Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Thats true...in THIS plane of existence. God created this universe, so therefore he CREATED the laws of this universe. If he created the laws, then he cannot be subject to them because he is superior to his own creation. No matter, no energy can come from nothing. But God is not made out of matter or energy, as far as i know, and he certainly did not originate in this plane of existence

Later:

Not true...Yes, things are created. Yes, the universe was created. No, the creator does not necessarily need to have a creator because he is separate from this universe, and its laws do not apply to him. There are many theories to expound upon that, but that my basic belief. What's wrong with the universe being an isolate? The creator created the universe, and separated himself from it. Is that so hard to understand?

If there was a god, (like the individual the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world beleives in, or the one you beleive in), the far more reasonable explaination would be that this being is actually a more developed life form, and that "he" likes to have humans as worshipers to fuel "his" ego (I'm not saying that this is the case Hercuflea, but just putting the idea out there). In that case, a god would have been born after the birth of the universe, and then, said god is just universe-ling like us; subjected to the same laws. Who/what says that a god created the universe. In the Christian Bible, it just says that he created the earth...and, going back to my previous argument, this god could just be pumping us humans full of crap to make himself seem supreme over us.

Now, just because one believes in science and that things happen for a logical reason does not immediataly rule out the existence of a god. If a god worked through the natural laws of the univers and was subjected to them, then everything would be fine...just because one exists does not negate the existance of another. I beleive Einstein called religion and science "non-conflicting magesteria", meaning that the two are just fine, existing separately, as long as you don't go trying to base one off of the other (like trying to use science to prove the existence of god??? Honestly, give me a break!!!) Or the existance of...certain religions that claim to have a scientific basis...what a joke.

The assertion that 'god doesn't need a cause' contradicts the premise 'everything needs a cause' used to reach the conclusion 'god exists'.

If you say god doesn't need a cause, your argument for his existence becomes invalid.

The universe has always existed, and always will exist. The universe came from the singularity, and expanded. Everything in existence is inside the singularity, so really, there is no outside of the singularity. Because the outside of singularity doesn't exist. The singularity is thought, or a consciousness that's aware of itself and doesn't have a beginning or an end( that's linear thinking, it's hard for us to comprehend something that is infinite ), it is just there..it's energy. We're simply the singularity experiencing itself subjectively.


What is matter made of? Well let's see, molecules break down into groups of atoms, atoms break down into groups of electrons, protons, and neutrons, these subatomic particles break down into quarks.....and I think the quarks are broken down into strings that vibrate at a certain Frequency. What are the strings made of? Well, if scientist actually try to break down these strings, they'll keep breaking it down and down infinitely....you see there's always going to be something there to look at. We can't see the real reality which is that everything is energy, because we are apart of that energy that is self-aware. If someone or something outside of the singularity or universal consciousness looked at the singularity or universal consciousness, all they would see is energy. But that's impossible, because nothing is outside of energy, everything that exists, has existed, or will it exist is energy.

It's sort of like when Neo loses his vision in The Matrix Revolutions....everything is energy..or information.



I also thought this was an interesting idea.

We are all one consciousness which has not the means for subjective experience as it is, experienced subjectively through applying physical stimuli. Time, reality, and all other and higher dimensions exist all at once as a singularity, just as our familiar dimensions of 3-dimensional physical space exist all at once.

Therefore, time experienced subjectively is an illusion, albeit a beautiful and powerful one. Because of this, the universal consciousness is able to subjectively experience itself as all things simultaneously and separately. To do so, it operates as a 'consciousness machine', which basically is always in the process of experiencing all things, all at once, regardless of time, distinct reality present in, and so forth.

To do this, it produces a physical shell which, through some as-of-yet undiscovered physical properties, be it a brain or otherwise, 'filters' or limits awareness of certain dimensions.

Consciousness is the key to it all.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

The assertion that 'god doesn't need a cause' contradicts the premise 'everything needs a cause' used to reach the conclusion 'god exists'.

If you say god doesn't need a cause, your argument for his existence becomes invalid.

*Sigh* I'm getting tired of saying this.

Everything needs a cause....in this universe. Whether or not God needs a cause is irrelevant because we have no idea as to what the laws are in his universe, if he/she/it even resides in one. So, God does not necessarily need a cause, even though everything in the universe we are currently in does.

This thread sucks. Can someone move it to R/S? Science doesn't try to prove or disprove the existence of god so there is no reason for it to be discussed in this forum.

*Sigh* I'm getting tired of saying this.

Everything needs a cause....in this universe. Whether or not God needs a cause is irrelevant because we have no idea as to what the laws are in his universe, if he/she/it even resides in one. So, God does not necessarily need a cause, even though everything in the universe we are currently in does.

But you understand of course there is no logical reason that this exemption from causality should only apply to God; there's no reason that the first cause isn't completely natural. Unless you can provide some kind of logical argument to the contrary..?

Well, i cant convince you that there is a creator...

tbh this is all I really needed to hear... but I am interested in your own reasons for belief in a creator if you can't give me a logical/empirical reason.

This thread sucks. Can someone move it to R/S? Science doesn't try to prove or disprove the existence of god so there is no reason for it to be discussed in this forum.

Yeah I was just thinking that.

Well the original intent of the thread was for people to explain to me how all the matter in the universe came into existence. But then people started bashing me for my theology.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Well the original intent of the thread was for people to explain to me how all the matter in the universe came into existence. But then people started bashing me for my theology.

I would say it never "came into existence". It has always been and is a manifestation of scientific principles that transcend time and space and have no beginning, most likely.

^So then, what's the point? I think if it had always existed we would be much more advanced than we are now

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

^So then, what's the point? I think if it had always existed we would be much more advanced than we are now

Why exactly?

I think a repost of an earlier post of mine might be productive.


A) Must everything has a cause?

If no - We invoke to mystical beginnings.
If yes - The beginning is a logical impossibility. There can by definition be no beginning if everything must have a cause.

Statement: By the logic of causality beginnings are illogical. The logic of causality requires (because we do exist) the initial existence from which we are derived to erupt spontaneously from nothing. Clearly, the notion of objective causality must violate its own logic in order to get started.

B) There is no beginning, existence is somehow infinite and perpetual.

Statement: This assertion comes from nowhere and goes nowhere. The unbounded mysticism offers no possibility of answers or clues. Beginning with a premise that our ignorance of beginnings is total and perpetual is not particularly clever way to begin an analysis of beginnings. Easy perhaps, but not useful. This logical alternative provides trivial solution that leaves no foundation upon which to build reality.

Conclusion: Thus the logical result of invoking an objective causality is a mystical beginning. Likewise, the logical result of denying an objective causality (our beginning began without prior cause) is also a mystical beginning.

Further explanation:

• Causality is system specific.
  
• The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong.
  
• Thus our beginning, from the point of view of our objective causality, must be indefinable, or equivalently, mystical.

Implications:

• The subject of the creation of our reality is unknowable, thus the use of the word mystical.
  
• Once we realize the causal logic that gives us science also limits our understanding of the Larger reality (and its beginning), we are free to begin exploring the larger truth.
  
• Without this realization our perception and capacity to understand is trapped in a conceptual prison (a belief trap) of our own making.
  
• The erroneous belief in a universal causality (opposed to local causality) is repetitively used to to make those who dare rationally tackle the questions of beginnings appear to be ignorant and incorrect.
  
• The repeatedly asked question "What was before that?" inevitably must end with a confusion of complete ignorance existing at the foundation of an otherwise rational discourse.
  
• Our physical space-time causality is local and does not apply to "what was before that" - otherwise we would either be stuck with no beginning, or we would spontaneously popped out of nothing. Either of those alternatives lead to mystical beliefs that are not scientifically or logically productive. Neither makes good sense nor provides with the rational foundation from which to build a scientific Big Picture Theory of Everything.

• Our begging appears beginnings appear mystical to us because of the limitations of our logic and because of the limitations that our belief-based perspectives impose on our mind.
  
• If you raise science, vision and understanding to the next higher level of causality - to the supersystem that contains PMR (Physical-Matter-Reality) as a subsystem - the ever-present mysticism will recede to the outer edges of your newly acquired knowledge.

And the most important:

"By the time you reach the end of this trilogy, the veil of mysticism will be logically removed from our beginnings and you will clearly understand the roots of existence and how and why those roots came into being."

I hope this dissection helps you understand it. I must express that it would be more valuable for anyone to read the whole, as the understanding will deepen.

"The whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts" may apply here



http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...80#post1167080

Have in mind that some conceptual basis and foundation will probably be missing, if one can correlate and accept that I will be most gracious.

Many questions always arise with such answers, and those are answered in the trilogy. If the questions does impose that I use conceptual tools and terminology that have not be covered yet, it will be hard to answer. I hope value can be extracted. Goodnight.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

The universe has a cause.

Actually, we don't know that. Infinite causes that go backwards in time is just as illogical as having no cause at all.

A cause is an explanation of how a state at a prior time led to a different state at a later time. As there was no time before the Big Bang, there can't have been a 'cause' in that sense.

A cause does not have to be an event in a time sequence. It can just be a reason. Everything there is has a reason behind it. Nothing is uncaused. If things could happen without cause/reason, the universe would be too chaotic to exist. The requirement of cause is what allows order in the universe.

A cause is, specifically, a reason with regards to time, as far as I can tell.

If you're going to disprove me, please do it properly (by counterexample).

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

*Sigh* I'm getting tired of saying this.

Everything needs a cause....in this universe. Whether or not God needs a cause is irrelevant because we have no idea as to what the laws are in his universe, if he/she/it even resides in one. So, God does not necessarily need a cause, even though everything in the universe we are currently in does.

It doesn't matter what excuse you use for god not needing a cause. The fact is that you're admitting that not everything needs a cause, you're admitting the premise you used to prove god is false.

If not everything needs a cause, how do you know the universe needs one? How do you know the singularity before the big bang didn't exist outside of the rules as you claim the imaginary god to do?

Originally Posted by Xei

A cause is, specifically, a reason with regards to time, as far as I can tell.

If you're going to disprove me, please do it properly (by counterexample).

Properly? I told you I disagree with your definition but added that we could use the word "reason" if you like. The semantic argument you want to have does not get past the fact that there is a reason the big bang happened.

Here are your examples any way. The congruence of all sides of a square causes it to be a rhombus. The requirement of infinite energy causes the speed of light to be unattainable. The fact that I am on the internet causes me to not be not on the internet.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

^So then, what's the point? I think if it had always existed we would be much more advanced than we are now

No...if our earth is only about 4.57 billion years old (and it is), then we would still need time to evolve as a species, develop our technology, etc.

Even if it has always existed, that just means that the matter, energy, etc. has always been there, and that 16 billion years ago, the whole thing "happened" (however it happened), things (life forms) may have (probably, in my opinion) formed before us, and had time to die off. Some may still be around...() ahem... It seems a tad ignorant to believe that we are the most advanced things in the universe.

i never said that...

You basically did:

I think if it had always existed we would be much more advanced than we are now

You are all misinterpreting my statements.

No I'm not. You are implying that humans have existed as long as the universe has.

No i'm not...Im saying that IF the universe had existed forever...humans would have been much more advanced...because obviously we could have existed forever, on earth or elsewhere.

I never said or meant that we are the most advanced thing out there.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

No i'm not...

...humans would have been much more advanced

...because obviously we could have existed forever, on earth or elsewhere.

This doesn't make any sense. Why would you say that? Humans have NOT been around forever. We developed. We are not immortal, or infinite, and we did not form when the universe began. Your argument is extremely fallacious.