Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   atheism
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 111 (6206)
03-06-2002 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by leekim
03-06-2002 2:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by leekim:
1)So, based upon your logic, 100% of humanity must "directly experience" something in order for it tobe true? Please tell me that you truly don't mean this? I have read several accounts regarding Padre Pio during his lifetime and he did indeed have the "stigmata". Again, utilizing your flawed logic, have you ever performed and personally seen a QVF experiment (referenced below)? If not, you cannot comment on their validity.
2)Predestination only from the perspective that God is aware of the actions any and all matter will engage in during their respective life spans. That does not negate ones ability to have free will to engage in those actions which the Supreme Being has predetermined knowledge of.
3)QVF in no way demonstrates or negates my premise that "something cannot arrive from nothingness" at the inception of time when absolutely nothing existed.
You are being grossly dishonest when you bring forth the premise that QVF is scientific prove of the origins of life / matter, etc.
4)[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]

1)No I merely point out that a Cartesian position of doubt (i.e this looks convincing but is it a deception) is valid in cases where the phenomena is not personally observed (indeed Descartes would have us doubt even then...) is a perfectly acceptable alternative to assuming that people never lie...
The difference is that a scientific experiment is repeatable, thus anyone can reconstruct the experiment and obtain results that agree with the original. Miracles by their very nature cannot be experienced by choice and therefore are not directly observed....
I can doubt the results of an experiment if I do so I can perform the experiment for myself, if I doubt a miracle I cannot go out and prepare one and experience it....
2)If God knows what you will do you will do it, thus predestination, hence no free will....
What part of that logic looks flawed to you?
3)Hmmm lets see particle occuring spontaneously in vacuum.....
How is this not something from nothing?
Ergo your statement is false....
Actually its gravely dishonest of you to include life in that statement QVF can produce matter not life....
Also QVF has been observed, special creation hasn`t ergo from a purely empirical standpoint QVF is a better bet...
4)Please remove this it makes it look like I edited your post.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 2:28 PM leekim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 5:28 PM joz has replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 111 (6208)
03-06-2002 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by joz
03-06-2002 3:14 PM


I only address your third issue as I feel it is the more compelling topic
//3)Hmmm lets see particle occuring spontaneously in vacuum.....
How is this not something from nothing?
Ergo your statement is false....
Actually its gravely dishonest of you to include life in that statement QVF can produce matter not life....
Also QVF has been observed, special creation hasn`t ergo from a purely empirical standpoint QVF is a better bet...///
-----"The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."
---"In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever."
---Joseph yciski has described well the confusion between actual nothingness and the concept of a vacuum in contemporary physics. Even in the absence of particles, "physical fields do not disappear, and their properties still can be characterized in the abstract language of mathematics."[ Joseph yciski, "Metaphysics and Epistemology in Stephen Hawking's Theory of the Creation of the Universe," Zygon, vol. 31, no. 2 (June 1996), p. 272.]
--- Robert C. Koons (University of Texas)
"Others have used the creation of virtual particles from the vacuum as evidence that things can begin to exist without a cause. If the energy involved is small enough, and the period of existence is short enough, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows particles to emerge from "nothing" and to disappear shortly thereafter. However, this argument fails to distinguish between something containing no energy or particles and sheer nothingness. In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not a nothing. It is the indeterministic cause of the temporary existence of the virtual particles."http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec5.html[/URL]
---The primordial vacuum is a physical state existing IN space and time. As Kanitscheider notes: "The violent microstructure of the vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected with this legitimate speculations [sic] far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained 'creation of the universe out of nothing.' "From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic; it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process."William L. Craig, Cosmos and Creator, "Origins & Design", Vol. 17, No. 2, 1996
"use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."[William L. Craig, "The Caused Beginning of the Universe: a Response to Quentin Smith." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (1993): 623-639.]
---A quantum vacuum is a physically necessary condition of a virtual particle coming into existence and, in this 'physically necessary' sense of causation, virtual particles may be said to have causes. A probabilistic definition of causality would also enable us to say that virtual particles have causes, for given a quantum vacuum there is a certain probability that virtual particles will be emitted by it."[Quentin Smith, "Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology," Essay VI., p. 179.]
---For starters, lol....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 3:14 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 7:37 PM leekim has replied
 Message 22 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 11:38 PM leekim has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 111 (6212)
03-06-2002 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by leekim
03-06-2002 5:28 PM


Oh goody quotes!
Of course if you were to actually explain what the quantum vacuum is and what quantum vacuum fluctuations are and how they can`t happen before the end of the Planck era I`d be more impressed, stunned in fact....
Heres some information to help you get started:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
Note:
"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level.
The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time (added by joz before you mention it this isn`t a problem as time itself only starts at the end of the Planck era). There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.
The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe.
In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence."
And:
"The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur).
For example, radioactive decay occurs when two protons and two neutrons (an alpha particle) leap out of an atomic nuclei. Since the positions of the protons and neutrons is governed by the wave function, there is a small, but finite, probability that all four will quantum tunnel outside the nucleus, and therefore escape. The probability of this happening is small, but given enough time (tens of years) it will happen.
The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence."
LOLAY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 5:28 PM leekim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 7:47 PM joz has not replied
 Message 28 by leekim, posted 03-07-2002 9:25 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 111 (6213)
03-06-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
03-06-2002 7:37 PM


Or i could just bang a few quotes of my own up....
Seeing as you can find them here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
I`ll save Percy the storage space....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 7:37 PM joz has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 111 (6216)
03-06-2002 10:06 PM


I will readily admit that atheism is a form of belief. I can't prove there isnt a god. Science can't observe anything before Planck time after the big bang. I can't prove an all mighty being didn't intiate the big bang. However, since we can't observe God, postulate theories and make predictions about "God", his existance is irrellevant from a scientific perspective. Since there is no observable evidence that points to the existance of a god, I doubt the existance of such a being. But, as I said before, I cannot prove that such a being doesn't exist. Hence, atheism is a belief. However, there is observable data in support of a universe that has expanded, and evolved ( not to be confused with biological evolution, which deals only with the change of species over time) according to natural proccesses.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 10:21 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 111 (6217)
03-06-2002 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Darwin Storm
03-06-2002 10:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Hence, atheism is a belief. However, there is observable data in support of a universe that has expanded, and evolved ( not to be confused with biological evolution, which deals only with the change of species over time) according to natural proccesses.
I agree with most of what you post but I would not define atheism as a belief....
Consider the following...
1)I don`t see any evidence of 60 ton pink bunny rabbits so I don`t believe in them...
2)I don`t see any evidence of God so I don`t believe in God...
Defining atheism as a belief in the context of this discussion implys that it is adopted by decision, in 1) I do not make a choice to not believe in gargantuan pink bunnys, the lack of belief is inherrant due to the lack of evidence...
Case 2) is identical except that God has beeen substituted in for the pink 60 ton rabbits....
IMHO the two scenarios are directly analogous...
C`mon lets face it untill there is evidence for a phenomena it is hardly a matter of belief to not believe in it, atheism only becomes a belief in the presence of evidence of a deity....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-06-2002 10:06 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 111 (6224)
03-06-2002 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by leekim
03-06-2002 5:28 PM


Just a real quick question how many of those quotes do you think came from Physicists and how many came from Philosophers?
I`m also surprised that you quoted both W.L Craig and Quentin Smith in support of your argument...
My reason for being surprised? Have a look at this and see if you think they BOTH support your view....
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html
So any physicists (i.e the buggers who know the most about quantum mechanics) on your list?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 5:28 PM leekim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 11:48 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 111 (6225)
03-06-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by joz
03-06-2002 11:38 PM


Sorry it appears that you did quote some physicists, Barrow and Tipler, of course they wrote the anthropic principle of which W.L.Craig writes:
"Not that Barrow and Tipler are endorsing a design argument; on the contrary, although scientists hostile to teleology are apt to interpret their work as sympathetic to theism and although I have already seen this book cited by two prominent philosophers of religion in support of the teleological argument, the thrust of the book's argument is in the end anti-theistic."
Which raises the interesting point of.....
Why in the name of all thats good data did you quote them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 11:38 PM joz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 111 (6232)
03-07-2002 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Punisher
03-06-2002 12:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punisher:
[b] I would disagree. My faith appears logical and not at all blind. For example: I see an automobile; I have faith in an engineer, I see a house; I have faith in an architect. If you write a letter is the information in the ink?[/QUOTE]
You are playing games with the word, "faith". You have faith in the engineer and architect because of experience and positive evidence of their existence. The sole basis of modern ID is a lack of positive evidence; i.e. irredicable complexity. A lack of evidence for a natural system is not positive evidence for God.
One of Behe's IC examples is blood clotting, yet scientists are already making headway in explaining a possible natural explanation.
Remember, the foundation for ID is that there is no other possible explanation for a phenomena than Godidit, so all one has to do to invalidate the claim is to show a possible naturalistic mechanism.
quote:
Its a fairly safe assumption to say that you must input intelligence and information to output order and complexity. So, I see the ordered and complex world around me and easily place faith in a 'designer'.
Why do you equate the fact that human artifacts were designed by humans with the idea that we are somehow "God's artifacts"? Life is not in any way similar to the things humans have created, so why make any connection at all?
I could ask the question, then, "What designed God"?
quote:
Your view, on the other hand, requires a blind faith assumption that matter came from nowhere for no reason and formed itself into complex information systems against everything we observe today.
Strawman.
Your statement, "a blind faith assumption that matter came from nowhere for no reason" is incorrect. I don't know if there was a reason, and I don't know where matter came from.
That the simple can become the complex is not, OTOH, a unreasonable position to support, as we have observed such things happening in nature.
DS: Are you are saying that God is such that He cannot be known by man or that He simply doesn't exist? Either way, you are claiming to know something about God. This claim to knowledge is inconsistent with your claim to be an atheist."
[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-06-2002]
[/b][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Punisher, posted 03-06-2002 12:45 PM Punisher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-07-2002 5:12 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 111 (6233)
03-07-2002 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by leekim
03-06-2002 1:12 PM


quote:
---One cannot grasp "complex" concepts, therefore one turns to God. That comment, in and of itself, exemplifies your extremely limited and biased view of those who think contrary to you.
Ascribing supernatural sources to that which we do not understand has been a strong theme throughout all of recorded human existence, wouldn't you agree?
Perhaps we don't think that Thor is throwing down thunderbolts, but how is religious or supernatural attempts to explain natural phenomena really any different from this concept?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 1:12 PM leekim has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 111 (6234)
03-07-2002 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by leekim
03-06-2002 2:28 PM


Wow, do you really believe in stigmata?
Have you ever heard of an actual, independently-verified case?
From what I have read, stigmata occurs in these people without anyone seeing the entire episode from start to finish, so why believe in this as a miracle? Isn't it MUCH more likely that they are just injuring themselves for all the attention it gets them?
Don't you think it odd that this phenomena occurs among Catholics but not much among other Christian denominations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 2:28 PM leekim has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 111 (6236)
03-07-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Punisher
03-06-2002 12:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Its a fairly safe assumption to say that you must input intelligence and information to output order and complexity.
Either I'm getting old or I need another drink, but I have absolutely no idea what this sentence means - at least in the context of living systems.
Punisher, pretend that I'm ignorant and please explain just what you are describing here. Since I really only understand those things that have a relationship with the real, concrete, empirical world, a specific example from nature - not pseudo-philosophical handwaving - would be appreciated. (Cobra, if you're reading this, I see the quoted sentence as a prime example of a Shannon-Weaver system that has reached maximum information entropy.)
Honestly, from here, it appears you've managed to put pop pseudo-science, argument from personal incredulity, and cyber-babble into one sentence. Impressive...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Punisher, posted 03-06-2002 12:45 PM Punisher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Punisher, posted 03-08-2002 7:14 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 111 (6237)
03-07-2002 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
03-06-2002 7:37 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B]Oh goody quotes!
Of course if you were to actually explain what the quantum vacuum is and what quantum vacuum fluctuations are and how they can`t happen before the end of the Planck era I`d be more impressed, stunned in fact....
---Quite frankly Joz, my goal is certainly not to "stun" and/or "impress" you. I can assure you that you have not done the aforementioned to/for me.
Heres some information to help you get started:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
---I am well aware of the processes inherent in qvf testing and the conflicting theories surrounding same. I only utilized " " for ease as I, quite frankly, don't have the luxury to devote the excessive amount of time you seemingly do to this site (no offense).
Note:
"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level.
The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time (added by joz before you mention it this isn`t a problem as time itself only starts at the end of the Planck era). There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.
The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe.
In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence."
And:
"The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur).
For example, radioactive decay occurs when two protons and two neutrons (an alpha particle) leap out of an atomic nuclei. Since the positions of the protons and neutrons is governed by the wave function, there is a small, but finite, probability that all four will quantum tunnel outside the nucleus, and therefore escape. The probability of this happening is small, but given enough time (tens of years) it will happen.
The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence."
---The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). The multi-billion-year time separation between creation of the universe and of man hardly fits the picture. "Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator."(Hugh Ross).
The primordial vacuum is a physical state existing IN space and time. As Kanitscheider notes: "The violent microstructure of the vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected with this legitimate speculations, far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained 'creation of the universe out of nothing.' "From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic; it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process."[Kanitscheider, B. 1990 "Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?" In Studies on Mario Bunge's "Treatise", ed. P. Weingartner and G.J.W. Dorn, p. 346-47. Amsterdam: Rodopi.]
So there ARE causal conditions of a quantum vacuum fluctuation though they are not fully deterministic, and we do not have "something from nothing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 7:37 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 10:59 AM leekim has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 111 (6239)
03-07-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by leekim
03-07-2002 9:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by leekim:
1)Quite frankly Joz, my goal is certainly not to "stun" and/or "impress" you. I can assure you that you have not done the aforementioned to/for me.
2)I am well aware of the processes inherent in qvf testing and the conflicting theories surrounding same. I only utilized " " for ease as I, quite frankly, don't have the luxury to devote the excessive amount of time you seemingly do to this site (no offense).
3)The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). The multi-billion-year time separation between creation of the universe and of man hardly fits the picture. "Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator."(Hugh Ross).
4)So there ARE causal conditions of a quantum vacuum fluctuation though they are not fully deterministic, and we do not have "something from nothing".

1)Why bother debating the issue then?
2)Interestingly though you seem to ignore the fact that a quantum vacuum is spacetime with zero curvature, exactly what one would expect to find in the absence of a universe....
3)Yes time in the sense of observable time started at the end of the Planck era, 10 dimensions also dropped down to 4 so arguing that QM is invalid before the Planck time is a bit fishy, this line of reasoning would be valid if we aquired more dimensions at the end of the Planck era but we actually lost some....
4)Actually the quote says they are not deterministic fully didn`t enter into it.....
If your going to conduct your side of this discussion as an appeal to authority please:
a)Investigate the positions of the people your quoting before posting little soundbites which appear to support your argument...
b)Consider the authorities that support the other side as well, on the one side you have Hugh Ross an astronomer who spends a large portion of his time preaching, on the other Hawkings et al....
If you want this to descend into an argument of "my expert thinks this" "well my expert thinks that" I will be happy to oblige however I think it will be a monumental waste of both of our time...
For the record I don`t deny the validity of a causative God I just personaly don`t subscribe to that belief and think that QVF etc provides a perfectly acceptable alternative. Because events before the end of the Planck era cannot ever be observed no one can ever say with any degree of certainty if the universe had a deterministic cause or not, or even if that cause was God or not....
My wife (she is a catholic) happens to believe that God caused the universe I don`t say she is wrong, however she accepts that there exsists a possible non deterministic cause provided by QVF....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by leekim, posted 03-07-2002 9:25 AM leekim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by leekim, posted 03-07-2002 11:38 AM joz has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 111 (6241)
03-07-2002 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by joz
03-07-2002 10:59 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B] 1)Why bother debating the issue then?
2)Interestingly though you seem to ignore the fact that a quantum vacuum is spacetime with zero curvature, exactly what one would expect to find in the absence of a universe....
3)Yes time in the sense of observable time started at the end of the Planck era, 10 dimensions also dropped down to 4 so arguing that QM is invalid before the Planck time is a bit fishy, this line of reasoning would be valid if we aquired more dimensions at the end of the Planck era but we actually lost some....
4)Actually the quote says they are not deterministic fully didn`t enter into it.....
If your going to conduct your side of this discussion as an appeal to authority please:
a)Investigate the positions of the people your quoting before posting little soundbites which appear to support your argument...
b)Consider the authorities that support the other side as well, on the one side you have Hugh Ross an astronomer who spends a large portion of his time preaching, on the other Hawkings et al....
If you want this to descend into an argument of "my expert thinks this" "well my expert thinks that" I will be happy to oblige however I think it will be a monumental waste of both of our time...
For the record I don`t deny the validity of a causative God I just personaly don`t subscribe to that belief and think that QVF etc provides a perfectly acceptable alternative. Because events before the end of the Planck era cannot ever be observed no one can ever say with any degree of certainty if the universe had a deterministic cause or not, or even if that cause was God or not....
My wife (she is a catholic) happens to believe that God caused the universe I don`t say she is wrong, however she accepts that there exsists a possible non deterministic cause provided by QVF...
---Well enough Joz. I enjoyed the lively debate. Unfortunately I'm leaving now to go out of town (work related) until Monday. I'm sure we'll "run into" each other in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 10:59 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024