Are you thinking, perhaps, of ‘immutable’?
Do we have any examples, or any empirical evidence, for the statement that, in a naturally-occurring context, “something can come from nothing”? No.
So… a system of thought is ‘not fair’ because it can ask a question?
You are misunderstanding the term immovable, it does not mean unable to move it means that God cannot be moved by any outside force. The word that you are thinking of is immobile.
The “unmoved mover”, as it were. Yet, it’s important to understand what’s meant by ‘motion’ in that context…
As you grow in your relationship with God, you will know what it means. All the precision in defining existence, being, life, love, whatever, will mean nothing if you don’t know whom it is talking about. Unless you give, you don’t know love.
Yes, virtual particle are constantly produced and annihilated in space. You can read more about it here.
No, because it cannot answer the question.
Note that for a virtual particle to exist there must be a corresponding real particle so this does not fit the definition of something from nothing. Nice try though.
You can have virtual particle in vacuum too. That is how physicists believe in big bang as a quantum fluctuation.
A fluctuation of what? Please elaborate.
Quantum fluctuation is possible only by divinity.
As you say, it has been mentioned before on this thread. I dealt with it in post #123. If God is not alive in the usual sense, then we need to use a different word instead, to avoid the error of equivocation. I proposed “doshef”. The thread title then becomes: “God cannot explain the origin of doshef”, and some verses of the Bible will need to be rewritten to read “doshef” instead of “living”.
God cannot have created everything, since God did not create Himself. At most He can only have created everything except Himself. It also depends on what definition if “universe” we are using. In philosophical discussions I prefer to use “All That Exists” (ATE) as the definition of the universe. Obviously if an eternal God exists, then the ATE universe is also eternal and hence has no origin/creation.
A lot more than 30. We’ve had 500 more years to come up with strange sub-sects than Christians.
God is unable to move for different reasons. God is omnipresent, so He cannot move from A to B. He cannot leave A because He is always present at A. He cannot move to B because He is already at B and so can never arrive. He can never leave anywhere and He can never arrive anywhere. Movement is impossible for Him.
A fluctuation in the zero energy state of the continuum:
I agree.
Have you read St. Catherine of Siena, the Dialog, A treatise of Discretion? :”I am your God, immovable, who am not an Acceptor of persons, but of holy desire.”I can’t think of a single time I’ve ever heard a Catholic say, “God is immovable”…
According to the Nicene Creed, God came down from heaven and became man. Also, God responds to our prayers. BTW, generally speaking, do Buddhists believe in God or are many Buddhists agnostics? Who is God, according to Buddhist belief?
Hawking, and I don’t know if this would be his final word on the subject, goes to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that that his conclusion, which in fact constitutes the premise that the universe is in balance, is correct.
Everything in the universe is transient. It is always in flux. There is nothing eternal about the world since it will come to some end just as it began.
Yet, energy and momentum are conserved – in other words, it’s not that they pop out “from nothing” or go “to nothing”: there is energy before and after their appearance.
The problem is that you are assuming that there was a creation.