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

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

That's the point. We havent been around forever. I said IF IF IF IF IF the universe lasted forever...humans would have been more advanced, whether or not we originated on earth. There could have been humans on other planets for all we know, that evolved in a similar manner as us

Why? How do you jump from "matter has always existed" to "humans are advanced"?

I said humans WOULD HAVE been more advanced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Cant you people read?

That's what I said...

A) Matter had a beggining = things are as they are now.
B) Matter has always existed = humans are more advanced.

Where have I misread?

Then i dont understand your question

I don't see why a longer time span of the universe (infinite in this case?) would specifically equal to a difference in human developement.

Beside that, I don't see why a universe with a constant amount of matter would be in conflict with the Big Bang theory.

Because, if the universe has been in existence forever, humans could have evolved on other planets, similar to the way we evolved here. They wouldnt necessarily have to come around on earth

That's the point. We havent been around forever. I said IF IF IF IF IF the universe lasted forever...humans would have been more advanced, whether or not we originated on earth. There could have been humans on other planets for all we know, that evolved in a similar manner as us

Er ... no. That'd just be one possibility.

You could apply your logic in any situation, even in an infinite universe, to "disprove" the idea that the universe is infinite.

You basically move the bar once it has been reached, so that it's never good enough.

It's like picking an integer and then saying "well there can't be an infinite amount of them to choose from because if there were, this number would be higher".

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Because, if the universe has been in existence forever, humans could have evolved on other planets, similar to the way we evolved here. They wouldnt necessarily have to come around on earth

If we take so much freedom then I will say: if the universe has been in existence forever, the suns have died, the black holes have evaporated and all living creatures have lost their energy sources and died out. It makes no sense to say that alien or human advances would somehow increase because of an infinite universe, especially if you put it in the current time frame. So what's the point here?

If there is no beggining or end, how do you know we'd be more advanced or even exist for that matter?

And you haven't answered the question about the Big Bang in the same post.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Thanks, but none of those examples are events.

Yes the word cause is a homonym which can also be used to mean reason, but in the case of the cosmological argument it's referring to the temporal definition (cause and effect).

Give me a temporal example and I'll reconsider.

Originally Posted by Xei

Thanks, but none of those examples are events.

Exactly. That was my point.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes the word cause is a homonym which can also be used to mean reason, but in the case of the cosmological argument it's referring to the temporal definition (cause and effect).

Give me a temporal example and I'll reconsider.

I'm talking about cause and effect also. I am just saying that cause and effect do not have to be separated by a segment of time. There are other ways for the relationship to exist. I think the matter in the universe has that type of cause/reason, and so do its explosive properties, which apparently can exist even in the absence of time.

The laws of physics cause Earth to revolve around the sun. The laws of physics are not events, but they cause events.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exactly. That was my point.



I'm talking about cause and effect also. I am just saying that cause and effect do not have to be separated by a segment of time. There are other ways for the relationship to exist. I think the matter in the universe has that type of cause/reason, and so do its explosive properties, which apparently can exist even in the absence of time.

The laws of physics cause Earth to revolve around the sun. The laws of physics are not events, but they cause events.

You've given four examples and I'm gonna shoot them all down They are

1) The congruency of the sides of a square causes the square to be a rhombus

2) you being on the internet causes you to not not be on the internet

3) The requirement for infinite energy causes the speed of light to be unattainable

4) The laws of physics cause the earth to go around the sun.

Let's begin by grouping them into two groups. The first group is based on definition and the second group is based on laws of physics. I'll deal with them one at a time but the short of it is that they are both reducible (as is everything) to events.

Now let's deal with the first group. The key is that a definition only has meaning in the mind of an observer. This is easiest to see with the square. Squares don't exist in the real world and hence rhombuses don't either .
You might decide that some object is a square but somebody else can disagree because it's all in the mind of the observer and they might have a stricter definition than you. From that, it's easy to see that what you are actually talking about is the event of the light from the object hitting your eyes and being processed by your brain to decide that you are looking at an object that looks like a square. At that point, you decide that you are also looking at a rhombus.

For the second group, let's deal with the laws of physics causing the earth to go around the sun. The laws of physics don't cause the earth do go around the sun. Events that are described by the laws of physics do. This is the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of the sun in general relativity and the exchange of gravitons in quantum type theories. In both cases, it takes 8.3 minutes to happen (we think).

Ahh...screw it who cares we're in the Matrix anyways...

Our real bodies are in some tank plugged up to a computer

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Now let's deal with the first group. The key is that a definition only has meaning in the mind of an observer. This is easiest to see with the square. Squares don't exist in the real world and hence rhombuses don't either .
You might decide that some object is a square but somebody else can disagree because it's all in the mind of the observer and they might have a stricter definition than you. From that, it's easy to see that what you are actually talking about is the event of the light from the object hitting your eyes and being processed by your brain to decide that you are looking at an object that looks like a square. At that point, you decide that you are also looking at a rhombus.

Squares do exist in the real world. An infinite number of them are within an inch of your nose right now. You just can't see them because they are not marked by physical objects, and it is impossible for a person to outline one with 100% accuracy. They are still there. Imagine a superbeing taking a magic marker that writes in the sky and does not smudge at all. Imagine him outlining an exact square. Even though such a being does not exist, that two dimensional form I am talking about outlining does exist, and it is not dependent on human perception.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

For the second group, let's deal with the laws of physics causing the earth to go around the sun. The laws of physics don't cause the earth do go around the sun. Events that are described by the laws of physics do. This is the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of the sun in general relativity and the exchange of gravitons in quantum type theories. In both cases, it takes 8.3 minutes to happen (we think).

All of those events are caused by the laws of physics.

Do the laws of physics cause anything? Are the laws of physics events?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Squares do exist in the real world. An infinite number of them are within an inch of your nose right now. You just can't see them because they are not marked by physical objects, and it is impossible for a person to outline one with 100% accuracy. They are still there. Imagine a superbeing taking a magic marker that writes in the sky and does not smudge at all. Imagine him outlining an exact square. Even though such a being does not exist, that two dimensional form I am talking about outlining does exist, and it is not dependent on human perception.

No, it's dependent on human imagination. There is no way to measure it. If a super being did outline it, that magic marker would leave atoms behind (or we're talking about god in which case anything goes: no fair) and would hence necessarily not be a perfect square.

The bottom line is that definitions, even if they are concrete and measurable, exist only in the human mind and the statement "X is P" is reducible to "It has been observed that X is P" which is reducible to a series of events inside a human brain.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

All of those events are caused by the laws of physics.

Do the laws of physics cause anything? Are the laws of physics events?

The laws of physics cause nothing. The laws of physics describe events. They are, like any other definition, a figment of the human imagination.

Humans did not invent squares and laws of physics. They discovered them. Those things would be real even if humans never existed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Humans did not invent squares and laws of physics. They discovered them. Those things would be real even if humans never existed.

No they wouldn't. Both of those things are dependent on an observer to have any meaning. In the absence of an observer, a square is just another piece of matter with no special properties.

The laws of physics are sets of equations that humans wrote down. They don't make anything do anything. They describe what happens. They are human contrived approximations of the physical universe.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No they wouldn't. Both of those things are dependent on an observer to have any meaning. In the absence of an observer, a square is just another piece of matter with no special properties.

I am not talking about matter. I am talking about four congruent segments that form four right angles, invisible realities that exist on invisible planes in space. They are there, as evidenced by the hypothetical outlining I talked about.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The laws of physics are sets of equations that humans wrote down. They don't make anything do anything. They describe what happens. They are human contrived approximations of the physical universe.

Equations represent the laws. The equations don't just describe what happens. They describe what HAS TO happen. Humans did not invent what has to happen.

I'll largely stay away from this argument, seeing as how I know very little of quantum physics and all that bullshit. I will say this, though: The thought that something has "always existed" is simply unacceptable to me. Everything happens in a cyclical manner; things begin, end, then start over. Why, then, would the universe not do the same, if everything within the universe does it?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Oh and I love the "if you can't explain it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111" bit as well.

Oh, right...kind of like the atheist argument "if you can't prove it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111...1". The similarities are striking, aren't they?

It's true that just because someone can't refute the existence of something doesn't mean it must exist.

But on the other side of the spectrum, just because someone can't prove the existence of something doesn't mean it cannot exist.

Therefore, there is no harm in faith. Nor is there harm in a lack of faith.

Anyone who's too stupid to see this deserves to be anally raped by a muscle man with a cock the width of a tree branch. I'm dead fucking serious, too. What's so hard to understand about "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there"? I thought it was pretty damn simple, but apparently not. ...And isn't that sort of thing a principle scientists have been operating on for a long time? To me, it sounds pretty counter-intuitive for any scientist to say "durr wel i cant c it so it not exzist durr hurr hurr". What the fuck, Chuck?

So kudos to those in here who are actually trying to come up with hypotheses as to how the universe came into being, instead of relentlessly attacking people's beliefs out of mere pettiness. Those who are doing the latter...well, just three words: Tree branch cock.

EDIT: Then there's always the possibility that human beings are simply not intelligent enough to comprehend whatever it is that brought the universe into existence. Which seems like a very likely scenario to me, considering the fact that human stupidities such as war still exist. Yeah. A species that kills its own kind on a daily basis, understand the operating principles of the universe? Not in this eternity.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

If, by the very laws of the universe, matter cannot be created or destroyed, then the Big Bang cannot have happened by its own power. There WAS a creator involved.

Well. Almost.

Certainly by the law of conservation of matter/energy, all the matter in the universe could not have come about after the beginning of the universe. However it could have come into existance simultaneously, when that law was not yet in place - so basically as someone said the matter and the universe came as a package deal.

It's like if a steel box full of air suddenly came into existence in front of you, for whatever reason. You might ask "where did the air inside come from, the walls do not let anything in or out". The answer is of course the air came with the box, it was already there when the walls started existing.

As for whatever "caused" the start of this universe, you can call it god if you like, but there is really no reason to believe it is/was conscious, or alive, or anything at all since we really don't know anything about how the universe actually started.

Oh, right...kind of like the atheist argument "if you can't prove it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111...1". The similarities are striking, aren't they?

Er no. Error number 1.

Not proving something doesn't make the other automatically right. Until there's evidence, the correct answer is the position "we don't know but there's no reason to believe this is true". Less sarcastic quips when you're wrong please. Less strawmen as well.

But on the other side of the spectrum, just because someone can't prove the existence of something doesn't mean it cannot exist.

Therefore, there is no harm in faith. Nor is there harm in a lack of faith.

Error number 2, proof is not needed, evidence is. If you can't give evidence for a position, there's no reason to believe it is true.

Believing something without reason to believe is stupid, and yes it is harmful. For starters, it makes you very vulnerable to exploitation.

Furthermore, if you automatically believe positive claims without evidence instead of "we don't know, but there's no reason to thing this is true at the moment", you will therefore have to believe stupid stuff like:

You are going to be killed tonight
There is a god
There are 2 gods
There are 3 gods


There are an infinite amount of positive claims I can make, and if you believe a positive claim by default, you have to believe all of them. Obviously this is stupid.


Faith is also not a virtue. Believing without reason to believe is not something to be proud of.

Anyone who's too stupid to see this deserves to be anally raped by a muscle man with a cock the width of a tree branch.

Wonderful. But if you're too stupid to accept these arguments, then perhaps you deserve this proposed treatment?

Originally posted by Photolysis:

Believing something without reason to believe is stupid, and yes it is harmful. For starters, it makes you very vulnerable to exploitation.

Just because there is no evidence for something does not make it stupid to believe in. Would it have been stupid for someone to beleive that the world was round before Eratosthenes proved, with math and logic, that it was round? Someone (people like Copernicus) believed in the heliocentric model of the solar system, although there was a load of "evidence" by people such as Ptolemy and his "epicycles" and Anaximander, who proposed that the heavens must be a perfect sphere because if you look up, it seems that we are encased in a sphere of stars. What more evidence did we need, because we could see this with our eyes.

Despite all of this "evidence" (which, by the way was accepted for over 1400 years) people like Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo contributed to the idea of a heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system!!! If the evidence does not exist yet, does that mean that it is stupid to beleive in???

Before we had the power of extrememly sensitive instruments, we beleived that everything had to rotate around US because if we rotated around the sun, then we would see a shift in the positions of the stars (the ones closer to us would have a more significant movement than the ones farther away), a concept called stellar parallax. This was not measured until 1838!!! That's only 171 years ago... but this proved WITHOUT A DOUBT the heliocentric model...So back to my question; would it have been stupid, ignorant, etc. to beleive in the heliocentric model before 1838? The majority of the scientific community had begun beleiving it YEARS before then.

So back to my questions: Would it have been stupid to beleive in the roundness of the earth before Eratosthenes proved it? He questioned, experimented and proved. If no one questions, no progress is made, and the world's information remains static. Your argument that "Just because the existence of a higher power has not been proved makes it stupid to beleive in" is highly flawed.

As a side note: Simply because there is no physical, numerical or statistical proof does not mean that one is without a reason to believe in something. Some people have intensely religious/faith-building experiences, and as such, they have their reason. This is the proof that they need.

Faith does no always make people "vulnerable to exploitation". There are plenty of people who have intense religious/spiritual beliefs who are not a part of an organized religion, but rather a self-guided religious path...there is no one to exploit these people, unless you argue that they are going to exploit themselves.... And simply because someone belongs to an established religion does not mean that they are going to be exploited. There are plenty of religions that do not "exploit" their members. Take Islam for example. It is a very personal religion, and you are not asked to donate anything, except for your devotion to Allah. Many Jews and Christians are also not always "exploited". Really there are only a few religions that actually exploit all of their members...such as Scientology (sorry to any Scientologists out there, but that's my experience) because to rise in the church and to gain "essential" information, one has to pay. But just because someone is religious, does not mean that they're an idiot, and going to fall into every "a penny for your soul" sort of sales pitch. Tell me what's wrong or harmful from people believing in a higher power, and that they go somewhere when they die...It's not going to kill you to let people believe in something.

LIVE AND LET LIVE!

Do I need to go on?

Would it have been stupid for someone to beleive that the world was round before Eratosthenes proved, with math and logic, that it was round?

If they had no reason at all, or no good reason, yes it would be stupid, even if the belief was actually correct. The only thing you can do with no evidence is speculate.

As for the proof thing, that's a strawman. I didn't say people required proof for beliefs. They require evidence. Requiring absolute proof before you believe something is foolish, because if that were the case we'd never believe anything.

Most of your post is attacking this strawman argument (often repeated needlessly), so I can ignore it.

Some people have intensely religious/faith-building experiences, and as such, they have their reason. This is the proof that they need.

Good for them! That still doesn't make it a good reason, just because it satisfies that person.

Faith does no always make people "vulnerable to exploitation".

The very mindset of belief without evidence does. In practice, most only apply such a principle to one area of their lives (religion), and demand evidence in the exact same way as anyone else for the most part.

That said, plenty of cults also exploit religious beliefs.

Take Islam for example. It is a very personal religion, and you are not asked to donate anything,

One of the 5 Pillars of Islam stipulates the giving of 2.5% of a person's wealth for charitable deeds. Research?

It's not going to kill you to let people believe in something.

The irony is that it does kill people, even if it's not myself. Faith healing, for starters? What about all the bizarre beliefs of cults? Exorcism? What about those who are religiously motivated to commit acts of terrorism; that could well kill me?

LIVE AND LET LIVE!

Since when was I not doing that? I don't force children to listen to me. I don't preach on street corners, or knock on peoples' houses asking if they've been saved. In "real life" I only give my opinion if someone wants to hear it. Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything.

This is a standard defence when anyone's beliefs are criticised. It is a rather tedious one, I have to say. You've criticised me. How about you LIVE AND LET LIVE, and stop being a hypocrite?

See, it's a stupid argument. I invited people to scrutinise my posts by replying here. If I were to complain that people did so in a serious topic created for such a purpose it would be stupid whiny bitching, and people would be right to call me out on it.

I disagree that there was ever any evidence for the theories that Copernicus etc. overthrew. This should be clear because they were incorrect. For example, there was never any evidence that the planets and Sun moved around the Earth in complex looping patterns, as opposed to the hypothesis that the planets moved around the Sun in ellipses, because both would have had the same observational consequences with regards to astronomy from Earth at least. Part of the scientific method is ensuring that you have eliminated all other possibilities which could explain your observations.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Since when was I not doing that? I don't force children to listen to me. I don't preach on street corners, or knock on peoples' houses asking if they've been saved. In "real life" I only give my opinion if someone wants to hear it. Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything.

This is a standard defence when anyone's beliefs are criticised. It is a rather tedious one, I have to say. You've criticised me. How about you LIVE AND LET LIVE, and stop being a hypocrite?.

Since you called people stupid for having belief/faith. I have only criticised your intolerance... But you're entitled to be intolerant and ignorant if you want. No skin off my nose. I don't care that you're posting your opinions on the web (look what I'm doing)...I appreciate your opinion, but that does not mean that I have to agree with it. I don't go preach or knock...I'm just doing what you are: "Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything."

Good for them! That still doesn't make it a good reason, just because it satisfies that person.

What's wrong with someone being satisfied? Plenty of people in this world would tell you that their set of spiritual beliefs are based on personal evidence (so you can't call me on an error of syntax again ) and that just because you don't think it's a good reason, does not mean that it isn't good enough for someone else out there. Who gets to say what a "good reason" is?

One of the 5 Pillars of Islam stipulates the giving of 2.5% of a person's wealth for charitable deeds. Research?

Umm...yeah I do my research, but how is that evidence that the religion of Islam is exploiting its members? (Remember that's what we were talking about...stay on topic!) If they are encouraged to give a percentage of their income to charity, it does not go to benefit the religion as a whole, just the soul of the giver. To exploit means to "take selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain". Tell me how Islam does this... this wealth goes to "charitable deeds" such as private charities or organizations such as the Red Cross. That does not seem to be for the "personal gain" of Islam.

The irony is that it does kill people, even if it's not myself. Faith healing, for starters? What about all the bizarre beliefs of cults? Exorcism? What about those who are religiously motivated to commit acts of terrorism; that could well kill me?

Really now, what percentage of the world's religions/cults commit acts of terrorism? What do you think YOUR chances are of being killed? What are the chances that ANY individual in the world will be killed by an act of religious violence. Yes, there are people in Iraq, for example, who have a much greater chance of dying as a result of religious violence, but that does not mean that the religion itself is supporting the actions. Do you know who the main victims are of Islamist-militant violence?--Muslims. Tell me that you think that a religion is supporting this...and show me evidence. Unless we all hop a freighter for the Middle East, or somehow get transported through time to the Crusades, I think that our chances of dying as a result of a religious beleif is pretty low. And my original comment was "It' s not going to kill you to let people believe in something." So, since you have a chance of being killed by a beleif, does that mean that you are going to limit what an individual can beleive? Yeah, that's tolerant.

Originally posted by Xei:

I disagree that there was ever any evidence for the theories that Copernicus etc. overthrew. This should be clear because they were incorrect. For example, there was never any evidence that the planets and Sun moved around the Earth in complex looping patterns, as opposed to the hypothesis that the planets moved around the Sun in ellipses, because both would have had the same observational consequences with regards to astronomy from Earth at least. Part of the scientific method is ensuring that you have eliminated all other possibilities which could explain your observations.

Sorry, but there was observational and mathematical evidence for the theories that Copernicus and his "descendants" overthrew. For hundreds, even thousands of years, people had been studying the heavens, and their observations pop up all over the place...mythologies, scholarly writings, and in philosophy (do some research on the Aristotileans and the Atomists).= Hundreds of years of observational data...misinterpreted, but still there, nonetheless. However, Ptolemy had mathematically solved the problem of epicycles...which is one reason that it took 1400 years to refute! (Also there was the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquiry...)

But I have to disagree strongly with you when you say that "Part of the scientific method is ensuring that you have eliminated all other possibilities which could explain your observations." Um...if we had to eliminate ALL other possibilities, then nothing (or few things at best) would ever be explained in our observations. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It states that: "when two or more explanations for an event exist, the simpler one is generally true, as it has fewer assumptions." This still means that it could be explained in another way...like the helliocentric model and epicycles.