From morbius@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Sat May 13 13:50:24 EDT 1995
Article: 177222 of alt.atheism
Path: newsfeed.pitt.edu!minerva!morbius
From: morbius@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (Edouard Morbius)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A conversation between an atheist and a Christian
Date: 13 May 1995 07:32:49 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh

In article <3or4mo$kr1@urvile.MSUS.EDU> dheld@eeyore.stcloud.msus.edu (Lawnmower Man) writes:
:       Why do so many atheists think the universe could have always existed,
:and then point to science to say why atheism is correct?  According to science,
:the universe *could not* have always existed, for a multitude of reasons.  No-
:thing can pop into existence from nothingness alone or uncaused.  That's ab-
:surd.  There's nothing wrong with something being created or caused from no-
:thingness by something else, though.  In quantum mechanics, an electron and an
:antielectron (positron) can "come into existence", annihilate each other, and
:pass out of existence; but this does not violate my statements.  Since a posi-
:tron can be thought of as an electron moving backwards in time, you see that
:the positron could have caused the electron, and the electron could have
:caused the positron, and then they could annihilate.

I think that you are confused here. While the same propagator is used to
propagate a negative energy electron "backwards in time" as to propagate a
positive energy positron forward in time, there is a vital difference
between the two cases: there is no causal influence of the future on the
past. For example, a modulated beam of positrons can't bring you a message
from  the future. So to say that the positron caused the electron is wrong. 
The creation of a virtual pair is truly an uncaused event.

Now let me address your statement that "Nothing can pop into existence 
from  nothingness alone or uncaused". All I have to do refute this is to 
provide a counterexample. A universe described by Stephen Hawking's 
no-boundary model will nicely fit the bill. Note that I am not saying 
that our universe is a no-boundary universe, but merely stating that such 
a universe would *be* that which you claim *cannot be*.

Furthermore, to apply the principle of causality to the origin of the
universe presupposes that the universe and whatever "caused" it are both
embedded in some structure which admits causality, i.e. in which there are
"events" and some way to propagate causal influence from the "cause" 
event (god) to the "effect" event (universe created). Perhaps you would
like to describe this structure, in which your god presumably lives and
works. If there is no such structure, then there can be no cause of the
universe. 


Edouard Morbius