RE: What is wrong with this premise?
January 21, 2015 at 6:49 pm
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2015 at 7:00 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise?
Virtual particles.
And there is rigorous math that indicates a universe from nothing is possible and gravitational waves detected that are predicted by that math.
Nothing conclusive, but enough to say that there are problems with taking that as a premise.
(January 18, 2015 at 4:12 am)Heywood Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 3:58 am)Alex K Wrote: By default I don't see why your premise should be true.
But can you specify what your definition of a cause is, and what you mean by something coming into existence.
I would accept the premise as true because in my experience everything which has come into existence has had some cause.
What have you experienced coming into existence? Are you talking about transformations of things that already exist?
(January 18, 2015 at 4:25 am)Heywood Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 4:22 am)reiemdis Wrote: How do we know that these particles are not caused by existence, I.e. their cresttion is inherent within the physical laws of existence.
I would sooner believe that the cause is non-local rather than they come into existence un-caused.
Why should what you'd sooner believe enter into it?
I see from your Harry Potter movie comment that you are actually talking about transformations of already existing things. I can agree that transformations of already existing things require causes.
(January 18, 2015 at 1:46 pm)Heywood Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 5:55 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What you're about to do with it.
Boru
I don't plan on doing anything with it. I'm just curious why some atheists think this is a faulty premise. To me it seems intuitively true.
When it comes to quantum mechanics, which it does, intuition is worthless.
(January 20, 2015 at 2:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:(January 20, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Davka Wrote: Then does your "god" exist outside the universe?
I have come to the conclusion that even if God doesn't exist, there must be more to reality than just the observable universe.
That's a pretty safe bet. Our ability to observe the universe is limited, and in theory always will be, since we would have to convert the entire universe into instrumentation to observe itself and all the other instruments in order to be able to observe the whole universe, and that just doesn't sound practical or desirable, and probably not possible either.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
