Law of conservation of mass

[PsychoSarah]

Is it possible to have a non random uncaused event?

Sure

 

[durangodawood]

No one should be using "first cause" or related reasoning to reach important personal-life conclusions.

There's WAY too many unknowns and appeals to intuition. Intuition is more a trap than a guide, in territory that may be "outside time" or utterly beyond our collective experience in other ways.

 

[True Scotsman]

Sure

Hi Sarah,

Could you give an example.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yeah, it changes from matter to non matter and back again. Hence my correction of the OP's false claim that "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed". I mean yeah, this is a philosophy forum but there's no reason posters can't get basic science facts correct here. This isn't Fox news.

It can only change to energy, which again re-iterates that matter/ energy cannot be created or destroyed, only its form may be changed. The law of conservation of matter holds true. Creation and conversion are NOT synonyms.

 

[Davian]

Matter can be formed from energy.

What other options are there?

God is limitless energy, therefore God could form the universe.

How do you know this?

Saying that the universe could somehow be eternal is a rejection of the basic laws of science.

How is believing in gods not a rejection of the basic laws of science?

Saying that the universe could be formed from other universes is as scientific as saying it was laid out by a great cosmic chicken.

Great cosmic chicken, great cosmic god. What is in a name?

There are NO valid scientific explanations for the origination of matter.

Other than from energy, as you previously stated.

Saying that there were no laws of physics prior to the auto-creation of the universe is sophomoric.

"Laws" are scientific descriptions of observations. Your sentence is grammatically faulty. We can say that we may not be able to describe how the universe worked prior to the instantiation of the cosmos.

The laws of physics pertain to the attributes of matter/energy, which preclude it from being created. Matter doesn't act in accordance to existing law, existing physical laws are determined by the characteristics of matter.
Again, there are NO valid scientific explanations for the origination of matter/energy.

Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory?

There are NO valid scientific explanations for the origination of life.
These things are unexplainable via science. People may have theories of how origination may have happened, but anyone who tries to tell you that this or that process over billions of years created anything is lying. They can't state what they don't know.

Are you positing a god-of-the-gaps then?

Science will never disprove the seven day creation.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. But then, it is of no scientific significance.

Science studies the natural world, not the supernatural. It can neither validate nor invalidate the existence of God.

Is your God is of any significance, if it cannot be demonstrated?

 

[KWCrazy]

What other options are there?

None. matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed via natural law.

How do you know this?

Ephesians 1:
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

How is believing in gods not a rejection of the basic laws of science?

I'm not the one claiming a natural creation. I've always contended that God was supernatural, and thus not slave to the physical laws of the world He created.

Great cosmic chicken, great cosmic god. What is in a name?

The difference between praise and blasphemy.

Other than from energy, as you previously stated.

Matter/energy are convertible, not creatable by natural forces.

"Laws" are scientific descriptions of observations.

Wrong. A law is a statement of a scientific principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing. There are no exceptions to laws; exceptions invalidate the universal and cause - effect nature of the law.

Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory?

Are you unaware that theories do not invalidate nor do they supersede laws? I can theorize that if you put four blue M&M's in your mouth you'll float to the clouds, but until that theory is substantially validated it can't overrule the law of gravity.

Are you positing a god-of-the-gaps then?

No, I think God is quite successful as defined by His word.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. But then, it is of no scientific significance.

Science is the study of the PHYSICAL world around us. It doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. Anyone who thinks he can disprove the supernatural by repeating natural law is sadly mistaken.

Is your God is of any significance, if it cannot be demonstrated?

God demonstrated His existence 333 times in the Bible, and has demonstrated Hisself to many; probably a majority in this forum. If you've never honestly sought God then your opinion is akin to someone saying that Hawaii doesn't exist because they've never been there.

 

[Davian]

None. matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed via natural law.

Which law?

Ephesians 1:
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

I asked, how do you know that. Random bible verses are of no use.

I'm not the one claiming a natural creation. I've always contended that God was supernatural, and thus not slave to the physical laws of the world He created.

You then reject the basic laws of science.

The difference between praise and blasphemy.

You are the one that brought in the comparison to the chicken.

Matter/energy are convertible, not creatable by natural forces.

Indeed, unless it happens in a way that does not violate conservation laws of physics, such as in the inflationary model of the universe.

Wrong. A law is a statement of a scientific principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing.

There are no exceptions to laws; exceptions invalidate the universal and cause - effect nature of the law.

How is that incompatible with what I said?

Are you unaware that theories do not invalidate nor do they supersede laws?

Where did I say that they did?

I can theorize that if you put four blue M&M's in your mouth you'll float to the clouds, but until that theory is substantially validated it can't overrule the law of gravity.

No, I think God is quite successful as defined by His word.

How cirular. The bible is not evidence for the stories in the bible.

Science is the study of the PHYSICAL world around us. It doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. Anyone who thinks he can disprove the supernatural by repeating natural law is sadly mistaken.

I can't disprove the imaginary with natural law either.

God demonstrated His existence 333 times in the Bible,

The bible is not evidence for the bible.

and has demonstrated Hisself to many;

Name one that can demonstrate that it was not simply a product of their imagination.

probably a majority in this forum.

Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

If you've never honestly sought God then your opinion is akin to someone saying that Hawaii doesn't exist because they've never been there.

Hawaii is an island in the Pacific Ocean - I have been there. Why would I seek a character in a book?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The ignorant arguing with the ignorant. How sad.

 

[Davian]

The ignorant arguing with the ignorant. How sad.

Particularly for the ones claiming knowledge.

 

[True Scotsman]

For those who do not believe that God created the Universe, please explain how the law of conservation of mass is valid.



So then where did everything come from if "nothing can be created"?

Thanks

God Bless

For those of you who believe in a God that created the universe, please explain how this concept does not violate the primacy of existence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Matter can be formed from energy. God is limitless energy, therefore God could form the universe.
Saying that the universe could somehow be eternal is a rejection of the basic laws of science.
Saying that the universe could be formed from other universes is as scientific as saying it was laid out by a great cosmic chicken.
There are NO valid scientific explanations for the origination of matter.

There are also no convincing supernatural explanations for it either. At least attempted cosmological explanations can make some traction on the problem. How far have supernatural explanations got us?

Saying that there were no laws of physics prior to the auto-creation of the universe is sophomoric. The laws of physics pertain to the attributes of matter/energy, which preclude it from being created. Matter doesn't act in accordance to existing law, existing physical laws are determined by the characteristics of matter.
Again, there are NO valid scientific explanations for the origination of matter/energy.
There are NO valid scientific explanations for the origination of life.
These things are unexplainable via science. People may have theories of how origination may have happened, but anyone who tries to tell you that this or that process over billions of years created anything is lying. They can't state what they don't know.

This seems to be leading up to an argument from ignorance. A lack of knowledge does not lend credence to whatever supernatural explanation takes your fancy.

Science will never disprove the seven day creation. [/COLOR]

Actually, certain aspects of that account, if read literally, can be falsified because they produce empirical expectations that can be tested. As Sam Harris (if I recall correctly) has pointed out, if those expectations were commensurate with what we observe, it would be possible to accept certain aspects of the Genesis account scientifically.

Science studies the natural world, not the supernatural. It can neither validate nor invalidate the existence of God.

Despite our fallibility, science is still remarkably successful in generating knowledge. Is there a process by which one may gain knowledge about the supernatural?

 

[KWCrazy]

There are also no convincing supernatural explanations for it either.

Convincing to whom? Millions are convinced of the authenticity and reliability of the word of God. Deny it if you wish, but anyone who understands science knows that the laws of physics preclude the creation of anything from nothing. The Creator gave a detailed account of His creation. Without a Creator or some unknowable outside influence, nothing in the universe could have originated by itself. If you can't understand that, then you have ho knowledge whatever of science.

At least attempted cosmological explanations can make some traction on the problem.

There are no explanations which don't require at some point the violation of natural law.

How far have supernatural explanations got us?

All the way to the throne of the Father.
This seems to be leading up to an argument from ignorance.
I've been saying that about you guys for years. You haven't seemed to learned the basics of science; like the law of conservation of matter/energy.
As Sam Harris (if I recall correctly) has pointed out, if those expectations were commensurate with what we observe, it would be possible to accept certain aspects of the Genesis account scientifically.
Sam Harris didn't observe any aspect of the creation. We have a record dating back to the first man and woman who walked the earth. It explains why supernatural things that baffle science still happen regularly.

Despite our fallibility, science is still remarkably successful in generating knowledge.

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can't answer how that world came about, nor can it address the supernatural. If you hold to the world view that this physical world is all that exists, then science has the answer for you. If you understand, like most people, that there is something more to existence, then you should seek and find the Lord. Those who seek Him will find Him, which demonstrates that you who have never sought Him and claim He doesn't exist do not know what you're talking about.

Is there a process by which one may gain knowledge about the supernatural?

I've recommended for years going to spend an afternoon one on one with at least three experienced minsters and asking them about what they've experienced over the years. You'll know if they're lying. Do this and you'll begin to understand that everything you've been taught in school is wrong; that there IS a higher power, there IS a Creator and there IS a consequence to every action. There is also forgiveness and enlightenment.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Convincing to whom? Millions are convinced of the authenticity and reliability of the word of God.

So what? This is a fallacious appeal to the majority.

Deny it if you wish, but anyone who understands science knows that the laws of physics preclude the creation of anything from nothing.

The laws of physics as we understand them at work in the universe. We don't know the conditions necessary for the creation of universes and whether those laws apply in the absence of one.

The Creator gave a detailed account of His creation. Without a Creator or some unknowable outside influence, nothing in the universe could have originated by itself.

How do you know that?

There are no explanations which don't require at some point the violation of natural law.

No, you're confusing the issue. The explanations I alluded to earlier refer to natural processes that may be at work in the conditions prevalent in the earliest moments of the universe. Those conditions are not prevalent now, which is partly why physicists have constructed particle accelerators to recreate (as much as is possible) aspects of those conditions.

All the way to the throne of the Father.

This is a stunning non-answer to my question. To be clear, I asked how far supernatural explanations have gotten us in terms of the questions currently dominating cosmology.

Sam Harris didn't observe any aspect of the creation. We have a record dating back to the first man and woman who walked the earth. It explains why supernatural things that baffle science still happen regularly.

Sorry, but science trumps a literal reading of Genesis every time.

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can't answer how that world came about, nor can it address the supernatural. If you hold to the world view that this physical world is all that exists, then science has the answer for you. If you understand, like most people, that there is something more to existence, then you should seek and find the Lord. Those who seek Him will find Him, which demonstrates that you who have never sought Him and claim He doesn't exist do not know what you're talking about.

You are being rude and presumptuous. As I've already told you, I was a Christian for most of my life.

I've recommended for years going to spend an afternoon one on one with at least three experienced minsters and asking them about what they've experienced over the years.

Three experienced ministers? Of what religion? Yours? Why don't you go talk to three imams?

You'll know if they're lying. Do this and you'll begin to understand that everything you've been taught in school is wrong; that there IS a higher power, there IS a Creator and there IS a consequence to every action. There is also forgiveness and enlightenment.

I went to a religious school, so I was exposed to exactly that for most of my education.

 

[Dave Ellis]

For those who do not believe that God created the Universe, please explain how the law of conservation of mass is valid.



So then where did everything come from if "nothing can be created"?

Thanks

God Bless

If matter can not be created, then how did your god create it out of nothing?

 

[KWCrazy]

So what? This is a fallacious appeal to the majority.

No, it's a direct answer to your question. If millions are convinced by the evidence they've seen for the supernatural, then one cannot say that such evidence is not convincing.

The laws of physics as we understand them at work in the universe. We don't know the conditions necessary for the creation of universes and whether those laws apply in the absence of one.

No, what we know is that the laws of physics apply to known objects in the known universe. We know that according to our understanding of natural law that these things cannot arise from nothing so some external force had to play a roll in creating the universe. The laws of nature are part of the physical make-up of the physical universe. You can't separate the two. Matter has weight, occupies space and is in a state; solid, liquid, gas, plasma etc.

How do you know that?

I've had personal interactions with the Author.

The explanations I alluded to earlier refer to natural processes that may be at work in the conditions prevalent in the earliest moments of the universe.

Totally incorrect, however, because the laws of the universe are not separable from the material of the universe.

To be clear, I asked how far supernatural explanations have gotten us in terms of the questions currently dominating cosmology.

This thread isn't about cosmology, nor it it about how the study of cosmology can lead you to the Lord.

Sorry, but science trumps a literal reading of Genesis every time.

No, sorry. You're wrong. Science does not and cannot study the supernatural. if God made another world like this one tomorrow, science could not properly date it or explain its creation.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, it's a direct answer to your question. If millions are convinced by the evidence they've seen for the supernatural, then one cannot say that such evidence is not convincing.

No, actually you can say the evidence is not convincing, since you're making an appeal to numbers fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something does not mean it's true.

No, what we know is that the laws of physics apply to known objects in the known universe. We know that according to our understanding of natural law that these things cannot arise from nothing

Citation needed

so some external force had to play a roll in creating the universe.

Argument from ignorance fallacy

The laws of nature are part of the physical make-up of the physical universe. You can't separate the two. Matter has weight, occupies space and is in a state; solid, liquid, gas, plasma etc.

It can also be converted to energy, and vice versa

I've had personal interactions with the Author.

That's astounding.... I figured the bronze age author of your creation myth would have been long dead by now. Did you get his autograph? What does he look or sound like? When and where did you meet him?

Totally incorrect, however, because the paws of the universe are not separable from the material of the universe.

Nobody is saying the laws of the universe are separable, however it's widely acknowledged that in the earliest moments of the universe / big bang matter is packed so densely that the laws of nature as we know them fundamentally break down.

Furthermore, the laws of the universe are not only as we observe them in the macroscopic scale. At the quantum level things operate off of vastly different and strange laws.

No, sorry. You're wrong. Science does not and cannot study the supernatural. if God made another world like this one tomorrow, science could not properly date it or explain its creation.

You also have no justification for believing the supernatural exists at all. As such, using it to back your point is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, it's a direct answer to your question. If millions are convinced by the evidence they've seen for the supernatural, then one cannot say that such evidence is not convincing.

Millions can be convinced without evidence or even in spite of it - it's called faith.

No, what we know is that the laws of physics apply to known objects in the known universe. We know that according to our understanding of natural law that these things cannot arise from nothing so some external force had to play a roll in creating the universe. The laws of nature are part of the physical make-up of the physical universe. You can't separate the two. Matter has weight, occupies space and is in a state; solid, liquid, gas, plasma etc.

Again, the laws of physics as we understand them at work in the universe, not in the absence of one.

I've had personal interactions with the Author.

Okay. It's fine if you believe that, but you apparently want me to believe that too. Why should I?

Totally incorrect, however, because the paws of the universe are not separable from the material of the universe.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

This thread isn't about cosmology, nor it it about how the study of cosmology can lead you to the Lord.

So you're not going to answer my question? Sadly unsurprising.

No, sorry. You're wrong. Science does not and cannot study the supernatural. if God made another world like this one tomorrow, science could not properly date it or explain its creation.

Which is why I asked you whether there is a way for us to gain knowledge about the supernatural.

 

[Non sequitur]

For those who do not believe that God created the Universe, please explain how the law of conservation of mass is valid.

The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed.

So then where did everything come from if "nothing can be created"?

Thanks

God Bless

It wasn't "created", it (energy) was always here; like you believe your god was.

 

[variant]

The law of conservation of matter is an observation.

If we observed something different we would come up with a different law.

It may not be strictly valid with regard to the original creation of the universe, so we don't know.

Energy can be converted into matter and vise versa though, and we are not sure that there was ever a time where the universe lacked energy.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

For those who do not believe that God created the Universe, please explain how the law of conservation of mass is valid.



So then where did everything come from if "nothing can be created"?

Thanks

God Bless

Surely you do not really expect a legitimate answer? Good luck with this one.