Virtual Particles Again

[mytruepower2]

mytruepower2:

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?

Yes. Caused. In the sense that without the quantum vacuum state and the empty space and vacuum energy in it, they wouldn’t come into existence.

 

[Ioana]

Quite frankly you are uninterested in the argument. The point is that the Gospels for the most part were not written long after they are reporting and that Christianity started out in Jerusalem, the place of the events that the Gosepls describe. This is true, not only are the Gospels in close proximity to the events they describe (this is a world where Plutarch can write about Alexander the Great hundreds of years after his death) but Early Christianity is in mega close proximity, time and space to the events it claims happened. The apostles didn’t stand up in Jerusalem and say “100 years ago this happened…” They stood up and said “recently this happened (as you all here present could know) and then I claim X happened after (which you all could easily refute”. Yes they wrote things down in different places 20 years or so after when they started to get more organized but whh would we believe the sustance of what they said in Jerusalem in 33AD is different from 51AD and why would they die for such inconsistency? If you are not going to reply to the substance of this argument fine, I really wanted somebody to. How do you think Early Christianity started and spread then? I don’t see any factual inaccuracy in the document but if you do so and it helps your counter argument go on! Actually give it a fair shot. The point is not about the just about the NT itself but about the early claims of Christianity which are very likely to have been the same as the rundown of claims we get in the NT. Why didn’t somebody produce a body to end this whole mess? Were they all lying? Were they all crazy?If you have debated this before as you claim give me a short run-down of the argument and rebuttal. I mean please do it for me mate because otherwise it looks like you are running away…

 

[Cone]

One’s belief system might be a function of where and when one was born, but the answer to the question “where did the universe come from?” is not. It was either created by God or it wasn’t. It is a matter of objective truth, not a function of the accident of one’s birth.

 

[Bradskii]

A Hindu might have some disagreement with that.

I think what you meant was: ‘It was either created by the God in which I believe or it wasn’t’. But then one cannot appreciate that truism unless one steps outside of religious beliefs and looks at the question anew. Something that is probably not going to be applicable to you.

And you and I have something in common. Neither of us believe it was created by any of the gods in which we don’t believe.

 

[Cone]

Sir, there is either a God who created the universe or there isn’t. It’s a binary question.

 

[Bradskii]

Sir, there is either a God who created the universe or there isn’t. It’s a binary question.

You are using an indefinate article when referring to ‘god’, so you should be using a lower case ‘g’. And it’s a binary question on par with ‘there is either a magical unicorn who created the universe or there isn’t’.

But considering your question in any case…if you asked it to a Hindu, he would agree with you that there was indeed a god who created the universe. Great, you think. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. But wait, he would cry. There’s more. And then he would go on to tell you what else you must believe about his god. All his attributes. How he relates to mankind. What processes we must go through to keep him happy. What sacrifices we must make.

Are you happy to go along with him? Probably not. You didn’t expect all this other baggage to be tacked on to his reply to such a simple question. Why couldn’t he just agree it was God and leave it at that?

Well, Cone. That’s the problem. There’s a lot of other stuff that comes with an agreement that it was a god. You don’t actually mean ‘a god’. You mean your particular god with a son and a holy ghost and a virgin birth and a resurrection and a heaven and hell and bread into flesh and original sin etc etc.

That’s what you mean by ‘a god’. There’s a lot of hidden details in the term that you are not mentioning. So let’s be honest about how we ask the question. You could leave out all the details and simply ask: ‘Do you think the Christian God as described in the bible created the universe?’

That would be easy to answer. By me and our Hindu friend.

 

[luisvera]

They come from quantum vacuum, which is not quite “nothing” it’s the minimum amount of energy in a quantum field, so yeah that is not nothing

 

[Hope1960]

They come from quantum vacuum, which is not quite “nothing” it’s the minimum amount of energy in a quantum field, so yeah that is not nothing

William Lane Craig agrees with you.

 

[luisvera]

It’s pretty evident to be honest

 

[AlNg]

There’s a lot of hidden details in the term that you are not mentioning.

I don’t think so. The question at this point is whether or not the universe was created by some Being outside of the universe. The various details that you have mentioned are to be discussed later, but not at this point. Here the question was - is the universe an uncreated entity which always existed in some form or another and is in no way dependent on some other power.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

There’s a lot of hidden details in the term that you are not mentioning.

I don’t think so. The question at this point is whether or not the universe was created by some Being outside of the universe. The various details that you have mentioned are to be discussed later, but not at this point. Here the question was - is the universe an uncreated entity which always existed in some form or another and is in no way dependent on some other power.

OK. Let’s call this uncreated thing something. Let’s call it Brahma.

Let the discussion continue…

 

[Gorgias]

A handful of people are reported to have seen something briefly

‘Briefly’, as in ‘over a period of a couple months’?

over two thousand years ago

Does truth become less true, the older it gets?

(and the reports of it are written decades after the event)

Ahh, but the oral reports of it are spread immediately. Moreover, one to whom Christ appeared (Paul) spreads his personal eyewitness reports not long after he experiences them!

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

A handful of people are reported to have seen something briefly

‘Briefly’, as in ‘over a period of a couple months’?

over two thousand years ago

Does truth become less true, the older it gets?

(and the reports of it are written decades after the event)

Ahh, but the oral reports of it are spread immediately. Moreover, one to whom Christ appeared (Paul) spreads his personal eyewitness reports not long after he experiences them!

So if those points add validity to your proposal, how much greater validity would be given if the sightings were recent, over a period of years, seen by hundreds of thousands and actually reported on at the time and even photographed.

If you accept one on the basis of your evidence then you must, without any shadow of doubt, accept the other with a weight of evidence immensely greater.

This is an exceptionally important point which you must address to give your views any credibility.

 

[Gorgias]

So if those points add validity to your proposal, how much greater validity would be given if the sightings were recent, over a period of years, seen by hundreds of thousands and actually reported on at the time and even photographed.

None.

They would provide additional evidence, naturally. But they would not validate it further. (Rather, they would simply provide additional data points.)

This is an exceptionally important point which you must address to give your views any credibility.

Does the formula a2+b2=c2 become more credible, the more times you draw triangles and experience it, or is it credible the first time you do so?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So if those points add validity to your proposal, how much greater validity would be given if the sightings were recent, over a period of years, seen by hundreds of thousands and actually reported on at the time and even photographed.

None.

They would provide additional evidence, naturally. But they would not validate it further. (Rather, they would simply provide additional data points.)

This is an exceptionally important point which you must address to give your views any credibility.

Does the formula a2+b2=c2 become more credible, the more times you draw triangles and experience it, or is it credible the first time you do so?

You are asking me to accept that someone would not consider the evidence in the second case to be substionally more convincing. That if an event was reported to have been seen by a handful of people two thousand years ago it would be equally convincing if hundreds of thousands of people could tell you personally that they saw something.

No reasonable person would consider that to be credible by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Gorgias]

You are asking me to accept that someone would not consider the evidence in the second case to be substionally more convincing. That if an event was reported to have been seen by a handful of people two thousand years ago it would be equally convincing if hundreds of thousands of people could tell you personally that they saw something.

No reasonable person would consider that to be credible by any stretch of the imagination.

So, what you’re saying is that you discount the eyewitness of hundreds? Because it was 2000 years ago? Or because it was hundreds?

If 20,000 people see the Stanley Cup lifted at the conclusion of the NHL season, and 100,000 see it throughout the year, does its existence become more credible because of the 100,000? You’re disregarding my questions – which, I think are reasonable and show the falsity of the claim – without answering them. Telling…

 

[Hugh_Farey]

William Lane Craig agrees with you.

I gather that William Lane Craig goes a little further. I think I can agree with him and argue that the cause of the universe is eternal, creative and all powerful, but I’m not sure that it is necessarily personal, or has the characteristics of a person.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

So, what you’re saying is that you discount the eyewitness of hundreds? Because it was 2000 years ago? Or because it was hundreds?

I think we have to be careful here. There were no eye-witnesses at all to the Resurrection itself, and of those who are claimed to have seen the risen Christ, only Paul actually gives an eye-witness account. The accounts reporting the eye-witness of others often refer to Jesus as not being identifiable, at least at first, from Mary Magdalen thinking he was the gardener, to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and the others fishing on the Sea of Galilee.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You are asking me to accept that someone would not consider the evidence in the second case to be substionally more convincing. That if an event was reported to have been seen by a handful of people two thousand years ago it would be equally convincing if hundreds of thousands of people could tell you personally that they saw something.

No reasonable person would consider that to be credible by any stretch of the imagination.

So, what you’re saying is that you discount the eyewitness of hundreds? Because it was 2000 years ago? Or because it was hundreds?

If 20,000 people see the Stanley Cup lifted at the conclusion of the NHL season, and 100,000 see it throughout the year, does its existence become more credible because of the 100,000? You’re disregarding my questions – which, I think are reasonable and show the falsity of the claim – without answering them. Telling…

As Hugh said, you need to be careful here. There was at most one person who claimed to have been an eye witness. All others are second hand at best. That is, someone wrote (decades after the event) that a very few people said that they had seen something. Now you are claiming hundreds of eye witnessss, which is not true. And again, for something that happened over two millenia ago. And you give it more credence than hundreds of thousands of first hand eyewitnesses.

And I might note that the line about the Stanley Cup has been used, to my direct knowledge, in at least two other similar discussions about the resurrection over the last couple of years. I think you are repeating what you have heard rather than what you think.

But lets summarise…

Event one:
A one off event.
Only one eye witness report.
Only a handful of emotionally distraught second hand witnesses whose stories vary according to who is reporting it.
The event happened over two thousand years ago
There is no record of contemporaneous records having been made.
The event was only recorded decades after the event.
Records about the event do not match in important details.
It is generally accepted that the methods of reportage include the use of folk history, prophesy, word of mouth, metaphor and hyperbole. In other words, the stories are meant to give meaning to and emphasise and illustrate existing religious convictions rather than be accepted as verbatim reports.
We have no existing accounts, only copies and copies of copies.

Event 2:

Occured within living memory.
Viewed by hundreds of thousands (some reports say higher).
Occured many times of a period of three years.
No natural explanation forthcoming.
Accepted by the Coptic Church as a bona fide event.
Photographed and reported by the media and published locally and internationally.

And you say that the evidence for the first is stronger than the second.

Case dismissed.

 

[KJW5551]

Wow, 6,000 posts. I guess we better not argue with you.

Your arguments dismissing the Gospels are weak and I’m surprised you’re so confident in them. The fact that they were written down 30-50 years after Jesus’ death means absolutely nothing in regards to historical value. Would you discount a book written by a WWII veteran in 1990? Of course not. You know as well as I do that oral tradition was the standard method of preserving knowledge at the time; the ability to retain and pass along history through oral tradition was prized to the highest degree. Plus the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 dates to 3-5 years after Jesus’ death, which I’m sure after 6,000 posts you know.

Do you believe we can know anything about the life of Alexander the Great? Why? The first biography written about him was, I believe, about 300 years after he died. Yet no historian in his right mind denies his existence nor the basic contours of his life. The double standard being applied to the NT is laughable and honestly, it’s intellectually dishonest.

On topic: virtual particles do not come from nothing. They come from a vacuum, which is by definition is not nothing. Very tricky concept for atheists to understand, but “something” is not “nothing”. Energy is something. Space is something. Quantum vacuum is something.