CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
How does the Casimir Effect disprove the existence of an eternal being?
Recently I have been arguing that an eternal being "possibly" created everything. Another user said no the CasimirEffect automatically disproves the existence for one. I know a "god" cant be fully proven or disproven but does this effect disprove the existence of an eternal being? Why does it if it does?
Most of Creatards and other mentally damaged people tends support their fallacies by screaming about 2nd law of TD which is limited to small and slow moving things, which is a fact they tend to ignore so I have mentioned Casimir's Effect which is a "thing" I studying for nearly a decade. Sadly the theory is little more complicated than story about talking snake and magic... I would advice you to do some reading on QFT prior to posting anything to the "NO" side.
Creatards, lol. You and that word, you should marry it. See how childish that sounds? Yeah, you remind me of one of those immature fucktards, how's that for "tardism"?
Not only are you a fucktard, you're also probably an agnostic whom just says "I don't know" then begins calling anyone who believes they know anything a "[BLANK]tard"...Or you're an atheists who's been hurt deep down and you continue to disbelieve because of a tragedy, giving you little to no reason to believe in any God because God hasn't "pleased you", nor "shown itself to you" (the way you desired)...or you're an atheist whom used to be Christian/any other religion, and now find God to be unnecessary, due to X, Y, Z. Guess how many people fall into any of those categories? You can do the math Nox, you're smart right? Smart enough to call creationists, or believers in intelligent design, creatards. Unless of course you mean "create debate retards", in which either case you are name calling for no good reason other than to fuck around. And so, I'll do the same, though I call you a fucktard because of your unnecessary use of words to describe your opposition. I digress...
There is more evidence for the existence of God than against it. And even then you'll continue to bash others as if you've got all of the answers when you claim those that believe have all the answers and the assumptions pile up before you get a true understanding of how it is now.
Your mindset of how and what and why a religion is, is primitive in that you focus on the negative aspects that people utilize religion for, against them, with a flare of "scientific" data. As if science can ever disprove God, it's not possible.
You're fighting against people whom have been dead for thousands of years, you're not really speaking directly to believers like myself in the modern era. Understand whom you're up against and perhaps then the quest to understanding this life will be more intelligent and useful to both parties.
Hah! Hardly crying Nox. I don't need to prove anything to you. It's all over this fucking create debate site, go look it up if you may. You're hardly something to cry about, your mindset is lame and weak.
Oh right, because magic and talking animals are why I believe in God. That's right, thanks for clearing that up Nox0. What would I do without you helping me remember that the reason why I believe in God is because I believe in bronze age myth full of magic and talking animals. (sarcasm) palm to forehead
Lets be honest, your so called evidence is not evidence for a God. When people respond and tell you why it is not, you get abusive and say just because its not good enough for you doesn't mean it isn't evidence. If it was good evidence you would be able to defend it.
If it surpasses our knowledge then why bother present it in the first place? To feel good about yourself? I'm suspecting that's it. And furthermore, i would like to point out to you that I doubt you understand anything about the bible and the poetic justice it represents, so leave the 'talking snake' out of this
Not all of the people here on CD are Americans, so there was a chance that some of them could have a relevant background in maths and physics but it showed up that I was wrong, pretty much all of people who replied are illiterate creatards who prefer the talking snake way...
What do you mean by relevant background, it can't be anything above a normal High school education in such subjects right? Because if it was, I have to point out that some of us are still in high school, some of us didn't pursue college education in Physics and math, others just don't understand (doesn't mean there stupid, as you think anyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid). Again, i have met many who understand nothing about any religion, and i make it my duty to explain whatever religion I can, to the tittle, so they may not make any blunders on this topic. And some times it takes a good essay, and some very extensive research. So again, the ball for excuses is in your court.
US high school system is quite comical, unless you pay for some good private one. Where I am from people are usually able to talk about various subjects without need for a degree. Most of my friends aren't physicists yet they can read most of equations with some level of understanding, they are able to ague but here they don't even try.
I never said you didn't have a topic, i said you presented the topic with no points and chose to not expound. And you instantaneously expect everybody to know what your talking about. In my opinion, you should not have presented anything at all and i only prompted you to do so. You still haven't though, just saying.
Retards have the right to believe that their crap is made of chocolate but it doesn't make it true and they are still retards for believing it. Similarly, a retard has the right believe there is a God but it doesn't make it true and they are still retards for believing it.
No for it's own but if you want to record it, you need measuring "device" and observer. What you mean is probably Dynamical Casimir effect, that works differently. My point was that thing do happen without cause.
Topic is really complicated. I'm not trained to teach people.
This is all matter of "definitions"... how do you define spacetime? What is the connection between space and time... this is more like philosophy rather than Physics. Big bang seem to be the origin of space, time and energy/matter. If there was no time before big bang then there was no time for creator to create anything...
From Casimirs effect we know that not everything needs a cause so big bang may not needed any cause too...
The Casimir Effect does not in itself disprove the existence of an eternal being. Who ever told you that didn't understand the whole argument which is supposed to be a refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which states that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite regress of causes stretching into the past, a god must be the first cause; therefore an uncaused cause.
Where the Casimir effect comes into the argument is that some atheists suggest that not everything necessarily has or needs a cause. Quantum mechanics shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.
Here's the problem though...despite our best efforts we're really only scratching the surface of knowledge when it comes to Quantum physic. Those who would argue that the Casimir Effect refutes the Cosmological Argument don't understand science and the limits of our current body of knowledge. Because we can't find a cause, they assume that there is none. Of course, from a strict scientific POV, we shouldn't assume "God done it" right away either. But it's a special kind of "magical thinking" on the part of some atheists if they're assuming that no cause exists (i.e. "Poof! It's magic!"). Of course virtual particles do come from somewhere. We just don't know where or by what mechanism.
Right. The only thing I was arguing for was the possibility of an intelligent designer like an eternal being is still possible to exist beyond our spacetime. That was it. Apparently this effect, according to that user, disproves this.
No she isn't, they are very distinct, but similar, arguments.
God of the Gaps is the claim that, because we don't understand how science works, the only explanation is something beyond science - a God.
Lizzie is claiming that because we don't know how science works, we cannot claim that science says there is no God. That is a very valid claim - science will never be able to disprove God, and it certainly cannot from what we understand of it.
We can prove the redundancy of certain types of God (such as proving an alternate cause for the universe would disprove the current understanding of the Christian God) but you can never disprove all definitions of God, due to the inductive nature of science, as well as the ridiculous definitions some people have (God didn't create the world, doesn't do anything, just kind of sits there where you can't detect him, for example).
she has brought the idea of god/s so burden of proof is on her site, asking for disprove is inadequate. It would be similar to: You are dangerous pedophile until you disprove it.
No she hasn't. She specifically claimed The only thing I was arguing for was the possibility of an intelligent designer like an eternal being is still possible to exist beyond our spacetime (or at least that's all I'm talking about, I haven't seen your entire discussion). That argument holds no burden of proof, as she isn't affirming anything - the initial assumption is that all things are possible until proven otherwise.
It would be like saying 'there is a possibility you may be a dangerous pedophile'. That is true, for both you and me and her.
Btw if you're referring to something that she claimed in a different chain of arguments, then that's a different case. I'm only talking about what I saw her say, which I quoted.
she keeps blabbing about the "god of the gaps" whatever you tell her. She ignores all arguments and after whatever you tell her she asks for disprove of her god. Talking to her is like talking to a retard.
Thanks you so much for explaining that. Literally I spent hours trying to explain this. I kept saying that there just is not enough knowledge to fully say an eternal being doesnt exist.
You are, as far as I know, correct. The Casimir Effect does disprove "god" at all. This is a problem with many young atheists. They read a website or a pop science book and they think they know all the answers. Then they mash up the science. Trust me when I say this, most real scientists loath these kinds of atheists because they trivialize the science that they claim to advocate for.
My original point before this debate was created was to break "matter cannot be created nor destroyed therefore wizard did it"
I'm in physics for nearly a decade and not as a hobbyist. Deeper I go in my research more is obvious that there is no "ultimate cause" god/wizard like thing.
OK, so out of curiosity, how does one proceed to "prove" that a virtual particle emanates comes from nothing? Is this "nothing" a physical nothing or a philosophical nothing?
matter cannot be created nor destroyed therefore wizard did it
Yes, I can appreciate the frustration. It's a non-sequential leap of logic to presume that because we don't know the cause -> God. But you have to admit, the same leaps of logical also happen in reverse. In effect, there is/isn't a God isn't falsifiable; it boils down (you're gonna hate this) - a vibe (which is just a funky way of saying "faith"; but everyone hates the "f" word).
"the Nothing" is shielded high vacuum, no matter present, only observer and apparatus are near. I do not want to go too much in detail. I would advice you to watch some MIT lectures about mechanics and QFT, to have so picture in your head. They are free. https://www.edx.org/
The Casimir Effect (CE) has been repeatably demonstrated. CE is a quantum (or subquantum) phenomenon. I hypothesize that the CE may be a causal mechanism, at the subquantum or quantum scale, in the origin of life and in the evolution of replicative DNA/RNA. My current intellectual interests inquire regarding whether CE (and probably related, but yet undiscovered phenomena) may be 'modulated' or directed by a yet-to-be identified 'source'. That 'source' might be an intelligent designer. Arguments pro/con? "Go ahead . . . make my day!" Note: since I am new here and haven't yet reviewed the 'posting rules', I'm not sure whether I can link readers to my web page.
It really doesnt. There must already be materials present in order for it to work out so it doesnt disprove the existence for one. Nobody has truly proven or disproven the existence of one. Some people say more evidence leans towards the non-existence of one but some others say it does so it all depends on who you talk to, but for the time being it doesnt disprove the existence of an "eternal being".
Haven't been here for a while. Re: Casimir Effect. See the following link for a discussion of subquantum effects (such as CE) as a mechanism for consciousness. The next step is to determine whether that mechanism is modulated by, or moderated by a causal affector.
