By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
setsunatenshi said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Then prepare yourself because I'm a necromancer ;)

1)Whatever exists has a cause is very much true. Everything is at least tracable back to the ultimate contingent event that is the big bang.

2)Secondly, virtual particles are fluctuations of particles. They suddenly and temporarily adopt properties they shouldn't really have, but they do not "pop into existence from nothingness" 3)That would contradict the principle of the conservation of mass.

4)One of my earlier points exactly. If there was not time before the universe, then our "0 hour" of time is our point of existance in the universe. It's a natural numbers row which has a ver nice, clear and defined beginning.

1) citation needed, just because everything you can see with your eyes has a "cause" doesn't mean everything has a cause.

2) We don't really know what they are, we do know they interfere with other particles (therefore they exist) and yet have no cause we can ascertain. So in that sense, yes, they do"pop into existence from nothingness"

3) yes it does, which is why these particles disappear into the nothingness (unstable and their existence is not sustained in the universe). Therefore the conservation of energy/mass is maintained

4) there is no cause if there is no time. a cause requires time to be existent. If the existence of the universe and time are interlinked, then by necessity, the universe has had no cause. This falsifies the final premise in that argument.

 

Cheque

 

and mate :)

1. You mean you don't know

2&3. You mean we're unsure what and why they are

4. If they're interlinked, it means both the universe and time had the same cause.

Not sooooo easy right :)