Positron-electron pair formation. Vacuum energy fluctuations. The particular moment of particle decay. There are many other quantum examples. What do I win?
This would be a violation of the law of cause and effect, another miracle!
Actually, it would be "another miracle!" if you were to make a post without major errors in it.
What exactly is this alleged "law of cause and effect" of which you speak, please?
Perhaps you're a Buddhist.
Or maybe you're agreeing with William Tiller when he writes of his "Law of Cause and Effect" and says, Our spiritual parents dressed us in our biobodysuits and put us in this playpen, which we call a universe, in order to grow in coherence, in order to develop our gifts of intentionality and in order to ultimately become what we were meant to become -- effective cocreators with our spiritual parents. . Hmm, that *does* sound like some of your posts...
Or maybe you meant the "Law of Cause and Effect" of the voice of Thoth, the Atlantean.
Because I can assure you that there's no "Law of Cause and Effect" in the field of physics. Ever since the advent of quantum mechanics, physicists are quite aware that things can happen without "causes". Causality took a hell of a beating in the earlier part of the 20th century, from which it has never recovered. The belief in "hidden variables" (i.e., underlying causes we just can't see) has been refuted in experiment after experiment. Even Einstein, who originally strongly resisted such a notion, was forced to concede.
Perhaps you were misled by the name of the "Causality Principle" of physics, which says something very different from your claim that every event must have a cause. Instead, the Causality Principle only says that if event A affects event B (or in layman's terms, A "causes" a change in B), then B cannot affect A. In short, the principle says that when there *is* causality, it will only run one direction. Incidentally, either faster-than-light signals, or time-travel would violate the Causality Principle. And evidence is starting to mount which may imply faster-than-light signals.
But I digress. In short, although you clearly enjoy fantasizing about its existence, there is no such thing as the "Law of Cause and Effect", and thus there's no cosmic uproar when it's "violated".
I am continually amazed at how you evos will point the finger at creationists and reduce their explanations to "goddidit!" while your explanations remain "itdidititself!"
What you fail to grasp is that there is plenty of strong evidence for the latter and little for the former.
Furthermore, creationists have no issue with "itdidititself" when asked to explain where God might have come from, and yet they strain at the very same gnat when asked, if they agree such a thing is possible, whether perhaps the universe might then have that same property. This is especially ironic in that they often invoke "goddidit" in order to *avoid* conceding that maybe "itdidititself", and then immediately turn around and happily accept "itdidititself" to explain where God came from. That begs the question, why not just remove the middleman?
For more elucidation on the creationists' several fallacies on that topic, check this out.
And while it doesn't give a cite (I'll have to go digging), this passage from that essay is especially intriguing: "Stephen Hawking's study of probability amplitudes has lead to the conclusion that our sort of universe has about a 99% chance of existing uncaused." Food for thought.
[Sure, his origin wouldn't be via anything *in* this Universe, but you've hardly "proven" that he therefore could exist without a "Cause" of some sort, from somewhere *other* than our universe.]
For you, I'm sure there is no proof of anything but evolution.
Wow, three major screwups in one short statement:
1. You're utterly mistaken when you presume that I think there is a "proof" for evolution. As I've already explained previously, science does not deal in "proofs". Perhaps eventually someone will listen.
2. There are plenty of proofs, but mostly in the realm of mathematics, formal systems, and logical argument.
3. Your little snide remark in no way strengthens the flaws in your original argument, nor lessens my demonstration of the existence of those flaws.
You presumed that, almost by definition, a being which created a universe would be "uncaused". I demonstrated that that ain't necessarily so, by providing a possible counterexample. That there *could* be an alternative is enough to puncture your presumption that your conclusion *had* to be true. QED.
Please detail your thinking on how an Ultimate Being could have an origin.
By being born of (or created by) another Ultimate Being, for example.
Your turn: Please detail your thinking on why an "Ultimate" being necessarily needs to exist at all, especially given the fact that universe creation, etc. could for example at least conceivably be the work of an incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent (but somewhat less than "Ultimate") alien from the dimension Gaqlstan.
Why not Xarg, the Sufficiently Powerful, Sufficiently Smart, instead of Mr. Ultimate Being There Could Ever Be Who Has Absolutely No Limitations Of Any Kind?
Sometimes I wonder if the early Yahweh-worshippers (in a time of many competing theisms, remember) weren't just playing a game of "my god's bigger than your god because mine's infinite, so there, try to top that, nyah nyah".
[It only proves that if they have a Cause (and as far as we know, everything *needs* a Cause), it lies somewhere *else*.]
If everything needs a cause -- and I'm surprised to see that you agree with this law--
Me too, my mistake. It was very late at night and somehow quantum physics had slipped my mind. I retract the statement, becaues it's untrue.
then what caused our universe?
There's that "cause" presumption again...
If you'll be so kind as to rephrase your question as, "how did our universe form", then here's a good scenario
Hey. I thought about that as a sceen name, but it was too long! ;^)