RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 10, 2015 at 7:19 am
(This post was last modified: September 10, 2015 at 7:22 am by Alex K.)
The rule E=mc^2 probably doesn't exist as an abstract entity anyway because it is probably not exact. It will break down at some point, will become part of something more complicated quantum-space-whatevery.
Take Newton's law of Gravity F = G m M/r^2
In the 19th century you could have thought this is a law of nature that somewhere sits in idea space as an actually existing abstract thingy. Today we know that it is an approximate property of curved spacetime, and thinking that it by itself was some kind of abstract entity with its own room in idea town would seem silly in retrospect. There is no reason why the same shouldn't be true for every single basic physical "law"
Take Newton's law of Gravity F = G m M/r^2
In the 19th century you could have thought this is a law of nature that somewhere sits in idea space as an actually existing abstract thingy. Today we know that it is an approximate property of curved spacetime, and thinking that it by itself was some kind of abstract entity with its own room in idea town would seem silly in retrospect. There is no reason why the same shouldn't be true for every single basic physical "law"
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
