Morriston refutes Craig over deriving Personal God from Kalam
In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1] Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:
If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time. [3]
Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was just a natural process the the effects of his creation would have to be eternal, but if God is personal he can decide to create or not to create. Time has a beginning with the big bang (simultaneously). Morriston points out that Creaig;s argument assumes that there are only two possibilities, the personal decision maker, or machine-like impersonal process.An example of he impersonal machine-like cause wold be water freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. It doesn't decide t do it it just does.[4]Craig distinguishes between Agent cause and event cause. An agent can exist for a long time without producing the cause, but an event cause has to produce when the event happens.[5]
Morriston represents Craig's argumemt in this way:
a. It has been shown that the universe has not always existed.
b. The cause of the universe must be eternal. (Otherwise it, too, would have a beginning and would require a cause.)
c. The cause of the universe must be either a personal agent or a non-personal sufficient condition.
d. If a "causal condition sufficient for the production" of the universe exists "from eternity," then the universe has always existed.
e. So the cause of the universe is not a non-personal sufficient condition.
f. The cause of the universe must therefore be a person.[6]
I will not go through the whole argument but I will just deal with the issue of personal and impersonal and quantum indeterminacy,
Morriston argues that Craig can't pull off his assumption that personal decision maker or impersonal machine-like cause are the only two possibilities (premise c). He offers as a possibility quantum
indeterminacy. In other words, the condition for the creation of the universe could exist eternal but the universe i snot eternal because it's indeterminate popping in and out of existence. Morriston argues quantum indeterminacy against premise (1) of the Kalam argument (whatever begins to exist has to have a casue). He does not spell it out this clearly but I think he is assailing Craig;s answer that quantum particles are not uncased merely because they come to be without immediate trace of a causal event. That is the background conditions that make them possible precede their existence, thus they are not "uncaused," "The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot properly be said to be absolutely uncased, since it has many physically necessary conditions." [7]
To this point Morriston answers, "Presumably Craig would have to agree that non personal conditions that are only necessary for some effect could exist from eternity without producing that effect." [8]
Thus there are more alternatives than just a decision making personal cause, or a machine like impersonal cause. There is also an indeterminate impersonal;a cause. But then Morriston hits him with a blow from the opposite direction, an eternal personal cause would mean the world must be eternal. "It will do so only if no eternal state of that agent is causally sufficient for the existence of the world."[9] To pull this off he appeals to premise d of his version of the argument: d. If a "causal condition sufficient for the production" of the universe exists "from eternity," then the universe has always existed.
Here Morriston gets stuck on an issue about does God work in time or with time? Does he create the universe simultaneously with time, or in time? He argues that must always know he;s going to create the world, "This is much too easy. God's eternal decision to create a universe must surely be causally sufficient for the existence of that world. So if, as Craig indicates in this passage, God's will to create is eternal, why doesn't he conclude, in line with principle (d) above, that the universe is eternal?."[10]
That assumes creation in time.
Here we see there's a problem in Morristons argument, Hes assuming God;s decision must be in time, Moreover he;s assuming that our understanding of time holds constant
Now this condition might hold in the case of "a man sitting from eternity" who decides, at some time, to exercise his power to stand. The man, we may suppose, has not always had the intention to stand up. But this easy answer will not do if the first cause is identified with God. God, after all, "knows from eternity" what God is going to do. So it seems that he must "have the intention" of creating the universe "from eternity." On standard views about God, his will is causally sufficient for the existence of the universe. So, one may well ask Craig, why doesn't it follow that the universe exists "from eternity?"[11]
He sees the problem i Craig's thinking but turns around and makes the very same mistake. He's treating non time like it's time as though it's a very long time..I used to make the same argument Craig is making and I did so interdependently without knowing about Craig's answer.
Morriston says God would have know from eternity about his desiccation to create that long ago! It's non time so it would just as easily be a decision "Just made" as always was. It would not make the actual universe eternal but merely the concept of it not the actuality. There's a larger question raised by this realization why should we think that an eternal universe negates the Christian God. The big fear is pantheism but the reality is panENtheism [12] which in my book is a valid Christian idea,I have been unsuccessful finding it, but I am sure Aquinas had the idea of the eternal flutist analogy, the music is eternal but it's eternity is dependent upon the fluitist continuing to play.
The thinking decision argument still allows us to argue for a personal God, The skeptic is in the position of having to prove a quantum indeterminacy is really sufficient to explain the universe because it still, cant be considered uncased,it is still understood within framework of prior codition. Morriston really doesn't answer that. We have to overhaul our understanding of what time is, the skeptic is also on the hook to explain time and non time. We can think of eternity as space rather than time,So God is beyond time. God is both in time and beyond it. Thus all reality is in God that doesn't make all aspects of reality part of God.
The thinking decision argument still allows us to argue for a personal God, The skeptic is in the position of having to prove a quantum indeterminacy is really sufficient to explain the universe because it still, cant be considered uncased,it is still understood within framework of prior codition. Morriston really doesn't answer that. We have to overhaul our understanding of what time is, the skeptic is also on the hook to explain time and non time. We can think of eternity as space rather than time,So God is beyond time. God is both in time and beyond it. Thus all reality is in God that doesn't make all aspects of reality part of God.
Sources
[1] Wes Morriston, "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?" FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY Vol. 17 No. 2 April 2000 149-169 PDF
http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/wes2craig1.pdf
(accessed 3/5/18)
[3] Morristom,op cit, 164.
[4] Ibid,
[5] Craig quoted in Morriston, 164, the original citation tabbc 146
[6] Morristo, 164/
[7] Ibid, 164-165
[9] Ibid, 165
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid
[12] Writing Panenthiesm with the bold capital EN is my idea i';s not done that way by anyone esle. Tillich called himself a panentheist, panENtheism is often associated with an impersonal God but I don't agree that it must be so connived,
[5] Craig quoted in Morriston, 164, the original citation tabbc 146
[6] Morristo, 164/
[7] Ibid, 164-165
[9] Ibid, 165
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid
[12] Writing Panenthiesm with the bold capital EN is my idea i';s not done that way by anyone esle. Tillich called himself a panentheist, panENtheism is often associated with an impersonal God but I don't agree that it must be so connived,
Comments
b. The cause of the universe must be eternal. (Otherwise it, too, would have a beginning and would require a cause.)
c. The cause of the universe must be either a personal agent or a non-personal sufficient condition.
d. If a "causal condition sufficient for the production" of the universe exists "from eternity," then the universe has always existed.
e. So the cause of the universe is not a non-personal sufficient condition.
f. The cause of the universe must therefore be a person.
This fails at so many points. I appreciate it is you repeating Morriston, who in turn is relaying what Craig said, so I have to wonder if it got garbled along the way.
a. It has been shown that there was a Big Bang 17 billion years ago, however we do not know what was before that; it may be that the universe always existed.
b. The universe could have formed spontaneously, or have been caused by something else that formed spontaneously, or caused itself retrospectively, or something we cannot imagine. We really do not know, and when we talk about the start of time itself it is too far removed from our usual thinking to draw any hard conclusions.
c. The cause - if it even has a cause - must be a sufficient condition, which either involved a personal agent or not. This may seem a nitpick, but becomes important in the next steps.
d. This is true, whether a personal agent was involved or not.
e. So the cause of the universe is not a sufficient condition, whether a personal agent was involved or not.
f. The cause of the universe must therefore cannot be a person.
Pix
As far as I xcan see, God is something we plaster over the cracks in our knowledge. You say "The skeptic is in the position of having to prove a quantum indeterminacy is really sufficient to explain the universe", and yet you see no need to prove that God is sufficient to explain the universe - at least, not in the same detail.
I appreciate the theist can say "God did it", but the atheist can as easily say "quantum indeterminacy did it". Neither is an explanation, but for some reason the atheist is expected to provide a full explanation, whilst the theist is excused.
You also say "the skeptic is also on the hook to explain time and non time". Again, I have to ask why the theist is excused from doing so, given it is clear that that is fundamental to what you propose.
At the end of the day, this just looks like "god of the gaps".
Pix
1 – 2 of 2
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: a. It has been shown that the universe has not always existed.
b. The cause of the universe must be eternal. (Otherwise it, too, would have a beginning and would require a cause.)
c. The cause of the universe must be either a personal agent or a non-personal sufficient condition.
d. If a "causal condition sufficient for the production" of the universe exists "from eternity," then the universe has always existed.
e. So the cause of the universe is not a non-personal sufficient condition.
f. The cause of the universe must therefore be a person.
This fails at so many points. I appreciate it is you repeating Morriston, who in turn is relaying what Craig said, so I have to wonder if it got garbled along the way.
no it does not fail at all in any way,
a. It has been shown that there was a Big Bang 17 billion years ago, however we do not know what was before that; it may be that the universe always existed.
first of all cosmologists do not speak of "before" the big no such tying,no time,time begins with the BB so no time meas no before.
that assumes initiate causal regression I disprove that,
b. The universe could have formed spontaneously,
you are just asserting something from nothing that is illogical. there is nothing to support it that is not best explaination
or have been caused by something else that formed spontaneously, or caused itself retrospectively, or something we cannot imagine. We really do not know, and when we talk about the start of time itself it is too far removed from our usual thinking to draw any hard conclusions.
you have nothing to support your assertion. any temporal beginning rewires expatiation you can't give you are just ricing the can down the road,putting off the fact that you can't answer the issue,
c. The cause - if it even has a cause - must be a sufficient condition, which either involved a personal agent or not. This may seem a nitpick, but becomes important in the next steps.
we have no example of anything that is uncased or has no prior conditions so there is no reason to make that assumption,
d. This is true, whether a personal agent was involved or not.
e. So the cause of the universe is not a sufficient condition, whether a personal agent was involved or not.
obviously it was but the question is what made it so, you are begging it
f. The cause of the universe must therefore cannot be a person.
that makes o logical seseofany kind,Nothingwe said so farortaht Isaidin nythingimpoi9es
Joe: The thinking decision argument still allows us to argue for a personal God, The skeptic is in the position of having to prove a quantum indeterminacy is really sufficient to explain the universe because it still, cant be considered uncased,it is still understood within framework of prior codition. Morriston really doesn't answer that. We have to overhaul our understanding of what time is, the skeptic is also on the hook to explain time and non time. We can think of eternity as space rather than time,So God is beyond time. God is both in time and beyond it. Thus all reality is in God that doesn't make all aspects of reality part of God.
As far as I xcan see, God is something we plaster over the cracks in our knowledge.
That's just atheist rhetoric. It no more follows that there is no reality behind the metaphor than it follows that there is no realty behind scientific findings,
You say "The skeptic is in the position of having to prove a quantum indeterminacy is really sufficient to explain the universe", and yet you see no need to prove that God is sufficient to explain the universe - at least, not in the same detail.
God's sufficiency is a priori it;s also backed by the argument itself,since it is the only valid expatiation that it holds up it's extraordinary power,while not perfect is a a priri
I appreciate the theist can say "God did it", but the atheist can as easily say "quantum indeterminacy did it".
Rubbish, you are doing tit for tat thing without re fence to the fie points of the comparison. God is defined as the creator of the universe by definition God is sufficient any sufficiency needed is part of the concept.not so with QM indeterminacy, the concept teeth does not include :creator of the uniuvers,"
Neither is an explanation, but for some reason the atheist is expected to provide a full explanation, whilst the theist is excused.
You also say "the skeptic is also on the hook to explain time and non time". Again, I have to ask why the theist is excused from doing so, given it is clear that that is fundamental to what you propose.
because I explained it, you have not,
At the end of the day, this just looks like "god of the gaps".
I don't think you even understand the concept, you think it means whatever they say we can't explain we just say they can;t either, That is not it,
take issue of sufficiency. Why do I say QM indeterminacy is not sufficient? Because atheist want to assert that the universe could just stat existing for no reason with no prior causes.But Qm theory does not prove that because the indeterminacy does not do that,in only exits in a prior framework that issue needs explaining. So as an expatiation it is not sufficient because we don't know that it could account for the universe.The situation with God is totally different because by definition God has to be sufficient since that's the definition of God.
really you are saying prove sufficiency is sufficient. what you are really doing is trying to Merrick the argent without understanding wy they are made.
that assumes initiate causal regression I disprove that,
You need to prove time started at the Big Bang. At the moment, that is a possibility, but it is not known for sure. The paper I linked to shows cosmologists are seriously considering that both time and the universe existed prior to the Big Bang.
Joe: you are just asserting something from nothing that is illogical. there is nothing to support it that is not best explaination
I diud not say it was the best explanation, I said it was a possible explanation. I am asserting that "something from nothing" is possible. You are asserting it is impossible. That is quite a definite statement about something we know so little about.
Joe: you have nothing to support your assertion. any temporal beginning rewires expatiation you can't give you are just ricing the can down the road,putting off the fact that you can't answer the issue,
My assertion is that it is a possibility. How can you show it is not?
This is the problem with this sort of argument. The onus is on your to prove all other options - even those I cannot imagine - are impossible. Until you do, you cannot claim that yours is the last one standing.
Joe: we have no example of anything that is uncased or has no prior conditions so there is no reason to make that assumption,
We have no examples of time starting, but nevertheless you seem confident proposing that.
The fact is we are talking about systems we are utterly unfamiliar with. Just as the beviour of every day objects is a poor guide to the quantum world, at the other end of the scale, they are a bad guide to the origin of the universe.
Joe: obviously it was but the question is what made it so, you are begging it
Are you saying, obviously there was a sufficient condition (which negates the claim of the argument) or that obviously a person was involved (which is circular logic).
Joe: that makes o logical seseofany kind,Nothingwe said so farortaht Isaidin nythingimpoi9es
I agree. However, that is the logic of the argument, such as it is. The only way to avoid it is to accept the argument is invalid or explain why a person does not have "sufficient condition".
Pix
Yes, it was atheist rhetoric. It was a lead in to the actual argument.
Joe: God's sufficiency is a priori it;s also backed by the argument itself,since it is the only valid expatiation that it holds up it's extraordinary power,while not perfect is a a priri
Well I think quantum stuff's sufficiency is a priori.
Is that good enough for you?
Of course not, so do not insult my intelligence with this "God's sufficiency is a priori" nonsense.
You assert God is the only valid explanation, but until you prove time started at the Big Bang and that spontaneous something from nothing is impossible, that is not true. Oh, you also need to prove all the scenarios I cannot even imagine are wrong too. So good luck with that.
Joe: Rubbish, you are doing tit for tat thing without re fence to the fie points of the comparison.
I can only go by what you posted. I see no fine points that differentiate between "God did it" and "quantum did it".
And yes, it is "tit for tat". I am showing that I can as easily conjure up a non-explanation as you. I cannot prove mine is right any more than you can prove yours is right, and mine is no more a real explanation than yours.
The idea is that you will think about why my response is nonsense, and will realise that the same is true of your own position. Realistically that will not happen, but anyone undecided reading these comments will hopefully see that there is nothing between "God did it" and "Quantum did it".
Joe: God is defined as the creator of the universe by definition God is sufficient any sufficiency needed is part of the concept.not so with QM indeterminacy, the concept teeth does not include :creator of the uniuvers,"
Then I propose a new concept: universe-creating quantum indeterminacy (UCQI).
Note that UCQI is defined as the creator of the universe, so by definition UCQI is sufficient, and any sufficiency needed is part of the concept.
Happy now?
Of course, I have not actually said anything. There is no explanation. So just like you then.
Joe: because I explained it, you have not,
Well I have now explained it. To your standard anyway.
Joe: It is not a valid approach to just respond to demands for explanation by saying:you can't explain that either? what is being explained and why do we need to know it?
It is not a valid approach to reject other scenarios on the basis that they fail to explain, and then to accept your own theory, when it too fails to explain.
We have two hypotheses: God and UCQI. What objective standard do we apply to them?
Joe: take issue of sufficiency. Why do I say QM indeterminacy is not sufficient? Because atheist want to assert that the universe could just stat existing for no reason with no prior causes.But Qm theory does not prove that because the indeterminacy does not do that,in only exits in a prior framework that issue needs explaining. So as an expatiation it is not sufficient because we don't know that it could account for the universe.The situation with God is totally different because by definition God has to be sufficient since that's the definition of God.
Hopefully I have now resolved that with the UCQI, which also by definition is sufficient.
Pix
- This is something we have been discussing. Time is conceptual. OUR time (from the perspective of someone within our universe, not including whatever other universes may exist in a multiverse) begins with the big bang. That does not imply that there is not something before the big bang, or that there is no other time.
- What do you think God made the universe from? Was there some kind of stuff that he transformed into the universe? If so, where did that stuff come from?
first of all cosmologists do not speak of "before" the big no such tying,no time,time begins with the BB so no time meas no before.
- This is something we have been discussing. Time is conceptual. OUR time (from the perspective of someone within our universe, not including whatever other universes may exist in a multiverse) begins with the big bang. That does not imply that there is not something before the big bang, or that there is no other time.
true at least as far some theorize but it is still a convention not to speak of "before" that tells one that one is read o the subject.
If isaid before the big bang atheists would be posting to say I know nothing about it,
you are just asserting something from nothing that is illogical. there is nothing to support it that is not best explaination
- What do you think God made the universe from? Was there some kind of stuff that he transformed into the universe? If so, where did that stuff come from?
that is beside the point my friend, because his argument assumes from from actual nothing and mine doe snot where do you see me saying otherwise?
as for what did God create tings from I answered that on Metacrock this morning,
https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/
... All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. ...
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). ...
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. ...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: first of all cosmologists do not speak of "before" the big no such tying,no time,time begins with the BB so no time meas no before.
that assumes initiate causal regression I disprove that,
You need to prove time started at the Big Bang. At the moment, that is a possibility, but it is not known for sure. The paper I linked to shows cosmologists are seriously considering that both time and the universe existed prior to the Big Bang.
It's only position in modern cosmology that is backed by empirical evidence and it is the standard assumption,
Joe: you are just asserting something from nothing that is illogical. there is nothing to support it that is not best explaination
I diud not say it was the best explanation, I said it was a possible explanation. I am asserting that "something from nothing" is possible. You are asserting it is impossible. That is quite a definite statement about something we know so little about.
I think there is good reason to assume something from nothing is not possible, and there is nothing to commend it. There is no reason to accept it other than not wanting God.
(1)there not one single example of it anywhere, not even in QM theory
(2) that in itself refutes the idea of it's possibility and tells us there is no reason to accept it.
(3) science never accepts it. No scientific theory asserts that it all popped out of nothing even theories like QM tunneling assert it started with something,,
Joe: you have nothing to support your assertion. any temporal beginning rewires expatiation you can't give you are just ricing the can down the road,putting off the fact that you can't answer the issue,
My assertion is that it is a possibility. How can you show it is not?
one cannot p prove it;snot but the total lack of evidence for it is reason enough not to make the assumption,
There is plenty of evidence pointing to the Big Bang, but nothing about what was before that (or whether there was a before). It seems to be fairly common to think time started at that point, but as the paper I linked to proves, there are cosmologists who think otherwise.
Joe: I think there is good reason to assume something from nothing is not possible, and there is nothing to commend it. There is no reason to accept it other than not wanting God.
As the link in my last post proves, cosmologists are happy to entertain the idea of something from nothing, and have given it a good, scientific basis (ie, no evidence, but fits what we know already).
Joe: (1)there not one single example of it anywhere, not even in QM theory
Virtual particles.
There is also not one single example of an intelligence that does not reside in an organic brain. Would it be reasonable to reject the idea of God? Or does the "not one single example" argument only apply to what you want to refute?
Joe: (2) that in itself refutes the idea of it's possibility and tells us there is no reason to accept it.
Is (1) different to (2)? Or were you just trying to make it look like a longer list?
Joe: (3) science never accepts it. No scientific theory asserts that it all popped out of nothing even theories like QM tunneling assert it started with something,,
What exactly do you mean by "nothing"? We can as readily posit a void in which virtual particles can appear, rather than absolute nothingness. After all, you are positing an immaterial, all-knowing being. My hypothesis is considerably more modest.
Joe: one cannot p prove it;snot but the total lack of evidence for it is reason enough not to make the assumption,
Certainly we should not make the assumption it is true. Or that it is false. We do not know.
The universe could have been created by God (in the generic sense) or a quantum whatever or something else. We do not know.
Pix
If isaid before the big bang atheists would be posting to say I know nothing about it
- It is a convention not to talk about "before" in OUR time frame of reference, because OUR time begins at the big bang. HOWEVER, as I said, that doe not imply that there is no "before" in some other frame of reference. Cosmologists DEFINITELY talk about what came before the big bang.
that is beside the point my friend, because his argument assumes from from actual nothing and mine doe snot
- So you are claiming that God did not make the universe from nothing? Then what did he make it from? And how would you possibly know this?
Joe: we have no example of anything that is uncased or has no prior conditions so there is no reason to make that assumption,
We have no examples of time starting, but nevertheless you seem confident proposing that.
we do have an example of time starting, the big bang singularity. It's got emirical backing. the only theory that does
The fact is we are talking about systems we are utterly unfamiliar with. Just as the beviour of every day objects is a poor guide to the quantum world, at the other end of the scale, they are a bad guide to the origin of the universe.
that sounds like the prelude to a statement of faith,
Joe: obviously it was but the question is what made it so, you are begging it
Are you saying, obviously there was a sufficient condition (which negates the claim of the argument) or that obviously a person was involved (which is circular logic).
Obviously there was a sufficient condition, what that was is what we are arguing about,
Joe: that makes o logical seseofany kind,Nothingwe said so farortaht Isaidin nythingimpoi9es
I agree.
you do? clue me in because I can't even read that mess,
However, that is the logic of the argument, such as it is. The only way to avoid it is to accept the argument is invalid or explain why a person does not have "sufficient condition".
the issue is that Marriston tries to undermine Craig;s reason for assuming a personal origin he does so by asserting Am indeterminacy as an alternative that Craig's view doesn't account for.
My view did, so I win, That's the issue,I'm not trying the prove the cosmological argumemt,
I just got through telling Pix not to post until I Finnish so then you post stop doing that until I*finish
im-skeptical said...
true at least as far some theorize but it is still a convention not to speak of "before" that tells one that one is read o the subject.
If isaid before the big bang atheists would be posting to say I know nothing about it
- It is a convention not to talk about "before" in OUR time frame of reference, because OUR time begins at the big bang. HOWEVER, as I said, that doe not imply that there is no "before" in some other frame of reference. Cosmologists DEFINITELY talk about what came before the big bang.
there are those who way you can't. Hawkig talks about talks abouit treating time like space.that's where stalk about "beyond" the BB beyond time comes from
that is beside the point my friend, because his argument assumes from from actual nothing and mine doe snot
- So you are claiming that God did not make the universe from nothing? Then what did he make it from? And how would you possibly know this?
the question of what did God make things out of is an equivocated thinking, being itself doens;t have ponder what to make stuff out of,
go read today;spost on metacrock,
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Here is an interesting article on the UCQI (for some reason they do not call it that):
https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/
... All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. ...
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). ...
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. ...
we have better reason to assume something from nothing is impossible. having a tiny something doesn't change that,
Joe: It's only position in modern cosmology that is backed by empirical evidence and it is the standard assumption,
There is plenty of evidence pointing to the Big Bang, but nothing about what was before that (or whether there was a before). It seems to be fairly common to think time started at that point, but as the paper I linked to proves, there are cosmologists who think otherwise.
all that means is we know time had a beginning the universe began with time.It does not prove it came form nothing,there is still no reason to think so.
Joe: I think there is good reason to assume something from nothing is not possible, and there is nothing to commend it. There is no reason to accept it other than not wanting God.
As the link in my last post proves, cosmologists are happy to entertain the idea of something from nothing, and have given it a good, scientific basis (ie, no evidence, but fits what we know already).
All that means is there is an anti God ideology that is content to pretend they have a valid thinking position when they don't, it's a faith statement,
Joe: (1)there not one single example of it anywhere, not even in QM theory
Virtual particles.
virtual particles are created by previously existing particles colliding so they clearly are not from nothing,
There is also not one single example of an intelligence that does not reside in an organic brain. Would it be reasonable to reject the idea of God? Or does the "not one single example" argument only apply to what you want to refute?
that's unimportant, (1) amoebas and slime molds demonstrate mind and yet have no braise (2) you are asserting that talk of persona God means god is a big man in the sky,I have,you are arguing that God should respond to natural law as a thing in creation rather than as the basis of reality,
Joe: (2) that in itself refutes the idea of it's possibility and tells us there is no reason to accept it.
Is (1) different to (2)? Or were you just trying to make it look like a longer list?
2 points both steaming from same issue,
Joe: (3) science never accepts it. No scientific theory asserts that it all popped out of nothing even theories like QM tunneling assert it started with something,,
What exactly do you mean by "nothing"? We can as readily posit a void in which virtual particles can appear, rather than absolute nothingness. After all, you are positing an immaterial, all-knowing being. My hypothesis is considerably more modest.
apparently you don;t what virtual particles are, they do not appear out of true nothing,anything that has to be explained or accounted for disproves your point. you must account for the existence of the particle that become virtual.
Joe: one cannot prove it;snot but the total lack of evidence for it is reason enough not to make the assumption,
Certainly we should not make the assumption it is true. Or that it is false. We do not know.
The universe could have been created by God (in the generic sense) or a quantum whatever or something else. We do not know.
Pix
no you are listening, it;s choice between necessity or contingency, contingent things Esquires necessities to exist. so none of the naturalistic Phoenician you name offers an explaimation it all needs explain,,
How can anybody keep up with the discussion when, right in the middle of it, you keep posting new articles that are continuations of the same thing? (Fourth one so far on the same topic.) And in the new article, you keep making the same claims the I already refuted in an earlier one, but you never answered.
So your precedent for the universe being the start of time is the universe being the start of time? Seems a little circular.
Joe: that sounds like the prelude to a statement of faith,
Quite the reverse. It is a prelude to an admission of ignorance.
Joe: Obviously there was a sufficient condition, what that was is what we are arguing about,
The six point argument that you quoted was saying there was the "sufficient condition" explanation must be rejected, and so rejected the non-person scenario on that basis. Maybe you should read it again.
Joe: you do? clue me in because I can't even read that mess,
You get used to it...
Translation: That makes no logical sense of any kind. Nothing we said so far or that I said says is[?] anything impossible.
The six point argument you quoted differentiated between "sufficient condition" and creation by a person in point (c). Then over the course of points (d) to (f) supposedly claimed that "sufficient condition" was wrong, and so it must be a person.
However, the reality is that even a person needs "sufficient condition" - as you seem to agree. And that means - if the next steps are valid - that the cause cannot be a person either. Either we have to accept that it was neither a person nor not a person, or the logic is bogus.
So when you said, "That makes no logical sense of any kind", I agree. Steps (d) to (f) do not make any sense. The logic is bonus.
Joe: all that means is we know time had a beginning the universe began with time.
No. the Big Bang points to a period of rapid expansion. We do not know that time started then. It seems likely, but certainly not known.
Joe: It does not prove it came form nothing,there is still no reason to think so.
No it does not prove it. We do not know. However, it is a possibility, and one that matches the facts we have available.
Joe: All that means is there is an anti God ideology that is content to pretend they have a valid thinking position when they don't, it's a faith statement,
Thank goodness you do not do that sort of thing...
Joe: that's unimportant, (1) amoebas and slime molds demonstrate mind and yet have no braise (2) you are asserting that talk of persona God means god is a big man in the sky,I have,you are arguing that God should respond to natural law as a thing in creation rather than as the basis of reality,
Okay then, every mind we know, is the loosest sense of the word, is rooted in an organic substrate.
Consider these two arguments. The logic is the same for both, and the premises are true in both cases. And yet you seem to hold to the first, and reject the second. Can you explain why?
The universe is posited to have started as something from nothing
All things hat we know of have started from something
Therefore all things must necessarily have started from something
Therefore the universe cannot have started from nothing
God is posited to have a mind not rooted in an organic substrate
All minds that we know of are rooted in an organic substrate
Therefore all minds are necessarily rooted in an organic substrate
Therefore there can be no God whose mind is not rooted in an organic substrate
Pix
No they are not. They appear spontaneously, due to the uncertainty principle.
Joe: apparently you don;t what virtual particles are, they do not appear out of true nothing,anything that has to be explained or accounted for disproves your point. you must account for the existence of the particle that become virtual.
Who said anything about "true nothing"? I suggest you read up on virtual particles. They do not require any other particles.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-make-something-from-nothing-with-virtual-particles
Joe: no you are listening, it;s choice between necessity or contingency, contingent things Esquires necessities to exist. so none of the naturalistic Phoenician you name offers an explaimation it all needs explain,,
Right. The stuff I need in place are obviously necessarily.
Pix
Joe, why don't you find a physicist saying it in actual words?
I don't.I try to go post for post, But Pix always does two., So after I answer one someone puts another one up then I'm behind one. That's how the count get's screwed. Now we have two by each of you but yours are short,
Skep this is your second post then I'l be caught up on you,
im-skeptical said...
oe thinks virtual particles com from other particles because he saw a particle diagram in an internet article showing virtual particles, and he didn't understand it. We had a discussion about this before, and he just ignored it. That diagram is all he needs. This is what we see again and again. He finds something on the internet that he doesn't understand, and nothing you can tell him will rectify his understanding.
speaking of ignoring things, you got several terms wrong in that discussion, I quoted huge portions of articles of which I read the whole, I proved conclusively you were wrong.
Joe, why don't you find a physicist saying it in actual words?
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/03/quantum-particles-do-not-prove-universe.html
quote from the article quoting CTC which is a highly credible scientific source,
"The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire Universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the Universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the Universe from the first fraction of a second of its existence to now. However it is known that general relativity is inconsistent with the principles of quantum theory and is therefore not an appropriate description of physical processes that occur at very small length scales or over very short times. To describe such processes one requires a theory of quantum gravity." [1]
The Scientific American article I used for the above essay.
URL to this article
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
Quote:
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse."
that literally says it, so if he says I quoted from a diagram i don't understand, No I;m quoting the quote I just quoited which says exactly what i said it does, read it,
Anonymous said...
Joe: we do have an example of time starting, the big bang singularity. It's got emirical backing. the only theory that does
So your precedent for the universe being the start of time is the universe being the start of time? Seems a little circular.
physicists regard the Big Bang as the beginning of our space/time. The question is is this the only space/time? we don't know, I regard it as such until we know otherwise,
Joe: that sounds like the prelude to a statement of faith,
Quite the reverse. It is a prelude to an admission of ignorance.
an yet you advance it as tough defending faith,
Joe: Obviously there was a sufficient condition, what that was is what we are arguing about,
The six point argument that you quoted was saying there was the "sufficient condition" explanation must be rejected, and so rejected the non-person scenario on that basis. Maybe you should read it again.
Obviously whatever started our space/time was scientific to start it or it would not be here.We are here, let's see you disagree on that? You are talking about Craig's argument for personal God. I did not way I am defending Craig's argument,I only said Morriston's third alternative is not enough to disprove the possibility of personal origin. Kalam might still work as an indication of personal God but I don't ever argue Kalam so I don't defend it.
Joe: you do? clue me in because I can't even read that mess,
You get used to it...
ahahahahahahahahaah!!!!!
Translation: That makes no logical sense of any kind. Nothing we said so far or that I said says is[?] anything impossible.
The six point argument you quoted differentiated between "sufficient condition" and creation by a person in point (c). Then over the course of points (d) to (f) supposedly claimed that "sufficient condition" was wrong, and so it must be a person.
if your so called six point article is Morriston I think you are just imaginary against him although he;s an atheist, I think you are confussed,
Joe: virtual particles are created by previously existing particles colliding so they clearly are not from nothing,
No they are not. They appear spontaneously, due to the uncertainty principle.
due to it? so because Heisenberg made this principle that causes VP's to form out of nothing? so if he had been more certain there would be no VP's? no that is not what they are, they do result when other kinds of particle collide,that's what all the literature swys,
Joe: apparently you don;t what virtual particles are, they do not appear out of true nothing,anything that has to be explained or accounted for disproves your point. you must account for the existence of the particle that become virtual.
Who said anything about "true nothing"? I suggest you read up on virtual particles. They do not require any other particles.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-make-something-from-nothing-with-virtual-particles
right off the bat you are fooled by the language,when they say "nothing" they mean Vacuum flux, Their "nothing" is something their noting is other praticles,
Joe: no you are listening, it;s choice between necessity or contingency, contingent things Esquires necessities to exist. so none of the naturalistic Phoenician you name offers an explaimation it all needs explain,
In your article it says: "The obvious answer (“nothing”) is wrong because it disagrees with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle – it decrees there must be fluctuations of energy inside the kettle and these manifest as particles popping in and out of existence."
Notice your article puts :nothing:in scare quotes like I do because he knows he's not talking about real nothing,
here's the quote from my scientific American article again--the one I quote from
"Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.....Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded."
Right. The stuff I need in place are obviously necessarily.
you are using the term wrong,
"The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire Universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the Universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the Universe from the first fraction of a second of its existence to now. However it is known that general relativity is inconsistent with the principles of quantum theory and is therefore not an appropriate description of physical processes that occur at very small length scales or over very short times. To describe such processes one requires a theory of quantum gravity."
Center for Theoretical Cosmology, static website, University of Cambridge (no date cited)
http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/quantum_cosmology_one.php
(accessed 3/8/18)
Stephan Hawking is associated with the CTC.
This statement is more admission than documentation. It admits that quantum theory might not pertain to the universe as a whole. After all the theory has only been validated under normal conditions of space/time, temperature and the like. We have no idea if it still applies at the big bang expansion where the laws of physics seem to be suspended, temperature and time approach infinity. “What we do know is that massive objects do not exhibit quantum behavior. No one can be sure that a new-born universe would obey quantum theory as we know it..”[2]Moreover the statement admits that the theory requires a theory of quantum gravity in order to apply as a theory of origins. Do we have a theory of quantum gravity that has been validated empirically?
Joe: physicists regard the Big Bang as the beginning of our space/time. The question is is this the only space/time? we don't know, I regard it as such until we know otherwise,
Some do, some do not. As yet we do not know if time started then or not.
Joe: Obviously whatever started our space/time was scientific to start it or it would not be here.We are here, let's see you disagree on that? You are talking about Craig's argument for personal God. I did not way I am defending Craig's argument,I only said Morriston's third alternative is not enough to disprove the possibility of personal origin. Kalam might still work as an indication of personal God but I don't ever argue Kalam so I don't defend it.
Fair enough.
Joe: due to it? so because Heisenberg made this principle that causes VP's to form out of nothing? so if he had been more certain there would be no VP's? no that is not what they are, they do result when other kinds of particle collide,that's what all the literature swys,
The reason virtual particles appear is not because Heisenberg made the principle. They appear because of the principle that Heisenberg modelled.
The uncertainty principle is not about how sure Heisenberg was. It states that there is a lower limit below which we cannot know for sure about a particle. Not only can we not know for sure, even the universe cannot "know". This means that particles can spontaneously appear; they disobey the conservation of energy, but to such a small amount that the universe does not "notice".
Joe: right off the bat you are fooled by the language,when they say "nothing" they mean Vacuum flux, Their "nothing" is something their noting is other praticles,
No, the particles are appearing spontaneously, and that is what leads to the vacuum flux.
Joe: Notice your article puts :nothing:in scare quotes like I do because he knows he's not talking about real nothing,
So I start the universe with "nothing", as opposed to nothing. Why is that a problem? You start the universe with a super-intelligent, personal being. Which is more parsimonious?
Joe: here's the quote from my scientific American article again--the one I quote from
You need to read up on quantum fluctuation. This is a specific type of virtual particle that appears in vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Pix
- OK, Joe. You got a quote. Now let me tell you that you still don't understand what you are quoting. That physicist is using the word 'particle' to mean a quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles come from quantum fluctuations. That guy uses the word 'particle' to refer to any disturbance in the quantum field. His terminology is not in agreement with what most people think of when they say 'particle'. It's definitely not what you have in mind. He uses the word more in the sense of a bookkeeping device, and that matches the diagram you showed, but is doesn't describe something that we would call 'particles'.
Here's an article that specifically tells us that the quantum fluctuation does NOT consist of particles, and this is more in keeping with the way most of us think of it. Of Particular Significance.
This illustrates the problem I've tried to point out to you. You cite things you don't really understand, and then you go around strutting like the cock of the walk and yelling COCK-A_DOODLE_DOO, pretending you know it all, but you don't.
NO. You are wrong. The vacuum is nothing. That's what vacuum means. The "flux" is a disturbance in the vacuum. And where does the 'flux' come from? It just happens spontaneously. Virtual particles simply arise spontaneously out of nothing. That's exactly what people like Krauss are saying, but you refuse to listen, because it's against your religion.
that literally says it, so if he says I quoted from a diagram i don't understand, No I;m quoting the quote I just quoited which says exactly what i said it does, read it,
- OK, Joe. You got a quote. Now let me tell you that you still don't understand what you are quoting. That physicist is using the word 'particle' to mean a quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles come from quantum fluctuations. That guy uses the word 'particle' to refer to any disturbance in the quantum field. His terminology is not in agreement with what most people think of when they say 'particle'.
as when physicists say "nothing" they don't mean nothing,
It's definitely not what you have in mind. He uses the word more in the sense of a bookkeeping device, and that matches the diagram you showed, but is doesn't describe something that we would call 'particles'.
that's all true and it make difference at all! I've known for a long time that particles are not little balls.The fact is the reality they describe does not suggest something nothing, it still implies pre existent framework filled with other fluctuations,
I quoted three sources the Hawking source CTC says QM theory does not apply to large structures like the universe until we have Qm gravity worked out, we don't. Then the Scientific American article talks about the process in terms of particles colliding works just well in terms of a pre existing framework of fluctuation,
Albert explains there is no empirical observation that proves something from nothing,
Here's an article that specifically tells us that the quantum fluctuation does NOT consist of particles, and this is more in keeping with the way most of us think of it. Of Particular Significance.
that just ,means it's not little balls so that doesn't change my argument,
This illustrates the problem I've tried to point out to you. You cite things you don't really understand, and then you go around strutting like the cock of the walk and yelling COCK-A_DOODLE_DOO, pretending you know it all, but you don't.
if that were true you would be able to show a real observation of some form energy energizer from nothing can you show that?no. I also don't see you dealing with the Scientific American article did they lie?its it made up?Is Scientific Ameircan fake news?
3/08/2018 08:26:00 AM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
right off the bat you are fooled by the language,when they say "nothing" they mean Vacuum flux, Their "nothing" is something their noting is other praticles
NO. You are wrong. The vacuum is nothing. That's what vacuum means. The "flux" is a disturbance in the vacuum. And where does the 'flux' come from? It just happens spontaneously. Virtual particles simply arise spontaneously out of nothing. That's exactly what people like Krauss are saying, but you refuse to listen, because it's against your religion.
that is really nonsense, You are afraid o really research that;s your faith, if you ever see that there is no something from nothing your faith will be destroyed you will go into a God panic,you can't let yourself do honest research,
Nothing you have argued there refutes the basic stuff in the Albert article hat the framework requires prior conditions out of which the alleged nothing comes,
Dr, Odenwald said quite clearly Physicists do not mean real actual nothing in terms of no thing, they mean vacuum flux which essentially means more prior functions,time and physical law,that's what Im calling framework
his review of Krauss's book
"Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.” And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like?"
Never mind. Forget where the laws came from. Have a look instead at what they say. It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electromagnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.
W
Albert
"...But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."
to anyone follow the history of the discussion you made a fool of yourself saying that, Because I began by saying I don't claim any expertise as you do. Quoting qualified sources is not crowing and Stuttgart. That is where one never quotes anything but claims to know it all. and quote stuff that disagrees with your bull shit is not failure to understand it, not for the one challenging your "expertise.a"
If you history of your religion,science, you would know as Albert points out that all the physicists before this current crop of philosophers disguised as physicists believed in real particles. Its only these guys who produce philosophical ideologies and assumptions disguised as science who change particles into fluctuation.
- Some physicists take a dogmatic philosophical view that says nothing is not nothing. Krauss is talking about observed reality, not some philosophical fantasy.
I've known for a long time that particles are not little balls
- That's not even what we're talking about. It doesn't matter what these things are. They still come from NOTHING.
I quoted three sources the Hawking source CTC says QM theory does not apply to large structures like the universe until we have Qm gravity worked out
- That's not what we're talking about either. It goes to show that you're just spouting things you found on the internet, and you have no idea what it means.
that is really nonsense
- Like I said, you refuse to listen because it's against your dogmatic beliefs.
David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Nyu but he also has a Ph.D. in physics.
- Who cares? He defends a dogmatic philosophical view that doesn't agree with observed reality. Other physicists are more interested in what's real.
Everything I looked up around this tries to explain particles says: particle is really bits of field,: they explain field by saying "field is just particles": so that's pretty circular.
you are merely using the jargon as explanation.
- People who are stuck on the dogmatic philosophical dictate of "nothing comes from nothing" can't get past their dogmatic belief because it has been around for all of history, until the 20th century, when we began to observe that it's not true. Get over it.
- People who are stuck on the dogmatic philosophical dictate of "nothing comes from nothing" can't get past their dogmatic belief because it has been around for all of history, until the 20th century, when we began to observe that it's not true. Get over it.
3 resoinses
(1)you are committing the genetic fallacy, naming the history of the idea does not prove it wrong
(3) you are confused about who has the burden of proof, you do because it;s your arguent.
(3) you did not respond to my argument.I said the expert, your priest of knowledge a scientist says you are wrong you do not respond, if you don't respond to an argument you lose it,
- That's not what the genetic fallacy is.
(3) you are confused about who has the burden of proof, you do because it;s your arguent.
- Here's proof: We observe that things do come from nothing.
(3) you did not respond to my argument.I said the expert, your priest of knowledge a scientist says you are wrong you do not respond, if you don't respond to an argument you lose it,
- And I showed you another scientist who directly disagrees with what yous said. So who's right? Obviously, people use the word 'particle' to mean different things. Your article uses the word in a technical sense that doesn't agree with what the rest of the world understands. For him, a 'particle' is a mathematical perturbation in the nothingness. It has no substance or energy. The virtual particles that are produced in this manner actually have substance that we can detect and measure. That is more consistent with what we think of as real 'particles'. But the point is that the fluctuations in the quantum field are not things that have physical existence. They are equations on a chalkboard. That's why I (and many other physicists) are comfortable calling that "nothing". Because there is literally nothing there.
- That's not what the genetic fallacy is.
yes it is
Genetic logical fallacy
"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. ... The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit.
Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Logical Fallacies» Genetic Fallacy
www.logicalfallacies.info › Fallacies of Relevance
Explanation. The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do. Equally, even good sources may ...
(3) you are confused about who has the burden of proof, you do because it;s your arguent.
- Here's proof: We observe that things do come from nothing.
no we don't. I just quoted a couple of physicists saying hey don't cone from nothing,I also quoted two physicists saying when physicists say nothing they don't really mean actual nothing, they mean vaccuum flux,
you have no physicist saying we observe sub atomic particles actually coming from nothing, that is purely a faith stamen based upon conjecture, what what kind an empiricist are you? you o mot understand the Billisrd Balls Hume talked about. I think you just use that term because atheists expect it
(3) you did not respond to my argument.I said the expert, your priest of knowledge a scientist says you are wrong you do not respond, if you don't respond to an argument you lose it,
- And I showed you another scientist who directly disagrees with what yous said. So who's right?
you sure did not,
Obviously, people use the word 'particle' to mean different things. Your article uses the word in a technical sense that doesn't agree with what the rest of the world understands.
field theorists don;t agree ,that doesn't mean field theorists are the rest of the world, on Monday i quote a physicist saying everyone mean something different by the terms,so dogmatioc you can;t understand diversity
For him, a 'particle' is a mathematical perturbation in the nothingness. It has no substance or energy. The virtual particles that are produced in this manner actually have substance that we can detect and measure. That is more consistent with what we think of as real 'particles'. But the point is that the fluctuations in the quantum field are not things that have physical existence. They are equations on a chalkboard. That's why I (and many other physicists) are comfortable calling that "nothing". Because there is literally nothing there.
Neither here nor there, you have still produced no direct clash. I made a specific augment, that there's a famework out of which these things come and it does not include nothingness, it;s full, it;s just stuff n it, i quoted several physicists backing it, you have no answer,
3/10/2018 09:20:00 AM Delete
not to worry, Monday's topic will be the same
- You believe nothing comes from nothing because people have always believed it.
- But it is false because we observe the things do come from nothing.
You said that's the genetic fallacy.
IT IS NOT the genetic fallacy, which is claiming that an argument is false BECAUSE OF ITS SOURCE. For example, if I said an argument is wrong because it comes from person A, who always makes bad arguments - that would be the genetic fallacy.
Joe you put the definition of it right in your response. Can't you read? Do you see what it says? It thought you were supposed to be the king of philosophy.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Just to clarify, I said
- You believe nothing comes from nothing because people have always believed it.
- But it is false because we observe the things do come from nothing.
No you are merely begging the question,I;ve already prove there's reason to assume that because there is no example of actual nothing producing anything. Qm particles do not come from nothing,
You said that's the genetic fallacy.
IT IS NOT the genetic fallacy, which is claiming that an argument is false BECAUSE OF ITS SOURCE. For example, if I said an argument is wrong because it comes from person A, who always makes bad arguments - that would be the genetic fallacy.
"You believe nothing comes from nothing because people have always believed it." Your only reason for saying that is implied assertion this must wrong because it stems from religious past which must be wrong because atheist dogma insists it is, hence genetic fallacy or at least the rationale that produces it,
Joe you put the definition of it right in your response. Can't you read? Do you see what it says? It thought you were supposed to be the king of philosophy.
"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. ... The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit."
explained above grow a brain
your next statement will be deleted,