The origins of existance

[LibraryOwl]

Good morning gentlemen, and good day to you. Of course, I am a Christian, but I have, in the virtues of socratic thought, authored this thread without making any uneccisary assumptions.

I have always been wondering how matter came into existance. A sound scientific precept teaches that (according to the laws of nature) matter cannot be created, or destroyed.

This is why, when we crush a cracker in our hands, it comes out as a fine sand; and why boiling water lets off heat. All that occurs in the 'destruction' of matter is the reallocation of force and energy.

This raises profound, and universal, theological questions for mankind. Sadly, scientific method as we know it is incapable of theological thought. When we ask a scientist what happenend before the big bang, all he can tell us is "I don't really know."

And matter existed before the big bang, the bang merely transformed or expanded it. Some scientists have even postulated that there was another universe, which crushed into a single point, before the big bang expanded that point again. Even as we speak, our galaxy is slowly moving towards a large supercluster, which, compared with ancient star charts, appears to be very slowly pulling other stars towards itself. Could the entire universe be compacted into a single point again?

Even if this is so, we have no viably certain answer for why the universe is here in the first place.

Where, gentlemen, does matter come from? What created it? Did some sort of supernatural force will it in to being; if so, what laws or principles govern this supernatural force? Has this supernatural force set and determined the natural laws, and will it dictate, form time to time, changes to those natural laws? Doe's it give any hope for us after death, or provide and moral teachings, or harbor any care for the sentient beings in it's creation?

Perhaps the universe always existed, and natural matter had no supernatural motivator for its existence. This also raises profound questions. Is natural matter the sort of thing that 'just exists?' Is that inherrent in it's nature? If so, what happens to us when we die? Is this a veiw which carries any hope or optimism?

If the factor of gravity (size/distance*2... I think.) were 124 to the 567 to the 345 (somthing like that...) less, atoms would collapse, or more, atoms would crush themselves. Is it possible for a purely natural world to have a set of gravity-laws exactly in line with the factor necessary to bind particles together, and if so, is the law of gravity, or any other natural law, subject to change under purely natural governance?

Think on these things, and produce a thought-out answer. Don't bother to answer every question. Just speak as you are so moved.

 

[[serious]]

And matter existed before the big bang, the bang merely transformed or expanded it. Some scientists have even postulated that there was another universe, which crushed into a single point, before the big bang expanded that point again. Even as we speak, our galaxy is slowly moving towards a large supercluster, which, compared with ancient star charts, appears to be very slowly pulling other stars towards itself. Could the entire universe be compacted into a single point again?

Thinking in terms of "matter before the big bang" is somewhat meaningless. There likely was no "before the big bang" Time itself didn't start running until that moment of creation. The cyclic universe theory which you alluded to has since pretty much lost credibility in light of what we currently know. The universe has basically 2 possible end states, infinite expansion or re contraction to a superdense area/point. We have a great deal of evidence that it's moving toward the former.

Even if this is so, we have no viably certain answer for why the universe is here in the first place.

Where, gentlemen, does matter come from? What created it? Did some sort of supernatural force will it in to being; if so, what laws or principles govern this supernatural force? Has this supernatural force set and determined the natural laws, and will it dictate, form time to time, changes to those natural laws? Doe's it give any hope for us after death, or provide and moral teachings, or harbor any care for the sentient beings in it's creation?

Perhaps the universe always existed, and natural matter had no supernatural motivator for its existence. This also raises profound questions. Is natural matter the sort of thing that 'just exists?' Is that inherrent in it's nature? If so, what happens to us when we die? Is this a veiw which carries any hope or optimism?

well, I'd say it's no more or less optimistic than sorting the dead into infinite joy and infinite suffering. One view gravitates toward extremes and the other gravitates toward the middle.

If the factor of gravity (size/distance*2... I think.) were 124 to the 567 to the 345 (somthing like that...) less, atoms would collapse, or more, atoms would crush themselves. Is it possible for a purely natural world to have a set of gravity-laws exactly in line with the factor necessary to bind particles together, and if so, is the law of gravity, or any other natural law, subject to change under purely natural governance?

The effect of gravity on an atomic level is pretty much 0. Gravity is the weakest of all known forces. Any change in gravity is likely to have no measureable impact on the atomic level. The strong force is what holds the nucleus of an atom together and is about 40 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Molecules are largely held together by electromagnetic forces which are 2 orders of magnitude weaker than the strong force. The reason gravity is so noticable is that it is purely attractive and has infinite range. The strong and weak forces have a very short range and the EM force can be either attractive or repulsive so sort of balences itself out.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Just a note about current scientific thought on the fate of the universe...

I've heard that there are 3 possible outcomes:

The universe continues expanding and all of it's energy becomes evenly distributed (the big chill)

It's expansion reaches its crest and begins to collapse, eventually crushing everything (the big crunch)

Or it might just reach a point of stasis and stay the same.

It's all just conjecture IMO.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I have always been wondering how matter came into existance. A sound scientific precept teaches that (according to the laws of nature) matter cannot be created, or destroyed.

You have asked a question of calculus while you are still trying to figure out algrebra.

The answers are there and known, but to understand the answers you have asked for, you need a solid grasp of infinities.

 

[quatona]

Good morning gentlemen, and good day to you. Of course, I am a Christian, but I have, in the virtues of socratic thought, authored this thread without making any uneccisary assumptions.

I appreciate this approach.
Let´s see.

I have always been wondering how matter came into existance. A sound scientific precept teaches that (according to the laws of nature) matter cannot be created, or destroyed.

I´m not a scientist, but from what I know [FONT=Verdana, Arial]it rather says that energy and matter are equivalent. They can be converted back and forth. Thus, if asking this question, we would have to ask where matter/energy came from.

We would also have to keep in mind that everything scientists can and have observed and have derived laws from, are processes within our universe.
Thus, should we introduce a situation before the existence of our universe, all those laws are not (necessarily) applying.
[/FONT]

This is why, when we crush a cracker in our hands, it comes out as a fine sand; and why boiling water lets off heat. All that occurs in the 'destruction' of matter is the reallocation of force and energy.

Yes.

This raises profound, and universal, theological questions for mankind. Sadly, scientific method as we know it is incapable of theological thought. When we ask a scientist what happenend before the big bang, all he can tell us is "I don't really know."

And I sort of like that answer. I like the honesty about it.

And matter existed before the big bang,

...matter and/or energy...

the bang merely transformed or expanded it. Some scientists have even postulated that there was another universe, which crushed into a single point, before the big bang expanded that point again. Even as we speak, our galaxy is slowly moving towards a large supercluster, which, compared with ancient star charts, appears to be very slowly pulling other stars towards itself. Could the entire universe be compacted into a single point again?

I don´t know.

Even if this is so, we have no viably certain answer for why the universe is here in the first place.

If trying not to use unnecessary assumptions, it´s not a good idea to assume a reason, in the first place.

Where, gentlemen, does matter come from?

I don´t know. All answers I have heard so far, run into logical problems, if applying laws and rules derived from within our universe.

What created it?

Careful with question-begging wordings!

Did some sort of supernatural force will it in to being; if so, what laws or principles govern this supernatural force? Has this supernatural force set and determined the natural laws, and will it dictate, form time to time, changes to those natural laws? Doe's it give any hope for us after death, or provide and moral teachings, or harbor any care for the sentient beings in it's creation?

I seem to see no basis for answering any of these questions. And, anyways, since we are in the midst of applying rules derived from observations within our universe to a hypothetical realm before or beyond our universe, we would have to ask where this supernatural force (or whatever we might assume to be the origin) came from.

Perhaps the universe always existed, and natural matter had no supernatural motivator for its existence. This also raises profound questions. Is natural matter the sort of thing that 'just exists?' Is that inherrent in it's nature? If so, what happens to us when we die? Is this a veiw which carries any hope or optimism?

I don´t seem to be able to conceptualize eternity nor to conceptualize an uncaused cause. Both run into logical problems.
I´m a bit surprised to see you introduce emotional concepts like "hope" and "optimism" into the discussion.

If the factor of gravity (size/distance*2... I think.) were 124 to the 567 to the 345 (somthing like that...) less, atoms would collapse, or more, atoms would crush themselves. Is it possible for a purely natural world to have a set of gravity-laws exactly in line with the factor necessary to bind particles together, and if so, is the law of gravity, or any other natural law, subject to change under purely natural governance?

My scientific knowledge is not sufficient to answer this question. To be honest, not even to understand it.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Btw, these questions do not require a theologian, but a logician.

I can possibly explain how you get time from timelessness if you're interested, but where it all came from requires more serious understanding of the division of infinities that yields a finite.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I'd like to tack on an interesting thought here...

When thinking about the current condition of the universe, theorists often use what's called the anthropic principle... in other words, we may not know what the universe is or what its shape is, all we know is that it is in such a state as to support life. Now I wonder what the chances are that out of all the possible states that the universe could have come into being it would just so happen to be one that is 'friendly' enough to support the delicate balance of multicellular life.

I think this would be a heck of a problem for my statistics class....

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I'd like to tack on an interesting thought here...

When thinking about the current condition of the universe, theorists often use what's called the anthropic principle... in other words, we may not know what the universe is or what its shape is, all we know is that it is in such a state as to support life. Now I wonder what the chances are that out of all the possible states that the universe could have come into being it would just so happen to be one that is 'friendly' enough to support the delicate balance of multicellular life.

I think this would be a heck of a problem for my statistics class....

Yes an interesting proposal.

The answer is that the universe must form life regardless of it's make and can have no option to do otherwise.

 

[quatona]

I'd like to tack on an interesting thought here...

When thinking about the current condition of the universe, theorists often use what's called the anthropic principle... in other words, we may not know what the universe is or what its shape is, all we know is that it is in such a state as to support life. Now I wonder what the chances are that out of all the possible states that the universe could have come into being it would just so happen to be one that is 'friendly' enough to support the delicate balance of multicellular life.

I think this would be a heck of a problem for my statistics class....

And since all "possible states of the universe" would have had the same chance to come into being, I don´t see how the result would tell us anything useful. Hence I suggest you spare your statistics class the effort.
I see problems with statistical calculations based on one single sample, anyways. I don´t even know how you would possibly determine the amount of hypothetical outcomes, to begin with.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I see problems with statistical calculations based on one single sample, anyways. I don´t even know how you would possibly determine the amount of hypothetical outcomes, to begin with.

Good point.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even if this is so, we have no viably certain answer for why the universe is here in the first place.

We also have no viably certain answer for how God, if such a being exists, is here in the first place. Where did God come from?

Perhaps the universe always existed, and natural matter had no supernatural motivator for its existence. This also raises profound questions. Is natural matter the sort of thing that 'just exists?'

Bingo!

If so, what happens to us when we die?

We die.

Is this a veiw which carries any hope or optimism?

Relative to what? A fantasy? Existence carries just as much potential for hope as it does, given what it is. Comparing existence as it is to existence as it isn't is pointless.

Consider: compare fire and brimstone Christianity to Universalism. Univeralism guarantees salvation for everyone, and therefore gives the most hope to everyone. Does this make Universalism true?

If the factor of gravity (size/distance*2... I think.) were 124 to the 567 to the 345 (somthing like that...) less, atoms would collapse, or more, atoms would crush themselves. Is it possible for a purely natural world to have a set of gravity-laws exactly in line with the factor necessary to bind particles together, and if so, is the law of gravity, or any other natural law, subject to change under purely natural governance?

Your question here is confused. I'm not aware that a small change in gravitational force will cause atoms to collapse, and if it did, that simply means the universe would look different than it does today.

Don't bother to answer every question. Just speak as you are so moved.

I will speak on my own terms, thank you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PKJ]

Good morning gentlemen, and good day to you. Of course, I am a Christian, but I have, in the virtues of socratic thought, authored this thread without making any uneccisary assumptions.

Where, gentlemen, does matter come from? What created it?

You are assuming that matter has to come from somewhere, and most of all that it was created.

2 examples of "uneccisary" assumptions.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The answers are there and known, but to understand the answers you have asked for, you need a solid grasp of infinities.

Cute.

I think everyone pretty much understands infinites the same - almost not at all.

 

[[serious]]

Cute.

I think everyone pretty much understands infinites the same - almost not at all.

Not really. I understand what he's saying and I don't think he's being rude or condesending. Physics get squirrely when you have that much mass and energy that concentrated. Many a doctoral thesis has gone into the birth of the universe. A full explaination of the big bang would take a pretty solid grounding in quantum physics and special relativity. One of the things that would require some attention would be infinites.

 

[LibraryOwl]

Thank you gentlemen. I am modestly pleased by this discussion.

Please take my apologies for any confusion or anger the term 'uneccessary assumptions' caused you. Ifeel that the assumptions I made (which you are perfectly free to agree with) were in the interest of facilitating discussion, not making a specific point, which I never did.

Also, Eudamontis, you are of course free to discuss these ideas in any manner you please. That is what I meant by my closing. IF you wan't to adress every point of my discussion, you are now free to do so.

Some of the science I used may be out of date.

Some of you appeared to be confused by the format in which I presented my questions to you. PJS, you may note that I later introduced the possibility that matter doe's not need a creator, and could have always existed.

Debate on, gentlemen. I am content to play the Socrates in this dialouge. I have invited you into my hospitality, and expect a good duscussion in return.

 

[JohnLocke]

Good morning gentlemen, and good day to you. Of course, I am a Christian, but I have, in the virtues of socratic thought, authored this thread without making any uneccisary assumptions.

I have always been wondering how matter came into existance. A sound scientific precept teaches that (according to the laws of nature) matter cannot be created, or destroyed.

This is why, when we crush a cracker in our hands, it comes out as a fine sand; and why boiling water lets off heat. All that occurs in the 'destruction' of matter is the reallocation of force and energy.

This raises profound, and universal, theological questions for mankind. Sadly, scientific method as we know it is incapable of theological thought. When we ask a scientist what happenend before the big bang, all he can tell us is "I don't really know."

And matter existed before the big bang, the bang merely transformed or expanded it. Some scientists have even postulated that there was another universe, which crushed into a single point, before the big bang expanded that point again. Even as we speak, our galaxy is slowly moving towards a large supercluster, which, compared with ancient star charts, appears to be very slowly pulling other stars towards itself. Could the entire universe be compacted into a single point again?

Even if this is so, we have no viably certain answer for why the universe is here in the first place.

Where, gentlemen, does matter come from? What created it? Did some sort of supernatural force will it in to being; if so, what laws or principles govern this supernatural force? Has this supernatural force set and determined the natural laws, and will it dictate, form time to time, changes to those natural laws? Doe's it give any hope for us after death, or provide and moral teachings, or harbor any care for the sentient beings in it's creation?

Perhaps the universe always existed, and natural matter had no supernatural motivator for its existence. This also raises profound questions. Is natural matter the sort of thing that 'just exists?' Is that inherrent in it's nature? If so, what happens to us when we die? Is this a veiw which carries any hope or optimism?

If the factor of gravity (size/distance*2... I think.) were 124 to the 567 to the 345 (somthing like that...) less, atoms would collapse, or more, atoms would crush themselves. Is it possible for a purely natural world to have a set of gravity-laws exactly in line with the factor necessary to bind particles together, and if so, is the law of gravity, or any other natural law, subject to change under purely natural governance?

Think on these things, and produce a thought-out answer. Don't bother to answer every question. Just speak as you are so moved.

Actually,

Your sound precept is wrong. The law of Conservation of Matter was discarded in the late 1970's I think and reformed as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. A necessary consequence of Einstein's famous E=mc (square). As such, the Big Bang makes even more sense. Assuming for a moment that all of existence at the moment of any given Big Bang was all energy, it may have reached a criticality which caused some of it to transmute into mass. It is also nice because it avoids the problem of "The Beginning" in that as a reciprocal equation, it need never begin nor end.

Cheers

 

[Exist]

"Or it might just reach a point of stasis and stay the same. "

Not really. If I'm not mistaken, the universe has to be either expanding or retracting at all times for the Theory of Relativity to work. It's either expands forever (cold death), expands, but then retracts into a big crunch (heat death) or expands forever, but at an ever-slowing rate (cold death). This universe will end sometime.

And to the person who said Time started with the Big Bang: I'm not a scientist, so can you point me to a good source explaining this? Time is the measurement of change, are you saying there was no change before the Big Bang? If so, the Big Bang was an uncaused Cause? Something happening with nothing to cause it to happen? Sounds a bit illogical to me, but again, I'm ignorant when it comes to most of this.

To the OP, I believe that the existance is eternal. The rules may change, the players may change, but there has always been something, and always will be. So even if our universe hasn't lasted forever, there was still something before it, and something will come after it. My beliefs on what was before/after it? I don't know enough to make an educated guess yet, but I've been looking into it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Time is the measurement of change, are you saying there was no change before the Big Bang?

Yes.

If so, the Big Bang was an uncaused Cause?

You could phrase it that way. I would prefer to say that it was in its nature to "bang". You could call this a self-cause, though the word cause may perhaps be inappropriate in this context.

Something happening with nothing to cause it to happen?

Not "nothing". What existed at t=0 "caused" the bang to happen. The entity was itself the "cause".

I don't think this is uncommon, though. For example, in quantum physics today there are things that particles/waves do that are not obviously caused by something else.

Sounds a bit illogical to me, but again, I'm ignorant when it comes to most of this.

It is illogical if one adheres to a view of event-causality. But I don't think this view of causality is quite accurate.

I adhere to an agent-causality view. It is agents (entities) that cause, not "events". Entities have their own natures and don't necessarily need to be caused by some other entity to do something.

As I mentioned earlier, IMV, it was in the nature of what existed at t=0 to "bang".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Forest]

The universe...beginning to end...

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/index.html

 

[LibraryOwl]

We also have no viably certain answer for how God, if such a being exists, is here in the first place. Where did God come from?

An excellent question, for which I commend you.

My observaiton of natural matter (insofar as I am empowered to observe) has led to my concluding that the forces of the universe are chaotic and fluxuating. They change so quickly and repture so widely; who can understand how the universe works? Who can ponder its inner machinery?

A man throws an apple into the sky, and it falls back down. What a great mystery this is! Why does gravity exist? Can gravity, a natural force (and nature is always decaying and collapsing to form new things) have always existed, can gravity never change?

Of course this is an awful lot of confusion. Gravity, contrary to the other workings of the universe, seems to be very orderly. Furthermore, it is a universal law that profoundly affects and governs the passions of all things. Furthermore, it never changes, never collapses, and never ceases to exist.

Is, the, gravity a being, or a god? I am inclined to say it is not, because a being could never be so perfect and uniform, and a God could never restrain his righteousness (or wickedness) in so uniformly perfect a manner. Both kinds of beings would be subject to emotions and passions that would motivate them to alter the uniformity of their nature.

A beautiful quilt
is laid out flatly
in all its glory.

Then the wind sweeps upon it, and
a wrinkle develops.

Because the crafer of the quilt never existed,

that wrinkle cannot be straightened.
so the quilt can never be straight again.
​

So too with us assuming that gravity could be a being and never change; gravity must be a machine of some sort, created by a supernatural being.

You say that this machine has always existed. Well, if gravity existed as a machine, before natural matter (which must have come into existance, owing to it's constant state of decay) then what was it then? Gravity, of course, is no physical thing, but the reaction of forces upon forces based on mass and distance. If there were no things which reacted to eachother, how then did gravity exist?

What I see in the natural matter is decay and chaos, what I see in the anatural matter is machinery created for a purpose, which can only exist to fufill it's purpose.

But what I see in supernatural matter, that is Gods or a God, is a thing which can indeed have existed before the beginning and after the end. For this, indeed, is the nature of supernatural things; or so I think. Is this not sound?