The first cause argument

[firedragon]

False. The only question you asked in the post I was replying to was:


To which my reply was:-


If there is something about that that you don't understand or you feel it has not addressed your point in some way then you'll have to do better than, just banal comments like:-

Alright. Thats going nowhere.

Can you explain what causes virtual particles?

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps because you've misidentified what is actually happening in this thread. A host of critical thinkers have rejected your argument.

I understand the group mentality the so called "critical thinkers" have been displaying. But they are not thinking critically. Motivated by faith. Nothing more.

Rest of your ad hominem attempts are ignored.

 

[Polymath257]

Alright. Thats going nowhere.

Can you explain what causes virtual particles?

This can be interpreted in two distinct ways:

1. What is the cause for virtual particles existing at all?

2. What is the cause of particular virtual particles existing?

In neither is there, in fact, a cause. Virtual particles are, in a sense, a 'bare fact' about the universe: they appear spontaneously, interact, and disappear spontaneously. There is no 'cause' for their appearance and no 'cause' for their disappearance.

The appearance and disappearance are *allowed* and *described* by the laws of physics. But that is not a 'cause' but rather a description of how things work.

Now, there is a sense in which you can 'explain' the existence of particles of various sorts (and virtual particles are all specific types of particles, like electrons, or muons etc) as coming from the symmetry properties of the natural laws. But then, those symmetry properties are 'bare facts' that have no further explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand the group mentality the so called "critical thinkers" have been displaying. But they are not thinking critically. Motivated by faith. Nothing more.

In that case, be explicit concerning the logical errors you think they are making.

It is expected that those who argue logically would arrive at the same conclusions and criticisms. You have made a claim that those conclusions and criticisms are not based on reason, but rather are based on faith. Please support that claim.

Rest of your ad hominem attempts are ignored.

Except that they are not 'ad hom'.

 

[ratiocinator]

..so things happen without a cause..
..then why do you agree with the reams of prose that ToE spews out, explaining how everything happened?

It can all have happened without a cause, right?

See reply by @Polymath257 and also because of evidence.

It seems to me that you are quite satisfied with things having a cause, but aren't happy with a "first cause".

The idea of a 'first cause' lacks sound reasoning and evidence. I'm not (nor could I) ruling it out, but neither can I rule out pan-dimensional gravity pixies that pull at the fabric of space-time.

No .. that makes no sense to me.

Yet again: why do you think what makes sense, or not, to you personally is of any relevance to reality?

 

[ratiocinator]

But they are not thinking critically.

Then demonstrate it by providing sound reasoning that refutes what has been said. Your endless stream of bare assertions that people don't understand, need to read things again, need to read up, etc. really don't help your cause. Argument by assertion is a fallacy.

 

[KWED]

Rest of your ad hominem attempts are ignored.

Really? You still haven't Googled "ad hominem"?
Oh dear.

 

[KWED]

but neither can I rule out pan-dimensional gravity pixies that pull at the fabric of space-time.

Why would anyone want to rule out the little scamps?

 

[firedragon]

Then demonstrate it by providing sound reasoning that refutes what has been said.

Why not answer the question?

Can you explain what causes virtual particles?

 

[Polymath257]

Why not answer the question?

Can you explain what causes virtual particles?

See post The first cause argument

 

[muhammad_isa]

..why do you think what makes sense, or not, to you personally is of any relevance to reality?

A daft question..
You have your perceptions, and I have mine.

You see everything in black & white..
..while I see things in colour

 

[ratiocinator]

Why not answer the question?

Because it had already been answered by the time I saw it (#1183), and saw nothing I could usefully add. Why didn't you address my point?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A daft question..
You have your perceptions, and I have mine.

You see everything in black & white..
..while I see things in colour

Yes, respect all the world's cultures and religions and even non-religion.

 

[firedragon]

Because it had already been answered by the time I saw it (#1183), and saw nothing I could usefully add. Why didn't you address my point?

You never answered it. I know all the atheistic evangelists here are worshiping each other and their answers, answering each other like the "we group" referred to many times, just like a very close knit, religious group, but you didnt answer the question.

Hope you understand.

 

[ratiocinator]

A daft question..

Why? Why do you think reality is under some sort of obligation to conform to what you (or I) personally find "makes sense" to us? If anything modern physics should have taught you is that reality simply doesn't conform to human intuition.

 

[ratiocinator]

You never answered it. I know all the atheistic evangelists here are worshiping each other and their answers, answering each other like the "we group" referred to many times, just like a very close knit, religious group, but you didnt [sic] answer the question.

You got a perfectly good answer, which is more than can be said for all the people who've posted counterarguments and flaws in your reasoning who've all been brushed aside with baseless assertions that they didn't understand, needed to read up, need to read again, and so on.

You've even been complaining that people have been just repeating other people's points and now you're complaining that I didn't.

ETA: And the question was purely a scientific one, so it can't possibly have anything to do with "atheistic evangelists", You'd have got pretty much the same information from any theist who understood the relevant science.

 

[firedragon]

You got a perfectly good answer,

You never answered it.

 

[ratiocinator]

You never answered it.

And I explained why. If you really want me to repeat the same information, then I can: the laws of physics allow for them to happen but there is no cause for the specific events. Now you can just accuse me of a repeating other people's answers and continue to run away from the problems you face yourself. Namely, that you haven't answered any of the reasoned objections to your argument. Even when you'd started to make some sort of attempt, you ended up collapsing into baseless assertions about other people not understanding, needing to read up. read again, and so on. Even, ironically given this, accusing them of just repeating what others have said.

One rule for you, another for everybody else, eh?

 

[rational experiences]

If minds today say particle. Yet also say big bang. Where is the comparison?

Science conscious human beliefs are stories only first. I believe such and such happened without proof.

Saying big bang was in fact a moment and you don't know what existed before.

Then science says but I do.

So consciousness means exact.

A human telling stories in a natural place conscious human by all conditions present. Just human.

A gas is a gas. Known. A gas takes up its owned space as the gas.

The gas clear or it is a colour.

Basic science says heavens mass spirit non conception father coat of colours earths heavens mantle

Reason a human says to a psychic your reasoning is based on a supernatural event. That is correct as natural is first and not reactive human science existed first.

My reality caused by humans is truth.

Clear gas allows you to see darkness. Pretty basic first notice.

Space is empty it is removed of light as light is a gas burning. First advice human theist conscious.

Does gas burning then quantify why theorising is wrong?

As consciousness says empty space filled in by clear gas is first. Then burning clear coloured gas second.

Consciousness is exact water is clear takes up as mass a higher space volume. Water consciousness is higher space aware by notification waters removal.

The supernatural human life attacked advice.

Then you say in science as a conscious biology. We are first all conscious equal humans. The truth.

Light he said was a consuming mass sun that blasted earth that when cooled in space owns fused particles.

They are held in space by space pressure is direct advice.

Earth is held as mass as it's body Fu Sion.

You said God was Sion only fusion and not radiating. Earth rock.

You said a metal is pressurised by space in a seam. By pressure.

Why metals end up in space held pressurised.

You know you began in human science as humans science only being human science on earth as human with.machines from mineral particles.

You took the particles fusion fusion not conscious and not number owner. Add + formula without ownership first fake numbers. Numbers that don't exist.

You removed non radiating first into a melt. First mineral dust you used not nuclear.

In God volcanic rock mass is its owned natural melt.

Not the same. Straight away not the same but duality is established in particles of dust. All in the mind transmitter advice.

You hence said I machine mind control a big bang inside my machine. As the fake scientist God mind.

Not knowing what existed before as fusion is not a number and not conscious.

Science as science human science science owned by humans on earth as humans earth science.

Brother said to brother the only place science practiced is. Science by humans only.

Your mind focus is direct machine string history first. Near destruction of machine occurs as you then reattacked particles in a reaction. Event science tried to remove machine also. Whole design of science by string thesis.

Science. Is history the particle. It's reaction is mind controlled human blasting. Strings history to machine body. Machine blows up overheats....earth then blasts by causes.

How to invent a human scientists earth God moment blast instead by his science machine imposed laws. Never natural law space womb holding.

Memory of a human.
String ideas lots of thoughts strung together.
Feedback is first visionary by design ideals of mind direct as a human scientist.

Possessed.

A human is equal.first as a conscious innocent natural human first indoctrinated.

As a self questioning indoctrination experiencing sciences machine indoctrination I gained a supernatural event that taught me.

Science lied. Science is wrong.

The event not science will never be science understood as it's not science. Bodies change does not make my experience wrong. Nor can it be quantified wrong as I experienced it mind and body changed.

 

[firedragon]

And I explained why. If you really want me to repeat the same information, then I can: the laws of physics allow for them to happen but there is no cause for the specific events. Now you can just accuse me of a repeating other people's answers and continue to run away from the problems you face yourself. Namely, that you haven't answered any of the reasoned objections to your argument. Even when you'd started to make some sort of attempt, you ended up collapsing into baseless assertions about other people not understanding, needing to read up. read again, and so on. Even, ironically given this, accusing them of just repeating what others have said.

One rule for you, another for everybody else, eh?

Can virtual particles come to be without quantum fields?