Case for God's existence- the Matter argument

mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Case for God's existence- the Matter argument

Is there tangible, compelling evidence for God/god/gods/spirit?Ill take to matter arguement, because I don't think you gave this one enough thought. we've dated the universe- 14.5 billion years old, give or take. The basic law of physics, that is a governing law of all physical processes, is that energy is niether created nor destroyed- its conserved. Is it truly illogical to say that matter had to have been created? and before you think its ok to not know "yet", remember, we DO know the laws governing this process... matter does not spontaniously form. really think about how miniscule we are talking here... what drew together from what to form what on the most small level possible, and where did it come from. it HAD to have been created by an ouside source. The burden of prooof, in this case, is not on me. the assumption here is that there is no Source... and its invalid here, it has to be rethought.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The matter argument:   It

The matter argument:

 

It doesn't matter because the bible said it was created in 6 days. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Seriously, Comic Inflation

Seriously, Comic Inflation Theory allows for entire universes to form spontaneously.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to go with

I'm going to go with calling this one argument #51, the argument from infinite regress except that this version uses "first matter" instead of the usual "big bang."

I recognize that mmonte's argument has many characteristics of the generic first cause argument (#2), but by introducing the idea of regressing the opposing position to the "I don't know" point I think he qualifies as a #51 instead.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Truthiness
Truthiness's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-04-16
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote: Is there

mmonte4 wrote:
Is there tangible, compelling evidence for God/god/gods/spirit?Ill take to matter arguement, because I don't think you gave this one enough thought. we've dated the universe- 14.5 billion years old, give or take. The basic law of physics, that is a governing law of all physical processes, is that energy is niether created nor destroyed- its conserved. Is it truly illogical to say that matter had to have been created? and before you think its ok to not know "yet", remember, we DO know the laws governing this process... matter does not spontaniously form. really think about how miniscule we are talking here... what drew together from what to form what on the most small level possible, and where did it come from. it HAD to have been created by an ouside source. The burden of prooof, in this case, is not on me. the assumption here is that there is no Source... and its invalid here, it has to be rethought.

We don't necessarily know the laws of physics regarding singularities and during the big bang before planck time.

And why do people always flock to matter? Shouldn't it be matter/energy?


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote:Is there

mmonte4 wrote:
Is there tangible, compelling evidence for God/god/gods/spirit?Ill take to matter arguement, because I don't think you gave this one enough thought. we've dated the universe- 14.5 billion years old, give or take. The basic law of physics, that is a governing law of all physical processes, is that energy is niether created nor destroyed- its conserved. Is it truly illogical to say that matter had to have been created? and before you think its ok to not know "yet", remember, we DO know the laws governing this process... matter does not spontaniously form. really think about how miniscule we are talking here... what drew together from what to form what on the most small level possible, and where did it come from. it HAD to have been created by an ouside source. The burden of prooof, in this case, is not on me. the assumption here is that there is no Source... and its invalid here, it has to be rethought.

 

My thing about this argument is that it assumes that which it wishes to prove,aka question begging. Why did matter need to be created? Why is the "default" state nothingness? Why do you assume this premise? This is something you must prove to us (well at least me) before i even begin to accept your conclusion.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Since anti-matter exists

Since anti-matter exists does that mean anti-god exists?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Since

BGH wrote:
Since anti-matter exists does that mean anti-god exists?

 

Hmmm ... Would this anti-god be omni-malevolent, omni-stupid and omni-impotent? And maybe omni-nowhere?Tongue out


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: I'm going to

Textom wrote:

I'm going to go with calling this one argument #51, the argument from infinite regress except that this version uses "first matter" instead of the usual "big bang."

I recognize that mmonte's argument has many characteristics of the generic first cause argument (#2), but by introducing the idea of regressing the opposing position to the "I don't know" point I think he qualifies as a #51 instead.

Heh, those are great, Textom. I love how they all come back to the same statement from theists:

"I don't know the difference between what's inside my head and what's outside of it!"

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Yeah. It's called chaotic

Yeah. It's called chaotic inflation, not comic inflation. It's Guth's mathematical model of the primordial universe, and it is very powerful in explaining how energy/matter can come from the vacuum

I once found it difficult to overcome my prejudice against ex nihilo, which clearly violated the iron laws of thermodynamics. However, that all changed one day when I was abruptly reminded by Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, that the actual matter/energy content may be very low because the false vacuum has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunnelling event which broke the singularity, and released a huge tide of positive energy, cancelling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood).

However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's OK though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect)?

In a flash, Guth had blown my mind. I had forgotten about the negative energy of the vacuum. But in truth, he had pointed out something really obvious. After all, the solution to something that seemingly breaks the first law of thermodynamics would probably have to be so simple and obvious, because if it was monstrous and complex, it would probably be false, given how iron that law is.

I also wish to cover ex nihilo. We need to understand spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one. As the four forces are unified into one, there is no coherent mathematical relationship, also called a singularity. This arrangement is extremely unstable, and as it spiralled asymptotically towards infinity and zero (because it has no mass), it breaks like a dam bursts, and the more stable arrangement (the four forces are broken thus producing the space time continuum) is born. Something can indeed come from nothing

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:

> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)

 

If we wind the clock back, we find a state of hypercompressed energy that created a false vacuum forcing an outward expansion which expanded at the rate of empty space called hyperinflation, which is about 10^50m/s. This is many times faster than light speed, but as there is no matter and no mass empty space can violate the c-limit.

Quantum tunnelling and hyperinflation will always be more parsimonious than God. Spontaneous breaking, and SU1xSU2xSU3 Grand Unifying theory (which have to do with something known as a false-vacuum fluctuation) are simply better explanations. They make sense.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: BGH

wavefreak wrote:

BGH wrote:
Since anti-matter exists does that mean anti-god exists?

Hmmm ... Would this anti-god be omni-malevolent, omni-stupid and omni-impotent? And maybe omni-nowhere?Tongue out

Okay Wavefreak, that one made me laugh. 


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
deluded god, i wish i were

deluded god, i wish i were smart enough to understand what you wrote above, lol.  
i look forward to hearing more responses.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I can smell a bait and

I can smell a bait and switch a mile a way.

Ok, more psuedo science here.

For pretend's sake will play the theist game.

"My sky daddy is real"

"Science backs that up because the hy-pota-noose of the sir cum-france of the rectangular intiger is negitive"

 IT'S TRUE I'Z TELLS YA!

 Why of course! Because the theist has "God can do what he wants".

Ok guys, cut the crap.

You say god is real?

FINE.

Lets see him cut your head off and "poof" instantaniously grow it back.

WHAT? God cant do that?

What a suprise.

If I string a bunch of "Z"s together that would make much more sense.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Paranoia21
Paranoia21's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
lol I hate it when a

lol

I hate it when a theist comes on and for his arguement he states: "God exists because I know he does."

That is total BS and you should realize how completely retarded that sounds.  

Wait, theists deny that something came out of nothing, but their god poofed the earth from nothing, right?   WTF?  You deny logical science, but then you post these fairytales as arguements.  Are you joking me?  Get some LOGICAL proof, then somebody might actually respect your arguements.  But since that will never, EVER happen, bacause your beliefs are made up entirely of lies and fairytales, I wouldn't even try to argue with people who have FACTS on their side.  YOU can't argue because YOU don't have ANY proof, but WE can argue because WE have logic.  Get over it.  Your beliefs are a bunch of jumbled lies.  

VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote: Is there

mmonte4 wrote:
Is there tangible, compelling evidence for God/god/gods/spirit?Ill take to matter arguement, because I don't think you gave this one enough thought. we've dated the universe- 14.5 billion years old, give or take. The basic law of physics, that is a governing law of all physical processes, is that energy is niether created nor destroyed- its conserved. Is it truly illogical to say that matter had to have been created?

I didn't notice anyone address this directly, so I will. Matter is nothing more than energy packed together that has somehow gained mass. Effectively, matter is just energy in a bottle.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
wow, im suprised there is so

wow, im suprised there is so little discussion on the topic


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote: wow, im

mmonte4 wrote:
wow, im suprised there is so little discussion on the topic

 Non-relativistic energy is given by: E = p^2, where E is energy, p is momentum,

ie Energy quadruples as momentum doubles.

E=mc^2 

Take some energy try to accelerated it beyond the speed of light. and its mass increases preventing this from happening. so you end up with mass. and you have created matter

Subsequently you can release the energy used to make the matter with an atomic bomb

Or you can create matter in a particle accelerator out of energy. or a sun fusion reactor. kind of particle accelerator

 ie if you have energy you can create matter

Or if you have matter you can release energy


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: mmonte4

Rev_Devilin wrote:

mmonte4 wrote:
wow, im suprised there is so little discussion on the topic

Non-relativistic energy is given by: E = p^2, where E is energy, p is momentum,

ie Energy quadruples as momentum doubles.

E=mc^2

Take some energy try to accelerated it beyond the speed of light. and its mass increases preventing this from happening. so you end up with mass. and you have created matter

Subsequently you can release the energy used to make the matter with an atomic bomb

Or you can create matter in a particle accelerator out of energy. or a sun fusion reactor. kind of particle accelerator

ie if you have energy you can create matter

Or if you have matter you can release energy

 

If you're talking about kinetic energy it's E=1/2mv^2

 What energy is p^2?

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Paranoia21 wrote: lol I

Paranoia21 wrote:

lol

I hate it when a theist comes on and for his arguement he states: "God exists because I know he does."

That is total BS and you should realize how completely retarded that sounds.

Wait, theists deny that something came out of nothing, but their god poofed the earth from nothing, right? WTF? You deny logical science, but then you post these fairytales as arguements. Are you joking me? Get some LOGICAL proof, then somebody might actually respect your arguements. But since that will never, EVER happen, bacause your beliefs are made up entirely of lies and fairytales, I wouldn't even try to argue with people who have FACTS on their side. YOU can't argue because YOU don't have ANY proof, but WE can argue because WE have logic. Get over it. Your beliefs are a bunch of jumbled lies.

 

Actually the business of matter isn't an illogical argument. Matter is nothing more than a filtered illusion.  


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I've heard this all

I've heard this all before.

Nobody knows what happened at the Big Bang, there are some good guesses, but nobody actually knows. It is a perplexing mystery. Since we cannot go back in time (and assuming it will never be possible to) we may never know. But why ought it to be a magic sky-daddy? It's probably the most absurd cause that can be thought of. I reckon a physical universe had a physical cause, it could be anything, there are many good theories, expansion and contraction, multiverse, the one that DG talked about, God doesn't need to come into it at all. In fact it raises more questions than it solves.


Paranoia21
Paranoia21's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Good explanation, Jacob. 

Good explanation, Jacob. 

Why do we have to make up a random deity to "rule" us?  The theists claim they have "felt" god, but those are just hallucinations.  They cannot be taken as truths, even though many Christians take them to be proof of God's existence.  BS.  We cannot just make up shit to try to explain the creation of the universe!  We need to rely on fact, logic, and science to figure out what happened.

VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:   If

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
 

If you're talking about kinetic energy it's E=1/2mv^2

What energy is p^2?

ops missed the /2m 

Non-relativistic energy, Energy Momentum  E = p^2/2m

?  is this better Smiling

 

 


 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If you're talking about kinetic energy it's E=1/2mv^2

What energy is p^2?

ops missed the /2m

Non-relativistic energy, Energy Momentum E = p^2/2m

? is this better Smiling

 

 

 

much better.  


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
why is it illogical to say

why is it illogical to say that god created matter?  


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote: why is it

mmonte4 wrote:
why is it illogical to say that god created matter?  

What did he create it from?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:
mmonte4 wrote:
why is it illogical to say that god created matter?

What did he create it from?

 

Energy? 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Eight

wavefreak wrote:
Eight Foot Manchild wrote:
mmonte4 wrote:
why is it illogical to say that god created matter?

What did he create it from?

 

Energy?

Good answer. Physicists hardley use Kilograms anymore, they use electron volts (ev)

 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote: why is it

mmonte4 wrote:
why is it illogical to say that god created matter?  

Why does god need to be invoked at all?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote:

mmonte4 wrote:
why is it illogical to say that god created matter?

Becuase it begs several questions:

- If matter and energy were created by god, what is he created from?

- Who created the material that god is constructed from?

- Who created god?

- How did god get the knowledge to create the universe?

- How did god get the power to create the universe?

You have brought forth the most fundamental irrationality in all deist faiths.

IF no other point strikes theists, this is the one they should think about the most - a universe created by god is the least likely of all cosmological hyponthesis because a god is by nature a complex entity.

Theists wrongly assume that god is the simplest solution, because they don't follow the path to conclusion. They don't ask the relevant questions about the origin of god and his powers. If god were the simplest explanation (and therefore most likely, Occams razor)it wouldn't leave us asking those questions above.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Vorax hit it on the

Vorax hit it on the head.
Two words: OCCAM'S RAZOR.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Well said Vorax! Like I

Well said Vorax! Like I said, there are several hypotheses on the origins of the Universe. We don't necessarily know that the singularity was the beginning of existence, the universe could fluxuate, or there could be any number of possible causations that led to it. God doesn't need to come into the equation at all, and it is probably the weakest of all hypotheses as Vorax described. It begs more questions than it answers.