极速赛车168官网 Comments on: Does Quantum Physics Refute the Kalam Argument for God?

极速赛车168官网 By: Gerard Marrero

Gerard Marrero — Mon, 13 Jul 2020 23:40:00 +0000

God's act of creation is continuous not limited to one point in time, so even if scientists found stuff truly coming into being from nothing it would be evidence in favor of creation not against it. The simple fact is that it is impossible for science to say anything about the existence or non-existence of God because God by definition is outside of human experience or ability to measure.

极速赛车168官网 By: David DiDomenico

David DiDomenico — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 21:21:00 +0000

What's the support for P2 -- "The universe began to exist from nothing"? It seems possible that the universe began to exist from something. I originally thought the support might be the claim that an infinite series of past events is impossible, but P2 doesn't follow from that claim, as it's possible that the universe began to exist from something but there were no events preceding the beginning of the universe.

极速赛车168官网 By: michael

michael — Wed, 08 May 2019 01:56:00 +0000

Did one of the council of Trent not define that the church is OBLIGATED to believe god made the world form nothing? IS this not true?! IS this not true?!

极速赛车168官网 By: Mody Nader

Mody Nader — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:56:00 +0000

Granted, proving that the universe began to exist from nothing without a natural cause is a much larger task (though if the universe came to be from nothing, then by definition there could be no natural cause because then it would have come from a natural thing that exists, notnothing).

极速赛车168官网 By: Pedro Lemos

Pedro Lemos — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:11:00 +0000

The Universe was created from nothing, and by The Word of God. He gave the order and all became to existence. For me, these particles that emerges from nothing, from anyplace, is just the echo of God´s word. The echo of Creation!

极速赛车168官网 By: IdPnSD

IdPnSD — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 18:27:00 +0000

I claim that P1 is correct but P2 is wrong. Moreover QM is wrong because Uncertainty Principle (UP) is wrong. Thus P1 cannot be defended using QM. Take a look at the proof of UP in the book - “Heisenberg, W., The physical principles of the quantum theory, Translated in English, Eckart,C. & Hoyt, F.C., Dover publications, University of Chicago, (1930)” It appears that 99% of the QM people did not read the proof of UP. The proof has two fatal assumptions which are invalid for nature. Heisenberg said if UP fails then QM will fail. The above proof is exactly copied here https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/category/f-ch6-quantum-mechanics/

极速赛车168官网 By: Maxx

Maxx — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:55:00 +0000

Maybe we are looking at it all wrong.

极速赛车168官网 By: Mark Lodwick

Mark Lodwick — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:25:00 +0000

In reply to Paul E Schippnick. You're correct in manner of speaking that there has to be an uncaused existence, if by existence you mean being. You're also correct that nothing comes from nothing but since we have something what caused the observable something and why. You cant prove the statement "there was never nothingness". The uncaused self "existence" is God who needs no cause, not the effect known as the material/physical universe and everything contained therein. Matter/effects cannot self create nor are self existent.

极速赛车168官网 By: Paul E Schippnick

Paul E Schippnick — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 01:41:00 +0000

All arguments of this sort presume existence. "P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause." Now whether there is a first existence or an infinite regress of existences caused, there has to be an uncased existence. Also since nothing comes from nothing. And that since there is existence. There was never nothingness. Nor could there not been anything. So there was always an existence, as an uncaused self existence. And such a self existence needs ot cause needs no God.

极速赛车168官网 By: Bruno Coutinho

Bruno Coutinho — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:47:00 +0000

In reply to Bryan Cross. "n other words, even if we could construct an empty room containing no "elementary physical stuff" at all, and particles then appeared within the room, having no detectable cause, we would *still* know that these particles had a cause, even if we could not detect the cause. " - actually this is wrong, and there is an experiment that proves it called bell inequality. "causality is a *first* principle,"- First the scientific definition of causality is not that one that you are using. Second what you called causality is just not true, therefore it is not and cannot be a *first* principle, Ps:Your use of the term *first* principle is also wrong but the way, I think you mean axioma. If I'm miss interpreting you, sorry.