Atheism Rejects Philosophy

In Round 2, I presented this: Science has opened the way for the "possible" existence of God in the arena of Quantum Physics. A book called Quantum Glory by Phil Mason that compares what science is discovering in the area of quantum entanglement, quantum non-locality, quantum teleportation to what we see in the Bible and in the Christian view of God. It is quite fascinating. Simply point: The universe is made up of wave energy and only collapses into particles / matter as we know it when someone is watching it, and someone has to be watching the whole universe for it to be matter. Sounds like God to me.My opponent misapprehended my source as to mean that I am endorsing Christianity as a whole when in fact I only presented that Quantum Physics coincides with what we see in the Bible and in the Christian view of God (i.e. monotheism).This is due to the fact that I used a Christian source for Christians are theists and they , as theists, have an argument for God's existence from logic and science irregardless of their position on the Godhead.Con's misunderstood it completetly. He must have focused on the science of my argument's source and not the theology of my source.Con misrepresented my argument.Con said: "I find my opponents above staments and points, hilarious and laughable ..All orgin theroys have "no direct evidence proving them" this is not the same as no evidence , it impossible to scientifically observe the orgin of everything .. Speculations ? No it's called an educated hypothesis"This is the context of my source: "Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger said,[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin."Con needs to know the whole picture: “According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”. Quantum fluctuations, theoretical constructs, by the way, require space and time as prerequisites before they can fluctuate. The total amount of energy in the universe we presently occupy is approximately 10^120 x 10^140 (including degrees of gravitational freedom) quanta, multiplied by the amount of energy per quantum.Each quantum contains an infinite amount of energy. Any infinite amount of anything placed into a finite container will, of course, constantly spill over, creating a measurable, testable release of energy. This energy has indeed been measured and tested, and is known as the Casimir Effect.The quantum void, as well, is not nothing, although it is certainly not a ‘thing’ either. The base particles of matter have no mass and are only differentiated from void by form (angle and spin). Odd isn’t it that the ultimate materialism winds up, at the quantum level, being dependent on form – or to put it as Heisenberg did “Plato was right after all.”. Mass comes about if/when these particles move in a certain fashion. Rather than being “space” the void could better be pictured as a seething layer of massless particles constantly being created and destroyed.In fact the void bears a striking resemblance to some facets of Eckhart’s mysticism. Put simply, as Aristotle said “unformed matter and the void are not differentiable and therefore the same.”, Eckhart’s description of the godhead, originally a gnostic term, was that the godhead had no attributes that could be posited of it – i.e. no positive attributes. Eckhart’s godhead, then, would also not be differentiable from the void.My argument that the universe ,per Quantum Hypothesis, came from vacuum -- not in the sense of empty or absolute nothingness --is still stands and remains unrefuted. In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created [i.e., by briefly “borrowing” energy already in existence—JM] and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy (Morris, 1990, p. 25, emp. added). Vilenkin, while explaining the problems inherent in Tryon’s work, said:A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.”Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something (2006, p. 185, ital. in orig., emp. added). Therefore, my original argument remains unrefuted:God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).Logically, all things that exist in this natural world has a source (origin).The origin of the universe is called 'deity,'Atheism clearly rejects Philosophy. Agnosticism and Deism is in line with logic but to affirm that God does not exists is merely and only SUBJECTIVE.References: http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...