Long post. Be ye warned...
No, it doesn't. Quantum mechanics posits nothing about something from nothing; what it posits is something arising when certain conditions are placed that is apparently causeless.
Nevertheless, that something arises from nothing.
Ah, but there is a preceding event that determines if a particle is radioactive.
And what, pray tell, might that event be?
Besides, this has nothing to do with a something-from-nothing model;
Well, no, but we're discussing that at a later point.
something-from-nothing is an invalid argument and wholly impossible.
Invalid? Wholly impossible? Such bold claims require bold proofs: what is your disproof of 'something from nothing'?
But they have a basis; it is NOT a something-from-nothing, and thus wholly irrelevant.
A basis? Whatever are you on about?
That is taking one event of an already caused universe, tracing the universe back to origin, this analogy is also irrelevant. The question is: Why is there something, rather than nothing?
The answer can be thought to be a few things, chief being that there never was nothing, or there would still be nothing.
Says you. What proof do you have that nothing can arise from nothingness?
And don't use the "Well, what proof do
you have?" counter. You make claim, you provide the proof.
We then see nothing in the universe that is not indifferent to its own existence; so where is the thing that is not indifferent, to start this indifferent chain? If a thing has no say in his existence, as the entire universe does, it is caused.
Only if your presumption is correct, which the evidence does not support.
And what do you mean, 'indifferent'? Are you referring to potentiality? Agency? Causality?
In short, false. In order for the teleological argument to work you have to show an indifferent system cannot come into existence save for a cause that was not indifferent. Like a ball bouncing, the ball has no say or care whether it bounces, so I must throw it to start its bouncing. I am the different cause to the indifferent ball's bouncing.
A stiff breeze that blows a ball off a cliff performs the same function, so I don't see the significance of this 'indifference'. But you could argue that the breeze is the cause itself, right?
While that's true, there are nonetheless uncaused events: quantum tunnelling, for instance. A quantum particle sitting in a potential well doesn't have enough energy to overcome said potential, yet its associated wavefunction 'leaks' through. Since the potential is finite, there is a finite (albeit abysmal) chance that the particle can be found
outside the well.
This is in stark contrast to classical mechanics, wherein a particle in a potential well
must have sufficient energy before it can escape.
They are spontaneous, but, again, irrelevant, considering that if the preceding conditions that cause them to exist were not in place, they would not exist. Thus you cannot posit they are proof of something-from-nothing; they are not from nothing.
Actually, they are: though they require certain conditions, meeting them is not a guarantee that they will spontaneously appear. The whole point of spontaneity is that there is no cause.
But if they're not a case of "something from nothing", then whence do they come?
No, it does not at all. The teleological argument points to the universes indifference; the way it has no say in its own existence.
Err... no. Teleology concerns design and purpose. This 'indifference' you keep mentioning doesn't seem to have anything to do with the teleological argument. To summarise it:
- The appearence of design in something is proof of the existence of its (intelligent) designer.
- The universe appears designed.
- Therefore, the universe has a (intelligent) designer.
Not necessarily a designer(that would be a different argument, lent toward God's proposed nature), but, simply, a purposeful Causer.
Besides, how could a Being that created, or caused, existence, be complex when there are no substances prior to God that God could be composed of?
Who says there's no prior substances? If this nebulously defined 'God' exists, why can't other nebulous things?
Ok, then if you want to stay on track, avoid asking why the Christian God is the right one; its a hugely different subject.
Actually, it's not. First, I never mentioned the Christian God. Second, I was pointing out that Aquinas never explained why the entities concluded in each of the arguments are, in fact, one and the same.
We have a Prime Mover, a First Cause, an Intelligent Designer, etc. You seem to just assume that these are all the same being, which you call 'God'.
I contend that this is just another assumption you have to make for Aquinas' arguments to works.
It's an apparently uncaused event occurring when certain conditions are met, not something form nothing.
Something form nothing is, simply, impossible. An apparently random event in the realm of something is not.
Perhaps, but these events are
truly random. I don't think you quite grasp the physics behind it, but I assure you that, quantum mechanically, the universe is probabilistic.
No, I just don't want to get sidetracked into the nature of God unless you want to go there, for sure. But I think we have enough to discuss simply with God's existence.
Quite
.
.
