FROM NOTHING, NOTHING COMESIf you are interested spontaneous de-excitation, the example that comes to my mind is the hyperfine (or spin-flip) transition that occurs in hydrogen gas in nebulae. The gas is thin enough that atoms rarely collide, so if an electron gets knocked up to a higher energy state, it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause, it simply falls back down. This gives the 21 cm (if I'm remembering the number right) emission line which we can use to look at the interiors of nebulae.
I’ve searched my heart out, but I can’t find that in any well-known atheistic philosopher’s argument, so I have to ask you for a link to a credible scientist proposing this as true or a scientifically reviewed paper would be nice. All of the articles I’ve read have explained all of what you typed; except for the “it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause”. What I do read is that the electrons fall back down to a lower energy level “spontaneously”. Spontaneity is in every scientifically reviewed paper I’ve read so far; nothing else.
This is a word that you’ve been using rather strangely. You seem to define it as “coming from nothing”, which isn’t the definition. The definitions are thus:
(1) Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
(2) Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
(3) Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior.
None of these mean “coming from nothing”. Something happening spontaneously as in (self-generated, natural inclination or impulse, or unconstrained and unstudied in manner and behavior). There’s no reason to define spontaneous as “coming from nothing”.
This is why none of the big dawgs of atheism bring that example up in their literature or live debates.
My physicist friend is yet to reply at that thread I started up, so I apologize for the wait. I’m already sure he’ll agree with me, though; except with more of a response.
None of the scientific laws we know can be counted on to hold outside our universe, so any argument based on observations from our universe proves nothing. That includes the electron de-excitation argument, but I never claimed that it proves that the universe came about without a cause. It does show that such considerations are not unreasonable, however.
I’m glad you admit it includes the electron de-excitation argument, but I think you understate the implications. You typed that “any argument based on observations proves [nothing]”. If it proves nothing, then it doesn’t even prove that your argument is reasonable. Nothing is nothing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The first sentence is true to an extent - I.e. if we’re attempting to evaluate the first cause (like it’s characteristics) according to scientific laws. This isn’t what I’m doing, though. I’m noting the first event (an effect) coming into existence from either something or nothing and questioning it. The first event is to be judged according to scientific laws like cause and effect.
What I have shown quite well is that it is not unreasonable to suggest something could happen without a cause.
I digress with the “quite well”, of course. All I see is one proof, thus far, that’s falling apart quickly.
You typed: it is possible to understand things we can't see or test.
I typed: That's… Flat Earth defense #1
You typed back:[/b] What I have shown quite well is that it is not unreasonable to suggest something could happen without a cause.
Your last response has nothing to do with mine. I realize what you are attempting to show. I’m pointing out that, if you say it is possible to understand things we can’t see or test, then you’re taking in the Flat Earth defense. They’ve typed the same thing in reply to me before.
Kent Hovind clearly lacks an understanding of logic. The concept of a counterexample is quite familiar to me as a math student, so I do know what I'm talking about here. One piece of evidence that can be interpreted in any number of ways proves nothing. You can't prove that the Earth is young by counterexample, because there is only one planet in question. If there where many Earth's, you could disprove the statement "All Earths are old" by finding a single young one, but you can't do it the way Hovind tries to.
Check this out:
“You can’t prove that the Earth is old by counterexample, because there is only one planet in question. If there were many Earth’s, you could disprove the statement “All Earths are young” by finding a single one, but you can’t do it the way old earth scientists do.”
I’m not twisting your words to make you say something you aren’t (to the other posters here), but am engaging in some fun parody to make a point. Blake, if you take in your quote as true, then it is to be applied to old earth scientists also.
You can't prove that the Earth is young by counterexample, because there is only one planet in question. If there where many Earth's, you could disprove the statement "All Earths are old" by finding a single young one, but you can't do it the way Hovind tries to
That sounds like something straight out of a textbook, but applied to the wrong subject (it might fit in math, but not here). There doesn’t have to exist a lot of earths in order to determine whether or not this earth is young… I don’t know where that came from. The fact is that there is just one Earth (this Earth) and we can use scientific dating methods to determine the date. That is what scientists do, btw.
Hovind disagrees, though. He says, “I’ll grant you all of the evidence for an old earth, while all I have to do is provide one example of a young earth”. This is exactly what you typed. You typed, “all you need is one case where P is not true (called a counterexample) to disprove P”. Sorry, but a counterexample won’t help you out, just as it won’t help Hovind out. It’s not to be used in this subject, because we’re speaking of the ability to have a tenable, true belief. Why should I regard Hovind’s belief, and yours, as anywhere close to true when you think yours is more reasonable just because you offer up one single evidence in opposition to several which?
My atheist friend hasn’t replied yet, but a well-learned apologetist (theologian and philosopher, in particular) has (Tarmac). I told him that I can deal with the proof, but asked him to give more of a philosophical response and overall-dealing of the proof. He typed in response to proofs in opposition to the ontological principle “out of nothing, nothing comes“,
“No, it does not. And anyone who suggests that it does, does not really understand the topic at hand, or the philosophical position they are suggesting. John Polkinghorne's
Quantum Theory - a very short Introduction OUP (May 2002) is a good place to start.
As philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider complains,
it is "in head–on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, that out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has
proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well–advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." (Bernulf Kanitscheider,
Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning? in Studies on Mario Bung’s
Treatise, ed. P. Weingartner and G. J. W. Doen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), p. 344)
The notion of spontaneous generation of "something" from "nothing" is odd, awkward and simply untenable [in the absolute sense with no agent]. Despite many atheists thorough conviction that this is in fact the case, it lacks evidential and philosophical support.
Nothing and Non-Existence: The Transcendence of Science by W. Turner is a good, though complex, book on this topic.
It appears atheists basically refuse to accept the natural conclusion that their is an ontologically independent entity which is eternal, powerful and knowledgeable enough to create ex nihilo. God [the being currently being described] is the best and most plausible explanation for the origin, contingency and design of both the laws of physics and the universe.
Other explanations that appeal to the creation of "something" from "nothing" merely beg the question and refuse the best answer.”
GOD’S CREATION OF THE UNIVERSELanair, I replied to that question with:
“(1) I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).
(2) I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense). I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them. Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?”
If the universe can come into magically come into existence by someone thinking about it, why can't it spontaneously come into existence without a thought? It seems a lot more far-fetched to me to say that God's thoughts somehow turned into reality.
In regards to the first question, it can’t spontaneously (whatever you mean by that) come into existence because it doesn’t beat the theistic position when it comes to
1. Explanatory scope
2. Explanatory power
3. Plausibility
4. Less ad hoc
5. Accord with accepted beliefs
6. Comparative superiority"
To the second question: it’s not far-fetched at all when realizing we’re talking about an omnipotent God. If we can produce images, then all he’d have to do is make those images reality; hence His omnipotence.
I think I pretty much covered all of it by pointing out that creation lacks a scientific explanation.
Erm… science doesn’t deal with anything before the first event. That’s more of a philosophical discussion; metaphysics. As far as when the first event came about, the God hypothesis isn’t lacking a scientific explanation at all. We’re discussing one evidence now with more to come, so the science is definitely there.
Most of the greatest minds in science were believers in some type of God - Isaac Newton, Louis Agassiz (greatest natural scientist of his day), Richard Feynman, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Kepler, … The list would be terribly long. I’m not appealing to authority, but am pointing out that these very scientifically trustworthy individuals saw no contradictions between God and science or that either of them lacked any type of explanation. There are also plenty of atheistic and agnostic scientists who would disagree with that statement from yourself. God is getting much more attention from science and other fields than in the past 150 years.
As far as picking the best explanation goes, theism not only passes the 6-part test, but surpasses those in opposition to it also.
Suppose God is the only logical explanation for the formation of the universe.
Then there are two possibilities:
1. He made it from nothing.
In this case, there is no reason to assume that a cause (God) was even necessary*, so we don't need to assume that God made the universe, and thus we arrive at a contradiction.
2. He made it from something.
In this case, there was something there already, and so we can't assume that it wasn't just a matter of cause and effect. In other words, we can't assume that God was the only way the universe could have reached its present state from something that was already there, and thus we arrive at a contradiction.
Thus God is not the only logical explanation.
1. I noted the difference between something coming from nothing and something coming from nothing by an omnipotent something else. You type in response, “The difference is not as big as you would like to think”. Well, at least you recognize there is a difference between the two. Why are they grouped together when you admit they are different?
2. If this “something” was internal (as we’re discussing now), then this fails also.
In other words, we can't assume that God was the only way the universe could have reached its present state from something that was already there, and thus we arrive at a contradiction.
I haven’t assumed this, though.
BRANE THEORYUnproven ideas with a scientific basis.
I never said that anybody proved it, but it is closer to being proven than the God theory. I am not devoted to any particular theory at the moment, btw.
How can it be anywhere near being proven when it is based off of unproven ideas - I.e. it’s merely an unproven idea based off of an unproven idea.
So far, I’m yet to see it being closer to being proven than the God hypothesis. The problem with the Brane Theory is that it has
no supporting evidence (even it’s proponents admit this, as I’ve shown), while the God hypothesis has plenty of supporting evidence. Probably the greatest atheistic philosopher of the last hundred years or so, J.L. Mackie, believed theism has supporting evidence… he just discounts it on an epistemological basis. So, at the very least, theism does have evidence pointing towards it, while the Brane theory has only unproven ideas (zip).
When I say I wouldn't call the de-excitation example a proof, I mean that it doesn't prove that the universe could have come about spontaneously. It does prove that not everything has a cause in our universe. If you want to send something to your friends, I would recommend sending them the formal argument I presented.
As I showed above, the universe arising spontaneously and "from nothing" are two different things (see
here). I have already explained that to my friends through PM's before they made the thread at Planet Wisdom. I'm sure they knew of it already, because they've debated the issue before.
