Y
YehoiakhinEx232
Guest
Here’s the second article that the Atheist sent me in his attempt to refute my argument from contingency:
Are virtual particles really popping in and out of existence?
This article was actually quite weak, I could be reading this wrong but in sounds like rather than popping in and out of existence, “non-virtual particles” (I’m no physicists) are changing into virtual particles, and then changing back into “non-virtual particles.” Am I reading this right? If not how should I respond to the Atheist’s claim that these particles are popping in and out of existence and thus, don’t need God to create them.
Also, if I’ve read this article correctly, would it be correct to refer to these particles as “simple,” in the philosophical sense of the word?
Are virtual particles really popping in and out of existence?
This article was actually quite weak, I could be reading this wrong but in sounds like rather than popping in and out of existence, “non-virtual particles” (I’m no physicists) are changing into virtual particles, and then changing back into “non-virtual particles.” Am I reading this right? If not how should I respond to the Atheist’s claim that these particles are popping in and out of existence and thus, don’t need God to create them.
Also, if I’ve read this article correctly, would it be correct to refer to these particles as “simple,” in the philosophical sense of the word?