Something from non existence’ to consistence is analogous to creationism regardless of who proposes it, scientific credentials or not.
[/quote
I don't see the analogy. Creationism involves a person with intent, someone who decides to cause something.
A universe that occurs without reason or source is not created.
]
... There is nothing that says a virtual particle comes from any kind of ‘non existence’.
[/QUOTE]
Stipulated.
But, while we're near the subject, let me mention this: If nothing comes from nothing, then gods can't make a universe from nothing. And if gods can make universes from nothing, then it is not true that nothing comes from nothing -- which invalidates their whole argument.
A Christian once responded to this point by saying that god made the universe from his own preexisting self, so the universe was not actuallly made from nothing. Which argument only leads to infinite regress; if we've got infinite regress, why do we need a god?
...
Nothing happens in zero time,
[/QUOTE]
It either does or it doesn't. We don't have to insist that it doesn't, because that gives the Christians a hiding place.
Tactically, it's better to point out that
if causes don't have to precede effects, then the universe needn't have a first cause. It could have a last cause. The universe may be yet to be caused, perhaps by a particle accelerator. We don't need a god for that.
No energy and mass and no causation is what I call magic. Abracadabra and a particle appears and dispears.
[/QUOTE]
Magic doesn't always entail gods.
A sequence of particle creation and extinction can not be instantaneous unless you want to dispense with causallity and C as a limit.
They'll happily abandon causality or logic or anything else, if that helps their argument. What they don't like is to be called on it.
When they tactically renounce causality, you say, "Ah, so the universe
doesn't need a cause?"
