Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Deesse23]

We can give an average half life for each radiactive substance, based on empirical evidence and in accordance with the known laws of physics.
We can (not yet) tell which individual atom (of a given substance) will decay when. We currently can not determine a "cause" for radioactive decay of a single individual atom.
You didnt know this?

So then you are confusing the term 'uncaused' with 'indeterminate'.

Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?

You are just trying to backpedal, save your face. You really dont need me or anyone else to do this for you.

You should look up the term--it's important to know what the word means in a philosophical sense--otherwise you do what you do and have no clue of the meaning of the two sentences I originally wrote.

I do know what those word games of yours imply. Please explain how those arguments of yours demonstrate that a god actually does exist (like the universe, you know), no ifs and buts, Mr. WLC Jr.
You also may take the short route and present evidence instead of arguments. You do have evidence, do you?

[Peebothuhlu]

Hawking Radiation for one example of "Something from exnihilo"

Along with spontaneous nuclear fission for things happening without causes.

I'm not sure you are serious. You think a black hole is "nothing"?

Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?

---

 Uhm.. no.

In regards to the Hawking radiation... Okay, as the layman that is I simply understand it. The basic premise of/for a black hole is that gravity has collapsed to a point below (Beyond?) its Schwarzschild radius (Basically anything if compressed enough can become a black hole).

So, in normal, regualr "Nothing to see here" space/time.... 'Things' (Elementary?) particles spontaniously come into existance. This is a feature (Bug?) of quantum particle physics. Yes, nature really does abhore a vacume . Also, for reasons people a lot clever-er than I can expound upon, said particles always appear in pairs. This bit? I have no explanation about.

Now at the very edge. The very physical limit of the gravity abyss that is a black hole, this particles popping into existance out of nothing kind of hits a snag. While normally said quantum fluctuations 'vanish' again. Those that are lucky (?) enough to pop into existence at the boundary of a black hole find one particle effectivly on the 'Outsaide' of the event horizon and one half/particle on the inside.

SO, what happens then is that one particle vanishes inside the black hole and the other is now 'free' to go whizzing off into space.

WHat this means (I think) is that... should a black hole NOT be in the viscinity of anything else. Does not form/have an accretion disk of matter falling down into it THEN said black hole, via the quantum process that Hawking won great accolades for, will effectivly evaporate away.

Note: The radiation is kind of governed by the surface area rule. SO a normal, large black hole will take more than the life time of the currently proposed reality to evaporate into nothing.

Also.... it won't just simply 'fade'. See, eventually that Schwarzschild radius? Yah... the gavity density on the 'inside' will  fall below that threshold. When it does? Normal reality will then re-exert itself. Explosivly in effect.

Hope my poor layman's understanding and regugitation helps explain my point.

In the viscinity of the edge of a black hole. Elementary particles ARE, litterally, spontaniously, tottally unpredicably (As in, like Brownian motion "We can NOT predict, ever, where a quantum fluctuation might/will occur) coming into existence from nothing.

Okay. Note that radio active decay is uncaused.
Pretty sure the physicists know what certain atoms just fall apart (Like Plutonium and Radium and such).
It has to do with, again, the nature of quantum stuff.
So. Uranum has a 'Half life'. After a certain amount of time, given that you start with 'X' amount of Uranium, you will only have half the amount  of said uranium and... other stuff left. (Would have to Google-foo what the fall apart half turns into).

Now.... physicists can not, ever, tell you exacly 'When' the uranium effectily becomes reduced to 'Half'. Nor can they tell you exacly which bits of Uranium fall apart into the other stuff. Again, the whole quantum thing.

But Uranium definately does fall apart in such a manner and the particles deffinately do alchemically change in such an unpredictable way over time.

SO, as my point tried to explain and obviously poorly, when it come to things like atomic half life's (Am pretty sure there's more than just uranium that falls apart) the quantum nature meants that, in this instance, uranium spontaneously and totally unpredicatably changes into something else over time.

But its doing so has no definite 'Cause'. We can't tell which particles are going to transmute. We can't tell when exacty the particles are going to transmute. But transmute they wiil AND at a kind of specific rate.

Again, I hope my layman's understanding at least partly comes across with my hamfisted explanation.

EDIT: Because Deesse23 is so awsome sauce.

Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?

---

We can give an average half life for each radiactive substance, based on empirical evidence and in accordance with the known laws of physics.
We can (not yet) tell which individual atom (of a given substance) will decay when. We currently can not determine a "cause" for radioactive decay of a single individual atom.
You didnt know this?

EDIT, EDIT: Also, my spelling does suck and I completely appologize for such.

Not at work.

[SteveII]

So then you are confusing the term 'uncaused' with 'indeterminate'.

Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?

You are just trying to backpedal, save your face.  You really dont need me or anyone else to do this for you. 

You should look up the term--it's important to know what the word means in a philosophical sense--otherwise you do what you do and have no clue of the meaning of the two sentences I originally wrote.

I do know what those word games of yours imply. Please explain how those arguments of yours demonstrate that a god actually does exist (like the universe, you know), no ifs and buts, Mr. WLC Jr.
You also may take the short route and present evidence instead of arguments. You do have evidence, do you?

Nevermind. Let's pretend I didn't reply back to your nonsense in the first place. I don't want to waste my time replying to people who can't follow along.

[Deesse23]

Yeah thats the problem with the ontological argument. You need suckers to follow you down into the pit of word games.
Now do you have actual evidence that a god actually does exist, or do you necessarily need to invoke ontological obfuscation?

[SteveII]

Yeah thats the problem with the ontological argument. You need suckers to follow you down into the pit of word games.
Now do you have actual evidence that a god actually does exist, or do you necessarily need to invoke ontological obfuscation?

Who said anything about the ontological argument??!!??!?!?!? 

You do have problems following along! 

General Note: Comprehension is way down here at AF. Problems with definitions too. Is this what common core gets us?

[RoadRunner79]

Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?

---

We can give an average half life for each radiactive substance, based on empirical evidence and in accordance with the known laws of physics.
We can (not yet) tell which individual atom (of a given substance) will decay when. We currently can not determine a "cause" for radioactive decay of a single individual atom.
You didnt know this?

It seems to me, that there is a very large difference, between not knowing the cause, and not having a cause.

[Rahn127]

Let's see if this god answers prayers.

Hey godly god, how's it hangin' ?

I pray that Stevell will no longer reply in this thread.
How you accomplish this is all up to you.
Broken fingers, piano dropped on his head, anvil accident. I'm really good with any Road Runner / Wile E. Coyote episode you might bring to life.

Should you do nothing, I will take it as a sign that you don't exist.

Good luck Stevell

[Mister Agenda]

The 'cause' of particle decay can be said to be quantum uncertainty, which is not actually a cause. Not only are we only able to make statistical estimates about particle decay (half-lives) it is in principle impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, not just in practice, but in principle. Heisenberg uncertainty is more fundamental to the universe than even Heisenberg realized.

[Deesse23]

The whole quantum thingie is basically the nail in the coffin of all those who try to argue or define their pet god into existence based on the "classic" view on reality as we know it since man was able to think, although it seems to be so intuitive and tempting to use arguments based on such a view.

Once they understand that the fundamental nature of reality (on a very small scale) revolves around waves of probabilities and them collapsing into actual reality when under observation (and we yet even arent sure how to interpret all of this, Kopenhagen is just one interpretation), its game over, and no classic philosopher  will get you back into the game. Once again i find it fascinating and ironic that nature seems to be more "strange" than humans can possibly imagine, now or 3000y ago, and i wouldnt like to bet my € on the next 3000.

All fools like RR79 or Steve can do, is borrow from what science discovers and adapt their silly word games and re-define their pet gods accordingly to either fit them into remaining gaps or put them in line with what we already knew.


Edit:
The big difference between those great minds who were involved in QM (relativity too) in the early 20th century on one hand and dishonest and ignorant fools is: When they calculated and observed and finally had to conclude that either they were wrong or that their view on reality was fundamentally flawed, they decided to adapt their view on reality, no matter how absurd it seemed to be. Evidence trumps intuition and conjecture.

[Simon Moon]

The whole quantum thingie is basically the nail in the coffin of all those who try to argue or define their pet god into existence based on the "classic" view on reality as we know it since man was able to think, although it seems to be so intuitive and tempting to use arguments based on such a view.

Once they understand that the fundamental nature of reality (on a very small scale) revolves around waves of probabilities and them collapsing into actual reality when under observation (and we yet even arent sure how to interpret all of this, Kopenhagen is just one interpretation), its game over, and no classic philosopher  will get you back into the game. Once again i find it fascinating and ironic that nature seems to be more "strange" than humans can possibly imagine, now or 3000y ago, and i wouldnt like to bet my € on the next 3000.

Pretty much sums it up.

All fools like RR79 or Steve can do, is borrow from what science discovers and adapt their silly word games and re-define their pet gods accordingly to either fit them into remaining gaps or put them in line with what we already knew.

A perfect example of leading the evidence to fit their existing beliefs, instead of following the evidence where it leads.

And it sure doesn't lead to any of the gods defined by humanity.

I'd love to see a study done to show how many people became theists based on: ontological, cosmological, teleological and/or presup arguments. I'll bet it is a fraction of a percent. Instead, these arguments are used to shore up their already existing, irrational beliefs, with a veneer of rationality.

Edit:
The big difference between those great minds who were involved in QM (relativity too) in the early 20th century on one hand and dishonest and ignorant fools is: When they calculated and observed and finally had to conclude that either they were wrong or that their view on reality was fundamentally flawed, they decided to adapt their view on reality, no matter how absurd it seemed to be. Evidence trumps intuition and conjecture.

The difference between intellectual honesty, and the intellectual dishonesty of apologists (I'm pointing at you William Lane Craig!).