Virtual Particles Again

[Gorgias]

Did I say I demanded a standard of proof? I’m not sure I did.

Are you sure you didn’t? Let me refresh your memory:

Proof as in incontravertable evidence.

Yep. That sure looks like a standard to me…

But the chances that you will be a Christian are a hell of a lot smaller than you being a Hindu.

Ahh… so, it’s not a matter of influence, then, eh? Probability, maybe, but not the influence so much. After all, your description doesn’t address ‘influence’ so much as ‘effort’…

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for playing.

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks for playing.

If that’s the best you have to offer, though…

 

[Hope1960]

Can anybody tell me if virtual particles and subatomic particles are the same thing?

 

[Arkansan]

No. Virtual particles are (in practice) always what we would call subatomic particles, but the reverse is not true.

 

[Ioana]

I think there’s no point arguing against the cultural argument you are making because it is clearly true. That being said I think there’s waaaaaay more reason to be a Christian than anything else regardless of birth. To illustrate this idea let me ask you a question: What do you think about the historicity or lack thereof of the Ressurection and why?

 

[Bradskii]

I think there’s no point arguing against the cultural argument you are making because it is clearly true. That being said I think there’s waaaaaay more reason to be a Christian than anything else regardless of birth. To illustrate this idea let me ask you a question: What do you think about the historicity or lack thereof of the Ressurection and why?

May I answer your question with a question? If the resurrection involved another person deified in a different religion, would you grant it as much validity?

And if I may answer that for you in advance: No, you wouldn’t. Unless you had been brought up in a society that accepted it as factual.

 

[Gorgias]

May I answer your question with a question? If the resurrection involved another person deified in a different religion, would you grant it as much validity?

And if I may answer that for you in advance: No, you wouldn’t. Unless you had been brought up in a society that accepted it as factual.

red herring (complete with self-serving answer).

by that standard, there should be only one religion practiced in the U.S. No Islam, no Buddhism. (For that matter, no atheism.) Nope – only the religion which society accepts: Christianity, which was the basis of all the religious groups which founded society and undergirded it for centuries.

and yet… that’s not what we have, do we?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

May I answer your question with a question? If the resurrection involved another person deified in a different religion, would you grant it as much validity?

And if I may answer that for you in advance: No, you wouldn’t. Unless you had been brought up in a society that accepted it as factual.

red herring (complete with self-serving answer).

by that standard, there should be only one religion practiced in the U.S. No Islam, no Buddhism. (For that matter, no atheism.) Nope – only the religion which society accepts: Christianity, which was the basis of all the religious groups which founded society and undergirded it for centuries.

and yet… that’s not what we have, do we?

The number of Muslims from a non-Muslim background or Hindus from a non-Hindu background or Jews from a non-Jewish background (etc etc) are vanishingly small. That’s not a controversial statement. Would you agree?

 

[Gorgias]

The number of Muslims from a non-Muslim background or Hindus from a non-Hindu background or Jews from a non-Jewish background (etc etc) are vanishingly small. That’s not a controversial statement. Would you agree?

You left out Buddhists and atheists. Is that because they’re data points that don’t fit the curve?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The number of Muslims from a non-Muslim background or Hindus from a non-Hindu background or Jews from a non-Jewish background (etc etc) are vanishingly small. That’s not a controversial statement. Would you agree?

You left out Buddhists and atheists. Is that because they’re data points that don’t fit the curve?

We’re talking about what influences people to hold religious beliefs. Atheism doesn’t apply. And you could argue that Buddhism isn’t a religion but a philosophical position. Either way, the percentages of atheists in the US (3%?) and Bhuddists (1%?) are not going to affect the general trend.

Although I will agree that, in keeping with that general trend to follow the belief systems of the society in which you grow up, there would be a tendancy for the children of atheists to be atheists themselves. Although the relatively small ‘atheist society’ (which might only comprise a family unit) might well be overriden by the much larger religious society (be that Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc).

And again, I don’t think that I am stating anything controversial.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I find saying that X is the cause of virtual particles is, for my purposes, quite sufficient. Furthermore, I speculate that the cause of X is (+) or (-) infinity. Therefore, time, space, being and non-being are indistinct.

 

[Gorgias]

We’re talking about what influences people to hold religious beliefs. Atheism doesn’t apply.

Sure it does. I get your objection – “it’s not a belief, it’s a lack of belief” – but it’s a belief system that’s part of the whole “influence” structure you’re positing.

And you could argue that Buddhism isn’t a religion but a philosophical position.

You could, but you’d be wrong. Here in the U.S., it has that kind of rep, but in the East? Totally a religion…

Either way, the percentages of atheists in the US (3%?) and Bhuddists (1%?) are not going to affect the general trend.

if I may answer that for you in advance: No, you wouldn’t. Unless you had been brought up in a society that accepted it as factual.

You can see that these two statements are in conflict, right?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

We’re talking about what influences people to hold religious beliefs. Atheism doesn’t apply.

Sure it does. I get your objection – “it’s not a belief, it’s a lack of belief” – but it’s a belief system that’s part of the whole “influence” structure you’re positing.

And you could argue that Buddhism isn’t a religion but a philosophical position.

You could, but you’d be wrong. Here in the U.S., it has that kind of rep, but in the East? Totally a religion…

Either way, the percentages of atheists in the US (3%?) and Bhuddists (1%?) are not going to affect the general trend.

if I may answer that for you in advance: No, you wouldn’t. Unless you had been brought up in a society that accepted it as factual.

You can see that these two statements are in conflict, right?

As regards atheism, I have already agreed that there would be a tendancy to follow the society in which you live. Be it a small unit as in a family or a larger society like the Scandinavian countries. But in a country where there are overwhelming religious beliefs (the US or Indonesia for example) then those religious beliefs would keep the percentages of, for example atheists, to be a very small fraction of the overall population. Notwithstanding that there are obviously Muslim, Hindu and Jewish societies in the US but it doesn’t make sense to class atheists together in the same sense.

And if you want to class Buddhism as a religion in the east, then my point stands. If you grow up in a Buddhist society it is more likely than not that you will be a Buddhist.

 

[Ioana]

You mean emotionally or rationally? Rationally of course.

You didn’t answer my actual question though, just side-stepped it. Do you believe there was a Ressurection? Why or why not? If not how did Christianity take off? If you do not believe in the Ressurection you have a serious historical problem to explain. It isn’t unexplainable but you have to explain it. Christianity can be summed up by a guy standing up and saying

“Hey you know Jesus, they guy you crucified like 10 days ago or something like that? Well I saw Him risen and He’s the Son of God.” If there were no Jesus and no crucifixion you’d be called out on it. If there were a body to show you’d be called out on it. And if you knew you were lying you would not die for it.

file:///C:/Users/Ioana%20Raducanu/Downloads/The_Case_for_Christ_s_Resurrection.pdf
http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-more-likely-that-the-Resurrection-happened-than-that-it-didnt/1/
http://www.annunciation-ottawa.org/...n to Believe 20/The Resurrection of Jesus.pdf

Please answer to the arguments presented in the documents below. I am dead curious to hear what you have to say. If the guy who got ressurected had a different set of morals and wasn’t called Jesus yeah he’d be worth paying attention to. Assuming that your argument is correct and I am more likely to be Christian because of the culture I grew up in… so what? I’d be more likley to be Orthodox. Christianity would also be a Jewish only thing. You argument is blatantly true, religion is clearly influenced by culture but that doesn’t prove anything. I don’t have to argue with eveyr argument that you bring just for the sake of being contrary to you, I agree with you. Religion is influenced by culture. Once again this isn’t a big deal at all, it doesn’t prove much. The arguments about the historicity of the Ressurection… they do prove something though. I urge you to read them, especially the third link.

 

[Bradskii]

Obvioulsy I don’t believe in the resurrection. Otherwise I would be a Christian. And it’s obviously because I don’t think that any evidence that has been presented is strong enough.

A handful of people are reported to have seen something briefly over two thousand years ago (and the reports of it are written decades after the event) and you suggest that I should believe it. So what if something is seen by hundreds of thousands in recent memory for a period over three years and is even photographed, then it must be 100% true. In one case it is Jesus who makes an appearance and in the other it is Mary.

Even Catholic priests believe the second (albeit Coptic Catholics) yet you might not even have heard of it. But by your own standards, you must believe it. You have no choice.

Can you explain why we have two standards of proof required in regard to the appearances of Jesus and the Virgin Mary?

I might suggest it’s that you have no choice, as a Christian, as to whether the first is true or not. You cannot be a Christian and deny it. Yet you can in the second. It makes no difference. Yet the evidence is so much stronger by orders of magnitude.

The only conclusion to be made is that the evidence isn’t important. It can, and will be discounted except where it defines your belief. Then whatever is presented MUST be true.

 

[Ioana]

Have you read the documents I inserted? Read the third document, actually try to read it and you will soon realize that not believing in the Ressurection does mean you need to call more than 2 people a little crazy. I don’t have enough characters of time but if you aren’t afraid of it being true going through the document for maybe 15 minutes at most won’t hurt.

Yes the Gospels were written decades (a few decades mostly) after the events but that is irrelevant. They claimed things verbally way before anything was written down and if they were lying about some points it would have been sooooooo easy to call them out. l

I choose to become a Christian. I didn’t want to at first. In fact I was heavily resistant to it. I didn’t want to be convinced, I just gave it a fair shot and didn’t like it when I ended up convinced. I did not grow up in a heavily religious household and maybe went to church 10 times in my whole life before I made a choice to convert (interior wise) and most of those were for way less than 30 min.

YOU don’t have to believe anything. Christianity stands or falls on the Ressurection. Forget Marian apparitions and dogmas of any sort and Biblical verses people don’t like, those are fluff. I can’t prove the Ressurection with an 100% certainty but I can play a game of odds with you and show that it is much more likely to have happened than not. I mean really consider what the Early Christians were claiming, when and where. Consider how their actions (aka martyrdom) prove sincerity and rare conviction. Then read that document.

If you can actually read it and bring me good counter arguments (keep in my mind I am arguing high likelihood not certainty) I’ll be really really really impressed.

As for your main argument which I admit I don’t fully register but basically what I get is:

“You are biased, evidence does not matter and you’ll only take evidence when it suits you.”

Ok, fine then. You should have no problem taking down my argument and evidence. I’m literally declaring that evidence DOES matter right now. Don’t argue with me based on “you are biased because of your culture. You are biased because of what you already believe.” argue with me based on my actual argument and try to see it how I see it as a rational being. Yes now I am biased for Christianity but there was a time when I was biased against. That means squat, cut the fluff and take the substance out mate.

You aren’t afraid you’ll be persuaded… are you?

If you are (hypothetically) so what? It doesn’t make you any less clever it just makes you somebody who isn’t stuck in any particular bias. Only a biased person would dance around the actual point because their opponent is biased for reason x and y and z and therefore they won’t even look at what the opposition is saying.

As for the role of evidence in faith sometimes the CC requires evidence for stuff like miracles to try to avoid people using the name of the CC to cash out on lies, that’s why and also for canonizations. Faith isn’t 100% blind but that is another debate… answer my points. I challange you

 

[Bradskii]

Gee, the first page I scan says that the gospels were written in the same place and at the same time as the events they are reporting.

Where did you get this pdf? For example, the gospel giving the report of the resurrection, known as Mark’s is, in the first instance, anonymous. That is, we do not know who wrote it. But it was almost certainly written decades after the resurrection and almost certainly written in Syria. Over 1,000 kilometres away.

And it is accepted that it has used parables, oral accounts and prophesy in hindsight to paint a picture of Jesus in the best possible light.

Look, you aren’t to know this. But I have spent many years on this forum with posts running in excess of 6,000. I have heard all the arguments and replied in detail to all of them. I’m not really inclined to revisit questions like ‘did the resurrection really happen’. I have called back in after a few months away to see if there was anything new and interesting. ‘Prove that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead’ is not going to raise my interest levels a great deal.

My apologies for that.

 

[mytruepower2]

Some people believe that the universe came into existence without God. Do virtual particles come into being out of nothing or do they come into being out of something?

Virtual particles don’t come into existence from nothing. They come from what’s called the “quantum vaccuum state;” a sea of moving energy with physical laws that it follows, which is definitely not “nothing.”

 

[Hope1960]

Virtual particles don’t come into existence from nothing. They come from what’s called the "quantum vaccuum state; a sea of moving energy with physical laws that it follows, which is definitely not “nothing.”

So are virtual particles caused or uncaused by this quantum vacuum state? Caused, correct?