If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?
Ok, im putting this question out, and going to bed, and when i get back i am sure that all you Big Bang Gang Bangers will be all over this thread. I see a dilemma when people that tell us in our classrooms and televisions, that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but they can only change forms.
These same people turn around and tell us that everything just popped out of nothing at the beginning of "time." All of the matter in space and time was suddenly just "came out of a small ball of condensed particles." But, where did those particles come from. By the very theory of the Big Bang, the matter was so condensed that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could escape the gravity pull. So, how could it have exploded, or by other means expanded into what we now see as the universe? It had to have had a first cause, an initial push by a more powerful entity. (note: i am not a christian, so dont think im one of these good ol boy types or whatever.) 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.
Just playing the Devil's Advocate here
Quote:
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!!!:roll:) Or the existance of...certain religions that claim to have a scientific basis...what a joke.
Again, the Devil's Advocate
Quote:
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...(:alien:) ahem... It seems a tad ignorant to believe that we are the most advanced things in the universe. :?
The Devil's Advocate...again...(ugh)
Originally posted by Photolysis:
Quote:
Believing something without reason to believe is stupid, and yes it is harmful. For starters, it makes you very vulnerable to exploitation.
:roll:
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...:wtf:. 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?