All because of a debate with Eskimospy...

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 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

I don't see how that's possible, but I'm getting way out of my knowledge here.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The BB theory postulates that matter appeared after the bang. Energy was converted to matter (change E=Mc² to M=E/c² to see how much energy was required). The matter acquired mass soon after through another mechanism, possibly from Higgs bosons (which the Hadron Supercollider is trying to find).

It is the law of conservation of matter and energy, which can change from one to the other (nukes being an example of converting matter into energy).

Can't prove there is or isn't a god by any known science.

 

[Xavier434]

The laws which govern what we perceive as time and space and whether or not it can be controlled are strictly man made theory as of right now. No one knows how the system really works and which rules are actaully rules and what can and cannot be broken. Remember to consider that as well.

If you really want to learn more about this subject then you should spend a lot of time diving deep into quantum and maybe astro physics as well.

In regards to the whole "there might be a god" stuff, who cares? Even if we could determine that there is some sort of existence out there which is responsible for creating all of this stuff then what exactly would we do next? It is not like we could find out for certain which "god" is actually responsible assuming that it is even one or many of the gods that we humans have given definition to. Without finding out with absolute certainty which god(s) are responsible and what they want from us then it is impossible to "prepare" for anything. It's a complete waste of time. Just go with flow.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: 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.

And a believer(?) starts by stating that he knows that a god does exist.

So two think they know and the third is going to reserve judgment.

Don't see why each of these viewpoints cause different outcomes of the op - guess I'll look at that other thread.

 

[Perknose]

OP, your dilemma is inherent in the crude tool of our language, which traces it's lineage back to our distant ancestors, and is simply NOT equipped to understand "reality" as it actually is.

I believe string theory now posits the existence of 11 plus "dimensions." Can you (or I) even begin to imagine that? The underlying basics of actual physical reality may well exceed our ability to explain it to oursleves using the primitive language tools that we have.

My sig actually touches on this.

 

[Vic]

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.

That's not agnosticism at all. An agnostic only believes in that which he can see and know. So he holds no opinion either way about that which he cannot see or cannot know. Being 'prepared' for the possibility that a god might exist doesn't even factor in.

I'm agnostic BTW.

 

[seemingly random]

Of course anything, everything and nothing applies to a supernatural creator - by definition.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Space and time are 2 different forms of the same thing as matter and energy are.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 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

I don't see how that's possible, but I'm getting way out of my knowledge here.

Think of it in mathematical terms.

Pi is infinitely long, but it does have a beginning, 3.14..............

 

[seemingly random]

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.

Thinking of it as a vector may help...

o - - - - - >

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well if you read my post in the context of the other things I said in that thread I was not saying that a creator was flat out impossible, just that it was far less likely than the alternatives.

I see no problem with believing that things have always existed though. Sure it's a bit brain bending, but in the end something must have always existed. Your choices as I see them are that god has always existed, or that matter has always existed. With that choice, I believe that the relative simplicity of matter to a thinking, emotion having, omnipotent and omnipresent god makes it the far more likely choice.

As far as the whole "god can do whatever he wants" caveat, that is silliness personified. If we start doing that, we have to add that on to all of our understandings of the universe, and then we start getting into things like Intelligent falling. If you don't want to use reason and logic as litmus tests for if you should believe in something or not, I have a magical potion of fairy dust I'll sell you that you can sprinkle on your balls to make you crap gold bricks. Don't let crazy old science try to tell you otherwise either.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
-snip-
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.

IMO, arguing religion with science, or vis versa is futile. But:

1. In the above there is an inherent assumption that either the law of conservation of matter pre-dated any creation, and/or that the creator is bound by such a law. Could that law have been a by-product of the original creation?

2. It fails to account for the possibility that, given the existence of such a law and the creator abiding by it, that the matter we have today is made up of the creator's own original matter. I.e., nothing has been created, just rearranged if you will.( a "He is everywhere" concept)

3. Misunderstanding of the word "create". If no matter can be created, why do we even have such a word, given that it's concept is an impossibility? People are said to create things all the time, perhaps the creation was just a rearrangement of already existing matter or energy. (which is what we do when said to have created something)

4. Perhaps matter did not previously exist. If the creator created everything, wouldn't that just mean he converted his energy into matter? (thus in conformity with the law). I mean the feat of creating everything would seem to axiomatically involve the expenditure of a great deal of energy; thus it was merely a conversion in keeping with the law.

5. Maybe the law doesn't really exist, or does but is different in ways we do not know yet.

6. There are said to be a number of dimensions. What if matter/energy can be moved from one dimension to another? In the grand total nothing has been created, but from one's perpective in that dimension receiving matter from another it would look that way. The only way to confirm or deny the law would require that all matter/energy in all dimensions be measured (and likely simultaneously were matter/energy able to move from one to the other). So, what if the creator created this dimension and filled it with matter/energy from another?

Fern

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 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.

Keep in mind that all matter has an energy equivalent. People tend to think of matter as the visible part of our universe when that's not really true. Visible matter is a relatively tiny component of our universe. There is much more matter that we can't see but know is there because of its gravitational influence, and a whole bunch of energy. Our universe is primarily composed of energy. So maybe it's better to think of mass as energy and then ask yourself the question again? Could a form, or forms, of energy have existed prior to universe's existence that eventually formed our universe?

btw, the law of conservation of mass/matter only holds true in the classical sense and in a closed system.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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.

The important thing to discuss is whether the FSM wears a Red sauce or a White. The historical texts all point to Red, and White saucians are heretics who must pay for their crimes.

 

[LumbergTech]

I don't really understand how "time" can be infinite

we think in terms of how much time has passed since x event

if we dont there is no time, it is not infinite, it simply isnt ..at least thats what it seems to me

(the concept of time implies a beginning)

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 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.

Blasphemer!

Tis the FLYING Spaghetti Monster. How dare you ground his noodly appendages!

 

[jjzelinski]

You're over-thinking this; "the bible tells us so."

Ba-da-bing ba-da-boom, debate settled!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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.

Pretty much where I am too. There is something else to consider in that appealing to the Conservation of Matter and Energy law presupposes that the law applies in all circumstances. It's entirely possible that in different conditions other rules apply. It has been demonstrated that the universe cannot be infinitely old (at least one containing baryonic matter). If an infinitely old singularity existed, then something changed to bring about the Universe we see.

The problem is that we simply have no way to duplicate the initial conditions of the Universe and while we can theorize, creating energies postulated to have existed at the moment of the Big Bang is a physical impossibility. In the end we are doing forensic science, examining the corpse of the initial state and determining likely scenarios for what happened. Bringing God into this discussion is simply irrelevant. One cannot prove or disprove God by this means.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Even when you talk about conservation of matter and energy in a closed system, there is no particular reason to think that x,y,z constitute the only boundaries to that system. If there are in fact, other dimensions, we have yet to define the entire system.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: 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.

A god is a supernatural being whose existence and actions would not have to obey any physical law.

 

[Budmantom]

So eskimospy doesn't believe in God, hates America and is voting for Obama?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So eskimospy doesn't believe in God, hates America and is voting for Obama?

Well you got two out of three right, try and guess which two! It's like a game.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So eskimospy doesn't believe in God, hates America and is voting for Obama?

Well you got two out of three right, try and guess which two! It's like a game.

Are you too young to vote?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So eskimospy doesn't believe in God, hates America and is voting for Obama?

Well you got two out of three right, try and guess which two! It's like a game.

Are you too young to vote?

Sorry but no. As most people know on here I spent 7 years in the military. So start counting from there.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So eskimospy doesn't believe in God, hates America and is voting for Obama?

Well you got two out of three right, try and guess which two! It's like a game.

Are you too young to vote?

Sorry but no. As most people know on here I spent 7 years in the military. So start counting from there.

I think I got it!

You say you served in the military but you didn't specify the country.... so you are not a citizen and you can't vote for Obama?