Saturday, October 3, 2009

Yet Another QM Argument

My dear friends in the atheist community continue to show their lack of understanding about what the “Nothing” means, when we say, Prior to the BB there was nothing.

They’ve describe Nothing as “An intensely hot and dense speck.” When I asked, So where was this tiny speck? the atheist said, "There must have been a tiny ring of space around it." And yesterday Gorth suggested that the Big Bang was a quantum event - that came out of “Nothing.” (((Deep Sigh)))

Atheists are caught in a true dilemma. We know from science that from literally nothing, everything came. But how? It appears that the only logical assumption is that something that existed outside of matter, space and time had to be the Cause of matter, space and time. Problem. When we begin to define what that Cause must have been like we wind up with a Greatest Conceivable Being or what we call God. And that of course is just not allowed in the atheist mind-set even if it meets the criteria for where the evidence is pointing. So what’s an atheist to do?

First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being IN A VACUUM. The vacuum is not NOTHING. In fact it is a sea of fluctuating energy. The energy is endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws.

Second, the vacuum is sparked BY A SCIENTIST. There is only one possible Being that could have existed prior to or outside of BB and it wasn’t a scientist.

Third, The particles that exist in a Quantum Event do so for a period of time INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR MASS.

Fourth, in the case of the big bang, there was no vacuum - THERE WAS NOTHING. No scientist, No particles - Nothing.

Fifth, The universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

Sixth, while it’s well known that atheists as a group are easily confused, it is wrong to confuse causality with predictability. Just because the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle describes our inability to predict the location and speed of subatomic particles, i.e., where an electron will appear, that is not a case of an electron appearing out of nothing. In fact quantum theorists acknowledge that our very attempts to “observe” the speed and location of these particles may make them even more unpredictable to trace.

There is no QM model that involves a true origination ex nihilo.

Finally, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. Reality is the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing.

Atheist physicist Victor Stenger tells us that the Big Bang is looking more probable all the time, “We have to leave open the possibility that [the Big Bang] could be wrong, but every year that goes by, and more astronomical data comes in, it’s more and more consistent with the general Big Bang picture.”
Cliff Walker, “An Interview with Particle Physicist Victor J. Stenger,” at http:www.positiveatheism.com/crt/stenger1.htm

“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural,”
Atheist astronomer Arthur Eddington, “The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan), 178

8 comments:

Gorth Satana said...

Universe 6000 to 10000 years old or not?

"we wind up with a Greatest Conceivable Being"

Isn't imagination fun?

Makarios said...

It's just logic Gorth.
If the cause isn't natural, then the cause is immaterial.

If the cause exists outside of and prior to time, then the cause is timeless or eternal

If the cause is able to create time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, then the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.

If the cause existed prior to matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), then the cause can't be mateial, natural or scientific.


Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.


The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.

If the cause is able to bring this life supporing universe ito existence, then the Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. That Cause, is what is normally described as God.

Gorth Satana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gorth Satana said...

"If the cause is able to create time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, then the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities."

Everything written after the word "then" is "non sequitur". The words "finely tuned" are an example of "petitio principii". (Sorry about using Latin but I assume you understand because Latin is widely understood and I don't know the English)

"non sequitur" means the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

"If the cause existed prior to matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), then the cause can't be mateial, natural or scientific."

What? No. These laws are descriptions. If something happened, scientific laws can describe it. If there was a "before OUR universe's laws of physics" then maybe the description will be different. Current physics and cosmology allow for such a scenario.

"the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal."

Hang on. That's a huge unsubstantiated jump. Personal? We see impersonal processes creating everyday.

"The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind."

Another non sequitur.

"If the cause is able to bring this life supporing universe ito existence, then the Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. "

The BIGGEST non sequitur.

"That Cause, is what is normally described as God."

Okay. Then this "God", beleived in, may be different for other people.

If you wish to make a logical argument the conclusion must follow from the premise.

Makarios said...

Okay. Then this "God", beleived in, may be different for other people."

Only if they move away from analyzing what characterise a cause that operated outside of time and matter etc. and began to personalise this Cause. Keep the focus of the definition narrow and I think most people would be forced to come up with something much like I described.

Gorth Satana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gorth Satana said...

Not if they thought about it logically.
If they tried to shoehorn it into their religion, perhaps.

"and began to personalise this Cause."

Which you did for seemingly no reason.

The path you took went along the lines of "the cause" must be personal because it must exist before matter and the laws of physics.

I quote you:
If the cause existed prior to matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), then the cause can't be mateial, natural or scientific.
Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal
.

That does not follow.

Adam said...

It doesn't matter. None of your post matters.

I'm an atheist. I don't care how it all started. You can go on and on about how it may have taken something god-like to create existence, but you have nothing after that that comes even remotely closed to convincing me that the particular god you've chosen out of thousands is the right one.

So it becomes a case of, I don't know, and when it all comes down to it, Pascal's Wager is just one way for me to potentially make one invisible being happy while potentially pissing off thousands of other invisible beings. Rather than waste my life trying to divine which invisible being to represent to other people on an offensive blog, I'll just try to get by in life and help people when I can.

And you can keep writing about this monolithic "atheist" cabal you've imagined in your head. What's humorous to me though is how many secular types you've hooked in as voyeurs to your masturbatory blog posts. You keep fantasizing and we'll keep watching.