Vlad,
When I used the search facility on quantum borrowing because I could not find the citations. I'm afraid I could not find them.
Outrider sent me a reply initially asking what I meant so I believe he was at least a little in the dark.
You put it as an alternative possible to the solution to the universe and I criticised it as such. Just because you never said it must be so doesn't make the idea free from criticism.
I bring it up again because if it were possible for an infinite universe then quantum borrowing would have been creating virtual particles for ever thus putting necessity as time dependent in doubt. Since in an infinity that which creates and the created exist infinitely.
I believe that necessity being time related was a piece of nonsense by Stephen Laws to whom we can say "stop woah yeh wait a minute mr postman"
So if you put an alternative prepare to have it criticised and do man up.
I see your mistake here. You seem to think that “possible” and “impossible” are opposites, when they’re not at all – they’re epistemically in different
categories. A possible is just the claim that if a logically sound justification for it was ever found then a tentative conjecture could turn out demonstrably to be true. The evidential bar for a possible is very low – quantum borrowing is a possible; leprechauns are a possible. Even your god (leaving aside your definitional problems with the claim) is a possible.
An impossible on the other hand is a claim of
certainty – it says that something categorically cannot be, no if and no buts. The claim of certain impossibility is what you rely on to dismiss not only all the current conjectures we have for the origins of the universe, but also to dismiss any other naturalistic explanation that may ever being found in future. It’s a huge claim, and so the evidential bar for it is stratospherically high – not only does it require a comprehensive grasp of all the science that’s given us the conjectures we have so far
and the better understanding of that science to falsify those conjectures, it also requires you to have the knowledge to do that for conjectures that no-one’s even thought of yet.
Oh, and even if you could do l that
still you’d have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate the specific positive claim “God” rather than any other causal agent.
Apart from all that though…
