What is Dart's concept of God?

[_antishock8]

I read a book about ten years ago called, "Who's afraid of Schrodinger's cat?" which introduced me to Quantum Mechanics. I was fascinated by the differenct concepts contained within the theory of QM, and have occasionally perused books and concepts via the Internetz in order to familiarize myself with the theory. As far as I'm aware, the "reality" of particles popping into and out of existence is well-tested and widely accepted amongst the majority of particle physicists. I would be surprised to find out if there were a majority of physicists that reject that particular facet of QM.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are ... ticles-rea

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive ... /qm-dm.PDF

I don't see where physicists are using a "god-causal" explanation for existence... At all.

Anyway. Back to Dart. Dart is afraid. He's trembling right now. He hates that he's been exposed.

[_EAllusion]

As far as I'm aware, the "reality" of particles popping into and out of existence is well-tested and widely accepted amongst the majority of particle physicists.

I'm confused at this point. If you are simply referring to subatomic particles materializing into the quantum field by the interacting of constituent parts, that's normal but also beside the point as it leads one to point out that what they are made of aren't popping into and out of existence. If you are talking about a metaphysical interpretation of QM where fundamental components of reality indeterminately blink in and out of existence, then that's ontology, not science.

Unless Dart wants to argue that scientists accepts the Kalaam Cosmological argument collectively, which is obviously false, I'm not sure why you would wander about looking for this consensus. It's obviously not there. What's wrong with this particular first cause argument is what is wrong with them all. It's not clear that the thing in question needs to be caused in the first place, and even if it did, there's no compelling reason to think the thing accounting for it, our ultimately uncaused object of explanadum if you will, must have God-properties like intelligence; therefore there's no reason to conclude an object with God-like qualities must or likely exists.