There have been many attempts by physcists to negate the fundamental idea of causality on which one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is hinged. It has been proposed that contrary to our common every-day observation, things may actually emerge uncaused out of nothingness. Although this idea is at odds with that which we observe everyday, some physists have argued that the following are examples of uncaused things/ processes which occur out of nothing -

1. Virtual particles in a quantum vacuum

2. Radioactive decay

3. Proton decay

I have discussed (1) above extensively on this forum and I am certain that it has been entirely debunked. In no way do virtual particles emerge "from nothing" - for the simple reason that the quantum vacuums referred to have been proven not to be perfect vacuums and in fact contain low gaseous pressure. And as such the argument that virtual particles emerge from nothing is absolutely false and mis-footed.

Now, I have not read all that much on (2) and (3) above and I would like those who propound or advance the "something from nothing" possibility to discuss (2) and (3) and let's see if they stand to reason.

From the little I read on Radio active decay, maybe I am daft o, but I cannot see how it in anyway presupposes anything uncaused or something from nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Half-life

Over to you, my Ogas.

There was an interesting discussion on this forum -

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=152325

I found this brilliant post made by someone on the physics forum i highlighted above -

I would argue that we are some misguided by thinking that uncaused effects exist, although some quantum mechanical events, look like it.

The argument is as follows: if uncaused effects could exist, then there would neither be any causes for them to not exist. If we would at some place, and at some time, and under some conditions see effects without causes, we would need to see them also at different place, time and under different conditions, because (as we defined) there is nothing that determines an uncaused effect to occur at any place, any time and any condition.
If however there is a tendency for effects (which we described as "uncaused" ) to occur at this place, but not that place, or this moment, but not that moment, or under this condition, but not that condition, then it seems that the "uncaused" effect is determined by something, which is contradictionary, since uncaused effects can not be determined by anything.

But if that were the case, we might ask how it could be that caused effects could exist, because uncaused effects would occur all the time, at all places and under all circumstances, UNLESS this IS determined by something. However BY DEFINITION uncaused effects are not determined by anything.

This means that either there exists caused effects and all effects are causal, or everything is uncausal. That would however mean that everything is undeterminable, it would be a world which we could not have knowledge about.

This reasoning does not forbid there to be quantum fluctuations I guess, since this is a very limited effect, for example a small life time for particle/anti-article pair, there is appearantly a limited amount (determined by the Heizenberg uncertainty relationship) of "free" energy, which on average is zero.

Uncaused effects, if they could exist, would have much weirder properties, for example uncaused particles (without the accompanying anti-particle) and massive violations of energy/mass conservation and quantum number.

So I guess, there are determinations for those effects, therefore they are not uncaused.

with all the talk on virtual particles, radioactive decay, proton decay , all the so called "intelligent talk" can u create life as we know it- atleast just a single cell organism, just mix all d particles and do sumtin otherwise accept d truth that God made Man.

[/b][b][/b][b][/b][b]

snthesis: with all the talk on virtual particles, radioactive decay, proton decay , all the so called "intelligent talk" can u create life as we know it- atleast just a single cell organism, just mix all d particles and do sumtin otherwise accept d truth that God made Man.

The real questions are "what is man"? and what is god?
Is God is just a generic term we use to fill a gap in our knowledge about origin?

There are an estimated 20 billion Suns in our milky way galaxie, and there are an estimated 35 billion galaxies in the universe, and it speculated that there are many universes layered on top of each other in this 3-dimensional reality.
The important questions are whether all are the creation of one or the manisfestations of one.
I have always maintained that the simply ascribing all creation to the work of an unknowable generic god and then worshiping such is a sort of copout and derelection of our responsiblity as thinking beings to investigate and search for the mysteries of our existence.In searching, we have to be able to open our minds to all possiblities, including the idea that the universe might not have needed a creator in the manner that we assume.
We must continue to ask" what is god?", a conscious being or just energy? If at the root of every atomic particle,there is consciousness( as has been theorized by physicists), then we can say that all of existence is the manifestations of consciousness, rather than saying that god is consciousness.
If On the hand, we say or accept the notion that electromagnetic energy is at the root of all existence, then we can also say that all existetence are the manifestations of energy rather than saying that god is energy or that god created energy.

If there is only one consciousness or energy whose manifestations give rise to the universe or uiverses,then that one source is embedded 100% in all of existence. Therefore, there would be no need for a creator or to create since all there is, and all there could be, already is.
The idea of a creator, in my mind, is therefore null and void.

The problem with those who suscribe to this notion of a creator is that they seek, and in most cases, synthesize a being whom they can they can award the grand honour of fashioning the universe, and then, they tactfully evade the questions about the source and nature of such a being, usually by invoking such phrases as "self-created being", "uncaused cause" and other self-contradictory terms.

Let us add more big big grammar. It was "directed panspermia"!

Even the dunce Dawkins realised how bad that one is that he quickly moved to dissociate himself after evidently putting it forward as the basis of origin of life on earth.

plaetton: [/b][b][/b][b][/b][b]

The real questions are "what is man"? and what is god?
Is God is just a generic term we use to fill a gap in our knowledge about origin?

There are an estimated 20 billion Suns in our milky way galaxie, and there are an estimated 35 billion galaxies in the universe, and it speculated that there are many universes layered on top of each other in this 3-dimensional reality.
The important questions are whether all are the creation of one or the manisfestations of one.
I have always maintained that the simply ascribing all creation to the work of an unknowable generic god and then worshiping such is a sort of copout and derelection of our responsiblity as thinking beings to investigate and search for the mysteries of our existence.In searching, we have to be able to open our minds to all possiblities, including the idea that the universe might not have needed a creator in the manner that we assume.
We must continue to ask" what is god?", a conscious being or just energy? If at the root of every atomic particle,there is consciousness( as has been theorized by physicists), then we can say that all of existence is the manifestations of consciousness, rather than saying that god is consciousness.


















If On the hand, we say or accept the notion that electromagnetic energy is at the root of all existence, then we can also say that all existetence are the manifestations of energy rather than saying that god is energy or that god created energy.

If there is only one consciousness or energy whose manifestations give rise to the universe or uiverses,then that one source is embedded 100% in all of existence. Therefore, there would be no need for a creator or to create since all there is and all there could be already is.
The idea of a creator, in my mind, is therefore null and void.

The problem with those who suscribe to this notion of a creator is that they seek, and in most cases, synthesize a being whom they can they can award the grand honour of fashioning the universe, and then, they tactfully evade the questions about the source and nature of such a being, usually by invoking such phrases as "self-created being", "uncaused cause" and other self-contradictory terms.

whew!!! long post, cant you guys just keep it simple.

what is Man? that is a name the Human specie calls itself.
What is God? God is Defined as a Creator, a Maker.

as i stated b4:
if a creature was not self created it implies it was made, it has a Maker , a God.
now if a creature is self Created, then it is a God unto itself.

now where does that leave Man
is Man a self Created Being?
if we are, it implies we are God(s)unto ourselves
but if we aren't, it implies we have a God.

Deep Sight:
I found this brilliant post made by someone on the physics forum i highlighted above -

I would argue that we are some misguided by thinking that uncaused effects exist, although some quantum mechanical events, look like it.

The argument is as follows: if uncaused effects could exist, then there would neither be any causes for them to not exist. If we would at some place, and at some time, and under some conditions see effects without causes, we would need to see them also at different place, time and under different conditions, because (as we defined) there is nothing that determines an uncaused effect to occur at any place, any time and any condition.
If however there is a tendency for effects (which we described as "uncaused" ) to occur at this place, but not that place, or this moment, but not that moment, or under this condition, but not that condition, then it seems that the "uncaused" effect is determined by something, which is contradictionary, since uncaused effects can not be determined by anything.

But if that were the case, we might ask how it could be that caused effects could exist, because uncaused effects would occur all the time, at all places and under all circumstances, UNLESS this IS determined by something. However BY DEFINITION uncaused effects are not determined by anything.

This means that either there exists caused effects and all effects are causal, or everything is uncausal. That would however mean that everything is undeterminable, it would be a world which we could not have knowledge about.

This reasoning does not forbid there to be quantum fluctuations I guess, since this is a very limited effect, for example a small life time for particle/anti-article pair, there is appearantly a limited amount (determined by the Heizenberg uncertainty relationship) of "free" energy, which on average is zero.

Uncaused effects, if they could exist, would have much weirder properties, for example uncaused particles (without the accompanying anti-particle) and massive violations of energy/mass conservation and quantum number.

So I guess, there are determinations for those effects, therefore they are not uncaused.

This has to be one of the most brilliant posts I have read on Nairaland so far!

Deep Sight: There have been many attempts by physcists to negate the fundamental idea of causality on which one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is hinged. It has been proposed that contrary to our common every-day observation, things may actually emerge uncaused out of nothingness. Although this idea is at odds with that which we observe everyday, some physists have argued that the following are examples of uncaused things/ processes which occur out of nothing -

1. Virtual particles in a quantum vacuum

2. Radioactive decay

3. Proton decay

I have discussed (1) above extensively on this forum and I am certain that it has been entirely debunked. In no way do virtual particles emerge "from nothing" - for the simple reason that the quantum vacuums referred to have been proven not to be perfect vacuums and in fact contain low gaseous pressure. And as such the argument that virtual particles emerge from nothing is absolutely false and mis-footed.

Now, I have not read all that much on (2) and (3) above and I would like those who propound or advance the "something from nothing" possibility to discuss (2) and (3) and let's see if they stand to reason.

From the little I read on Radio active decay, maybe I am daft o, but I cannot see how it in anyway presupposes anything uncaused or something from nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Half-life

Over to you, my Ogas.

This is a perfect example of a post designed to inflame rather than illuminate!

Is the poster familiar with the principle's of physics?

I doubt it. Because if he were he would know that the basic laws of physics, as we know them today, will have to be replaced by new laws and our texts rewritten.

I think @poster is suffering from insomnia and is looking for company.

Something from nothing

Get a life, Man.

^^

I dont think you understand the argument he is trying to make