Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

The initial premise of the KCA is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is untrue and the reason I bring up beta decay whenever someone brings up the KCA.

There are three types of beta decay that occur. I will explain and give an example of each type.

Type I is your basic plain vanilla beta decay where a neutron turns into a proton and electron then the electron is emitted (begins to exist). This type is caused because of an instability in the atomic nucleus because the ratio of neutrons to protons is too large.An example would be Cesium137 decaying to Barium137. If type I was the only kind of beta decay, I wouldn't be making this thread so let's go on and look at the other two types.

Type II is where a proton turns into a neutron and a positron and the postiron is emitted (begins to exist). This type is caused because the ratio of neutrons to protons in the atomic nucleus is too small. An example would be Carbon11 decaying to Boron11. Two types, two different causes. This isn't looking too good is it? Onto the third type.

Type III is electron capture and also occurs when the neutron to proton ratio in the nucleus is too small (same cause as Type II). The nucleus captures an electron which basically turns a proton into a neutron. An example of this would be the decay of Beryllium7 into Lithium7.

Now that we have seen all three types of beta decay it is clear that there are two different causes and two of the three types have the same cause (neutron to proton ratio too small) so in this one instance it can be said that there is an uncaused cause that determines if an atomic nucleus undergoes type II or III beta decay. Unfortunately for the KCA only one instance of something that has no cause is enough to falsify it's premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Now that the KCA has been falsified, no Christian, Muslim or whoever else uses this bogus argument can do so honestly and if they do, everyone who reads this post now has the knowledge to rip it to shreds.

(April 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Phil Wrote: Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

The initial premise of the KCA is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is untrue and the reason I bring up beta decay whenever someone brings up the KCA.

There are three types of beta decay that occur. I will explain and give an example of each type.

Type I is your basic plain vanilla beta decay where a neutron turns into a proton and electron then the electron is emitted (begins to exist). This type is caused because of an instability in the atomic nucleus because the ratio of neutrons to protons is too large.An example would be Cesium137 decaying to Barium137. If type I was the only kind of beta decay, I wouldn't be making this thread so let's go on and look at the other two types.

Type II is where a proton turns into a neutron and a positron and the postiron is emitted (begins to exist). This type is caused because the ratio of neutrons to protons in the atomic nucleus is too small. An example would be Carbon11 decaying to Boron11. Two types, two different causes. This isn't looking too good is it? Onto the third type.

Type III is electron capture and also occurs when the neutron to proton ratio in the nucleus is too small (same cause as Type II). The nucleus captures an electron which basically turns a proton into a neutron. An example of this would be the decay of Beryllium7 into Lithium7.

Now that we have seen all three types of beta decay it is clear that there are two different causes and two of the three types have the same cause (neutron to proton ratio too small) so in this one instance it can be said that there is an uncaused cause that determines if an atomic nucleus undergoes type II or III beta decay. Unfortunately for the KCA only one instance of something that has no cause is enough to falsify it's premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Now that the KCA has been falsified, no Christian, Muslim or whoever else uses this bogus argument can do so honestly and if they do, everyone who reads this post now has the knowledge to rip it to shreds.

Umm... I don't completely understand your argument here, but aren't you saying that the capture of electron causes Type III decay whereas without an electron capture Type II occurs?

(April 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm)genkaus Wrote: Umm... I don't completely understand your argument here, but aren't you saying that the capture of electron causes Type III decay whereas without an electron capture Type II occurs?

Not at all. What was said (and I'll copy and paste from the OP) is that there is an uncaused cause that determines if an atomic nucleus undergoes type II or III beta decay.

Is something wrong with the syntax of that sentence? From your reply it seems that you think Type III is the default. The neutron to proton ratio being too small is the default. Type II or Type III happening is a spontaneous and uncaused event.

(April 21, 2012 at 10:54 pm)Phil Wrote: Not at all. What was said (and I'll copy and paste from the OP) is that there is an uncaused cause that determines if an atomic nucleus undergoes type II or III beta decay.

Is something wrong with the syntax of that sentence? From your reply it seems that you think Type III is the default. The neutron to proton ratio being too small is the default. Type II or Type III happening is a spontaneous and uncaused event.

The confusion comes from your description of Type II an Type III decays. You said that in Type II the proton turns into a neutron and positron. And in Type III the nucleus captures an electron which turns a proton into a neutron.

That made it sound like Type II is the default and Type III occurs when the nucleus is bombarded with an electron or when an electron comes within the range of its nuclear forces. Perhaps you need to explain the "capture an electron" part a bit better.

(April 21, 2012 at 11:54 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(April 21, 2012 at 10:54 pm)Phil Wrote: Not at all. What was said (and I'll copy and paste from the OP) is that there is an uncaused cause that determines if an atomic nucleus undergoes type II or III beta decay.

Is something wrong with the syntax of that sentence? From your reply it seems that you think Type III is the default. The neutron to proton ratio being too small is the default. Type II or Type III happening is a spontaneous and uncaused event.

The confusion comes from your description of Type II an Type III decays. You said that in Type II the proton turns into a neutron and positron. And in Type III the nucleus captures an electron which turns a proton into a neutron.

That made it sound like Type II is the default and Type III occurs when the nucleus is bombarded with an electron or when an electron comes within the range of its nuclear forces. Perhaps you need to explain the "capture an electron" part a bit better.

How does that sound like type II is the default and how would you explain it?

(April 21, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Phil Wrote: How does that sound like type II is the default and how would you explain it?

I wouldn't. Like I said, the "capture the electron" part gave me the impression that Type III occurs when when the nucleus is bombarded with the electron or otherwise comes in close range to one, rather than capturing one from its own orbit. A cursory google search reveals it not to be the case.

By the way, you do know what the theist response to this is right?
"Just because humans don't know the cause doesn't mean no cause exists. God knows the cause. In fact, god is he cause. He chooses in which way the nucleus is supposed to decay and he doesn't tell us because he works in mysterious ways".

(April 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Phil Wrote: Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

...

Questions usually use question marks ("?"). Here's what you wrote:

Quote:Nothing is an impossibility as one poster pointed out because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not because of electrons as he said but because of two other complimentary values. Those are the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If one is known as we know the energy density to be zero (in nothing), the rate of change of the energy density must be non-zero (not nothing).

BTW, the OP asked about the Kaalam Cosmological Argument. Truth be told, the KCA is faulty because of it's premise. No need to examine it any further than that. The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Instead of showing how that premise is faulty, just tell me what causes Beta decay.

I see now that one might take your last sentence to be a question, but I at first took it as a prompt to a hypothetical theist arguing the Kaalam argument. Even if I recognized it as a question, I would have assumed it was a rhetorical one directed at nobody in particular. And why would I take it as directed towards me specifically? I'm not a theist, and I only mentioned the Kaalam argument in passing in that thread since it uses creation ex nihilo. And I cannot even answer your question anyway because I do not have a science background.

So please, before you start calling people "idiots" for not answering a question, please at least make sure what you asked is clearly understandable as direct question to the person you had in mind.

(April 22, 2012 at 12:19 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(April 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Phil Wrote: Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

...

Questions usually use question marks ("?"). Here's what you wrote:

Quote:Nothing is an impossibility as one poster pointed out because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not because of electrons as he said but because of two other complimentary values. Those are the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If one is known as we know the energy density to be zero (in nothing), the rate of change of the energy density must be non-zero (not nothing).

BTW, the OP asked about the Kaalam Cosmological Argument. Truth be told, the KCA is faulty because of it's premise. No need to examine it any further than that. The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Instead of showing how that premise is faulty, just tell me what causes Beta decay.

I see now that one might take your last sentence to be a question, but I at first took it as a prompt to a hypothetical theist arguing the Kaalam argument. Even if I recognized it as a question, I would have assumed it was a rhetorical one directed at nobody in particular. And why would I take it as directed towards me specifically? I'm not a theist, and I only mentioned the Kaalam argument in passing in that thread since it uses creation ex nihilo. And I cannot even answer your question anyway because I do not have a science background.

So please, before you start calling people "idiots" for not answering a question, please at least make sure what you asked is clearly understandable as direct question to the person you had in mind.

You were called a fucking idiot because you assumed I thought you were a Christian/theist. Now I am going to call you a fucking asshole that just asked to be put on ignore.

(April 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Phil Wrote: Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

There was absolutely no need for that. Please don't start threads just to carry on whatever vendettas you may have against people. If you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

(April 22, 2012 at 12:16 am)genkaus Wrote:

(April 21, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Phil Wrote: How does that sound like type II is the default and how would you explain it?

I wouldn't. Like I said, the "capture the electron" part gave me the impression that Type III occurs when when the nucleus is bombarded with the electron or otherwise comes in close range to one, rather than capturing one from its own orbit. A cursory google search reveals it not to be the case.

By the way, you do know what the theist response to this is right?
"Just because humans don't know the cause doesn't mean no cause exists. God knows the cause. In fact, god is he cause. He chooses in which way the nucleus is supposed to decay and he doesn't tell us because he works in mysterious ways".

Last time I checked the KCA is an argument for the existence of god. You telling me that the conclusion has to be believed before the premise is valid? IOW, the KCA is valid because god exists and you think anyone except a brain dead fundamentalist is going to accept that as a valid premise?

---

(April 22, 2012 at 12:23 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Phil Wrote: Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

There was absolutely no need for that. Please don't start threads just to carry on whatever vendettas you may have against people. If you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Not a vendetta. A vendetta would have been followed by no argument against the KCA.