Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have a law that says matter cannot be created or destroyed. Is it more fantastic to suggest then that matter has always been instead of it was created by this being who has always been? "Childish foolery" would be to profess either as true when it's impossible to know.
But one can easily see which is more likely. For Something to exist and create all that is makes more sense than all that is evolving so profoundly and elaborately from nothing at all.
It is more logical to assume that everything that exists came from Something as opposed to nothing.
But one can easily see which is more likely. For Something to exist and create all that is makes more sense than all that is evolving so profoundly and elaborately from nothing at all.
I agree about thinking one is clearly more likely, but then you chose the wrong one.
Arguing that there is a god that made matter and then saying that god is eternal so he didn't need to be made is just one big superfluous step from simply saying matter is eternal so it didn't need to be made.
Quote:
It is more logical to assume that everything that exists came from Something as opposed to nothing.
Once again, something from nothing and something from a god are not the only two options. If you think life forming on this planet without a god is something from nothing, then you're either mistaken entirely or mistaken about your terms. There have been numerous examples of amino acids forming in environments created to match the various possible environments that existed here before. Now if you mean "something from nothing" to mean life from no life, then it's already been shown that could take place. If you're using the term as in there was literally nothing there before life and suddenly POOF we have life and matter then that's a mistake as far as this planet is concerned.
Well, really, cg81, it is my question to ask is there or ever was there such a thing as nothingness? Now, let me explain why I feel that it is possible matter has always been. Matter breaks down smaller and smaller anatomically from say the molecular level, to the atomic level, to the subatomic level, and then what makes up the subatoms? Well quarks do. And what must make up a quark? Something must make up a quark and that something must be made up of something else. It's kind of like when you see a comedy show or a cartoon of a character watching himself on tv watching himself on tv etc... etc... all the way down the line. Even though the smallest little dot on the TV is the guy still watching himself on TV it just may not be visible. And, so it is with that assumption that I could put a decimal point and follow it with a thousand zeros and a one on the end, I would still have some small fractional amount of matter.
And because matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then the opposite must be said for energy as well. For if E=MC2, and M=0 then there would be no such thing as energy either because anything multiplied by zero is in fact zero. So, that means for energy to exist, than matter must also exist. This tells me that the two are interdependent on one another. What does this mean for God? Well, that means that if God were an energy force, he must be made of some sort of matter or result of matter. And if god were a force of matter, he would have some sort of energy. However, to me, what this says about the big bang is that to at one point have a '0' in the universe would rule out both Energy and Mass and therefore either one or the other or both must have always existed! And keep in mind, that if God were an "energy" force he must have been created from matter, so then what matter created God?
Well, really, cg81, it is my question to ask is there or ever was there such a thing as nothingness? Now, let me explain why I feel that it is possible matter has always been. Matter breaks down smaller and smaller anatomically from say the molecular level, to the atomic level, to the subatomic level, and then what makes up the subatoms? Well quarks do. And what must make up a quark? Something must make up a quark and that something must be made up of something else. It's kind of like when you see a comedy show or a cartoon of a character watching himself on tv watching himself on tv etc... etc... all the way down the line. Even though the smallest little dot on the TV is the guy still watching himself on TV it just may not be visible. And, so it is with that assumption that I could put a decimal point and follow it with a thousand zeros and a one on the end, I would still have some small fractional amount of matter.
And because matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then the opposite must be said for energy as well. For if E=MC2, and M=0 then there would be no such thing as energy either because anything multiplied by zero is in fact zero. So, that means for energy to exist, than matter must also exist. This tells me that the two are interdependent on one another. What does this mean for God? Well, that means that if God were an energy force, he must be made of some sort of matter or result of matter. And if god were a force of matter, he would have some sort of energy. However, to me, what this says about the big bang is that to at one point have a '0' in the universe would rule out both Energy and Mass and therefore either one or the other or both must have always existed! And keep in mind, that if God were an "energy" force he must have been created from matter, so then what matter created God?
Interesting thoughts! I think of God as someone supernatural, more than just an energy force, so physical laws wouldn't really apply to Him (but that's not really what this thread was about). I would agree with you and PhillyChief that in order for someone who doesn't believe in God to reconcile natural laws with the origin of the universe, they would have to believe that matter (and/or energy) would have always existed. I guess that, and also the fact that we are both sitting here, products of random energy and matter, seems like kind of a far stretch for me (I commend you on your faith!!)!
Interesting thoughts! I think of God as someone supernatural, more than just an energy force, so physical laws wouldn't really apply to Him (but that's not really what this thread was about). I would agree with you and PhillyChief that in order for someone who doesn't believe in God to reconcile natural laws with the origin of the universe, they would have to believe that matter (and/or energy) would have always existed. I guess that, and also the fact that we are both sitting here, products of random energy and matter, seems like kind of a far stretch for me (I commend you on your faith!!)!
Yes, but I at least can see random energy and matter, so it is I who should commend you on having faith in an invisibility, or a scientific and mathematical "0".
Yes, but I at least can see random energy and matter, so it is I who should commend you on having faith in an invisibility, or a scientific and mathematical "0".
.... Actually, I think of Him more as the "100" than the "0".
I agree about thinking one is clearly more likely, but then you chose the wrong one.
Arguing that there is a god that made matter and then saying that god is eternal so he didn't need to be made is just one big superfluous step from simply saying matter is eternal so it didn't need to be made.
Yes, and it's the logical step, obviously. Dance around it all you like, but you are trying to create immortal matter! Quite amazing, I must admit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyChief
Once again, something from nothing and something from a god are not the only two options. If you think life forming on this planet without a god is something from nothing, then you're either mistaken entirely or mistaken about your terms. There have been numerous examples of amino acids forming in environments created to match the various possible environments that existed here before. Now if you mean "something from nothing" to mean life from no life, then it's already been shown that could take place. If you're using the term as in there was literally nothing there before life and suddenly POOF we have life and matter then that's a mistake as far as this planet is concerned.
Yes, they are the only 2 options. I am talking about the beginning of everything in existense that we know about. What did everything come from...or did everything always exist? Well, IMO believing in a God that has always existed is easier and more logical than believing in matter that has always existed.
You're confusing "makes more sense" with "makes more sense to me". You give no argument for your idea over mine other than to say essentially yours makes more sense to you, which of course it should since you've already accepted the god idea, and that since it makes more sense to you then it should make more sense to everybody.
There's no logic at all in your idea. It's entirely built on fantasy, a fantasy cooked up to fill a gap in knowledge. The problem with that is that fantasy requires belief as an absolute. Now for this particular issue it may not matter because we probably will never gain the knowledge, but this has been done for ages wherever there's been a lack of knowledge and because of the required absolute belief, once the real knowledge has been discovered, the god of the gaps is very reluctant to give up the spot. Will the pope be issuing an apology centuries from now to Darwin like the last one did for Galileo? Time will tell, especially since there have been numerous people, many nameless, who've made discoveries in history that were initially resisted due to religion who have never received apologies.
So please, if you're going to go with the belief angle, just say so and we're done. What's frustrating is when you do that but pretend to be using logic. Arguing that the idea of a god creator makes more sense because you believe in a god who created everything is not a logically presented position, so stop pretending that it is. Call it what it is, faith, and we'll just leave it at that.
You're confusing "makes more sense" with "makes more sense to me". You give no argument for your idea over mine other than to say essentially yours makes more sense to you, which of course it should since you've already accepted the god idea, and that since it makes more sense to you then it should make more sense to everybody.
Ditto to you! I can just as easily say the same thing...your argument makes more sense to you! And you believe in something science will never be able to prove or do...create life from LITERALLY nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyChief
There's no logic at all in your idea. It's entirely built on fantasy, a fantasy cooked up to fill a gap in knowledge. The problem with that is that fantasy requires belief as an absolute. Now for this particular issue it may not matter because we probably will never gain the knowledge, but this has been done for ages wherever there's been a lack of knowledge and because of the required absolute belief, once the real knowledge has been discovered, the god of the gaps is very reluctant to give up the spot. Will the pope be issuing an apology centuries from now to Darwin like the last one did for Galileo? Time will tell, especially since there have been numerous people, many nameless, who've made discoveries in history that were initially resisted due to religion who have never received apologies.
No, it's built on reality. In the conversation at hand, unless someone builds a time machine capable of going back to the point of origin for life as we know it, my argument is just as valid as yours. God is not a fantasy, God is the Ultimate Reality. You weren't there, I wasn't there, and I have seen no credible argument explaining how, in broad terms, existence sprang from nothing.
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyChief
So please, if you're going to go with the belief angle, just say so and we're done. What's frustrating is when you do that but pretend to be using logic. Arguing that the idea of a god creator makes more sense because you believe in a god who created everything is not a logically presented position, so stop pretending that it is. Call it what it is, faith, and we'll just leave it at that.
Okay fine, I'll call it faith. Now, it's your turn to admit faith in immortal matter. Which is OH so logical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)!
And you believe in something science will never be able to prove or do...create life from LITERALLY nothing.
