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.
First, everyone knows that scientists have for years been trying to duplicate or explain the atom . . . which contains energy, and is what all matter exists from. Here a research paper I thought I'd share:
If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.
A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?
Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas! If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum--a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!
A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.
The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.
THE CAUSE
If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.
In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.
THE DESIGN
If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:
We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.
The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
In response to the statement about the sun and hydrogen atoms, the author apparently has no idea of the concept of nuclear energy. AT ALL.
In response to the second law of thermodynamics, the author fails to mention that with age things become disordered with an equal and opposite reaction of becoming more ordered.
In response to an exploding universe over and over again the author has hypothesized that it has happened billions of times. Does the author know how many times it expanded and contracted and at what rate it's energy use was? How does the author know this is the billionth time the universe has expanded or the first time it has expanded? I dare say he doesn't.
Also, in regards to the second law of thermodynamics if all things must decline with age than so must god. For if there must be a creator of all things than who created the creator?
To say that the creator exists outside of space and time is negligible because we have not proven an "outside of space and time". Also, in regards, to the second law of thermodynamics and the mere notion that God exists outside of space and time also DISPROVES that hell cannot be real. Therefore, why worry about what God thinks?
In response to the statement about the sun and hydrogen atoms, the author apparently has no idea of the concept of nuclear energy. AT ALL.
In response to the second law of thermodynamics, the author fails to mention that with age things become disordered with an equal and opposite reaction of becoming more ordered.
In response to an exploding universe over and over again the author has hypothesized that it has happened billions of times. Does the author know how many times it expanded and contracted and at what rate it's energy use was? How does the author know this is the billionth time the universe has expanded or the first time it has expanded? I dare say he doesn't.
Also, in regards to the second law of thermodynamics if all things must decline with age than so must god. For if there must be a creator of all things than who created the creator?
To say that the creator exists outside of space and time is negligible because we have not proven an "outside of space and time". Also, in regards, to the second law of thermodynamics and the mere notion that God exists outside of space and time also DISPROVES that hell cannot be real. Therefore, why worry about what God thinks?
First, everyone knows that scientists have for years been trying to duplicate or explain the atom . . . which contains energy, and is what all matter exists from. Here a research paper I thought I'd share:
If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.
A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?
Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas! If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum--a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!
A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.
The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.
THE CAUSE
If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.
In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.
THE DESIGN
If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:
We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.
The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
The atom was created by the creator.
Great post! That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Too tired to go any further.
First, everyone knows that scientists have for years been trying to duplicate or explain the atom . . . which contains energy, and is what all matter exists from.
I look at an atom as being very similar to the beginning of the universe. In actuality, you cannot have nothing if you really think about it. In order for the makeup of an atom to exist it must exist of some sort of matter no matter how small, no pun intended
What I'm getting at here is that each atom is indeed made up of something. At the subatomic level you have electron, protons, and neutrons. Each of these is made up of quarks. I don't know if there is a scientific term for it, but each quark, in my opinion, must be made up of something else. And so on and so forth down the line. So is this nothingness? No, no matter what you still have matter it just keeps getting smaller and smaller. So, can you answer the question of having something from nothing? Well, what defines nothing? Is it the complete absence of matter itself? Would that not be called anti-matter? As scientists are finding out, when anti-matter comes in contact with matter, you can have a giant explosion. Now, the greater quantities of anti-matter that come in contact with matter the greater the explosion. However, how can anti-matter not, in fact, be matter if it is made up of nothingness?
This is an interesting point, and if you do a little research on antimatter you'll find that it is made up of the exact opposite properties of matter. In other words, you have an electron in matter which is a negative charge but you have a very similar thing in antimatter only it is a positron. When two particles of matter and anti-matter collide there is a BIG BANG. But, does this answer the question? I presume that no it does not.
A complete absence of matter would mean there are no atoms. However, you cannot have a state of no matter, in my opinion. As I mentioned above, to cut an atom down to it's subatomic particles you now have protons, neutrons, and electrons. However to further boil that down you now have quarks. Now quarks are still being studied and due to their extremely small size we are still learning about them. But when you boil down a quark it must be made of something as well! And so, it is still matter! And, to boil down the thing that makes up a quark, you must also recognize the fact that it too is MATTER! So, speaking of something coming from nothing, I must deduce that nothing to us would be at the atomic level. Astronauts in space feel nothingness, but they are surrounded by matter. However, to float out into space you could, by all logical assumptions based on your perception as a human, deduce that indeed you are in nothingness. This is simply not true. You are still surrounded by matter. So I ask, at what point do you boil matter down to? You cannot, it is, always has and always will be. It is estimated that the big bang was the cause for quarks and atoms. Therefore, something smaller than each of these must have been present to cause it.
And this, my friend, is why scientists cannot duplicate an atom as your post tried to so eloquently point out. Because matter always has been, it cannot be created no matter the power of the deity.
I generally agree that the idea that there exists some titanic force of creation that is not yet understood by human minds, is indeed a very logical conclusion at which one can arrive.
However, this logic does not concretely support the idea of a personal or sentient God in the way we generally relate to in the form of religion, or Biblically. That is, largely, a matter of faith.
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.
Too tired to go any further.
