VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 08:54:46pmLogin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456[7]8910 ]
Subject: old english joke


Author:
Damoclese
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 02/28/04 7:54am
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "What's quath?" on 02/27/04 10:41pm

>
>Ha! Contrary to what you may think, what we call a
>vacuum is not nothing but a fluctuating sea of
>energy. Virtual particles coming into existence from
>a vacuum is not at all a violation of ex nihilo nihil
>fit.

Hmm. So you're telling me nothing is actually something. Is there ANYTHING that is nothing? If not, the argument could be easily made that there has always been something, which lends itself easily to matter always existing. (in some form or another)






>
>We're not talking about the evolution of life on
>earth, we're talking about the entire physical
>universe and the space-time continuum. Random chance
>can't do squat without time or space or matter or
>energy. Even virtual particles couldn't be created.

Except physics today accepts that random chance does produce particles from "nothing".

>How can random chance cause anything when it has
>nothing to act on?

Figure that out. You'll get a nobel.

And it's too vague anyway. If I
>hear a loud bang, and I ask the cause, I'm going to
>need something more than "random chance," I'd like
>something more, like a firecracker accidentally going
>off etc.

Quantum physics would love to know "Why". The problem is that there is no "why". It just simply is.

But while we are at it, why is there a God? What caused God? What explains God?


>
>Why is the elephant in my room? Because if it
>weren't, it wouldn't be here. Sorry, that's just not
>an explanation. The elephant had to get here somehow,
>same with the universe.

That's not quite the same. It's more like because if the make up of the room were different, the elephant wouldn't be there.

Nonethless, while we are at it, why is there a God? That God had to get here somehow. Same with everything else. Right?



>
>No it ain't. Time itself began to exist, as did space
>(no vacuum). But suppose it did. Where did the
>vacuum come from? It always existed? Then, given
>infinite time, a universe should have popped into
>existence at every point in space.

You're confusing "should" with "could", and you're also assuming something called "space" can exist without the known universe. And even so, there may be many other universes. We simply don't know.

But that
>contradicts observation. Quantum fluctuation models
>have been discarded by physicists and even by its
>original proponents.

You've observed the conditions before the big bang? You've had a look outside our universe?

I don't know what science books you have been reading, but I can assure you quantum physical fluctuation models have not been discarded and are in fact integral to the theory of quantum mechanics. (which I might add, has been the most successful theory ever)


>There's no evidence for that or reason to think why
>they would (we don’t exactly see new laws evolving and
>making themselves more heavily mathematical and
>sophisticated)

We don't exactly see "God" either. Not to mention that our existence in time has been meager, even moreso per person per lifetime.


, and we still have the creation of the
>universe to consider. If I see a large, well-made
>functional computer program, I'd start inferring
>design rather than some mysterious unknown
>self-organizing process.

A computer is not a physical process of nature.

It's all about an inference
>to the best explanation. And I think intelligent
>design is it.

Yes it is all about an inference to the best explanation, but intelligent design is quite an egocentric explanation. I make stuff, so someone musta made me. Random chance is as good as any. (if not better)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.