|
|
#73
03-18-2006, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
What presents a problem for atheists is the fact that no mechanism can be described which accounts for any universe. Some part of the mechanism must always be "that's just how it is." This doesn't necessarily imply God, but it does imply that a complete understanding or description of the universe is impossible without God. ("God" defined somewhat loosely here) [/ QUOTE ] Defined loosely or not, no such thing is implied. All that can be inferred from there being no mechanism proven to account for any universe is that we havent discovered that mechanism yet. "God" is just one mechanism that has been theorized but not proven. Spontaneous emergence from a vacuum is another possible mechanism, just as particles and their anti-particles are created in a vaccum. There may be yet another "number" which explains why the particles survived and their anti-particles did not remain to annihilate them. 
|
|
#74
03-19-2006, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
Spontaneous emergence from a vacuum is another possible mechanism, just as particles and their anti-particles are created in a vaccum. [/ QUOTE ] The vacuum isn't "nothing" -- it is a specific quantum mechanical state with certain symmetry and entanglement properties. In short, you need to postulate the existence of a full quantum mechanical system (a specific Hilbert space, specific dynamics, specific observables, etc.) -- a universe -- in order to specify your vacuum state before you can begin to talk about things "spontaneously appearing" in "vacuum fluctuations" or the like. The point is that the universe must exist in order for a vacuum to exist -- the vacuum does not and can not independently describe the existence of the universe.
|
|
#75
03-19-2006, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 numbers
If we identify that mechanism, we'll have to discover the reason for it. Even if we identify a self-contained "chain" of mechanisms, we'll have to describe a mechanism that results in that sequence of mechanisms.
Causal dynamics are always incomplete. No matter what, if you say "this is how things are" then the question "why is that how things are?" is valid. There must be a cause without causes. There must be something where, "that's just how it is."
|
|
#80
03-19-2006, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 numbers
But you do accept that there is insufficient evidence regarding this subject and that your position of mystery isn't logical?
How do you define the standard of evidence? There's arguably more evidence for evolution than there is that the earth revolves around the sun. Is that not enough?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
