Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

In the sub-atomic realm [[particles]] offer evidence for a contradiction or negation of premise 1 seemingly. Particles seem to just pop into physical space-time for mere moments not caused by anything, out of nothing they appear, and then immediately disappear out of physical space-time. This is due to the quantum vacuum fluctuations. When the quantum vacuum fluctuates it spins off particles which is what wee observe, as they are in that excited state, and then instantly they dissolve back into the vacuum. This gives the appearance of particles spontaneously popping into existence out of what seems, by many physicists, as nothing. However, this is misleading mostly due to popularized writings about the subject of quantum physics only supporting the interpretation that particles do in fact spontaneously pop into and out of 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> Appealing to the realm of quantum physics and trying to question premise 1 because the particles seem not to have any causal determinate behind their spontaneous actions, is not unfamiliar territory to defenders of the ''kalam'' cosmological argument like William Lane Craig. There are two important understandings of quantum physics that often go overlooked within popular works. First, the quantum vacuum is actually something, not nothing. What seems to be popping into existence are fluctuations of the vacuum, that in of itself is a determinate, and secondly there are viable alternative models of quantum physics that give 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>