Another argument about quantum fluctuations by an atheist again

Ok, so this atheist boy I’m debating with insists that subatomic particles do not need a cause and effect. So it shows the kalam cosmological argument to be false. He also claims and I quote “a giant quantum vacuum fluctuatiom. You might believe that this would result in a violation of the conservation of energy law, but it doesn’t. Particles with energy can come from nothing at the subatomic level due to the lack of relationship between cause and effect BUT the more energy the particle has, the shorter it lasts in order to satisfy the law of conservation, and the less energy it has, the longer it can last. You are probably under the impression that this universe has an enormous amount of energy, aand that it could only last for a extremely short time if it came from nothing. However, this is not true. This universe has an entire global net energy of zero. This is because gravity is a negative energy. And the matter which generates the gravity is positive energy. This would mean that this universe has a total net energy of zero. And the fact that this universe has 0 energy is empirical proof that it came from nothing as a vacuum fluctuation without violating any conservational.”

**Physicists and apologists please help!!!

So how did the physical universe containing particles coming from nothing come to be and why does that universe follow those physical rules?

I think that quantum fluctuations require a quantum substrate. A particle/anti-particle virtual pair can arise from the substrate, but the substrate is something. It’s not nothing.

Does your friend presume that the quantum fluctuations occur in an area entirely devoid of space and time, and any substrate into which they can collapse and arise?

I suggest you research Father Spitzer, and

These “internet physicists” that run around message boards spouting tripe like you posted like to believe they’re so smart, and willingly come up with ANY excuse they can that they /think/ is scientific to deny the existence of God.

In fact, the probability that this universe would have all conditions met according to the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Entropy to support anthropomorphic life ANYWHERE within it is 1 in 10 taken to the 10th power taken to the 123rd power.

To give you an idea of how improbable that is, the chances of you being DEALT a Royal Flush 50 straight times from a deck of 52 cards is roughly 1 in 10 to the 300th power.

So then these guys like to say “Well, string theory this, and multiverse that, etc. etc.” There is ZERO scientific evidence to support a multiverse theory, and even if there was, it would still need a beginning. Random vacuum fluctuations? Really? Believing in this is also like believing in “magic”, as the atheists like to accuse us of.

The universe is expanding and undeniably contains matter. Matter of literally unquantifiable amounts. This matter did not appear from a vacuum all by itself. Period. It makes no sense at all.

The probability of a Creator was acknowledged by no less than the originator of the Big Bang Theory, astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who became a Deist from an atheist at the end of his life.

Read This…

Also, you will never convince him, so I wouldn’t waste my time beating my head against a wall, but I do understand why you do so as I’ve done it uncountable times myself. I’m over it. People are just going to believe what they want to believe.

I must clarify that it was Hoyle who coined the term “Big Bang”, but the theory itself was first put forth by a Catholic Priest, Father Georges LeMaitre.

So the funny thing about so many atheists and their claims that religion has nothing to do with science and vice versa, is that much of science exists because of the Catholic Church, and this is only one example.

It’s a proven fact ,you can not have a Nothing, there is always a Something,

You can have all these arguments, but he also may not be really open to listening to them.

With this, you can put your 2 cents in, and it’s generally more productive to move on to something else. You give it your best shot, and if it doesn’t work, it might be more prudent, and effective, to use spend your energy somewhere else where you can make a difference.

We don’t always believe what we believe based on pure logic alone. I’m not sure what affects what we believe, but I think other factors come into play. Logic alone often won’t convince somebody. I think we believe what we believe also with our emotions.

Pick your battles.

:slapfight: :wink:

Better, I think, to come from philosophy rather than physics (from metaphysics rather than physics).
The “cause of things”, their fist cause, does not come by physical force, but by “vocation”. Everything’s first movement is set in motion via a “call” “Let there be…” is the biblical way of phrasing this “cause”, and out of nothing "there is …(whatever, and everything).

As to the thought of not having a cause, you have to hold firm to the fact that everything in motion, moving, is being moved, or there is no movement. And when the movement ends or the thing moving ends, the “cause” is satisfied. Movement always implies a “from where” and a “to where”, and the first cause and final end are one.

Just some thoughts to snarl his brain a bit.

Much of what is written about quantum physics is a misinterpretation of the theory. Your atheist friend is latching on to something that he does not understand.

The Kalam argument is the same as the classical argument that every effect has a cause - that the universe exists therefore means that it has a cause. Since we don’t know that cause, we call it God. This reasoning is absolutely solid. There is no way out of this unless you propose arbitrary magic.

Now, the modern guy who misunderstands quantum physics says that particles come into existence without a cause. They just appear. And then leaps to the conclusion that this means that the universe can just appear.

Problem is that the universe is huge!

Quantum particles are small. So small that the only way we can describe them is with an indirect statistical observation of their effects on things we can observe. The limitations of our observations, which is purely statistical, is what leads to the perception of the various features that are misconstrued by the uninformed.

There is nothing in quantum mechanics, which is just a frequency domain modal theory of small structures, that leads to any violation of cause and effect.

i would just walk away, look in the bible, it says those kind of discussions are like a scab that keeps opening more and more, theyre pointless and there are much more better things to be talking about

god is even smarter and wiser than man, remember that

It might be true that the universe could have come into existence without being caused by an outside agency. But even if it could have happened that way, did it? Or is it possible that the beginning of the universe could have been made to happen by something ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ it. How could we know?

Discussions about the beginnings of the existence of our physical universe don’t seem to me to be very productive in terms of establishing whether or not God exists.

Here’s what he said regarding this question.
“Quantum fluctuations fluctuates space into existence. But movement at the subatomic level is independent of time due to the fact that cause and effect have no relationship on that scale.
Virtual particles need space to form, but they do not need time. And space can also be fluctuated into existence by quantum fluctuations.”

That’s an interesting interpretation of spacetime. Regardless, space is not “nothing.” The vacuum state is not “nothing.” Both are necessary conditions for the existence of virtual particles. So unless we invent a new language where we identify “nothing” as “something,” it simply can’t be said that virtual particles come from nothing.

Furthermore, causal indeterminacy doesn’t = no cause. Even Thomists admit that in most cases cause and effect are simultaneous, sometimes making it difficult to determine what is cause and what is effect. That doesn’t mean there is no cause and no effect.

Finally, if any of what is asserted is correct, then science comes to an end on this issue. Why? Because the specialized sciences (including quantum physics) is in the business of discovering the causes of things. No explanation for a cause is just another way of saying that science has failed. I reject this because I have faith that science can and will explain the various causes of virtual particles.

A lot more could be stated here, such as equating empiriometric results as an accurate account of ontological reality. These are all philosophical errors made by someone who doesn’t even realize they are relying on metaphysics on many levels for their conclusions.

Quantum theory is proposed in order to solve certain observations that are hard to explain based on measurements. For example, the photoelectric effect, or the Compton effect.

Quantum energy states are proposed for the electromagnetic field in order to reconcile theory and experiment. Unfortunately many theorists do not understand the statistical nature of detection equipment

In all cases though, we can place the quantum effects on the detector instead of the field. For example, in the photoelectric effect, the quantized energy level term can be placed on the detector’s modes and not the field itself. No photons required (quantized frequency domain energy levels proposed to be applied to the electromagnetic field).

In the Compton effect, Compton himself included a non-quantum, purely electromagnetic explanation. No photons required. This explanation is harder to understand than ‘particles bouncing into each other’, so the later is what is taught as a tool. Some lose sight of the fact that it is just a tool though. Serious physicist do not.

But the tools of quantum mechanics are easier if we apply the quantization to the field itself. You get the same answers so it works, but the interpretations cannot be extrapolated. But some forget this.

All of the weird quantum effects come about when you take the noise in a detector, misinterpret that noise as being an effect of the field while assuming a perfect detector.

Quantum mechanics and even particle physics is lost analyzing the noise in their detectors and misinterpreting it as a weird world of quantum particles, non of which exist in reality - just a mathematical tool.

Virtual particles. Really? That is a description of the effects of electromagnetic energy interacting with a detector. The process involves conversion of energy within the detector itself which is statistical in nature. No violation of cause and effect there.

BUT if you force the explanation using a ‘perfect’ detector, all of the quantum effects then must be explained using magical ‘particles’ in the field itself, and hence erroneous interpretations of how these particles behave. Yes, you get the right answer out, but the mechanism is non-physical. Certainly cannot be used to extrapolate out to bigger things.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit