Either God or matter has existed for eternity
Chris 8595
If one thinks about it, a person must believe one of two things concerning the
origin of the universe:
1. Either matter has existed forever and it has no creator (matter meaning any
physical substance that takes up any amount of space in time)
or...
2. ...that an ultimate creator (God) created the matter and God has no creator.
In either case one must believe that something has existed forever with no
ultimate creator.
I think it is makes more sense that a creator and not matter has existed
forever.
Chris
Darklady
Chris 8595 <chri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804252253...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Temporarily accepting your limited options I have to ask why you think
it's more logical that a creator (capable of creating the universe) has
existed forever without having been created... instead of believing that
simple matter has existed and over extended time changed in such a way as
to create the universe?
--
Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
ICQ 10830459
Nick Matthewsen
On 25 Apr 1998 22:53:55 GMT, Chris 8595 <chri...@aol.com> wrote:
[lines re-wrapped.]
>If one thinks about it, a person must believe one of two things concerning the
>origin of the universe:
>
>1. Either matter has existed forever and it has no creator (matter meaning
>any physical substance that takes up any amount of space in time)
>
>or...
>
>2. ...that an ultimate creator (God) created the matter and God has no
>creator.
Not so; one could believe that matter came into existance uncreated,
or that time is an aspect of the material universe, and so speaking of
a "time before matter" is inconsistant, or even (as did the
Manicheans) that it was not God, but rather an evil being who created
matter.
Please explain, in a logical demonstration, why you feel it is
justified to neglect all other possibilities.
>In either case one must believe that something has existed forever with no
>ultimate creator.
>
>I think it is makes more sense that a creator and not matter has existed
>forever.
Please explain this conclusion as well, in a logical fashion, making
all of your premises explicit.
--
\\ Nick Matthewsen // Akronas: Science is only a means -- one of many.
|| aa 1011011011 || Crow: (There's also FAN DANCING!)
// Qni...@mit.edu \\ - MST3K, "Cave Dwellers"
( Remove Q's to reply. Unsolicited commercial email unwelcome.)
Ed. Stoebenau
In article on 25 Apr 1998 22:53:55 GMT, chri...@aol.com (Chris
8595) wrote:
>If one thinks about it, a person must believe one of two things concerning the
>origin of the universe:
>
>1. Either matter has existed forever and it has no creator (matter meaning any
>physical substance that takes up any amount of space in time)
>
>or...
>
>2. ...that an ultimate creator (God) created the matter and God has no creator.
>
or
3) Matter has not existed for an infinite time, yet came into being at
the Big Bang, which, being the beginning of time, means that it needs
no cause. Therefore, God is not needed to explain it.
I would say (3) has the most warrant for it, compared to the other
two.
--
Just my four half cents worth Standard disclaimer
Ed. Stoebenau email: esto...@see.below
a#143 use headers to figure out
e-mail host
Chris 8595
In regard to the request that I give a logical explanation in demonstrating why
all other possibilities aren't possible for explaining the origin of the
universe I will answer it "briefly":
Nothing in the physical universe happens without a reason for doing so. And
when I mean "reason" I don't mean some religious purpose or explanation for why
a certain event has occurred. Rather, I mean that nothing happens
spontaneously. Even though science may assert that some things happen
spontaneously it really means that they don't know why such an event has
happened. So, while something may appear to occur without a reason, there
actually is a reason, but we aren't aware of that reason at that particular
moment.
Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves from
matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today spontaneously
coming into being from nothing. We see it naturally evolving from something
that is already existing. So, spontaneous production of matter does not happen
now, nor has it ever.
Now, this is not to say that matter does not have its origins from nothing. For
if one believes in a God that has created matter one must believe that matter
was created from nothing. But, matter cannot spontaneously come into being
without cause. If at one point there was nothing and another point there was,
then what motivated the matter to come into existence, and why at that
particular moment did it come into existence? Why did matter ever have to come
into existence?
Now one would ask "If matter must have a creator, if matter had to have a
beginning wouldn't the same hold true of God?" This is a very good question
that no philosopher should ever fail to address. But the fundamental
differences between God and matter is that matter does not have an intelligence
and God doesn't exist in time like matter does. Therefore, the same questions
and the same rules do not apply to God, who is a pure spiritual being. And not
just spiritual but also intelligent. Matter has to have a creator because
matter (at the very simplest level) does not possess intelligence. So a being
that does not have intelligence cannot come into existence without an
intelligent being willing it to do so.
Of course this doesn't explain why God created the universe. This is a question
for philosophers and theologians that will never be able to scientifically
prove why God created the universe.
I hope that explains my beliefs in a logical and deeper way than my previous
explanation. I am not philosopher nor a theologian. But this makes sense to me
as it does to many others. I am always open to other opinions and views on this
subject. I would love to know what more about your views.
Chris
Nick Matthewsen
On 26 Apr 1998 06:30:08 GMT, Chris 8595 <chri...@aol.com> wrote:
>In regard to the request that I give a logical explanation in demonstrating why
>all other possibilities aren't possible for explaining the origin of the
>universe I will answer it "briefly":
>
>Nothing in the physical universe happens without a reason for doing so. And
>when I mean "reason" I don't mean some religious purpose or explanation for
>why a certain event has occurred. Rather, I mean that nothing happens
>spontaneously. Even though science may assert that some things happen
>spontaneously it really means that they don't know why such an event has
>happened. So, while something may appear to occur without a reason, there
>actually is a reason, but we aren't aware of that reason at that particular
>moment.
But this is not a logical argument; it is merely a statement of faith.
Personally, I think it's entirely possible that, when modern physics
states that matter appears 'spontaneously' it _really does_ appear
spontaneously. It may be that this is not the case -- but what makes
you so sure that it is?
>Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves from
>matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today spontaneously
>coming into being from nothing.
Incorrect. One of the 'spontaneous' reactions which you do not
believe to exist occurs in QM when particle-antiparticle pairs appear
and anihilate. In such reactions, particles come from nothing, and
return to nothing.
> We see it naturally evolving from something
>that is already existing. So, spontaneous production of matter does not happen
>now, nor has it ever.
Even if your premises were true here, your conclusion would not be.
Even if we had _never_ seen matter 'spontaneously produced,' we would
not then be justified in assuming that it never _was_ 'spontaneously
produced.'
Simply because we do not see it happening, does not mean that it does
not happen, or that it never happened.
>Now, this is not to say that matter does not have its origins from nothing.
>For if one believes in a God that has created matter one must believe that
>matter was created from nothing. But, matter cannot spontaneously come into
>being without cause. If at one point there was nothing and another point
>there was, then what motivated the matter to come into existence, and why at
>that particular moment did it come into existence? Why did matter ever have
>to come into existence?
Again, this is undemonstrated. This seems to be what Dawkins would
call the 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' and Dennett would call
the 'Philosopher's Syndrome: mistaking a failure of imagination for an
insight into necessity'. Simply because _you_ cannot imagine that
matter could exist uncaused, does not mean that it is inconceivable.
Even if something were truly inconceivable, it would not prove that it
was impossible.
If, on the other hand, you have a good demonstration of this point
which does not rely on rhetirical questions, I would love to hear it.
>Now one would ask "If matter must have a creator, if matter had to have a
>beginning wouldn't the same hold true of God?" This is a very good question
>that no philosopher should ever fail to address. But the fundamental
>differences between God and matter is that matter does not have an
>intelligence and God doesn't exist in time like matter does.
Well, that's an interesting idea, and one we've seen quite a few times
before. Of course, if you place God outside of time, you may well
create more theological problems than you solve. Without time, for
example, can a God truly be said to 'create'? Creation, after all,
implies a "before" and an "after", and to a being outside of time,
there are no "befores" and "afters". Perhaps 'causation' would be a
better word.
Also, many traditional religions face serious problems if they believe
God to be outside of time. Such a being could not 'decide' to do
anything, or 'perceive' that anything was the case -- because decision
and perception both imply a time _before_ the state of mind was
reached. Such a being would simply _know_ all events, past and
future: determinism (in the Calvinistic sense) would rule.
> Therefore, the
>same questions and the same rules do not apply to God, who is a pure
>spiritual being. And not just spiritual but also intelligent. Matter has to
>have a creator because matter (at the very simplest level) does not possess
>intelligence. So a being that does not have intelligence cannot come into
>existence without an intelligent being willing it to do so.
I think that this is untrue. If you haven't done so already, I would
recommend that you read a good book on the evolution of psychology.
In particular, I recommend the earlier chapters of Steven Pinker's
_How the Mind Works_, or Daniel Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_.
Again, however, if you can demonstrate that nothing intelligent can
come into being without an intelligent creator, then I would love to
hear your argument.
[snip]
>I hope that explains my beliefs in a logical and deeper way than my previous
>explanation. I am not philosopher nor a theologian. But this makes sense to me
>as it does to many others. I am always open to other opinions and views on
>this subject. I would love to know what more about your views.
Certainly. Would you prefer my views on this presentation of the
Argument from the First Cause, my views on the origins of the universe
and of causality, or my views on gods and religions?
Sincerely yours,
Chris 8595
Your whole system of belief is set on the fact that nothing can be proven nor
disproven. How can one even attempt to demonstrate any sort of truth or
"logical" explanation of anything when the heart of your response to my
explanation is that even if something is truly inconcievable is still possible.
That sort of thinking is in direct conflict with logic. It's like saying even
though one cannot conceive of a four sided triangle it is till possible that
one can exist. Metaphysics to you is illogical because we don't have hard
"scientific" evidence to support our claims. But even science never pretends it
can"prove" anything because the end result of science as seen through the
scientic method is simply a theory.
Also you assert that science can demonstrate that certain particles
spontaneously appear out of nothing. But just because we cannot see where the
particles come from doesn't mean they come from nothing.
So you see nothing will ever be proven according to your system of thinking.
You can't put God under a microscope. Microscopes study matter and God is not
matter. If God is to be trult a god it would be impossible to physically
demonstrate without a doubt that he exists.
Chris
Nick Matthewsen
[Lines re-wrapped]
On 26 Apr 1998 23:09:13 GMT, Chris 8595 <chri...@aol.com> wrote:
>Your whole system of belief is set on the fact that nothing can be
>proven nor disproven.
This is simply not the case. Some things can be demonstrated to my
satisfaction, and some things cannot. It is, of course, impossible to
_prove_ any deductive truth in an absolute fashion, because your
interlocuter may always question your axioms. The _point_ is that
> How can one even attempt to demonstrate any sort
>of truth or "logical" explanation of anything when the heart of your
>response to my explanation is that even if something is truly
>inconcievable is still possible. That sort of thinking is in direct
>conflict with logic.
Perhaps we have different meanings for 'inconceivable,' or perhaps I
got carried away by my own rhetoric. My point is this: even if nobody
_today_ could imagine an alternative to a certain state of affairs,
does not mean that no alternative was possible. In Euclid's day,
alternatives to the parallel postulate were 'inconceivable.'
Nowadays, non-euclidian geometry forms the mathematical core of
General Relativity.
What I am arguing is this: you claim that the uncaused appearance of
matter is impossible, but you do not seem to give any logical
demonstration that this is the case. You only present an argument
that it is counterintuitive. This is not what many modern physicists
feel. If you want people to believe that you are right and they are
wrong, you will need to do more than give me a few rhetorical
questions.
> It's like saying even though one cannot conceive
>of a four sided triangle it is till possible that one can
>exist.
Sorry, but this analogy is false. A four-sided triangle is
demonstrably impossible because triangles are _defined_ as three-sided
polygons, and 'three' is defined to be a number unequal to that named
by 'four'.
> Metaphysics to you is illogical because we don't have hard
>"scientific" evidence to support our claims. But even science never
>pretends it can "prove" anything because the end result of science as
>seen through the scientic method is simply a theory.
Not quite -- the result of science is not only a set of 'surviving'
theories, but also a pile of 'dead' theories by the wayside. I cannot
_prove_ that any aspect of modern physics is correct -- only that, if
its predictions are wrong, they are only wrong within certain bounds,
under certain conditions.
I have no idea what the next revolution in physics will be, but I am
entirely certain that it will predict that Maxwell's equations (for
example) will hold, to a pretty good degree of accuracy under all the
circumstances they do today.
Again, I am not opposed to all metaphysics. I do not claim that it is
illogical. I am only saying that _if_ you want to make a logical
demonstration of a point, material or metaphysical, your demonstration
will not be convincing if your axioms are contentious.
>Also you assert that science can demonstrate that certain particles
>spontaneously appear out of nothing. But just because we cannot see where the
>particles come from doesn't mean they come from nothing.
No, you have misread me. Here is what I _did_ say:
>>I think it's entirely possible that, when modern physics
>>states that matter appears 'spontaneously' it _really does_ appear
>>spontaneously. It may be that this is not the case -- but what makes
>>you so sure that it is?
I am not certain that QM is right, and I certainly do not know enough
physics to investigate the matter very deeply. What I am asking you
is this: why are you so sure it is wrong?
>So you see nothing will ever be proven according to your system of thinking.
>You can't put God under a microscope. Microscopes study matter and God is not
>matter. If God is to be trult a god it would be impossible to physically
>demonstrate without a doubt that he exists.
No, but if God _interacts_, or _interacted_ with matter, then it might
be possible to demonstrate _beyond a reasonable doubt_ that he
existed.
I'm not trying to be sophistic here; I'm simply asking you why you are
so sure of your axioms.
_What makes you so sure_ that something cannot come of nothing?
_What makes you so sure_ that intelligence cannor arise from nonintelligence?
_What makes you so sure_ that everything material must have a cause?
I am not asserting that I can prove that these points are false; I am
merely wondering whether you are really justified in assuming that
they are true.
BTW, you mentioned that you'd love to know more about our views. What
were you interested in our views about?
Pioneer
In article <199804252253...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
chri...@aol.com (Chris 8595) wrote:
> If one thinks about it, a person must believe one of two things concerning the
> origin of the universe:
<snip - 2 choices>
Anyone can make an assertion like that. But do you think that you can
*support* it?
Please tell us, in detail, exactly why only those two choices are
possible. That, or retract your assertion. Whichever.
> Nothing in the physical universe happens without a reason for doing so. And
> when I mean "reason" I don't mean some religious purpose or explanation
for why
> a certain event has occurred. Rather, I mean that nothing happens
> spontaneously.
1. Can you prove this?
2. Actually, it is incorrect - examine nuclear decay and Quantum Mechanics.
Even though science may assert that some things happen
> spontaneously it really means that they don't know why such an event has
> happened.
Actually, no. In the above two cases, a "cause" is logically prohibited,
since the only other options include superluminal communication.
So, while something may appear to occur without a reason, there
> actually is a reason, but we aren't aware of that reason at that particular
> moment.
Evidence?
> Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves from
> matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today spontaneously
> coming into being from nothing. We see it naturally evolving from something
> that is already existing. So, spontaneous production of matter does not happen
> now, nor has it ever.
Non sequitor. Not seeing something today does not invalidate the
possibility of it happening before. Even you accept this, since you
probably do not believe that since we do not see any gods creating
universes today, then it has never happened - right?
--
Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
Home: www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
Secular Humanism in Western PA: www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
Council for Secular Humanism: www.secularhumanism.org/home.html
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
Paul Andrew King
In article <199804260630...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
chri...@aol.com (Chris 8595) wrote:
>Nothing in the physical universe happens without a reason for doing so. And
>when I mean "reason" I don't mean some religious purpose or explanation for why
>a certain event has occurred. Rather, I mean that nothing happens
>spontaneously. Even though science may assert that some things happen
>spontaneously it really means that they don't know why such an event has
>happened.
In other words, you rule out any contradictory evidence.
So, while something may appear to occur without a reason, there
>actually is a reason, but we aren't aware of that reason at that particular
>moment.
How do you know this ?
>
>Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves from
>matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today spontaneously
>coming into being from nothing. We see it naturally evolving from something
>that is already existing. So, spontaneous production of matter does not happen
>now, nor has it ever.
Well, that undermines your argument. Since the origin of matter - or
matter energy/matter is radically different from the origin of specific
objects in our universe we cannot rely on the latter to tell us anything
about the former.
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
Kevin Jaget
On 26 Apr 1998 06:30:08 GMT, chri...@aol.com (Chris 8595) wrote:
>In regard to the request that I give a logical explanation in demonstrating why
>all other possibilities aren't possible for explaining the origin of the
>universe I will answer it "briefly":
>
>Nothing in the physical universe happens without a reason for doing so. And
>when I mean "reason" I don't mean some religious purpose or explanation for why
>a certain event has occurred. Rather, I mean that nothing happens
>spontaneously.
Please demonstrate a way to predict exactly when a radioactive atom
will decay, and the cause of its decay.
>Even though science may assert that some things happen
>spontaneously it really means that they don't know why such an event has
>happened. So, while something may appear to occur without a reason, there
>actually is a reason, but we aren't aware of that reason at that particular
>moment.
So in other words, everything happens with a reason, regardless of
the evidence that some things don't. The fact that we have no
evidence that some things happen for a reason is more proof that
everything happens for a reason. I suppose even the fact that we
have evidence that some things happen for no reason at all is
actually evidence that evidence that everything happens for a
reason. You might as well save yourself from typing and just say
"the universe is the way I say it is because I say it is".
>Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves from
>matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today spontaneously
>coming into being from nothing. We see it naturally evolving from something
>that is already existing. So, spontaneous production of matter does not happen
>now, nor has it ever.
The "nor has is ever" is an invalid conclusion. Certainly, common
sense observations of what happens on a macro scale have nothing to
do with the state of the universe before 10^-43 seconds after it
began. And the fact that virtual particles come into existence and
disappear all the time shoots down your second sentence. But in
your way of thinking, I suppose that evidence for matter
spontaneously coming into being from nothing is actually evidence
that matter never spontaneously comes into being from nothing.
>Now, this is not to say that matter does not have its origins from nothing. For
>if one believes in a God that has created matter one must believe that matter
>was created from nothing. But, matter cannot spontaneously come into being
>without cause. If at one point there was nothing and another point there was,
>then what motivated the matter to come into existence, and why at that
>particular moment did it come into existence? Why did matter ever have to come
>into existence?
Since time doesn't exist without space and matter, there was no
particular moment in which it did come into existence. Regardless,
though, no one really knows how it happened. It's nice you believe
that saying "God did it" means something, but it is just another way
of saying "I don't know". You'd appear a lot more credible if you
just admitted it.
>Now one would ask "If matter must have a creator, if matter had to have a
>beginning wouldn't the same hold true of God?" This is a very good question
>that no philosopher should ever fail to address. But the fundamental
>differences between God and matter is that matter does not have an intelligence
>and God doesn't exist in time like matter does. Therefore, the same questions
>and the same rules do not apply to God, who is a pure spiritual being.
In fact, since God is omnipotent, there are absolutely no rules at
all which apply to God. Anything we can possibly observe can be
explained by Goddidit, after the fact. If it rains, goddidit. If
it didn't, goddidit. If the Earth is round, goddidit. If the Earth
isn't round, goddidit. It explains everything, but predicts
nothing, and is therefore is a totally content-free statement. It's
exactly the same as saying "I don't know".
>And not
>just spiritual but also intelligent. Matter has to have a creator because
>matter (at the very simplest level) does not possess intelligence. So a being
>that does not have intelligence cannot come into existence without an
>intelligent being willing it to do so.
>
>Of course this doesn't explain why God created the universe. This is a question
>for philosophers and theologians that will never be able to scientifically
>prove why God created the universe.
They also have to prove that it was just one god which created the
universe. Then they have to prove that this God is still around.
Then they have to prove that this god still interacts with the
universe. Then they have to prove this god is at all related to the
Christian God. Then they have to demonstrate which flavor of
Christian God, and so on. All of this from exactly zero knowledge
of what happened during the first few instants that the universe was
around.
>I hope that explains my beliefs in a logical and deeper way than my previous
>explanation. I am not philosopher nor a theologian. But this makes sense to me
>as it does to many others. I am always open to other opinions and views on this
>subject. I would love to know what more about your views.
You are basically saying the same thing as everyone else ("we don't
know"), you are just using different words ("Goddidit").
>
>Chris
--
Kevin Jaget (or an FDA approved generic equivalent)
kcjaget at sgi.net
Kenneth Almquist
On 26 Apr 1998 08:26:11 GMT, Qni...@mit.edu (Nick Matthewsen) wrote:
> On 26 Apr 1998 06:30:08 GMT, Chris 8595 <chri...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Nothing in the physical universe happens without a reason for doing so. And
>> when I mean "reason" I don't mean some religious purpose or explanation for
>> why a certain event has occurred. Rather, I mean that nothing happens
>> spontaneously. Even though science may assert that some things happen
>> spontaneously it really means that they don't know why such an event has
>> happened. So, while something may appear to occur without a reason, there
>> actually is a reason, but we aren't aware of that reason at that particular
>> moment.
>
> But this is not a logical argument; it is merely a statement of faith.
Yes, I think you have characterised Chris's statement correctly.
I have written things which may sound a lot like what Chris wrote, but
in doing so I was expressing a methodological principle, not a statement
of faith. If you are investigating something which appears to have no
cause, your *first* approach should be to assume that it does have a
cause, and to search for that cause. The reason is that if you simply
assume that it was uncaused, your investigation stops there. So a
predisposition to assuming that causes exist is necessary for effective
investigation. But if you refuse to allow this predisposition to be
refuted by any possible evidence, then it is no longer a tool for
effective investigation, but a blinder which may prevent you from
seeing the world as it actually is.
Occam's razor should be applied in a similar way. It says not to posit
entities *unnecessarily*. Following this rule, I believe that God does
not exist. But if God exists and wants me to believe in his existence,
all he has to do is provide me with evidence and I will believe.
Kenneth Almquist
Darklady
Chris 8595 wrote in message
<199804260630...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves from
>matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today
spontaneously
>coming into being from nothing. We see it naturally evolving from something
>that is already existing. So, spontaneous production of matter does not
happen
>now, nor has it ever.
>
>Now, this is not to say that matter does not have its origins from nothing.
For
>if one believes in a God that has created matter one must believe that
matter
>was created from nothing. But, matter cannot spontaneously come into being
>without cause. If at one point there was nothing and another point there
was,
>then what motivated the matter to come into existence, and why at that
>particular moment did it come into existence? Why did matter ever have to
come
>into existence?
Translation: Matter can not come spontaneously into existance except
when it further's Chris' personal philosophies about religion.
>Now one would ask "If matter must have a creator, if matter had to have a
>beginning wouldn't the same hold true of God?" This is a very good question
>that no philosopher should ever fail to address. But the fundamental
>differences between God and matter is that matter does not have an
intelligence
>and God doesn't exist in time like matter does. Therefore, the same
questions
>and the same rules do not apply to God, who is a pure spiritual being.
How the hell can a "pure spiritual being" affect matter, then?
And not
>just spiritual but also intelligent. Matter has to have a creator because
>matter (at the very simplest level) does not possess intelligence. So a
being
>that does not have intelligence cannot come into existence without an
>intelligent being willing it to do so.
So your god was very busy during the past week building mold on my
cheese? Is he also responsible for women's yeast infections?
-- Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
ICQ 10830459
Hear me 4/29/98 on the Howard Stern radio show.
Kevin J
Darklady <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote in article
<89379378...@ridge.spiritone.com>...
> Chris 8595 wrote in message
> <199804260630...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
> >Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves
from
> >matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today
> spontaneously
> >coming into being from nothing.
A minor addition. Don't we in fact see matter arise from energy
after the particle collisions in current day accelerators??
As physicists have probed deeper into the atom, quarks, etc.,
they have in some cases NOT seen fragments of smaller particles
flying out from the point of collision. Instead there has been a delay,
with matter coming into existence from energy (e=mc^2). And I
believe these particles were seen to "pop into existence" not at
the exact point of impact, but at a distance far enough away so as
to assume the energy to matter conversion. True?
Kevin
Abner Mintz
Chris 8595 <chri...@aol.com> wrote:
> Nothing in the physical universe happens without a reason for doing so.
"Can you support this assertion? Most things on the macroscale appear
to have causes, but quantum mechanics, which is very successful in
explaining the behavior of very small objects, allows for (and, indeed,
predicts) some events being uncaused, such as radioactive decay. Now,
this does not *prove* that there is not some hidden cause for those
events - but, given that there is good reason (a solid theoretical
structure with vast predictive power) to think that uncaused events
are possible, we need more than your say-so as support for your dismissal
of causeless events."
"Now: even if the above is true, what makes you think that this would
apply to the origin of the universe? Our universal laws may or may
not apply to the origin of the universe, or any time before it (if
such existed), but we have no way of knowing that."
"If, on the other hand, we assume that our current universal laws
applied to the origin of the universe, and you believe that your
God was the origin of the universe, does that mean that your God
has to (and always has had to) obey our current universal laws?
No creation ex nihilo? No violations of thermodynamics?" *grin*
"So your own arguments either appear to be poorly supported, or
cut against your own explanation at least as strongly as against
non-theistic ones."
> And when I mean "reason" I don't mean some religious purpose or
> explanation for why a certain event has occurred. Rather, I mean that
> nothing happens spontaneously. Even though science may assert that some
> things happen spontaneously it really means that they don't know why
> such an event has happened.
"I look foreward to your support of these claims that all things
have a cause, even at the smallest of scales. Until supported,
I'm afraid that they will not succeed in convincing people who
don't already agree with you. In other words, great apologia,
but no good for convincing the unconvinced."
> So, while something may appear to occur without a reason, there
> actually is a reason, but we aren't aware of that reason at that
> particular moment.
"Or perhaps there really is no reason for the event, and it was
just ... random?" :)
> Also, all matter we see that has changed or "come into being" evolves
> from matter that has already existed. We don't see any matter today
> spontaneously coming into being from nothing. We see it naturally
> evolving from something that is already existing. So, spontaneous
> production of matter does not happen now, nor has it ever.
"We do not now see any strange quarks in matter; therefore, top
and bottom quarks do not exist, nor have they ever. Oh, wait a
second: it turns out that if we get high enough energy densities,
we *do* see strange quarks - they just don't exist under the
conditions we ordinarily encounter."
"Your argument, if valid, would have, at some point in history, also
disproved relativity (we do not see objects shortening as they
move faster, so they do not, nor have they ever), quantum mechanics
(we do not see the same object going simultaneously through different
slits, so they do not, nor have they ever), nuclear fusion (we do
not observe hydrogens combining into helium, so they do not, nor
do they ever), and hundreds of other ideas that turned out to be
well-based in reality. Nowadays, we can detect effects of relativity
that occur at faster speeds than we could once observe; effects of
quantum mechanics that occur at smaller sizes than we could once
observe; effects of nuclear interactions that occur at greater heats
and matter densities than we could once observe, etc."
"The Big Bang, if it occured (and the evidence in its favor is
strong), occured at energy densities much greater than any we
can now observe. We have trouble even theorizing what happens
under those conditions - even the Superconducting Supercollider,
had it been built, wouldn't have reached those energies. For
all we know, reaching those energies automatically punches a hole
in space-time that allows some currently unknown energy-source
to pour energy into our reality in an event called a 'Big Bang',
which only drops off when the localized energy on the other side
of the hole drops below a critical density ... or maybe not.
It's all pure speculation at this point."
"What we *cannot* say about such events is what was or was not
possible. For all we know, Big Bangs occur every time a being
named Zobwitz scratches his nose, and he could do so again at
any second. Since the evidence neither supports nor contradicts
this, we don't make claims either way, following Occam's Razor.
But to make a positive claim about something (what could have
caused the Big Bang) which we have no evidence about, either
way, strikes me as the height of arrogance."
"Thus, I make no definite claim that the Big Bang did or did not
have a natural source (or a supernatural one). Maybe your God
did it, maybe some other god did it, maybe it had some completely
natural source, maybe it was caused by faeries from the 12th
dimension ... who can say? To try to logically eliminate one
of those is futile; we just don't have the evidence."
"The rest of your discussion snipped, because it basically follows
the same pattern: you assume premises that lead to the conclusions
you like, without any apparent support or good reason for those
premises as opposed to other possibilities, and then claim to
have proven what you wanted to prove. Sorry, but possibilities
don't becomes untrue just because they aren't what you wanted."