Some atheists argue that physicists have now scientific proof for the emergence of existents by nothing. Popular examples being virtual particles, and nuclear decay. And so a premise of Burhan Al-Huduth has been disproven, namely that an essence cannot emerge into existence by nothing.
In response we say: there is no scientific evidence for the emergence of existents by nothing, because this is something that is beyond the scope of the natural sciences. Since the scientific method cannot distinguish between “no cause” and “undetectable cause”.
Those physicists simply detect the emergence of virtual particles, they fail to detect a cause, and so they naively assume that those particles emerged into existence by nothing. And this is an argument from ignorance that is no different from the “god of the gaps” that atheists accuse believers of (“we don’t know the cause, therefore God did it”). Perhaps we should call this the atheist’s “nothing of the gaps”? “We don’t observe a cause, therefore nothing did it!”
And if it is said: “you commit the same fallacy when you claim that those particles cannot emergence into existence by nothing.”
We respond: false. We have already proven that an essence cannot emerge into existence by nothing, and we have already proven that the scientific method cannot falsify rational necessity, and so we claim that those particles cannot spontaneously emerge into existence by virtue of those proofs. Not by virtue of an argument from ignorance.
 Contingency of Existent Possible Essences.
2 thoughts on “On Virtual Particles and Nuclear Decay”
So what you are saying is that “Observing virtual particles emerge without at the same time observing their cause” is not the same as “Observing virtual particles emerge with no cause”?
What nationality are you if I may ask?
I am saying that distinguishing between the two statements you outlined above is beyond the scope of the scientific method. In other words, by way of mere observation, you cannot tell whether the particle emerged by virtue of an unobserved effecter’s bringing it into existence… vs… emerged without an effecter whatsoever. So the one who argues that science has proven that things can come by nothing is lying.