Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Ben Masada

Things God Did Not Create

1,940 posts in this topic

If I have not proved God with the Logic that matter cannot cause itself to exist, all you have to do is to prove that it can.

Ben in think we have been over this. Matter/energy causes itself to exist all the time. Virtual particles come into existence all the time right in front of you. They are subject to the uncertainty principal. This means they can tunnel. In q tunneling there is a non zero chance it can pop up anywhere in the universe though exponentially decreasing in probability as you get further out. With current physics certain areas of the vacuum are bound by sheer numbers to have a positive energetic value. Every bazillion light years or so the odds add up that a huge tunneling event of virtual particles has happened to nearly the same spot. Energy from all over the vacuum. Walla Big Bang. We happen to live in one if those areas because we wouldn't be able to discuss it if we didn't. Physics is very clear on the matter. If a mass quantum tunneling event did not occur to initiate this universe it certainly will initiate one at some point latter, which of course means its probably where this one came from. It's back up by science and facts. The universe is most likely the product of the uncertainty principal which means yes it can simply pop into existence for no other reason than what already exists in nature to allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Since there is evidence that matter exists but none that God exists, I would say this implies matter needed no creator. Ball's back in your court

So, you imply that matter caused itself to exist because it needed no creator to be created. You have got to do much better than

that because your answer completely contradicts the concepts of Logic. How so? Thus: For matter to have caused itself to exist, it

had first to exist to do so, and if it already existed, it had no need to cause itself to exist as it already existed. That's a

fact demonstrated by Logic. The next step is to provide the agent that caused matter to exist. Care to give it a try?

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists are working on it, and God is an ever shrinking concept.

You keep echoing "cause" as if it's a slam dunk, but you are just holding onto a logical fallacy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance.

Do you know something, Davros? You have reminded me now of those who believe in an individual Messiah. Most Jews have been

claiming for over four thousands years that the Messiah will come. And Christians for two thousands years that their Messiah will

return. How have you reminded me so? By repeating what many other atheists say, "Scientists are working on it."

The problem with the Jews that hope for the Messiah to come do not understand that the Messiah came when Jacob was born. IOW, that they are the Messiah themselves. The problem with Christians is that they have chosen a Jew for their Messiah; a Jew whose Faith

was Judaism in whose agenda there is no room for bodily resurrection.

Last but not least, the problem with atheists is the fallacy to appeal to the authority of scientists who although are not sure

about any thing, are working on it. That's their answer when they are cornered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben in think we have been over this. Matter/energy causes itself to exist all the time. Virtual particles come into existence all the time right in front of you. They are subject to the uncertainty principal. This means they can tunnel. In q tunneling there is a non zero chance it can pop up anywhere in the universe though exponentially decreasing in probability as you get further out. With current physics certain areas of the vacuum are bound by sheer numbers to have a positive energetic value. Every bazillion light years or so the odds add up that a huge tunneling event of virtual particles has happened to nearly the same spot. Energy from all over the vacuum. Walla Big Bang. We happen to live in one if those areas because we wouldn't be able to discuss it if we didn't. Physics is very clear on the matter. If a mass quantum tunneling event did not occur to initiate this universe it certainly will initiate one at some point latter, which of course means its probably where this one came from. It's back up by science and facts. The universe is most likely the product of the uncertainty principal which means yes it can simply pop into existence for no other reason than what already exists in nature to allow it.

So, "matter/energy causes itself to exist all the time," isn't that right? First of all, energy to exist must be related to matter

either as a by-product, accident or subject to matter. So, let us work on matter and not energy as energy cannot exist independent

of matter.

Matter cannot cause itself to exist and much less all the time because to do so, it must exist first; and if it already exists, it

will have no need to cause itself to exist as it already exists. That's a fact demonstrated by Logic that no scientist of whatever

size is able to refute. Since we have once more established that matter cannot cause itself to exist, the next step is to provide

the agent that did that job for matter to exist today in the composition of the universe. Do you wanna try again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, "matter/energy causes itself to exist all the time," isn't that right? First of all, energy to exist must be related to matter

either as a by-product, accident or subject to matter. So, let us work on matter and not energy as energy cannot exist independent

of matter.

Matter cannot cause itself to exist and much less all the time because to do so, it must exist first; and if it already exists, it

will have no need to cause itself to exist as it already exists. That's a fact demonstrated by Logic that no scientist of whatever

size is able to refute. Since we have once more established that matter cannot cause itself to exist, the next step is to provide

the agent that did that job for matter to exist today in the composition of the universe. Do you wanna try again?

Ben.. Matter and energy are equivalent. Energy is not a biproduct. If anything the other way around. A hydrogen atom is made of one proton and one electron. These are made up of quarks and other subatomic particles. They are bound by a force called coulomb's force.

Energetic particles were attracted to each other and combine because of certain forces so that we can have what we call matter. At any given moment ( indeed every given moment) these particles manifest because of the uncertainty principal. Most anhilate with their anti twin but some do tunnel away. When you have these subatomic energy particles they will combine to produce matter. Matter must have originated from the uncertainty principal. Now I'm with you on something. What's going on behind the scenes to even have the uncertainty principal... Possible an intelligence, but physics does take is pretty far back. A unjverse can begin based on the physics that we know... But you are correct something has been going on forever. My guess is that everything has been going on for ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, you imply that matter caused itself to exist because it needed no creator to be created. You have got to do much better than

that because your answer completely contradicts the concepts of Logic. How so? Thus: For matter to have caused itself to exist, it

had first to exist to do so, and if it already existed, it had no need to cause itself to exist as it already existed. That's a

fact demonstrated by Logic. The next step is to provide the agent that caused matter to exist. Care to give it a try?

If time began with the big bang then without the flow of time causality is a meaningless concept. I don't think anything was created, As I said before I think the universe just recycles itself or if you prefer changes states as the big bang leads to expansion until maximum entropy is reached and after enough time passes it jumps to a state of minimum entropy or perfect order which leads to another big bang. I don't know if this is correct but I think it shows it is possible no creator was needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Ub16SvnoE

I don't understand why you ask for the view from physics how matter could cause itself to exist then complain when someone quotes a scientist to answer you.

Edited by spacecowboy342
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know something, Davros? You have reminded me now of those who believe in an individual Messiah. Most Jews have been

claiming for over four thousands years that the Messiah will come. And Christians for two thousands years that their Messiah will

return. How have you reminded me so? By repeating what many other atheists say, "Scientists are working on it."

The problem with the Jews that hope for the Messiah to come do not understand that the Messiah came when Jacob was born. IOW, that they are the Messiah themselves. The problem with Christians is that they have chosen a Jew for their Messiah; a Jew whose Faith

was Judaism in whose agenda there is no room for bodily resurrection.

Last but not least, the problem with atheists is the fallacy to appeal to the authority of scientists who although are not sure

about any thing, are working on it. That's their answer when they are cornered.

That's some weapon's grade facepalm there.

It's not being cornered.It's reality based on evidence, and not goal post dragging into the parking lot hoping an imaginary friend shows up soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last but not least, the problem with atheists is the fallacy to appeal to the authority of scientists who although are not sure

about any thing, are working on it. That's their answer when they are cornered.

Ah, which would then make your problem the fact that you have an affinity for strawmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a Sea Cow turns into a Mermaid, so has emotion turns into a God.

Wong form of analogy More so that the manifestation of an unknown entity becomes labelled god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wong form of analogy More so that the manifestation of an unknown entity becomes labelled god.

So the eyes can be fooled, but not the Brain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see why creationists and other theists so often depend on causation when the best theologians abandoned it ages ago. I guess they are unable to see beyond their infant experience that things tend to have causes. In fact the notion may be hard-wired into us by evolution.

It is not too different from the difficulty many of us had as children realizing that the concepts of up and down are not absolute but relative to the earth. How many a third grader has asked why people don't fall off the antipodes?

Some things, especially in mathematics, are logical necessities, like the elementary geometry that opposite angles of intersecting lines are equal. Most things in physics though are not logical but empirical -- that is we conclude it is a "law of nature" because it seems to always work. The philosophical problems of causation were pointed out I think in detail by Hume (or one of those Scottish philosophers) and has since been observed by physicists.

The universe does not need to have a cause, and in fact is probably one of those things that just simply must happen every now and then (with extremely long time intervals between).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben.. Matter and energy are equivalent. Energy is not a biproduct. If anything the other way around. A hydrogen atom is made of one proton and one electron. These are made up of quarks and other subatomic particles. They are bound by a force called coulomb's force.

Energetic particles were attracted to each other and combine because of certain forces so that we can have what we call matter. At any given moment ( indeed every given moment) these particles manifest because of the uncertainty principal. Most anhilate with their anti twin but some do tunnel away. When you have these subatomic energy particles they will combine to produce matter. Matter must have originated from the uncertainty principal. Now I'm with you on something. What's going on behind the scenes to even have the uncertainty principal... Possible an intelligence, but physics does take is pretty far back. A unjverse can begin based on the physics that we know... But you are correct something has been going on forever. My guess is that everything has been going on for ever.

"Your guess!" That's the problem with theories, that they are nothing else but guesses; and with guesses atheists are ready to

go to the battle field to fight the theistic idea of the Primal Cause.

No WCF, matter and energy are not equivalent. Energy cannot exist without matter. Why don't you do better by giving me an example

of energy form which is not related to matter? It must be easy for you, giving your enthusiasm at speaking almost without doubt

about the non-distinction between matter and energy. Atoms have weight and energy does not. Atoms must be activated to cause

energy. Evidence? The production of radiation energy through an X-Ray tube would not happen if the rotor were not activated. I

could tell you more about this but you can stop me with the example I have asked of any form of energy not related to matter. Go

right ahead for I am all ears.

Nothing has been going on forever and I don't recall to have ever said it has. Nothing, I mean, which is related to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If time began with the big bang then without the flow of time causality is a meaningless concept. I don't think anything was created, As I said before I think the universe just recycles itself or if you prefer changes states as the big bang leads to expansion until maximum entropy is reached and after enough time passes it jumps to a state of minimum entropy or perfect order which leads to another big bang. I don't know if this is correct but I think it shows it is possible no creator was needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Ub16SvnoE

I don't understand why you ask for the view from physics how matter could cause itself to exist then complain when someone quotes a scientist to answer you.

Oi vey Spacecowboy, now you did it! You think that nothing was created but that the universe just recycles itself. You have only

pushed me right back to my question: What caused the universe that recycles itself to exist if it could not have caused itself to

exist? Your idea does not at all show the impossibility for the Primal Cause. You can quote whoever you please in Physics about

the existence of matter. I promise I will not complain. However, I'll feedback accordingly if it does not make sense to Logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's some weapon's grade facepalm there.

It's not being cornered.It's reality based on evidence, and not goal post dragging into the parking lot hoping an imaginary friend shows up soon.

Okay, so what is the evidence that the universe has caused itself to exist? The reality that it exists is demonstrated by all

sentient thing that is part of the universe. And that it could not have caused itself to exist, that's Logic. The question is

what has caused it to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see why creationists and other theists so often depend on causation when the best theologians abandoned it ages ago. I guess they are unable to see beyond their infant experience that things tend to have causes. In fact the notion may be hard-wired into us by evolution.

It is not too different from the difficulty many of us had as children realizing that the concepts of up and down are not absolute but relative to the earth. How many a third grader has asked why people don't fall off the antipodes?

Some things, especially in mathematics, are logical necessities, like the elementary geometry that opposite angles of intersecting lines are equal. Most things in physics though are not logical but empirical -- that is we conclude it is a "law of nature" because it seems to always work. The philosophical problems of causation were pointed out I think in detail by Hume (or one of those Scottish philosophers) and has since been observed by physicists.

The universe does not need to have a cause, and in fact is probably one of those things that just simply must happen every now and then (with extremely long time intervals between).

If the universe does not need to have had a cause, you surely mean that it came about as a result of magic. Perhaps right out of

the hat of the magician. Now, what or who was the magician?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so what is the evidence that the universe has caused itself to exist? The reality that it exists is demonstrated by all

sentient thing that is part of the universe. And that it could not have caused itself to exist, that's Logic. The question is

what has caused it to exist.

First tell me where does the matter, and energy go to when it gets sucked up by a Black Hole in which not even light cannot escape it's gravity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your guess!" That's the problem with theories, that they are nothing else but guesses; and with guesses atheists are ready to

go to the battle field to fight the theistic idea of the Primal Cause.

No WCF, matter and energy are not equivalent. Energy cannot exist without matter. Why don't you do better by giving me an example

of energy form which is not related to matter? It must be easy for you, giving your enthusiasm at speaking almost without doubt

about the non-distinction between matter and energy. Atoms have weight and energy does not. Atoms must be activated to cause

energy. Evidence? The production of radiation energy through an X-Ray tube would not happen if the rotor were not activated. I

could tell you more about this but you can stop me with the example I have asked of any form of energy not related to matter. Go

right ahead for I am all ears.

Nothing has been going on forever and I don't recall to have ever said it has. Nothing, I mean, which is related to matter.

You should take a physics course before you begin to pontificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the universe does not need to have had a cause, you surely mean that it came about as a result of magic. Perhaps right out of

the hat of the magician. Now, what or who was the magician?

That's the whole point Ben. No magical creator required

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oi vey Spacecowboy, now you did it! You think that nothing was created but that the universe just recycles itself. You have only

pushed me right back to my question: What caused the universe that recycles itself to exist if it could not have caused itself to

exist? Your idea does not at all show the impossibility for the Primal Cause. You can quote whoever you please in Physics about

the existence of matter. I promise I will not complain. However, I'll feedback accordingly if it does not make sense to Logic.

I never said your primal cause was impossible. Merely unnecessary. You are getting tiresome
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the eyes can be fooled, but not the Brain?

Other way around. The brain can be fooled but the eyes see what is there . Our eyes, in comparison to the brain, are a simple and thus less fallible instrument. The brain is a complex processing machine, and without either sufficient data or good programming through learned and applied knowledge, it can make errors of perception. However, with sufficient data and knowledge /understanding/training, our self awareness can understand and compensate for any failure of the brain to perceive correctly. (until we suffer temporary or permanent brain damage)

Here is a reverse example. An ABC cameraman was filming the gravesites at Gallipoli last week for the Anzac celebrations When he looked on his monitor after filming he could see a ghostly figure of an infantry man rising from one of the graves.

They ran all sorts of technical tests and examined the frames pixel by pixel. The cameraman and reporter had not seen anything, yet the camera recorded this figure rising from the grave In the end they could find no evidence for what it might have been, but being non believers in the supernatural, decided that there must have been some natural explanation, possibly with the focus on the camera.

In this case a machine saw something the eyes did not and a brain decided it had a natural explanation even though none could be found. If a person had "seen' this figure without photographic evidence, and the chance to examine the image for hours at a pixel level, they would have had to use their mind to decide what it was they had seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other way around. The brain can be fooled but the eyes see what is there . Our eyes, in comparison to the brain, are a simple and thus less fallible instrument. The brain is a complex processing machine, and without either sufficient data or good programming through learned and applied knowledge, it can make errors of perception. However, with sufficient data and knowledge /understanding/training, our self awareness can understand and compensate for any failure of the brain to perceive correctly. (until we suffer temporary or permanent brain damage)

Here is a reverse example. An ABC cameraman was filming the gravesites at Gallipoli last week for the Anzac celebrations When he looked on his monitor after filming he could see a ghostly figure of an infantry man rising from one of the graves.

They ran all sorts of technical tests and examined the frames pixel by pixel. The cameraman and reporter had not seen anything, yet the camera recorded this figure rising from the grave In the end they could find no evidence for what it might have been, but being non believers in the supernatural, decided that there must have been some natural explanation, possibly with the focus on the camera.

In this case a machine saw something the eyes did not and a brain decided it had a natural explanation even though none could be found. If a person had "seen' this figure without photographic evidence, and the chance to examine the image for hours at a pixel level, they would have had to use their mind to decide what it was they had seen.

So if a Women believes she is Joan of Arc then she is in fact Joan of Arc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a Women believes she is Joan of Arc then she is in fact Joan of Arc?

Only if she IS joan of Arc. Some people are who they believe they are, you know. I am sure Napoleon thought he was Napoleon.

I mean, really, what sort of logical response is that question to my post?

Mentally ill people are not normal, nor are their brains functioning correctly or at optimal level. I nursed two people with dementia for 6 years. In the end they didn't know who they were but then they were suffering a mental illness

if you are asking if joan of arc actually saw god, I don't know. I wasn't there. But I have experienced god in many forms, so I have an open mind on this possibility. I certainly do not say that joan of arc must have been suffering a mental illness, although that is possible. It is also just as possible that she truly experienced god and used that personal experience to motivate and drive her life in the direction it took.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your guess!" That's the problem with theories, that they are nothing else but guesses; and with guesses atheists are ready to

go to the battle field to fight the theistic idea of the Primal Cause.

No WCF, matter and energy are not equivalent. Energy cannot exist without matter. Why don't you do better by giving me an example

of energy form which is not related to matter? It must be easy for you, giving your enthusiasm at speaking almost without doubt

about the non-distinction between matter and energy. Atoms have weight and energy does not. Atoms must be activated to cause

energy. Evidence? The production of radiation energy through an X-Ray tube would not happen if the rotor were not activated. I

could tell you more about this but you can stop me with the example I have asked of any form of energy not related to matter. Go

right ahead for I am all ears.

Nothing has been going on forever and I don't recall to have ever said it has. Nothing, I mean, which is related to matter.

There is no reason to assume we observe has not anyways been happening. I'm not gussing, its clear that its happening ( Qm that is). You must have reason to assume that it started. There is no evidence that the vacuum itself started, so why do you assume it had a beginning. Your philosophy dosnt cut it I'm afraid. Yes energy is related to matter and matter related to energy because THEY ARE THE SAME THING. E=mc^2. If you refuse to see this, you will have to take it up with Einstein. It's a massive assumption to assume there has never been other big bangs other than the one we are observing. In fact what we know about QM ensures there will be another one...

And the rotor would not exist is if a star had not cooked the various parts of atoms in a gigantic star billions of years ago to produce a new kind of atom by rearranging its parts like electrons ( you know the ENERGY We call electricity) you do realize that atoms are made of protons, electrons, and neutrons right? After the bb energy came together because of certain subatomic forces to form hydrogen atoms. Why was hydrogen so dominant ( and still is) matter in the universe? Because it only takes one electron and one proton. Then they combined into stars and the forces inside of stars mixed them up more to create the other elements. When the bb occurred I did not spew matter. It was energy first that latter evolved into matter.

This is known science Ben. Cosmic back ground radiation. Never once was itin the form of atoms or matter.

I think you need to define what you are calling matter. It seems you are only defining matter by what has mass. "Weight" has nothing to do with it. Weight is about mass in gravity. The only thing different about particles that have mass and those that don't is if the particle reacts with the Higgs boson. A photon itself is a gauge boson. If you don't think matter is made out of energy why don't you try splitting an atom, just don't try it around me, and no it did start off as matter it was energy first.

The funny thing is that your theology can fit within real science, but there is no sense in trying to make science fit your theology. According to current science all things are made up of fundamental particles including what you call energy. Energy is carried by photons electrons... Etc. all these subatomic particles have various properties from the ones that have mass to the ones that carry force. This dosnt mean there is not an underlying mathematical reality that governs what we call things. Quantum field theory is strange all these "particles" are excitation in an infinite field. The are not even things more like a small ripple in an ocean. Forces and matter representing eddies, peaks, and trofs. All facts say that we need not a creator of this universe. All the necessary parts are here. Bring all the matter and energy forth that we know of. Now what is behind all of these processes is the great mystery. I'm an agnostic theist, to me the system is to intelligent to simply be an accident, but that dosnt make me hide from the facts. It could get well be a product of evolution. The only thing that can exist is that which can exist, so inevitably we find ourself Im a universe that exists. If there is a creator I is bound by the same principal, it exists because if it didnd it wouldn't exist. I tend to believe more in an eternal intelligent universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First tell me where does the matter, and energy go to when it gets sucked up by a Black Hole in which not even light cannot escape it's gravity?

Why do you guys, all of you, usually answer a question with another question? Is it because you don't have an answer to the

question? Give me a logical answer to my question first since I asked first and then I'll answer yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should take a physics course before you begin to pontificate.

What does it mean, that you don't have an answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.