BPsite Forums

Me and Blake had a discussion on the ontological principle "whatever begins to exist has a cause for it's existence" which he attempted to give either evidence against or possibilities for the principle to be flawed.

The reason I'm making a separate thread is because this has nothing at all to do with God - in fact, it's a million miles away from the other thread.  This has to do with the principle and nothing else.  I thought this section of the discussion worthy enough to continue.

I typed to Blake, basically that:

"It's impossible for the principle to be flawed.  How can something begin to exist without some sort of productive, sustaining cause?  The only alternative is that it came into existence uncaused from and by pure nothingness, which is absurdity".

Blake gave this as an example from something existing without a cause:


I've talked with several friends about this (in particular, the editor for LeadershipU) and we've come to this conclusion:

The situation you describe concerning the hydrogen spin flip (21-cm) radiation occurs in very cold regions of space. The spin-flip is a very low energy transition which can only occur in the coldest of regions.   Hydrogen, in any of the excited states, can absorb energy from the environment causing the electron to jump to a higher state. While it is true that the nebular regions are very low density of matter, it is not interactions with matter that cause atoms to transition into higher states. An electron in a hydrogen atom must absorb energy in the form of a photon to become excited. The regions of nebulae are intermixed with stars that pump out lots of photons with which hydrogen atoms can absorb.

Once an atom becomes excited, its natural tendency is to be at the lowest level of energy. If an atom absorbs a photon to become excited, if no other energy is available to keep it excited, it will give off energy and fall to a lower energy state (or even to ground state). If it helps, you can think of it as you holding a rubber band in the stretched state. The longer you hold it, the more tired you get. Eventually, you'll let go and the rubber band will return to its unstretched position (its ground state). It will stay there unless more energy is available to excite theatom. The amount of radiation that it gives off is dependent on which excited state it jumps from (each state from ground to first excited to second excited, etc.) is a different amount. In the coldest regions of space, hydrogen can experience the spin-flip transition in which the electron achieves that lowest level of energy in the ground state (yes, quantum mechanics allows for 2 ground states).

So, in short, there actually is a cause. The cause is
the electron achieving the lowest energy level allowed
in the conditions where the electron exists.


Conclusion

I think it's best to stick with the ontological principle.  As C.S. Lewis writes,

"There never was a time when nothing existed; otherwise nothing would exist now."

We should stick with "whatever begins to exist must have a cause for it's existence".


Comments/Criticisms  :P

I'll come back when I have a physics degree...

why would you bother getting a physics degree?

you people think to much.

blake is sexy.

i'm done now.

I don't think that electron example is relevent to the issue.  How does it prove anything about existence?  :miffed:

I took chemistry a few years ago (and don't remember it all), but I think that an electron excited by an outside force moves to a higher energy level, then immediatly falls back down, emitting a photon of light.  :mellow:  

I think so too.  I don't think Spawn remembers that most of us are still mindless teenagers.

The example was supposed to show something coming into existence uncaused, which is in direct violation of an ontological principle me and Blake were discussing.  It was up to me to show the example either flawed or misunderstood.  It proves that there is a cause in the spin-flip transition.

i lqaughed form the moment i saw this topic. you say its far away from the god topic but it is so so easily linked and not in your favour

This has nothing to do with God; hence why I haven't introduced God.  This has to do with an ontological principle that agnostics and even most atheists embrace and defend as I do.

indeed and i see your point. but this could spawn to any number of things. in the level of education we just finished it was said several times that the atomic level is the lowest level of the universe which  frankly is annoying because you think "what are protons electrons and neutrons made up of?" then what makes up those and agian and again. which brings us to infinity that well....hurts really, put infinity into a real life context and you can do your brain serious damage

Yeah, I understand, but you'll have to trust me that I'm not going to bring it into any type of religious discussion.  I'm already in too many at other forums, anyway.

I wouldn't bug you guys that bad. ;)

I thought protons and neutrons were made of quarks.

i think quarks are fairly hypothetical

Protons, neutrons, electrons, etc are made up of things like gluons, quarks, and a few more miniscule particles.  I've learned (for now) that they are the lowest level of matter.  ;)

Spawn- just a question: would Creationism support or deny the ontological  principle?   :unsure:  

I'd have to type a really long and off-subject reply to that question.  I'm wanting it to stay just on the subject of whether or not the principle is true.  

I can send you a reply through PM, though.

Why can't it ever be a short reply? j/k  Sure, send it over, but gimme a few days to read it all!  :P  LOL

Are there any other examples you know of that disprove the principle, though?  :miffed:

WOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!  5,000th POST!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I feel like stating the obvious... :P)


I think that's overly complicated.
"whatever" = any/every
"begins to exist" = action
"cause for it's existence" = cause of an action

Or in simple words: Every action must have a cause.

But what would the cause be? You cause something to happen by enacting it - ie: with an action.

So: Every action is caused by an action.

And to reverse that and put it into rather familiar terms:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's First Law, I think?

But anyway, the whole "you can't get something from nothing", in strict terms, is (to me) so blatantly true that anyone asking for proof of it is just being ridiculous.

Sure, there will be plenty of times when it appears to be false - when things seem to come from nothing - but all that means is that we couldn't detect the cause.

As for the inevitable yet redundant religious debate: Anyone thinking the statement can prove or disprove the existance of a god is being a fool.
God might or might not exist. The statement being true doesn't prove that either way. If the statement was false, it still wouldn't prove it either way.


As for what the smallest unit of existance is - it is whatever the most powerful microscope in existance can detect. ;)

lanair! you got your 5000th post and you didn't make a custom title yet? for shame! :P

*glances expectantly at SS*  :)

"As for what the smallest unit of existance is - it is whatever the most powerful microscope in existance can detect."  -Niiiiiiice.  LOL  

Hence, why this isn't a religious discussion and won't be. ;)


Not complicated at all.  It's just like saying "From nothing, nothing comes", but in different words.


Believe it or not a growing number of atheists are actually taking the position that something can begin to exist from absolute nothingness.  A physicist friend of mine actually believes this, but he doesn't use proof to defend his reasoning.  Heck, I can't help, but ask for proof when someone posits such a thing.  


Lanair,

I'm in a few discussions at Planet Wisdom with some rather annoying young earth creationists, so you're going to have to give me some time until I type that PM up.  Sorry.