Which is entirely besides the point. Many religious apologists claim that the only way the existence of the universe can be accounted for is if it was created from nothing by God. I am only claiming that that position cannot be supported, nothing more. You seem to agree with me.
Oh, well I would agree with the apologists in principle. But I would qualify it by saying that there’s always a possibility that it could have created itself, but that seems contrary to reason, and therefore highly unlikely. So if that’s what you mean by agreeing with you, then yes, I do agree with you.
If it were “contrary to reason”, there would be no plausible scientific models in which this could happen. But there are.
I think that depends on how you define plausible. I would say, if plausible means fits into theories proposed by science, then yes. But if it means fits into scientific facts and human experience, then no.
That falls within the parameters of plausibility.
For instance, it was plausible that working airplanes could be created before they ever were. It was plausible that black holes existed before their existence was empirically confirmed.
Exactly my point. It’s the theories that don’t comport with the reality of what we do know from scientific facts and human experience that would not be plausible by the second definition. The theories that are concerned with known realities like flight and gravity fall nicely into both definitions. Theories like ones that imply something from nothing, or self causation only fit into the first.
You miss the point. Black holes and airplanes were once, not long ago, not scientific facts nor part of human experience. But they were plausible, as shown by the fact that they now are scientific facts and part of human experience.
So your argument is baseless.
The fact that life exists should cause us to seriously doubt any provisionally held suspicions that it shouldn’t exist. If we had a physical theory that implied that hurricanes were impossible, seeing a hurricane should cause us to discard said theory. In the same vein, any knowledge you believe you possess that renders life’s origin impossible is intrinsically implausible in light of life’s existence.
4 Likes
Great point!
I think you are missing my point. Gravity is a scientific fact and human experience has been aware of its force, I would assume, from the beginning. Black holes were discovered because it was an endeavor in exploring something based on an aspect of reality, i.e., gravity, that was established fact.
Aerodynamics dates back to the 17th century, and humans have been aware of, harnessing its effects, and even talking about human flight for many centuries. Birds in flight were an obvious empirical observation of an application of it. Airplanes were invented because of an endeavor to explore something based on an aspect of reality, i.e., aerodynamics and observation of various types of flight, that was established fact.
So my question is, where in reality do we get scientific fact and human experience to suggest that there is any plausible reason or way to explore how to get something from nothing, or self causation, or an effect without a cause?
I assume you mean “impossible by natural causes.” And I never said there was knowledge that render’s it impossible, but highly implausible. However, if I’m understanding correctly
what you seem to want to claim here the underlying assumption that is implied is naturalism is true. But until you have shown that to be the case your claim is unwarranted.
Physics.
Please support that claim.
As Mikkel said, the existence of life is obviously NOT “implausible”, because life exists. And it came thru some process. We know natural processes exist. We know of no other process by which things come into existence. So, going by your own argument, based on what we know in “human experience”, life arose thru natural processes.
4 Likes
The quantum vacuum isn’t “nothing.”
Where has modern physics established “self-causation” – and what does “self-causation” even mean?
Where has modern physics established the existence of such effects? If you are thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, it’s only one possible interpretation of quantum theory.
Never said it was.
Well, that’s a good question. AFAIK, it is only religious apologists who use the term when discussing the options by which the universe could have come into existence. So ask one of them.
Look up alpha decay.
Well, no, I’m not. But thanks for admitting that it is acceptable within established science for things to happen without a cause. The Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely used and accepted model of QM.
Before you go committing more fallacies, please note that I am not claiming it is an established fact in science that things can come from nothing without a cause. Just that this is not inconsistent with everything we know about physics, and cannot be ruled out. Since supernaturalists have no means of testing their claims, they can only insert their claims into gaps where science has shown things to be impossible, and that is not the case here.
1 Like
Good. Your terse, one-word answer to Jim – “Physics” – could easily have left a different impression, and did so with me. It also left the impression that you thought that “physics” had shown that self-causation was possible. I see now that you didn’t mean to leave that impression, but that’s the problem with one-word answers that don’t elaborate on anything.
But it’s unwise to jump in on another debate when one hasn’t followed the whole thread, so I’ll bow out here, and let you carry on.
I’m all ears. What scientific facts, which I understand is something scientifically established by direct empirical confirmation, and human experiences are you referring to that would suggest a plausible reason or way to explore how to get something from nothing, or an effect without a cause?