Onifre writes:
The microscopic world,(quantum fields), can only be understood through physics. It's existence could not have been predicted with logic and deductive reasoning. Yes it is testable by the meer fact that it exists, but you didn't know it existed till physicist told you. Now you want to apply deductive logic to the origin of it, to me this doesn't make much sense. Just beause you say God did it doesn't help you understand how He did it, thats what science does, in this particular case it would be the science of physics.
It doesnt make sense because you are not understanding how I am applying logic and commonsense to the situation. It is not necessary to know what does or does not exists exacally, to know that THINGS exist. Those properties that do exist will have only one of two possible properties, eternal or not. I am not applying logic to the origin of anything, because THINGS exist wehther you discover them or not.
Further, I am not seeing the necessity of knowing how God or the very real possibilty of God DOING IT, applies to the very real demonstratable, deductive conclusion that there are only two choices. Choices I might add that have not been added to or subtracted from in this discussion, as I predicted.
Again, and I hope for the last time, physics only explains the nature of things, it does NOT give an answer to its origins. Origins can only be postulated using the science of physics and DEDUCTIVE REASONING against Reality. In this instance reality, physics and logic will lead you to only two logical solutions to the problem, one of which is clearly a creator. If you choose to ignore that choice, that is your choice ofcourse.
In other words, no amount of information gathered in the future will unsettle this principle. Not because its logic or deductive reasoning, but because that just the nature and reality of existence itself. The further extension of reality is logic and commonsense. Actually these two concepts, reality and logic are so intertwined, they for all intents and purposes cannot be seperated.
Again, the 2 possibilities are not science related, they are philosophical. So no, science is not held to your 2 possibilities, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Science is held to reality and the existence of this reality. If science and physics is not held to this princlple then simply provide me with another SCIENTIFIC solution that will not fall into these two categories, then you will have demonstrated that the two principles, logic and deductive reasoning are not scientific in nature. My prediction is that you cannot and will not be able to do this.
Science is the reality of the existence of things, no matter how one chooses to study it. The definition of science is "to know or have knowledge of" a specific thing, whatever that may be. The Scientific Method when incorrectly applied, ignores very basic and simple principles to avoid very simple and demonstratable conclusions. It therefore excludes vital principles that provide information to the nature and existence of things and thier possible origins.
Actually the Scientific Method violates its own principles in the fact that it extrapolates beyond the specific information it gathers and the explanation of things, to conclusions about origins or the exclusion of information (all science) demonstrating those very real posssibilites., ie a creator or designer.
You complain that I am repeating myself, well ofcourse Iam. Reality and your inability to provide any other solutions dictates that I do so. I am only repeating what reality and deductive reasoning will allw.
Again, even if God did it, how did He do it? And WHAT is eternal? Matter? Matter is not eternal. You are talking about a very microscopic scale, a quantum scale, do you understand this area of science enough to understand what 'nothingness' means? Straggler asked you if you though 'nothing' was stable, you did not seem to understand that question.
Before exploring your site provded lets set a little ground work. There may be some sense in which "nothing" could be understood from a physics standpoint. However, there is most certainly a postion it can be understood from a logical and deductive methodology. Things exist, therefore it is a reality and reasonable that nothing, absoletely nothing could have the potential to have not existed.
These two principles are etched in reality and reason. If nothing, absolutely nothing were here, we ofcourse would not be asking the question and it would not matter.
To illustrate this point I will answer your question, "what is eternal"? You used the word iin the sense that one could continuously walk around the earth forever without stopping, correct. But would not this illustration preclude the fact that the person had to start at some point? Secondly, even if you imagined him, her, it, having never actually starting, but a continuous unending walk, then it would still involve the concept of eternal in the limit sense, given your limited illustration, in other words your analogy has obvious limitations.
Heres the point. the mere fact that you can see that the possiblity of something on a small scale as eternal, should be indicative of the fact that all things in existence or something else besides themselves MUST of necesssity be eternal in character. There are no other solutions.
Physics concepts of "nothing", or that which it is described as nothingness is limited in reality and reason.
Basically, particles coming in and out of existance from 'nothingness' because nothingness is unstable.
What exacally would it take for nothing to produce an organized particle, send it through a portal and have in start to function in its proper place. Certainly physics does not consider that these particles are actually coming form nowhere and actual "nothingness".
Actually no person in thier right mind would even consider this as an acceptable explanation, certainly not phycisists Certainly, it may appear as though they are coming from nowhere and nothing, but when we understand reality and how it functions, one would certainly not adopt, this view.
Again, what is being described as nothing in these instances would certainly have an actual source in reality. One would need to demonstrate that these particles are actually coming from nothingness to demonstate the non-existence of an eternal universe or the non-existence of an eternal creator himself.
If one asserts that these particles are actually coming from nothingness, he would be obligated to demonstrate that "nothingness" is ANYTHING in the first place, stable, unstable, or anything at all. You are assuming that these things are coming in and out of existence from something you have not even demonstratd to be factual in the first place. Your first assertion cannot even be tested and that is that "nothingness" is anything other that what it should be in the first place, absolutely nothing. You are attributing a concept to a situation that you cannot even observe. You cant even get out of the starting blocks to demonstrate that any qualites or characteristics should describe by nothingness other than nothing at all. How are you going to test your second theory that these particles are actually coming form nothing, when you cant even demonstrate the first premise.
Your task in this instance is insurmountable to say the least.
The scriptures and deductive reasoning have ananswer for this seeming problem. Hebrews 11:1-3 states
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that that what is seen was not made out of what is visible".
In these very few verses you have both reason and expalnatin for even the things you are describing. The evindece suggested in these verse is the evidence of reality and deductive logic, so that its conclusions are unavoidable.
So that what appears to be coming from nothingness is actually coming from another reality. A reality that both things present and those unseen will not allow us to void certain demonstable conclusions.
Yeah so? Does my logic help physicist understand the complexity of the origin of the universe? No, and neither does yours. All you are doing is justifying your belief. You can't prove anything is eternal, especially not in the quantum world, and you can't prove that a highly complex intelligence just appeared magically out of nothingness...unless you are saying that God is a quantum fluctuation? Because at least that has been observed.
It is interesting thay you keep asserting that I cant PROVE this or that, as if you can. Certainly you are aware that your understanding and inspections of things gets you no closer to proving anything, you do understand this correct?
The arguments that I am advancing in this connection are testable by the best possible information in reality, quantum physics, notwithstanding. Physcis has not unsettled these premises and they have stood the test of time for thousnads of years, because there are no other solutions as deduced by the science of deductive reasoning. Example, using deductive reasoning look how simple it was to dismiss your argument about nothinness. Reality, reason and commonsense demonstrate that the first and only real definition of "nothing" cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise. Giving it another definiton and assuming it could produce this or that is both the height of assmption and ignorance.
Things exist, they did not ome from nowhere or nothingness, if we are going to be honest about such concepts in the first place. the only conclusions are that they are eternal in character (and I think we can all understand the usage of that word) or and eternal creator brought these properties into existence. They are the only choices and imagining something coming from actaul nothingness does not help your case.
Tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that "nothingness" should be described as anything but what the word suggests? Where did you arrive at your highly testable conclusion that it would have any properties at all, stable or unstable or whatever you want to call it. You cant even demonstrate this assertion, much less that these particles are coming from actual nothingness. And you accuse me of not being able to prove this or that, give me a break.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
