Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
→Quantum physics
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
In the sub-atomic realm, virtual particles and other types of [[particles]] offer evidence for a contradictory to premise 1, particles seemingly come into being for a moment then disappear into the quantum vacuum. When the quantum vacuum fluctuates it spins off particles and then they disappear back into the vacuum. This gives the appearance of particles spontaneously popping into existence out of nothing, but this is misleading. The popular interpretation given to the public is that of a quantum physics that supports things spontaneously popping into existence.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-are-some-physicists-so-bad-at.html Why are (some) physicists so bad at philosophy?] Edward Feser blog</ref> The quantum vacuum that underlies all of reality is a rich energy, and thus is something however. Proponents of non-causal determination quantum physics have no interplay with other popular and viable models and thus substantial interpretations within their writings. | In the sub-atomic realm, virtual particles and other types of [[particles]] offer evidence for a contradictory to premise 1, particles seemingly come into being for a moment then disappear into the quantum vacuum. When the quantum vacuum fluctuates it spins off particles and then they disappear back into the vacuum. This gives the appearance of particles spontaneously popping into existence out of nothing, but this is misleading. The popular interpretation given to the public is that of a quantum physics that supports things spontaneously popping into existence.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-are-some-physicists-so-bad-at.html Why are (some) physicists so bad at philosophy?] Edward Feser blog</ref> The quantum vacuum that underlies all of reality is a rich energy, and thus is something however. Proponents of non-causal determination quantum physics have no interplay with other popular and viable models and thus substantial interpretations within their writings. | ||
Appealing to the realm of quantum physics to show that things do not need a cause, and trying to question premise 1 | Appealing to the realm of quantum physics to show that things do not need a cause, and trying to question premise 1 because the particles seem not to have any causal determinate. The quantum vacuum is something though and there are many models of quantum physics that give these observations causal determination and maintain [[mathematical]] consistency.<ref>[http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040502CosmologicalArgumentPart1.mp3 Cosmological Argument #1] Teaching class by William Lane Craig</ref> | ||
====Premise 2==== | ====Premise 2==== | ||
