What about a self-caused universe?

I might surprise you if it’s philosophical

1 Like

I have a weak heart.

1 Like

It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience

and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
Only true that we cannot reason them into accepting Christianity.

Presuppositionalists claim that Christians cannot consistently declare their belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true.
That may be their limitation, but other people are quite capable of reasoning from different sets of presuppositions to different sets of conclusions.

Presuppositionalism contrasts with classical apologetics and evidential apologetics.
I certainly agree with their rejection of classical and evidential apologetics.

1 Like

It has been argued that being part of the universe, we represent the universe attempting to make sense of itself. :wink:

That is only one part of it. It is also in response to others engaged in similar activities to rope onlookers into THEIR way of thinking.

That could be seen with respect to Hegel’s view of reason becoming conscious of itself.

I’ve often wondered if the way rational arguments can disprove atheism, but cannot prove theism, represents a synthesis of classical and presuppositionalist apologetics.

The “therefore know for certain” of Acts 2:36 shouldn’t be overlooked in Christian apologetics.

This phenomenon I am more familiar with, and it goes right back to my initial delineation of whether it just happens or it’s being caused by something that doesn’t happen.

What does that mean?

That’s another of saying the process does not occur. It causes the universe, but it is without beginning or occurrence.

How do virtual particles and quantum tunneling fit into these definitions? Are they without beginning or occurrence? When quantum tunneling happens does it not happen?

Your account doesn’t help. A particle - anti-particle pair spontaneously coming in to existence ex nihilo below an event horizon increases the energy of the black hole. Above it there’s a strong chance that one or both will be pulled in. What happens is that photons do this spontaneously all the time, unless they are inhibited as in the Casimir effect. What happens in black holes is that photons arch up to the event horizon and spontaneously form such a pair. One goes up and one goes back down. The up is now just above or on the surface of the event horizon and meets another opposite particle. They annihilate and the light probably escapes. That evaporation reduces the energy of the black hole. From memory, such as it is.

I think that is a fair description though it is hard for me to imagine how the sense we manage to make accrues to the universe as a whole. Are the beings within the universe integrated in the ways the
cells in our bodies are? Would it matter? Still it is true.

Oh I know and they annoy me even more because they so over state intuitions that are no stronger (probably less so) and certainly no more justifiable. Worse, while apologists are often smug and condescending toward atheists, many more online atheists are rude to the point of psychopathic cruelty toward believers; I do not prefer their company. But i do wish apologists would be content with arguing for the soundness of their own position and not work so hard to enlist the unwilling.


This may be the most condescending thing I have ever seen online.

That’s fine. I don’t care.


I have no doubt that the particles appear out of nowhere. If it is the case the cause cannot ever be is impossible to detect, it either just happens without a cause, or it’s caused by something that doesn’t happen.

These are the two possible statements.

In your vernacular, when the creation of the virtual particle pair happens it doesn’t happen?

Only when a photon turns in to them, they then immediately annihilate each other and carry on as a photon. Conservation is… conserved. I’m sure to be wrong, but I don’t believe that virtual particles come in to being ex-nihilo within universes and if they did, they’d have to wink out again; the average amount doing all that would be constant because of the iron clad conservation laws.

PS None of the manifestations of virtual particles break the conservation laws. Happy to be wrong. But I’m not :slight_smile: Nothing is ex-nihilo within the universe. At least.

Did my comment make sense?

If it didn’t I can understand. My communication skills are less than ideal. I spent an hour yesterday trying to explain how pressurizing an airplane on the ground does not simulate a 10k ft altitude in the cabin. And in the end the guy just looked at me like I was off.

The Committee has been meaning to talk to you about that.

Hahaha… thought it was a reference to the adjustment bureau

That can be arranged, so it’s not off the table.