For more on the theological implications of this, see:
http://jeshua21.wordpress.com/additional-essays/the-beginning-is-near/

For more on Kant, see his treatment of "the fourth antinomy" on pages 53 and 58 of this PDF file:
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/kantprol.pdf

(4) Thesis: In the series of the world’s causes there is
some necessary being.

Antithesis: There is nothing necessary in the world; in
that series everything is contingent.

Yes, the podium exists. But the fundamental, subatomic components which make it up are waves in fields. Atoms also exist. But the fundamental, subatomic components of which they are made -- electrons, up quarks and down quarks (which make up the protons and neutrons, and the forces that bind them together and affect them -- are waves in fields.

Throughout the universe -- and thus at every point in the universe -- there are many coexisting fields: the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the strong nuclear force field, the weak nuclear force field, the Higgs field, and also the electron field, the up quark field, the down quark field, and fields for each of the other discovered subatomic units that we usually call particles. At every point in space, each of those fields has a particular value (somewhat like there is a unique temperature and humidity at every point in a room).

This is how a neutron can "decay into" a proton and an electron. The neutron is in no way made up of a proton and an electron. Instead, in the process of the decay, the neutron field has a certain effect on the up quark field and the down quark field and the electron field at that point.

I'm sure that article you reference is interesting, but quantum field theory (and the philosophy of science) has likely changed somewhat in the last 30 years. so I'll try to find something more recent.

It was nice talking to you (I guess those questions will never be over).

I don't take a position on whether something always existed or the Cosmos had a beginning. Both seem ridiculous to me and there isn't enough evidence to chose between the options.

Thanks for a good exchange on this. Though I am not saying it is over.

Excellent point! Entanglement is a big problem for particle interpretations, and also for field interpretations. A great talk on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMFLL_PXH8w

The particle interpretation reproduces the results of entanglement, so long as particles behave as though they take all possible paths.

Do particles actually do this? I don't know, but right now that's the way I imagine the world. This question is very interesting, and I want to look into this in more detail.

Why should particles do this? That's a philosophical question on the order of "why do protons have more mass than electrons?" or "why do things tend to take the path of least resistance"? I don't know if there's a satisfying answer. This question is far less interesting to me (and I'd imagine probably to you as well).

There's no action at a distance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Brian,

In fact I am having a first consideration on the arguments. At this point I can say that I find them coherent and a rational aproach (that surprised me, considering that they were proposed a long long time ago). The one that appears to be less interesting is the argument from design (however it maybe very appealing to some people, not to me).

Well that is helpful. Of course the only discussion we can have is whether the first cause is more or less likely than some kind of eternal material existence. Faith aside, which do you think?

Geena,

It was pleasure to disagree with you and I have to thank you for this stimulating conversation.