WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:
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 :)
|
Not so easy if you ignore the meaning of the words we are using.
If there is no time before the universe, there is no cause to the universe. A cause necessitates a unit of time "before" the event you're trying to justify.
This might be the reason why you're convinced this argument holds any weight. And to be fair the concept of time not existing is something very hard for the common person to imagine, which is why, no matter how many times it's debunked, it keeps being brought forward time and time again. It's a limit on the person evaluating the argument, not on the refutation
