All because of a debate with Eskimospy...

[Atreus21]

As some of you may know, me and Eskimo got into a debate on the Big Bang thread about a creator. In a nutshell, Eskimo's counterpoint to mine was that a creator cannot have existed, because it would violate the law of conservation of matter, which states, as I understand it, that matter is never created nor destroyed, but only rearranged, assembled, manipulated, whatever you want to call it.

So I was stumped.

Now, if my understanding of this law is correct, in stating that matter was never created, that must imply that matter has been here for an infinite amount of time.

But is there infinite time? The earth is assumed to be about 4.5 billion years old. Infinity minus 4.5 billion years is still infinity. If there's already been infinite time, there's been infinite time for every possibility to be actualized, so why aren't we all dead?

The only conclusion I can come to is that time is finite. But if that's true, then matter can't have been around for an infinite amount of time, as the law of conservation of matter implies.

If anyone has followed me this far, I'd love some input. Something tells me I'm not the only schmuck to have thought of this.

 

[JS80]

I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JS80
I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

Or the Spaghetti Monster, take your pick.

 

[seemingly random]

*sparks* exiting ears while head does a 360.

<unfolds lawn chair>

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: JS80
I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

Pretty much, our inability to comprehend nothingness before the universe limits our discussion. Our views on the appearance of matter and time are just as hazy as 'and there was light'

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
*sparks* exiting ears while head does a 360.

<unfolds lawn chair>

That happened to me too, although I'm stuck at my office chair.

 

[RightIsWrong]

There is another conclusion that you don't seem to have considered...that time is a man-made construct. The existence of matter may very well be infinite. The fact that science is dating it in contradiction to science saying that matter has always existed is also the byproduct of man.

We a unfortunately a very fallible species.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: JS80
I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

Pretty much, our inability to comprehend nothingness before the universe limits our discussion. Our views on the appearance of matter and time are just as hazy as 'and there was light'

Well, but that opinion implies that there might be a creator/God, and we might just not be able to know it. That's more of what an Agnostic would say.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
There is another conclusion that you don't seem to have considered...that time is a man-made construct. The existence of matter may very well be infinite. The fact that science is dating it in contradiction to science saying that matter has always existed is also the byproduct of man.

We a unfortunately a very fallible species.

But I still don't see how time, and therefore matter, can be infinite for the reason I mentioned in the first post.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: JS80
I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

Pretty much, our inability to comprehend nothingness before the universe limits our discussion. Our views on the appearance of matter and time are just as hazy as 'and there was light'

Well, but that opinion implies that there might be a creator/God, and we might just not be able to know it. That's more of what an Agnostic would say.

So, because humans aren't very smart, they should believe that there is a creator or god? I'm not buying this.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: JS80
I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

Pretty much, our inability to comprehend nothingness before the universe limits our discussion. Our views on the appearance of matter and time are just as hazy as 'and there was light'

Well, but that opinion implies that there might be a creator/God, and we might just not be able to know it. That's more of what an Agnostic would say.

So, because humans aren't very smart, they should believe that there is a creator or god? I'm not buying this.

Well, an agnostic simply says that because we can't know everything, we must be prepared for the possibility that a god might exist.

 

[Vic]

Time appears to be infinite in one direction, but has a beginning in the other.

The law of conservation of energy implies that matter has been here an infinite time but doesn't say that. If time has a beginning though, then it would still hold true.

 

[nakedfrog]

Look below for your answer.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Vic
Time appears to be infinite in one direction, but has a beginning in the other.

The law of conservation of energy implies that matter has been here an infinite time but doesn't say that. If time has a beginning though, then it would still hold true.

Well, I'm pretty sure infinity has neither beginning nor end, else it would be measurable, and that means finite.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: JS80
I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

Pretty much, our inability to comprehend nothingness before the universe limits our discussion. Our views on the appearance of matter and time are just as hazy as 'and there was light'

Well, but that opinion implies that there might be a creator/God, and we might just not be able to know it. That's more of what an Agnostic would say.

So, because humans aren't very smart, they should believe that there is a creator or god? I'm not buying this.

Well, an agnostic simply says that because we can't know everything, we must be prepared for the possibility that a god might exist.

Not sure where agnostic came into play. It wasn't a premise in the op.

Does an atheist's viewpoint change things?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Look below for your answer.

:laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
There is another conclusion that you don't seem to have considered...that time is a man-made construct. The existence of matter may very well be infinite. The fact that science is dating it in contradiction to science saying that matter has always existed is also the byproduct of man.

We a unfortunately a very fallible species.

The bolded is IMO the most likely scenario. Although, I would say 'life-made' or 'consciousness-made' instead of man-made.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
There is another conclusion that you don't seem to have considered...that time is a man-made construct. The existence of matter may very well be infinite. The fact that science is dating it in contradiction to science saying that matter has always existed is also the byproduct of man.

We a unfortunately a very fallible species.

But I still don't see how time, and therefore matter, can be infinite for the reason I mentioned in the first post.

They both can be infinite because we are naturally fallible. Our perception of time is limited to the narrow definition that we almost universally accept. The fact that science dates earth is irrelevant to the true age (abstract concept not scientific definition) of the universe as we know it.

There are so few known quantities in the universe. What we do know is based on our understanding of scientific theories and natural laws. I am more open to believe that those theories and laws do not translate to exact or even remotely close to exact similarities in the far off reaches of space.

It is the reason that I am more likely to believe in life on other planets than I am a god/creator.

 

[StageLeft]

(I won't return to this thread, just warning y'all!).

I find his argument as you've stated it quite silly. To argue it like that it's like us having a boxing match, with its defined rules. Boxing represents the universe. Then, when I feel like it, I decide to kick you in the balls. That is not boxing, is it? We were having a boxing match, so how could I have kicked you in the balls? I could because I am not constrained by boxing's rules if I don't want to be.

Saying that a creator could not have existed because of the law of conservation of matter is like saying we cannot break the speed of sound (although we have), or fly (we have done that, too). Perhaps the law of conservation is not completely understood; it lacks the caveat of "a creator can do whatever the hell he wants".

I find it interesting that people will say things like divine intervention or intelligent design are impossible because they don't adhere to science and/or reason, but why have we adopted those as be-all-end-alls; we certainly put a lot of faith in things that have yet to provide us with answers to the most pressing questions of the millenia.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Laws were made to be broken.

Seriously though, if someone sticks to the law of conservation he is implying that man himself is God as he's insinuating that man's law of conservation is infallible. Anyone who doesn't understand that man's "laws" only explain what we understand to be true can never be reasoned with as he's relying on something he feels cannot be proven wrong the same way as someone who believes in God is relying on beliefs that cannot be proven right. That's the unfortunate fallacy of the human condition. The belief that everything can be explained in a manner we can understand.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: JS80
I think it's safe to assume humans are not smart enough to understand even if an answer were to be presented by God Himself.

Pretty much, our inability to comprehend nothingness before the universe limits our discussion. Our views on the appearance of matter and time are just as hazy as 'and there was light'

Well, but that opinion implies that there might be a creator/God, and we might just not be able to know it. That's more of what an Agnostic would say.

So, because humans aren't very smart, they should believe that there is a creator or god? I'm not buying this.

Well, an agnostic simply says that because we can't know everything, we must be prepared for the possibility that a god might exist.

Not sure where agnostic came into play. It wasn't a premise in the op.

Does an atheist's viewpoint change things?

You started by saying we have an "inability comprehend" and that our understanding is limited. (Keep in mind, by the way, that the original discussion between Eskimo and I in the Big Bang thread was hinging on atheism versus theism.) An agnostic starts from this premise. An atheist starts by stating what he knows, the first of which is that God cannot exist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic
Time appears to be infinite in one direction, but has a beginning in the other.

The law of conservation of energy implies that matter has been here an infinite time but doesn't say that. If time has a beginning though, then it would still hold true.

Well, I'm pretty sure infinity has neither beginning nor end, else it would be measurable, and that means finite.

Not at all. It is possible for something infinite to have a beginning. Just as long as it doesn't have an end.

8 - 1 = 8

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
(I won't return to this thread, just warning y'all!).

I find his argument as you've stated it quite silly. To argue it like that it's like us having a boxing match, with its defined rules. Boxing represents the universe. Then, when I feel like it, I decide to kick you in the balls. That is not boxing, is it? We were having a boxing match, so how could I have kicked you in the balls? I could because I am not constrained by boxing's rules if I don't want to be.

Saying that a creator could not have existed because of the law of conservation of matter is like saying we cannot break the speed of sound (although we have), or fly (we have done that, too). Perhaps the law of conservation is not completely understood; it lacks the caveat of "a creator can do whatever the hell he wants".

I find it interesting that people will say things like divine intervention or intelligent design are impossible because they don't adhere to science and/or reason, but why have we adopted those as be-all-end-alls; we certainly put a lot of faith in things that have yet to provide us with answers to the most pressing questions of the millenia.

Ultimately, this is the same conclusion I came to.

 

[ayabe]

Our mind is incapable of imagining a lot of things. Like an infinite universe, because we are limited by our senses and our senses deal strictly with the tangible and finite, we have a hard time with these types of concepts.

There's an interesting little piece on exactly what is time, you can find it here:

Text


I like this quote:

"I think of time as the persistence of existence. Which is close to the notion that for something to be, it has to endure."

 

[CoachB]

Can matter and time be different states/forms of the same thing? Matter and energy can be converted back and forth; what if time is a third "phase" of the same "vapours"?
I reference ice/water/steam as a crude analogy.