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

Sorry, I'm poisoning the well. I'll address your argument itself when I'm finished with my fallacy.

Here is an excerpt from a Texas Science Book



Now that that's over with, a "good" mutation connotes pervasiveness. Even if a good mutation is somewhat rare, when it occurs the fact that it is superior to the previous design means it only takes a few generations to become the norm. The advantage is simply too great for the previous design to compete. This is especially true when changes in the environment motivate the change. Most mutations are neither superior nor inferior, this is diversity. Other mutations are only inferior because of temporary environmental circumstances, such as the color of the trees the peppered moths live in. When the coal factories kill the lichen, the trees became darker the superiority switched from light colored peppered moths to dark ones, so the dark ones became the norm.

Hahaha...

Originally Posted by Texan123

When it comes to the supernatural, In a case like my Christian God, He is a force unlike any. My God has always been and always will be. We cannot explain that. And just because somthing appeals to the supernatural, does not mean it is not an answer. Surely you can see the intelligent design around us. How can all this be created by GOOD mutations from one organism into a completely different organism when good mutations in themselves are extremely rare.

The laws of science have always been and always will be.

Originally Posted by Texan123

When it comes to the supernatural, In a case like my Christian God, He is a force unlike any. My God has always been and always will be. We cannot explain that.

How do you know he is a force unlike any? How do you know he has always been and always will be? How do you reconcile your answers to these questions with your statement of "we cannot explain that?"

And just because somthing appeals to the supernatural, does not mean it is not an answer.

Yes it does, because by definition we cannot describe a supernatural "thing" in any meaningful way.

Surely you can see the intelligent design around us. How can all this be created by GOOD mutations from one organism into a completely different organism when good mutations in themselves are extremely rare.

Because if you understand how DNA is copied and how it is an imperfect copying process, you then understand that, given enough time, mutations will occur, leading to the intricate branching we see among various species.

Here's what I don't understand about the Creationists' argument:

What are we up to now, something like 100 million galaxies in the observable universe (assuming that it's not really just a big black dome with lots of pinpricks, of course)? 100 million! Hell, one tenth that would be awesome.

Anyway, here's a God who can deposit, from nothing, a hundred million galaxies into an infinite expanse of space, all the while minding every single detail, from the mightiest of galaxy clusters right down to the tiniest atom, and keeping everything in proper order for billions of years (or 6,000, which is still a long time). That's a lot of power.

Now, if I had full faith in such a Creator, I wouldn't bother with things like "supernatural," or "intelligent design," or "6,000 years," or argue against evolution, mutation, spontaneous generation of matter from energy, etc, etc. No, I would simply say:

"Listen, science heathen: God is powerful enough to create 100 million galaxies. A god with that kind of power, coupled with His ability to transcend, nay, create all laws of time, space and beyond, could have created this modest planet five minutes ago, with all its history, fossil records, physical laws, and billions of sentient beings -- all proud of their rich fictional heritage -- firmly in place. That to me is irrefutable fact, period. So I need not listen to any argument from anyone, because the mighty premise of a god who can create tens of millions of galaxies is enough to convince me that He's a god who could do anything."

Then I would fold my arms and close my ears, because faith is my guide, and to Hell, literally, with the fools who dare question it.

I never got the need for argument, even in those Texas schoolbooks. Just say we're here, He did it, enough said. Let the disbelievers say what they will, and teach their children what they will. We all will, after all, learn the Truth eventually, right?

Why explain a being as powerful as God? ... I doubt He needs defending, or really cares about our tiny assertions.

Wow Sage - expecting religious arguments to actually make sense? What's up with that?

As to the need for argument - at least concerning Creationism - I think the argument is mostly 'designed' to attempt to take advantage of the legal system so they can get certain science subjects removed from schools and textbooks - then they can snare many more vulnerable young minds. And as to why creationists continue to trot out the same weak old arguments that have been destroyed each and every time they've ever been brought up even just on forums or in regular conversation - well, unfortunately those are just casualties. The leaders of the movement are interested mostly in effecting legal change to undermine scientific literacy among youth and the followers just echo the arguments because it's their duty to do so to show their strong faith.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

As to the need for argument - at least concerning Creationism - I think the argument is mostly 'designed' to attempt to take advantage of the legal system so they can get certain science subjects removed from schools and textbooks - then they can snare many more vulnerable young minds. And as to why creationists continue to trot out the same weak old arguments that have been destroyed each and every time they've ever been brought up even just on forums or in regular conversation - well, unfortunately those are just casualties. The leaders of the movement are interested mostly in effecting legal change to undermine scientific literacy among youth and the followers just echo the arguments because it's their duty to do so to show their strong faith.

But why?

I guess I was mostly being sarcastic, as my question in reality can only be rhetorical anyway. But it is to wonder: if your eternal soul is guaranteed preservation by a being this powerful and loving, why would anything as mundane as textbooks, laws of man, or even what they're teaching in your child's school ever, ever matter? If your faith is pure, then you can't be wrong, so there's no need to suffer any embarrassment by exposure to scientific knowledge (yes, knowledge -- evolution stopped being a theory some time ago). Surely you and your family can ignore or at least endure the inventions of the heretics, what with God and righteousness on their side.

This obsession of the righteous to spread/force their religious doctrine upon all others is based on something other than true faith, I think. The specious arguments and questionable tactics we see them use (especially in places like Kansas and Texas) seem to make this sadly evident. Their faith should be enough, but they want more. I doubt a loving, all powerful God really cares if the unbelievers are converted, or if a child is exposed to scientific knowledge -- positive reinforcement and evidence of things like evolution should not matter to a person of true faith. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Also, I believe that righteousness ought to be the greatest of the deadly sins, yet it wasn't even listed. Maybe they didn't like the number eight? Maybe then they would have been forced to include a ninth: hypocrisy. And though it is very powerful, given the damage it has done, and still does, to this world, righteousness does not equal faith. Period.

Okay, back to the OP:

tl;dr: A person of faith's true and only answer to "If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?" ought to be "It came from God. the rest does not matter." Any more words than that are a waste of words, unless you need to convince yourself of something.

The whole conept of creationism and sin together makes no sense, if god wanted us to live without sin, he would have either created us without the knowledge of doing bad or he would have showed us that he is indeed real so that people would follow his teaching. The case however is now that he expects you to blindly follow his teachings which is obviously a very ineffecient way of getting people to not commit sin.

So if this god is almighty, can do anything and created this unniverse so that we could live in co-operation with each other, it means that he intentionally gave some of the us the ability to sin, which seems unlikely for an all-loving god.

The only other options are that, there is a different reason as to why we are here (E.g we are an experiment) and he intentionally created us this way, meaning that god is not what he seems and that sin might not either, or that he did not create us and the unniverse, and is trying to make us live good lives.

Creationism and the concept of sin just don't go together if god has no real motives.

If we give it a science-ey name, it cannt possibly have created itself, but if we give it a religious-ey name, it could have. What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

TIS BUT THY NAME THAT IS MY ENEMY;
THOU ART THYSELF, THOUGH NOT A THEORETICAL PHYSICIST.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

No one's ever felt it? I've touched a live wire before, and I sure as hell felt it.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

The whole conept of creationism and sin together makes no sense, if god wanted us to live without sin, he would have either created us without the knowledge of doing bad or he would have showed us that he is indeed real so that people would follow his teaching. The case however is now that he expects you to blindly follow his teachings which is obviously a very ineffecient way of getting people to not commit sin.

So if this god is almighty, can do anything and created this unniverse so that we could live in co-operation with each other, it means that he intentionally gave some of the us the ability to sin, which seems unlikely for an all-loving god.

The only other options are that, there is a different reason as to why we are here (E.g we are an experiment) and he intentionally created us this way, meaning that god is not what he seems and that sin might not either, or that he did not create us and the unniverse, and is trying to make us live good lives.

Creationism and the concept of sin just don't go together if god has no real motives.

Excellent points all, but for what it's worth I was speaking ironically of righteousness as sin, and in the context of it (sin) being a human rather than divine invention. I should have been more clear.

Originally Posted by Supernova

No one's ever felt it? I've touched a live wire before, and I sure as hell felt it.

You're suggesting that the textbook might be incorrect..?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

The whole conept of creationism and sin together makes no sense, if god wanted us to live without sin, he would have either created us without the knowledge of doing bad or he would have showed us that he is indeed real so that people would follow his teaching. The case however is now that he expects you to blindly follow his teachings which is obviously a very ineffecient way of getting people to not commit sin.

So if this god is almighty, can do anything and created this unniverse so that we could live in co-operation with each other, it means that he intentionally gave some of the us the ability to sin, which seems unlikely for an all-loving god.

The only other options are that, there is a different reason as to why we are here (E.g we are an experiment) and he intentionally created us this way, meaning that god is not what he seems and that sin might not either, or that he did not create us and the unniverse, and is trying to make us live good lives.

Creationism and the concept of sin just don't go together if god has no real motives.

God made us with the ability to choose. Adam and Eve chose sin over obeying God. If we did not have free choice, and were forced to worship God, there would be no point in our existance. And God did show himself to us through his son Jesus Christ.

Why did God punish Adam and Eve for sinning when it was God in the first place who had withheld from them the knowledge of good and evil?

Cya.

... not to mention that the game was rigged -- curiosity (the need to know more) and desire for growth are basic God-given human traits, and the only thing that God withheld from Adam & Eve was, yes, the source of knowledge and growth. They never had a chance. Why would God do that?

Originally Posted by Xei

Why did God punish Adam and Evil for sinning when it was God in the first place who had withheld from them the knowledge of good and evil?

Cya.

Adam and Eve had no need to know the difference. There was no evil in the world until Adam and Eve sinned.

Are you seriously not seeing a slight problem here?

Originally Posted by Texan123

Adam and Eve had no need to know the difference. There was no evil in the world until Adam and Eve sinned.

There is no need for people to know the laws until after they commit crimes.

Obviously God wanted followers who don't question but only do as they're told - those make the most compliant subjects and if given pithy statements to believe in will rise up in righteous indignation and strike down those who dare to look for actual answers (especially if those answers run contrary to what said blind followers have been told). By appealing to strong emotions rather than reason religion breeds a contempt for rigorous thought that ensures backwardness and ignorance among the faithful. Early religious leaders were extremely canny and probably among the first great con men. They had an innate understanding of human motivations and how to control them. They knew the majority of humanity would rather believe in comfortable fantasies that make absolutely no sense rather than be bold enough to seek the actual truth even when it isn't comforting, and they also knew that these kinds of people are the ones who are much more easily led. The ones who actually evaluate what they're being told and try to discern truth from fantasy don't make very good compliant sheep. Ergo all the injunctions to slaughter them by stoning or various other methods.

They well understood that informed inquiry is the greatest threat to their power.

I'd like to inject something related to the original topic of this thread. In a universe without matter or energy, the very notion of time makes no sense. So it's not a case of matter not existing and then existing, since without time there is no 'then'. Thus you could say matter had 'always' existed, since time and matter/energy is so strongly linked, but it wouldn't really mean anything.

^^ But then again, remember that there is no such thing as time.

Time is a tool we use in order to lend order to our reality. You can't see it, touch it, change it, or make more of it. Its only true existence is as a control of sorts in the theoretical physics equations (maybe as the bit that helps the math make sense to us?).

So, if in a real way the very notion of time makes no sense, then perhaps a universe without matter or energy does make sense. And for the same reason, a universe that always had energy also makes sense.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ But then again, remember that there is no such thing as time.

Time is a tool we use in order to lend order to our reality. You can't see it, touch it, change it, or make more of it. Its only true existence is as a control of sorts in the theoretical physics equations (maybe as the bit that helps the math make sense to us?).

So, if in a real way the very notion of time makes no sense, then perhaps a universe without matter or energy does make sense. And for the same reason, a universe that always had energy also makes sense.

There actually might be such things as time , I read this artical that meson decay seems to prefer going in one direction of time and if it was reversed you would not witness a reversed reaction. The perception of time is relative but there might actually exist a timeline that only works one way.

The job of physics is to create working models. A model for something unobservable with no empirical consequences is a nonsense. In my opinion, the statement "time existed before the universe started" (and its negation) are literally meaningless, and are symptomatic of the human tendency to vastly overestimate the efficacy of the thing we call 'thought'.

There actually might be such things as time , I read this artical that meson decay seems to prefer going in one direction of time and if it was reversed you would not witness a reversed reaction. The perception of time is relative but there might actually exist a timeline that only works one way.

I've read similar, but keep in mind that that is about witnessing a reverse reaction. Mesons don't have decay "preferences," they simply decay, and decay (and entropy in general) is defined to us only after we attach a time value to the equation.

The mesons are changing, from organized to disorganized (entropy), and we can only understand that decay by including a sense of time in our observations and definitions. But it's only a sense; there is no physical "stream" of time whose current the mesons choose to swim with rather than against. There are just new states of existence, states that we can only define by adding an observational, abstract, and completely arbitrary aspect -- time -- that lends some order to what we saw. There is no such thing as a second, minute, or hour -- no matter how hard you try, you can't save time in a bottle.

Some very smart people even believe that all things that ever were, are, or will be in the universe(s) are happening simultaneously, and we simply perceive them as passing through "time" because of our particular perspective.

This stuff is way above my intellectual pay-grade, I'm afraid; but I just wanted to point out that time is not a physical object or point of energy. Like numerals and words, it only has existence when we use it to measure change.