Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit v. Virtual Particles

tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 12:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think you may be able to argue the laws of quantum mechanics and the vacuum are the cause of the virtual particles. By David Lewis' theory of causation, if the laws of QM didn't exist, neither would the virtual particles, therefore the laws of QM caused the particles.

This may save the principle since nonexistence isn't the cause.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 12:24:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 12:20:47 PM, n7 wrote:
I think you may be able to argue the laws of quantum mechanics and the vacuum are the cause of the virtual particles. By David Lewis' theory of causation, if the laws of QM didn't exist, neither would the virtual particles, therefore the laws of QM caused the particles.

This may save the principle since nonexistence isn't the cause.

True. I think best response to ex nihilo nihil fit would be everything except universe, since (1) fallacy of composition, (2) time directionality & physical constraint aren't present, so causes aren't required.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

The common response is "oh, that's not really nothing, there's still space. QM is such an internet argument"
'Nothing' arguably refers to the literal absence of matter/energy, spacetime, everything. But understood like that, I don't know whether we can make sense of it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

A virtual particle is really just a temporary violation of the conservation of energy. It is a real thing and they arise in a net zero energy condition, but they arise within space time. We don't really know what exactly space time is or what may or may not be able to exist outside of space time. It does appear that space time is something though.

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:49:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

I don't think so. Virtual particles don't come into existence out of nothing.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:50:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 12:20:47 PM, n7 wrote:
By David Lewis' theory of causation, if the laws of QM didn't exist, neither would the virtual particles, therefore the laws of QM caused the particles.

I'm not sure I agree with that because the laws of nature describe reality. They don't actually cause anything.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:52:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 12:24:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:20:47 PM, n7 wrote:
I think you may be able to argue the laws of quantum mechanics and the vacuum are the cause of the virtual particles. By David Lewis' theory of causation, if the laws of QM didn't exist, neither would the virtual particles, therefore the laws of QM caused the particles.

This may save the principle since nonexistence isn't the cause.

True. I think best response to ex nihilo nihil fit would be everything except universe, since (1) fallacy of composition,

It's only the fallacy of composition if somebody argues that because everything in the universe has a cause that therefore the whole universe has a cause.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:54:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

The common response is "oh, that's not really nothing, there's still space. QM is such an internet argument"
'Nothing' arguably refers to the literal absence of matter/energy, spacetime, everything. But understood like that, I don't know whether we can make sense of it.

The coming into existence from nothing doesn't entail that nothing at all exists. It only entails that whatever comes into existence doesn't do so from pre-existing material. If something were to suddenly and spontaneously come into existence right now, and if none of the material it is made out of existed prior to its coming into existence, then that would be an example of something coming into existence out of nothing. The "out of nothing" doesn't mean a universal state of nothingness; rather, it means not out of anything that already exists.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:55:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"

Nothing isn't a "thing" at all, so I don't see why this is a sensible question in the first place.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:03:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:55:59 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"

Nothing isn't a "thing" at all, so I don't see why this is a sensible question in the first place.

fine, change it to, Is there such a state in which nothing exists.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:05:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:03:16 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:55:59 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"

Nothing isn't a "thing" at all, so I don't see why this is a sensible question in the first place.

fine, change it to, Is there such a state in which nothing exists.

That's a legitimate question, but it's irrelevant to question of whether it's possible for something to come into existence out of nothing since "out of nothing" doesn't entail that nothing at all existed before something came into existence. It just means that what came into existence didn't do so out of what previously existed.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 6:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:49:37 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

I don't think so. Virtual particles don't come into existence out of nothing.
I'm not so sure that's correct

"Even in a perfect vacuum"a region of space containing neither matter nor energy"particle-antiparticle pairs (such as an electron and its antiparticle opposite, the positron) constantly appear and disappear in a time span too short to observe. Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing"not even from energy" it so happens that no laws of physics are violated because the particle is annihilated by its corresponding antiparticle before either one can be detected"
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:41:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:05:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:03:16 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:55:59 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"

Nothing isn't a "thing" at all, so I don't see why this is a sensible question in the first place.

fine, change it to, Is there such a state in which nothing exists.

That's a legitimate question, but it's irrelevant to question of whether it's possible for something to come into existence out of nothing since "out of nothing" doesn't entail that nothing at all existed before something came into existence. It just means that what came into existence didn't do so out of what previously existed.

Well if there was nothing at all then the energy content would add up to 0 (there would be 0 energy). However, even with a universe, scientists believe that all the energy adds up to 0 anyway, as the positive energy balances out the negative energy perfectly. So this is one way one can get a universe without needing any previous energy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:46:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As far as virtual particles go, I feel that some equation, laws, or vacuum or something has to exist or be describing a state of affairs in order for these fluctuation to exist, but that at the same time, they don't come from any previously existing energy or stuff. So, virtual particles still have a necessary cause but they materialize without having to draw from any positive energy source. This does nothing to support the claim that the universe can come into being out of nothing without any cause once so ever. Even if a basketball popped into existence randomly right now without being drawn from any previous stuff or any sufficient cause, space would still be required for the ball to exist, and would thus be a necessary cause. So, even if we saw random things pop into existence in our everyday all the time that wouldn't support the claim that the universe could come into being without any cause at all.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 4:04:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:05:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:03:16 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:55:59 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"

Nothing isn't a "thing" at all, so I don't see why this is a sensible question in the first place.

fine, change it to, Is there such a state in which nothing exists.

That's a legitimate question, but it's irrelevant to question of whether it's possible for something to come into existence out of nothing since "out of nothing" doesn't entail that nothing at all existed before something came into existence. It just means that what came into existence didn't do so out of what previously existed.

How could it be irrelevant? If there is no such state as "nothing" whether define how you just defined it as a cause or defined as an absence of anything it then it is just a nonsensical statement regardless if something exists in a different place/time than the "nothing"

In other terms "nothing" is an imaginary construct and there never has nor never will be nothing.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 4:27:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:04:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:05:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:03:16 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:55:59 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"

Nothing isn't a "thing" at all, so I don't see why this is a sensible question in the first place.

fine, change it to, Is there such a state in which nothing exists.

That's a legitimate question, but it's irrelevant to question of whether it's possible for something to come into existence out of nothing since "out of nothing" doesn't entail that nothing at all existed before something came into existence. It just means that what came into existence didn't do so out of what previously existed.

How could it be irrelevant?

I just explained why it's irrelevant. As I said, it's irrelevant because "'out of nothing' doesn't entail that nothing at all existed before something came into existence. It just means that what came into existence didn't do so out of what previously existed."

Nothing, in this context, means "not anything." In other words, when something comes into existence out of nothing, that doesn't mean there's a state of affairs in which nothing existed, then something came into existence. Rather, it means that something comes into existence, and there isn't anything that it came into existence out of. Or, in other words, it isn't made of any previously existing material. So, if a rabbit were to pop into existence right now, but the rabbit isn't made of any previously existing protons, neutrons, electrons, or whatever, and if all the protons, etc., also popped into existence, then that would be an example of something coming into existence out of nothing.

Think about it. The doctrine of creation ex-nihilo has been the standard Christian view of creation for nearly 2000 years. Yet no Christian ever stopped to think, "Oh wait a minute! If the universe came into existence ex-nihilo, then there must've been a state of affairs in which not even God existed, so he couldn't have created anything!" It isn't because Christians are stupid that this never occurred to them. It's because that's never been what Christians have meant by "creation ex nihilo."
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:53:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:27:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:04:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:05:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:03:16 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:55:59 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:12:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

The better question is whether there is even such a thing as "nothing"

Nothing isn't a "thing" at all, so I don't see why this is a sensible question in the first place.

fine, change it to, Is there such a state in which nothing exists.

That's a legitimate question, but it's irrelevant to question of whether it's possible for something to come into existence out of nothing since "out of nothing" doesn't entail that nothing at all existed before something came into existence. It just means that what came into existence didn't do so out of what previously existed.

How could it be irrelevant?

I just explained why it's irrelevant. As I said, it's irrelevant because "'out of nothing' doesn't entail that nothing at all existed before something came into existence. It just means that what came into existence didn't do so out of what previously existed."


Nothing, in this context, means "not anything." In other words, when something comes into existence out of nothing, that doesn't mean there's a state of affairs in which nothing existed, then something came into existence. Rather, it means that something comes into existence, and there isn't anything that it came into existence out of. Or, in other words, it isn't made of any previously existing material. So, if a rabbit were to pop into existence right now, but the rabbit isn't made of any previously existing protons, neutrons, electrons, or whatever, and if all the protons, etc., also popped into existence, then that would be an example of something coming into existence out of nothing.

Think about it. The doctrine of creation ex-nihilo has been the standard Christian view of creation for nearly 2000 years. Yet no Christian ever stopped to think, "Oh wait a minute! If the universe came into existence ex-nihilo, then there must've been a state of affairs in which not even God existed, so he couldn't have created anything!" It isn't because Christians are stupid that this never occurred to them. It's because that's never been what Christians have meant by "creation ex nihilo."

I'm not certain what you are missing here. You are agreeing with me. Let me repeat "NO STATE OF NOTHING EXISTS"! A Christian would very logically conclude that since the universe is something, something would have to exist to create the universe.

It however is no different than an Atheist Physicist. An atheist Physiscist would also assume that no state of "nothingness" exists or has ever existed thus something had to give arise to the universe.

The discussion then becomes what existed prior to the universe, not whether something did or didn't. In effect ex nilo adds zero value to philosophical discussion unless someone can prove a state of "nothingness" exists.

I might as well say nothing comes from giant purple Wachamachooses that lives on Mercury. So back to the OP virtual particles and current understanding of space time, they do render ex nilo inert and nonsensical.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:14:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:54:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

The common response is "oh, that's not really nothing, there's still space. QM is such an internet argument"
'Nothing' arguably refers to the literal absence of matter/energy, spacetime, everything. But understood like that, I don't know whether we can make sense of it.

The coming into existence from nothing doesn't entail that nothing at all exists. It only entails that whatever comes into existence doesn't do so from pre-existing material. If something were to suddenly and spontaneously come into existence right now, and if none of the material it is made out of existed prior to its coming into existence, then that would be an example of something coming into existence out of nothing. The "out of nothing" doesn't mean a universal state of nothingness; rather, it means not out of anything that already exists.
Fair enough. However if the universe was created then a universal state of nothingness had to "precede" it and I don't think we can make sense of that. We can hardly make any sense of the universe's earliest moments.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:45:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:14:58 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/19/2015 4:54:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

The common response is "oh, that's not really nothing, there's still space. QM is such an internet argument"
'Nothing' arguably refers to the literal absence of matter/energy, spacetime, everything. But understood like that, I don't know whether we can make sense of it.

The coming into existence from nothing doesn't entail that nothing at all exists. It only entails that whatever comes into existence doesn't do so from pre-existing material. If something were to suddenly and spontaneously come into existence right now, and if none of the material it is made out of existed prior to its coming into existence, then that would be an example of something coming into existence out of nothing. The "out of nothing" doesn't mean a universal state of nothingness; rather, it means not out of anything that already exists.
Fair enough. However if the universe was created then a universal state of nothingness had to "precede" it and I don't think we can make sense of that. We can hardly make any sense of the universe's earliest moments.

I think that is a legitimate critique.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 12:46:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As far as virtual particles go, I feel that some equation, laws, or vacuum or something has to exist or be describing a state of affairs in order for these fluctuation to exist, but that at the same time, they don't come from any previously existing energy or stuff. So, virtual particles still have a necessary cause but they materialize without having to draw from any positive energy source. This does nothing to support the claim that the universe can come into being out of nothing without any cause once so ever. Even if a basketball popped into existence randomly right now without being drawn from any previous stuff or any sufficient cause, space would still be required for the ball to exist, and would thus be a necessary cause. So, even if we saw random things pop into existence in our everyday all the time that wouldn't support the claim that the universe could come into being without any cause at all.

Are your views on the KCA still the same or have they changed?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 9:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 12:46:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As far as virtual particles go, I feel that some equation, laws, or vacuum or something has to exist or be describing a state of affairs in order for these fluctuation to exist, but that at the same time, they don't come from any previously existing energy or stuff. So, virtual particles still have a necessary cause but they materialize without having to draw from any positive energy source. This does nothing to support the claim that the universe can come into being out of nothing without any cause once so ever. Even if a basketball popped into existence randomly right now without being drawn from any previous stuff or any sufficient cause, space would still be required for the ball to exist, and would thus be a necessary cause. So, even if we saw random things pop into existence in our everyday all the time that wouldn't support the claim that the universe could come into being without any cause at all.

So what does it mean when a state of ex nihilo does not exist nor never existed?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 10:43:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:04:40 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/20/2015 12:46:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As far as virtual particles go, I feel that some equation, laws, or vacuum or something has to exist or be describing a state of affairs in order for these fluctuation to exist, but that at the same time, they don't come from any previously existing energy or stuff. So, virtual particles still have a necessary cause but they materialize without having to draw from any positive energy source. This does nothing to support the claim that the universe can come into being out of nothing without any cause once so ever. Even if a basketball popped into existence randomly right now without being drawn from any previous stuff or any sufficient cause, space would still be required for the ball to exist, and would thus be a necessary cause. So, even if we saw random things pop into existence in our everyday all the time that wouldn't support the claim that the universe could come into being without any cause at all.

Are your views on the KCA still the same or have they changed?

They are essentially the same. Even though I would say I believe in some sort of a God now, it most certainly isn't due to any arguments presented by William Craig. To be honest, you-tuber Johanan Raatz had the biggest impact on my current views. I still view the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a flawed argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 10:44:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 10:43:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:04:40 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/20/2015 12:46:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As far as virtual particles go, I feel that some equation, laws, or vacuum or something has to exist or be describing a state of affairs in order for these fluctuation to exist, but that at the same time, they don't come from any previously existing energy or stuff. So, virtual particles still have a necessary cause but they materialize without having to draw from any positive energy source. This does nothing to support the claim that the universe can come into being out of nothing without any cause once so ever. Even if a basketball popped into existence randomly right now without being drawn from any previous stuff or any sufficient cause, space would still be required for the ball to exist, and would thus be a necessary cause. So, even if we saw random things pop into existence in our everyday all the time that wouldn't support the claim that the universe could come into being without any cause at all.

Are your views on the KCA still the same or have they changed?

They are essentially the same. Even though I would say I believe in some sort of a God now, it most certainly isn't due to any arguments presented by William Lane Craig. To be honest, you-tuber Johanan Raatz had the biggest impact on my current views. I still view the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a flawed argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 10:46:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 9:53:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 12:46:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As far as virtual particles go, I feel that some equation, laws, or vacuum or something has to exist or be describing a state of affairs in order for these fluctuation to exist, but that at the same time, they don't come from any previously existing energy or stuff. So, virtual particles still have a necessary cause but they materialize without having to draw from any positive energy source. This does nothing to support the claim that the universe can come into being out of nothing without any cause once so ever. Even if a basketball popped into existence randomly right now without being drawn from any previous stuff or any sufficient cause, space would still be required for the ball to exist, and would thus be a necessary cause. So, even if we saw random things pop into existence in our everyday all the time that wouldn't support the claim that the universe could come into being without any cause at all.

So what does it mean when a state of ex nihilo does not exist nor never existed?

That "something" always existed.
Deucalion
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 9:47:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hmm... this is actually very closely related to a few arguments I just made in a debate on Ontological arguments for the existence of God, where I fight against the idea that nothing may come from nothing. If you are at all interested, as of June 25th it is still in the voting stages and any input would be well appreciated! Here is a link: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 5:54:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 12:02:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
Does an analogy of virtual particles really refute the Parmenidean ontological axiom "Ex nihilo nihil fit"?

Since virtual particles do require energy ...

Virtual Particles don't exist.

Only a hypocrite of amazing resolve would lack believe in any god/s and contest virtual particles exist.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 8:46:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Out of nothing comes nothing...................NAY!
You cannot have something without nothing!!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord