Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (14627)	1/20/2003 3:39:50 PM
From: James Calladine	Respond to of 28931

"We can create electron-positron and other matter anti-matter pairs out of the vacuum state by providing the vacuum state with enough energy" Are the scientists suggesting that: -- the vacuum state is utterly empty lifeless "space"? -- the "container" of the vacuum is also utterly empty lifeless space? -- the "enough energy" referred to is also utterly empty lifeless space? If anybody bothers to look at the "energy" supplied they will find that this is not so. Neither is the "matter" associated with the container. And, in the end analysis, neither is the vacuum state. It is probably just a temporary contraction of so-called space. Namaste! Jim

To: TigerPaw who wrote (14627)	1/20/2003 4:27:56 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"Is vacuum genesis compatible with observation? In a limited way. We can create electron-positron and other matter anti-matter pairs out of the vacuum state by providing the vacuum state with enough energy. In a sense, these particles literally appear out of thin air, and as 'virtual particles' they have measurable effects. So, yes, some limited experiments in the production of matter from the vacuum have been confirmed. Presumably, the origin of the universe is only a bigger form of the same experiment using the energy stored in the curved gravitational field of the primordial universe..as the driving spring." I have been trying to get back as far as possible in an attempt to discuss and address the basic metaphysical question of "being" or "existence". All along I have been asserting that something does not come from nothing and I think your link demonstrates that I am correct. Pre-existent in the definition are; 1. A vacuum state. 2. Energy, (supplied) 3. A curved gravitational field. 4. A primordial universe. 5. A driving spring. Now I know you to be a reasonable person TP. These 5 "somethings" are not "nothings". I stand by the statement. "Out of nothing, nothing comes." and everything that has a beginning, also has a cause. I'm open to discussion about why those statements might be in error but I don't think they are. Originally I made a very tame assertion that once you get back as far as you can get, something has to have the quality of self existence and eternality (without beginning) unless you want to postulate an uncaused beginning of something from nothing which is spontaneous generation. That something could be personal or it could be impersonal. As you know, I hold that a self existent, personal God is the cause of the universe. I believe that is a philosophically consistent and defensible position, whereas spontaneous generation of mater is, pardon the pun, philosophically and scientifically vacuous. Greg