversation. The physical reality would itself need a cause. Also, Occam's razor would have us to not multiply entities beyond necessity.
You seem to be trying to dismiss arguments flippantly, I am not impressed.
"What is the Casimir Effect?
The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. **It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.**"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
Sounds like a cause to me.
Still researching radioactive decay.
Also, what kind of science is it to say there are things that have no cause?
Atheists grill theists when they resort to "God did it", but somehow 'there is no cause' is acceptable?
Sounds like an exercising of faith to me.
Quantum vacuum fluctuation of the gaps
Paul, I'm finding your tone to be increasingly aggressive and condecending. I've told you that, as I don't know what the state of the universe was the moment before it began that I'm not going to guess. I don't know - that's all the answer I'll give.
Trent, what causes those quantum fluctuations? It seems from your 'miracle' comment that you wouldn't accept any evidence of an uncaused effect, instead you would just see another opportunity to say 'my god did it!'
Alex, believe me, my tone is anything but aggressive and condescending. But that is always a risk one takes when engaging in a text-based conversation :P
I apologize if anything I said sounded attacking in any way. In a effort to excuse myself I would like to note that I am currently trying to have this conversation amidst an already full schedule :P So I have not been putting ample time into my tone.
Alright, I cannot and will not force you to answer my question. But how about another question? Do you find my logic consistent when I dealt with the two possible answers of whether physical reality could be the cause of the universe? I would welcome your criticism.
It wasn't intended as an explanation.
It was clearly a recognition that many materialists may use these fluctuations in a manner analogous to the supposed God of the Gaps argument.
There has yet to be a clarification of the definition being used for cause. Without a definition for cause, how can you conclude that it is uncaused? I am using the definition of there being a reason for the event when referring to the cause. ie I know why it happened. Event A happened for reason B
"The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. **It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.**"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
Sounds like a cause to me."
Oh really? Quantum vacuum fluctuation is the cause? And just what is quantum vacuum fluctuation? Don't worry, I'm ahead of you here and have done the work for you -
" ... quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind. (Energy conservation is violated, but only for a particle lifetime Dt permitted by the uncertainty DtDE~h where DE is the net energy of the particles and h is Planck's constant.) The spontaneous, temporary emergence of particles from a vacuum is called a vacuum fluctuation, and is utterly commonplace in quantum field theory"
-Edward Tryon, Nature 246, December 14, 1973
I'll reiterate the most important part "an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum"
An effect without cause, in other words.
So let's look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument again
"1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence."
Statement 1 is false.
"2 The universe has a beginning of its existence."
Statement 2 is true.
"3 Thus the universe has a cause of its existence."
As evidenced by the existence of effects without cause, statement 3 is false
"4 This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality."
Statement 4 is pure conjecture.
"5 This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God."
....as is statement 5
"6 Therefore God exists."
As statement 1 is false, the argument leading up to statement 6 is invalid. Therefore statement six is unproven.
Not true using the definition I stated I was using for cause.
There is a reason why it happens, it simply isn't the result of a temporally antecedent causal event.
Unless you subscribe to the intepretation of hidden variables. I think it is the Bohm interpretation. I'll have to check that, though.
"quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum."
It sounds like a perfect vacuum is cause for the spontaneous emergence of electrons positrons etc.
Do you have empirical evidence of something that has a beginning of its existence not having a cause of that existence?
If the Universe doesn't need a cause, why does God need a cause? If causes are not needed but we know some causes exist, then why is there an issue with an uncaused cause?
"It sounds like a perfect vacuum is cause for the spontaneous emergence of electrons positrons etc."
Really???
Seriously Paul, reread what you've written! You're basically saying 'so nothing causing it is the cause!!'
The perfect vacuum is the venue for the occurrence, not the cause of it! What you've said is akin to claiming that Wembley Stadium is the source of the music when a U2 gig is happening in it.
This is an effect without cause, it is well documented, it is a fact. It completely undermines the first point of the Kalam.
"If the Universe doesn't need a cause, why does God need a cause? If causes are not needed but we know some causes exist, then why is there an issue with an uncaused cause?"
If the Universe doesn't need a cause it doesn't need god at all.
Well done, you've just argued your deity out of existence!
The universe doesn't need bagels, but they exist.
First, we haven't concluded the universe doesn't need a cause.
Second, the fact that something doesn't appear to need a cause doesn't mean it doesn't have one.
Third, if God doesn't need a cause than there is no reason he can't exist since he's met all criteria needed. Namely, none.
I'd give up Trent, if I were you.
The Kalam is demonstrably false. There ARE effects without cause. The Universe doesn't need your god for it to exist.
That line of 'persuasion' is a dead end for the theist.
Not according to the definition I am using for cause.
The definition I am using is consistant with the argument.
That's nice for you Trent.
Doesn't alter the fact that the Kalam is provably false though.
"The perfect vacuum is the venue for the occurrence, not the cause of it! What you've said is akin to claiming that Wembley Stadium is the source of the music when a U2 gig is happening in it."
This analogy breaks down rather quickly when you look at exactly how you presented the 'non-reason' for the causeless things to be created: "an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum"
Please forgive my ignorance, but it sounds to me like the vacuum is necessary for the spontaneous emergence. When you offer a type of recipe for which it is necessary to get a certain result, how can you claim there is no cause? It would be like a child seeing his mother take cookies out of the oven and supposing they spontaneously emerged without a cause, especially without the need of the oven.
Not only this, but why are you spending so much time trying to refute the Law of Conservation Of Energy? If you really believe that these spontaneous emergences happen without a cause then the cookies story I mentioned earlier would have an even greater application.
"Please forgive my ignorance, but it sounds to me like the vacuum is necessary for the spontaneous emergence"
Paul, a vacuum is a complete lack of ANYTHING. There is nothing in it to cause anything to happen at all.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
"Paul, a vacuum is a complete lack of ANYTHING. There is nothing in it to cause anything to happen at all. "
I did not know it was possible for there to exist a perfect vacuum. Do you have evidence or could you point me in the direction of a study in which a perfect vacuum (One void of 'ANYTHING') offered the Casimir effect?
Otherwise it would only be a partial vacuum in which there is still matter. Not only that, but the energy present in a vacuum allows for more than enough plausibility that there is a cause of the 'spontaneous emergence' that we are just not currently equipped to observe. Why claim it has no cause? Simply to disprove the Kalam? I think this is far too kind.
If a perfect vacuum is teeming with virtual particles popping in and out of existance, is it actually empty?
Paul, you can read Brian Greene's books The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of The Cosmos. Lisa Randall's Warped Passages isn't bad, but can be a bit dense if you don't have the background.
I think PBS still has a documentary version of The Elegant Universe online.
It gives a good basic overview of String Theory and describes things like Perfect Vacuums and Quantum Fluctuations.
Thanks Trent, I will check both of those out. :) I know I have a lot to learn still.
When you factor in Dark Matter and Dark Energy, what can you say about the existance of a perfect vacuum actually existing in the real world when 90 to 99 percent of the composition of the Universe is unobservable, except through the gravitational influences of large amounts of it.
How can you actually experimentally verify the lack of something you can't detect?
"If you can't detect it it doesn't matter if it is there" one might object. Not true on the large scale. On the large scale it is important. On the small scale, is it important? We don't know, because since we can't detect it, we don't know what effects it is having.
IF a perfect vaccuum existed, it is seething with virtual particles and temporal and spatial discontinuities which begs the question of whether it is actually a perfect vaccuum. If may be a theoretical concept at best.
If you did find one, and you can't detect 90 to 99% of matter, how could you ever show it was a perfect vacuum?
That being said, the idea of a perfect vacuum isn't relevant to the Kalam, as it is questionable as to whether it can actually exist beyond a theoretical construct to describe what space-time would look like if it were posible.
And it didn't exist prior to the universe, as a vacuum assumes an area of completely empty space, and there was no space in existance to be empty.
Alex B. Needs to chill out. He is an ignorant atheist who delusionally believes that he has a right to deny true science. He clearly was NEVER a believer. He's just saying that to affirm his atheism. Nothing more than a troll, that is for certain.
Post a Comment