Science and the Existence of God: A Scientific Discussion of Stephen Hawking's Opinions.

Science and the Presence of God • Print • Send to a friend Science and the Presence of God A Scientific Discussion of Stephen Hawking's Opinions In the name of God and after, it is advisable to put the basic points of the confusion of the article: The details come successively, God willing. 1... Now that it has settled into the consciousness of the scientific, astrophysical and scientific community, the idea of driving the random and random formation of the universe to the end in the system has waned: after the overwhelming emergence of the facts of the infinite control of the laws of the universe .. or what the scientific community has known of the carefully prepared universe Fine-tuning of universe, which is the very accurate value of the cosmological constant I say: After the wise shake their hands of the myths of chance and randomness in the creation of the universe and its composition: we have emerged a new clique of them: namely: claim the authenticity of the same laws that exist in the universe now !!! .. and that they had the ability to emerge from ((nothing) with a game of pumping positive energy and negative energy at the same time ! - Because they think that does not contradict the meaning of nothing, which we will refute ! - F !!! And what I'm interested in now is to clarify something very important that every sane person should pay attention to, which is that both coincidence and randomness: or laws and order: They are ((two ways to show behavior and actions))!!!.. And they are not (actors) on the truth !!!.. Which is an essential point if we face any atheist exposed his method, God willing !!!.. Example: When I come to a large group of school students and ask them to spread in the stadium without guidance: This sight and random behavior to them: can not be described as an actor!!.. But a way to do! On the other hand: If you draw certain lines and circles in the field: and then asked them to spread and line up on them: the system you got here and the alignment law that you put them: can not be described as an actor too .. but a way of doing ! Both ultimately need an actor who chooses to do it: either the behavior of randomness: or the behavior of the system or the laws .. No sane person can ever describe the act as the doer!.. He describes the accident and randomness - which does not have a physical existence in fact - as the doer! or describes the system and laws - which does not have a physical existence as well - as the doer!!.. 2... Even if we go along with this childish conception of the creation of the universe and its evolution according to strict laws: its constants do not change: every sane person would have to ask these people a very important question, namely: Where did individual consciousness, freedom of choice, independent will, and reason come from in living beings, above all man? Where did this come from if the universe was born of strict rules, laws and constants that do not change and do not change in their behavior, results and characteristics?!! Question about the murder!! 3... Even Stephen Hawking’s attempt to deny the need for a god under the pretext of humans knowing the laws of the universe: it is a failed and childish attempt to the extreme .. . because we will simply ask: and who has codified the laws and determined their values and constants and chose them?!!. In other words, our objection is: Do you deny our knowledge of the details of the occurrence of any act: the need for this act to an actor (whether random or system) as we explained?.. Does one of us find a washing machine or refrigerator and search it and check it until he understands how it works: Does it mean to say with a broad smile: that the washing machine or refrigerator does not need a maker because it has its own system that it is going on?!.. Is that wise talk?!? The first target of atheism is the intellect: it rejects self-evident truths and logic in order to promote disbelief in the Creator, the Mighty and Majestic! At a time when we see both faith and atheism must believe in the unseen - that is, believe in the existence of things they did not see with their senses and did not attend to them - we find a fundamental difference between them, which is that the belief of believers in the unseen: based on mental possibilities .. while the belief of atheists in the unseen: based on mental and even physical impossibles as we will see!!.. All of it demolish and evade the most basic rules of reason and logic, which if we agree. Or do they use the word of God in all their lives? Weird!! 4... It is the completeness of these mental and physical impossibilities: the claim that something came out of nothingness pure !!!.. It forced them to describe the nothingness with physical descriptions: and that it was carrying in it things (positive energy / negative) !!.. Which is contrary to the true meaning of nothingness, which is the opposite of existence and that there is nothing!!.. There is nothing in it.. There is no positive or negative!!.. The belief that nothingness is eternal or the origin: and then came out of it anything (God or substance or laws or whatever): The wise man would not hesitate to choose the first if he really respected his mind, which is entrusted to judge things intuitively and logically!!.. For although neither choice has been seen by anyone - they are from the unseen - but the first choice of the believers: combined with all the signs and mental possibilities .. It is the only obvious solution to the dilemma of the sequence of creators or modernists or cause endlessly !!!.. The other choice of atheism: it is all mental and physical impossibilities !!!. And the difference between the rich and the rich !!!. And between those who claim to go out of nothingness (and thus contradict the concept of nothingness itself): and between those who surrender to the Lord of the worlds without beginning!!. There are a few other mistakes that I will also point out in their place... The answer will follow the citation system for each paragraph of the article and color it: and then respond to it .. God is beyond purpose. --------- In ancient times all phenomena were explained on the basis of supernatural beings, such as lightning and storms, and they had a god for every phenomenon, The phenomenon of the sun was explained on the basis that there is a god named "Askol" which is in the form of a wolf, and he swallows the sun in the event of an eclipse, and they performed the rituals until the sun returned, and what they did not know was that the sun would return in all cases even if they did not perform these rituals, I say, This is not about Islam, which has come to destroy myths and myths, and invite people to reflect on the universe and all around them, so that they may know the perfection of Allah’s creation.’ “He created all things: He appreciated them” (Al-Furqan 2:2). It is well known that the scientist Stephen Hawking is ignorant of Islam – or willfully so – and so is Dawkins! God’s Word tells us to look at the universe and its signs: “Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for those who remember standing and sitting on their sides and pondering over the creation of the heavens and the earth: Our Lord, You have not created this for nothing. Therefore, we see a lot of verses in the Qur'an, in which Allah already reviews: The physical causes and the cosmic discharges of many phenomena: and draws people's attention to them!!!. Because by standing on the accuracy of the discharge and the laws: they will know (definitely) that behind them is a Creator, Knowing: and contrary to the atheists! So: Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an that He is the One Who does what He wants. It is He who sends down the rain after they have been overthrown, and spreads His mercy: He is the Praiseworthy Guardian. As he also said: God knows the hour, and He sends down the rain. However, it has been explained in other places: details of the material reasons set forth by the Almighty for this! He said for example: And He it is Who sends the wind as a human being in the hands of His mercy, so that when I carry a heavy cloud, We cause it to flow to a dead country, and We bring it down from all the fruits. He also said: Do you not see that Allah sends clouds and then forms between them and then makes them rak’ahs, and you see the light coming out through them and descending from the sky from mountains with hail, and then He pours it on whomever He wills and turns it away from whomever He wills. This verse alone of the Qur'an predates what is in it if we search !!.. He also said: He who sends the winds and raises up the clouds, spreads them out in the sky as he pleases, and makes them as heaps, and you see the winds coming out through him; and when he hits with it whom he will of his servants, behold, they rejoice. Last but not least, he said: “And Allah it is Who sent the winds and caused the clouds to rise, so We drove them to a dead land, and with it We revived the earth after its death.” Thus, we measure many of the Quranic verses that dealt with the most famous cosmic phenomena in physical detail: inviting humans to look and reflect on them: away from the influence of myths and legends that prevailed in the pagan, ignorant and distorted societies of the messages of God through the centuries !!!. Even though many myths and myths pagan and Israeli in the books of biography and interpretation and some books talk: but the science of modern had a lookout: as we will not find a modern represents a myth of superstition: only in his support challenged and problems and disagreement between scholars !! .. We will not find his bond only severed or suspended or raised and weak or abandoned and possessed ...! Perhaps the most appropriate examples here is the story of the thunder market of the cloud with the bolts of lightning - and the like of other novels - .. The novel, which came in some books of talk and interpretation on various grounds does not have the right support for the Prophet!!.. But all of them suspended or raised weak!!.. A statement is considered for a detailed research of Dr. Khalid bin Mahmoud Al-Hayek entitled: A research in the raised talk ((Raad is king) )....... It is also appropriate here - and in contrast to this weak narrative - to mention other stories true - but in the healthiest Hadith books and the most correct arguments in Bukhari and Muslim - : Translated to us the keenness of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to stay away from the superstitions that prevailed in his era !!.. Where the right Hadith The occurrence of an eclipse of the sun on the day of the death of Abraham son of the Prophet .. The sun and the moon are two of God’s signs: they do not come down to the death of anyone or to his life. It turns out that this universe is not supernatural, but it takes courage to face its truth. The name in this way is strange to me .. Perhaps ignorance of me or the translator, God knows ..! And if the link to the original article was put would have been better! (Note: The aristocracy is the nobility and the upper class of the people as Aristotle mentioned them in his ancient political philosophies.) He was impressed by the solar eclipse and the lunar eclipse as well, and after studies he showed that the eclipse is only the shadow of the moon on the earth Slim... This discovery led him to conclude that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as sometimes the Earth's shadow falls on the Moon and other times the Moon's shadow falls on the Earth. But they are other suns like ours, but very far away, and so he knew that the universe was a machine, in which certain laws were perfected, and at times were undetectable by the human mind. The discovery of these laws is the greatest achievement of human beings, and these laws of nature can tell us that we never need a God to explain the universe to us. I say: Even the machine, if we see it as rational: will never prevent us from asking the atheist about: Who made it and determined its mechanism and laws of action?!!. The wise man never sees a working machine: then he claims that it is without a maker capable of controlling it and setting up its mechanism of operation and installing its parts accurately and carefully!! .. Parts of the car, for example, if you throw it randomly into the vacuum of the garage: you will never give me a car even after billions of years of the universe!.. Because it needs an actor to install them together according to a certain design! You need an actor: has ((the ability)) to carry each part and put it in a place previously known to him according to a certain design and purpose!!.. And this is never available in randomness: besides that randomness does not have a physical entity to do some of ((the ability) and installation of some of others). This means as we have repeated more than once so far: that even randomness needs an actor to choose it and do it !!!. And in return also: I can install the parts of this car - and from the first time - : according to a design I know in advance and I want and has a purpose (which is the car and driving it): He also needs an agent!! Perhaps the most powerful question that has come to light in the face of tremendous accuracy in the laws of the universe and confined them to these amazing values is: Why these laws and values in particular: and not others?!.. Why these values end in accuracy and control of the physical constants of the universe?!!.. This is after scientists saw the accuracy of the cosmological constant exceed ten to 122 (i.e. one with 123 zeros in front of it)!!!. Which is more than the mathematical value of the theoretical impossible itself!!!!.. This is the value of Leonard Susskind in his book The Cosmic Landscape: (The Cosmic Constant 10 to 122 is impossible to create by chance.) The most famous physicist atheist author of our article, to which we now respond, Stephen Hawking, in his summary of the history of time, p. (The obvious truth about cosmological constants: they are carefully designed to allow life and with the most amazing precision) .. Therefore, atheists and atheists are now turning to a new god of their own: they are turning to Gabe, and no one can hold them accountable. The multiverse hypothesis!!!!.. where they convey the myth of chance and randomness and non-creation and laws: from within our universe that failed them: to a larger hypothesis that no one will be able to confirm as Susskind himself admitted !!!.. That is, the existence of a random universe with the number of chances of creating random universes in existence until we reach this universe !!!!.. Which hypothesis exceeded the odds of the accuracy of the cosmological constant itself !!. And even Stephen Hawking got it to the value of 10 to 500 universes!.. And as in his last book - the great design -! All of this is for the sake of God’s creation. Richard Dawkins said in an interview with Steven Weinberg on his official website: "If you discover this amazing universe, which is already carefully prepared, I think you have only two explanations, either a great creator or multiple universes." If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse. Source: VOICES OF SCIENCE ..Richard-Dawkins-Steven-Weinberg-Lawrence-Krauss-PZ-Myers-David-Buss Another observation is that the Earth may be the center of the universe (scientifically)!!! There is no scientific proof of it for those who do not know!! I will leave a reference to this after reading the following quote in which Hawking mentioned from the evidence: What he thought strengthens this atheistic idea of marginalizing humans and the planet in the universe: To emphasize the nullity of their existence !. The writer says - and I will turn a blind eye to criticism of his talk about the need for a god where we have already refuted it - : In order to understand this, we will give an example of the game of tennis and there are two laws governing the game, the first is set by man, which is subject to change by him, and the other type of laws are constant does not change, such as the force affecting the ball, or the flexibility of the racket, and these laws in addition to being constant, it is also universal, it applies not only to tennis ball, but to everything in the universe, these laws can never be broken, and this makes it very powerful, it accepted with me: This is the great contradiction between science and science, and this contradiction is not modern, but it is much older than our time. In 1277 Pope John XVII felt threatened by the laws of nature, and he called it agnosticism, but a religious organization found a solution to this problem, for several centuries later these laws were interpreted as the work of God, and God could break these laws if he wanted, and this idea was reinforced even though our blue planet still dwells at the center of the universe, contrary to the idea of Aristotle, which has been forgotten for a long time. But in 1609 Galileo Galilei was studying Jupiter from a telescope he made himself, and he made a shocking discovery, a third observed objects close to the sun, and at first thought they were faint stars, but after constant observation he noticed that they were moving, as they disappeared behind each other and appeared, he knew that they revolved around the sun, not around the Earth, and this discovery has brought him many problems with the Church, and he barely escaped execution by denying these ideas of urgency. First: To talk about the immutability and inevitability of the laws of the universe: it is against the emergence of individual consciousness, freedom of choice, independent will and reason among living beings, especially man! Galileo Galilei: He was not an atheist in the sense of denying God, which atheists always like to glue to every world to pull to their side. Third: He did not see that the hypothesis of the constant of the sun and the rotation of the earth around it destroys his Catholic religion .. But he saw that they can be reconciled ...! Fourth: He did not bring a new one: but adopted Copernicus' choice of the model of the firmness of the sun over the model of the firmness of the earth because it is easier to calculate! On the occasion of monitoring the movement of the planets and the disappearance of some of them behind each other or the sun: this is ancient and knew ancient civilizations like him!!.. They did not find in it blatant evidence of the centrality of the sun by the way!!!. For if we assume the rotation of the planets (and the sun) around the Earth, there is no problem in seeing some of them between us and the sun or behind the sun. So that no one will accuse us of insanity in the age of science - and I want here only to show the other neutral scientific saying that is being blacked out -: So here's two well-known people: one is a believer in a god, and the other is an atheist, Stephen Hawking himself. The English-American philosopher Walter Stace said: It is not right to say that the sun remains still and that the earth revolves around it, but Copernicus proved that it is "the simplest mathematically" to say that the sun is the center ... and then: if someone in our day wanted to be a "gay" and says that he still believes that the sun revolves around a still earth: there will be no one who can prove him wrong. Source: Walter Stace 1998 Book: Religion and the Modern Mind - Translated by Imam Abdel Fattah Imam - Madbouly Library - Cairo .. Now, let's look at what Stephen Hawking himself said in his short book The History of Time, Stephen Hawking, 1996, The Illustrated A Brief History Of Time: And let's see how he didn't see the likelihood of not saying the centrality of the Earth to the universe: only one reason: it has nothing to do with science and observation by the way !!!. You know what it is?!!.. Yes. It is the same as the inferior view of the planet. After recounting the experimental observations from which scientists concluded that galaxies in this vast universe are moving away from us, Hawking tells us how the Russian physicist and mathematician Alexander Friedman made two simple hypotheses about the universe – and in order to explain Einstein’s general relativity – the two hypotheses state: 1.. that the appearance of the universe looks like one of whatever direction we looked at it ..! 2.. This is not only about our planet Earth .. It is also true if we are in any other location in the universe ..! Then, after Hawking went on to explain how the evidence has come together to support the first hypothesis, which tends to be accepted scientifically: he says, trying to speculate on what this entails from the scientific acceptance of the idea of the centrality of the Earth: (For the first time, this evidence shows that the universe looks the same no matter what direction we look at it: it may suggest that there is something special about our place in the universe!.. Which means in particular: that if we are watching all other galaxies as they are moving away from us from all directions: we must therefore be at the center of this universe.) But he goes on to say that there is another alternative to this conclusion: that it would also look like this if we were in any other place in the universe!!.. Referring to Friedman's second hypothesis, which we mentioned earlier..! But: Is there any (scientific) or (experimental) evidence now on the validity of the second hypothesis about the first?.. Hawking answers: "We do not have scientific evidence to support or contradict this hypothesis .. but we believe in it: out of humility !!!. That is: out of the motivation not to say the centrality of the earth and man in the universe !.. because that inevitably leads to the weighting of the creator of man !!!.. For the next three hundred years, science had begun to explain all sorts of things, from lightning, to earthquakes, to storms, an end that made the stars light up, to every new discovery, that drove away the need for a god, and in the end, if you believe that science is behind lightning, you'll be different from someone who believes that there's an angel who carries a whip and strikes clouds. We have already answered this logical trick .. We said that the human understanding of the mechanism of the work of a particular machine - as an example - does not mean at all - in the minds of the wise - to claim that it made itself or without the maker of its knees or designed or programmed for the first time - and I mean in the last sentence the atheist hypothesis of a machine capable of copying itself ! Where you will also need a preliminary programmer for the process of copying . Despite the complexity and dispersion of the universe, it turns out that in order to make one, you only need three components, which are energy, matter, and space. I say: It is a proof that the thing is a creature and not a creator .. made and not a maker !!!.. lacking another and not rich in itself !!!.. updated and not eternal !!!. That is because if he loses one of its components: did not appear !!!. God Almighty says in His Wise Qur'an: "Or did they create from nothing?!.. Or are they the creators?.. Phase 35.. We had no idea, until the 20th century, that the Big Bang, where Einstein observed that the two most important components of the universe, matter and vacuum, are only one in origin, and his famous equation (energy is equal to mass in the square of the speed of light) confirms that matter can be converted into energy, so we can consider that the universe has only two components, energy and vacuum, and the question still arises, where did these two components come from? First, if we asked Hawking why at that particular moment the time of the Big Bang the universe came out of the alleged nothingness, he would not have been able to answer. This is because determining a certain time - and not before or after - for the emergence of something - whatever - : needs a chosen and wanted actor !!!.. and will not be useful here to portray that actor another phenomenon invented by atheists from their heads before the universe!!.. Because the same question will remain with them: Why this phenomenon happened at this particular time?!!.. Second: How does it give nothingness (which is nothing and has nothing in it): energy ?!?... And how does it give emptiness?!!!.. Where did it originally come from?!.. Third: How does the universe contain that which came out of nothingness: another lack within it from which other things come out constantly as well? And right: Hawking and others like him deliberately confuses the concept of nothingness with the quantum vacuum that fills the universe. We will soon find out if it is God’s will. And for some, God began to return to the image, for them God created the energy and the vacuum, and for them the Big Bang was the beginning of creation, but science tells a different story, we can use the laws of nature to understand the smallest origins of the universe, and to see if the existence of God is the only thing that will explain it. And to know the secret of the origin of the universe from nothing, we find that the secret lies in one of the same facts of the universe, the laws of physics require something called negative energy, negative energy. A high percentage of positive energy, in turn, produced the same amount of negative energy. Of course, Hawking didn’t tell us where the positive energy came from – pumping it from where?! from another universe’s pocket. As well as pumping it to negative energy !!!.. - It means not enough free pumping it to positive energy: until it is pumped to negative with it! So this positive and negative energy becomes zero, and this important negative energy from the components of the universe, is the vacuum around us, the vacuum itself represents a huge store of negative energy, enough to ensure that everything is equal to zero, and it is difficult to absorb this concept of non-mathematical physicists, we can consider the universe a huge battery of negative energy. If the universe goes to nothing, then we will not need a god to create it, Here is the origin of the logical fallacy and the new mental joke that goes to those who do not know: If we had a teacher or a teacher in a school: and he has ten students and ten students in the classroom: then the director asked him: Do you have students (or) students in the classroom?!!.. to respond to that teacher or teacher - according to Hawking's logic - saying confidently: No, I do not have students (or) students in the classroom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. That is because in his logic if something is equal and against him: this is equal to pure nothingness !!! The example is reversed to reveal to us the most ridiculous of the atheist physicists in their claim equal to nothing and against it: that if we come to one of the empty classes in which there is no one and ask the teacher to bring us ten students with ten students: and on the pretext that we did not ask him impossible to oppose the students equals the lack of them: to look at us madly !!!. And of course the origin of this error in an athlete like Hawkins and others: It is that he measured the mathematics (theory) in which 0 is actually !!!.. So consider that zero: it is nothing or nothing .. Accordingly: There is no objection to say that it holds the thing and against it!!.. It is contrary to reality as we have seen because nothing in its meaning in the real world: does not contain anything at all!!.. Neither (Q) nor (-Q)!!!. Even if this empty theoretical logic is true: then it would be true for us to describe our universe in which we live now as nothing! - that is, you and I are not really present now in the logic of physical atheism! - Because we contain positive and negative energy together and thank God!! .. This is how Hawking and others want to promote their twisted methods, which have only been left mentally and logically impossible: To escape from the reality of God's presence is clearer than the sun in the middle of the day !!!.. God is great in His wisdom. And whosoever desires of the religion of Abraham, except him who committeth excess of his own soul. But the final question remains, which is who launched the whole process in the first place, in our everyday experience of the black hole we get used to the idea that we can't find something out of nothing, but if we observe the motion of objects at the subatomic level, we find that molecules behave based on a science we call quantum mechanics, and particles at this level experimentally appear out of nothing and then disappear into nothing to appear elsewhere, and we know that the universe at the moment of the explosion was simply smaller than the atomic particles. Its density is so high that light itself cannot escape its gravity, and in circumstances like this Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us that time stops, that is, the difference between any two events is zero, and that's exactly what happened at the moment of the Big Bang, it can't come a time before the Big Bang, because the time itself started at the moment of the explosion, and we finally found something that doesn't need a cause, because there wasn't a time for that reason to happen, and for me to completely deny the possibility. Here we finally come to the bottom line .. Which is the conclusion is worth commenting on the end of Hawking's article ! Irrespective of the contradictions of this passage of Hawking's talk about the subjection of what happened at the moment of the Big Bang to the laws: although he knows that all the constants of the laws of physics had not appeared and no consideration had been given to measurement in them or on them before the time of Planck!!!. Apart from talking about black holes, especially Hawking, the author of the article himself is the most famous loser of a scientific bet in the history of modern science in front of the world Priscille !!!.. - Where Hawking thought in 1975 that it swallowed everything irreversibly : and challenged the world Priscille since 1997 : until he officially announced in 2004 on himself about losing the bet !!.. And his recognition that these black holes are surface of some regular areas. His reworked theory rules out his earlier belief that people could one day use these dark circles to travel to other universes. I'm sorry I disappointed science fiction enthusiasts!.. But if you throw yourself into one of the black whirlpools: the energy of your body mass will bounce back to our universe but in a distorted way!) I say: Far from talking about black holes that fill the world of physics mystery: I will be interested here only to show the fraud and deception of Hawking by mixing the concept of nothingness purely in the language of quantum or quantum !!! .. Which can appear particles suddenly .. where the response in two simple points will be as follows: One: It is known today that there is no place in the universe without energy .. It is also known that some molecules disappear from observation - especially with the dual nature of them between the wave and the particle - : then appear when you carry or acquire energy (from the quantum or quantum vacuum, which is never equal to the concept of nothingness) : and then disappear from observation by losing that energy again ... So what is it ?.. And does the sane say that it goes to and comes to ... And to understand that... In the following image (according to Richard Feynman's diagram): The diagram represents the collision of two electrons and their dispersion. Where the straight lines represent the two electronic paths before and after the collision, and the zigzag between them: A photon metaphorically represents: it connects the electromagnetic interaction between them .. And through this representation of the collision process under the influence of two electronic charges: can imagine the existence of a virtual particle (or photon virtual) as a temporary state very short life: appear during the interaction and transfer the effect and then disappear ..! Two: Therefore, we read in the words of specialized scientists, which reveals the fraud of Hawking and his exploitation of the ignorance of the common people with quantum physics: What confirms this meaning ..! We read in the following quote, for example: The recognition that the universe can not appear suddenly from a fluctuation in nothingness !!!.. because if not purely: What is it that oscillated?!!.. brings our universe into existence, is not absolutely nothing. It is only nothing like our present universe, but it is still something. How else could 'it' fluctuate? Source: William Carroll, Thomas Aquinas and Big Bang Cosmology In the following quote we also read that the concept of (vacuum) in quantum mechanics: does not mean nothingness .. .. but is the undisclosed reason for the temporary appearance of virtual particles !!!.. In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not a nothing. It is the indeterministic cause of the temporary existence of the virtual particles Source: [a href?]http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec5.html">Robert C. Koons] In the same explanatory meaning above: We read in the following and the last transfer that the quantum vacuum: is the state ((physical necessity)) of the emergence of virtual particles .. The description of physical necessity leads us to causality in this appearance .. That it is true that the emergence of these virtual particles was for a reason !!.. Of the possibilities of defining causality: We can say that it is a reason (This denies the lack of unity and the emergence of the universe at some moment without reason!) and that it was born!) "A quantum vacuum is a physically necessary condition of a virtual particle coming into existence and, in this 'physically necessary' sense of causation, virtual particles may be said to have causes. A probabilistic definition of causality would also enable us to say that virtual particles have causes, for given a quantum vacuum there is a certain probability that virtual particles will be emitted by it." Source: [Quentin Smith, "Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology," Essay VI., p. 179.] • Previous — Source: Brahin Center website - published on 2014-06-18 (archived at the Internet Archive) http://braheen.com:80/mag/0th/god-and-science