"Conservation of Matter" = Heresy?

[Neil_Anthony]

Science teaches that the law of “conservation of matter” keeps objects in existence from one moment to the next.

However, Catholicism teaches that God keeps object in exitence from one moment to the next - He holds all creation in existence, and creation would cease to exist if God stopped holding it in existence.

Which is right? Do objects stay in existence due to the law of conservation of matter, or does God hold them there?

 

[alphonseM]

I’d say both can be right; God created the laws of physics. they, and matter, don’t exist without Him. the principles which govern creation include the laws of physics, so God both started the system, and by His will maintains the universe, matter, physical laws, and us of course.

No law created by God can be a heresy…it would rather be a subset of His creation. Properly understood, there should never be a discrepancy between what science can describe and what God does. Scientific discovery is just an unfolding of understanding God’s creation.

that’s my 2 cents!

 

[antonivs]

Laws of Physics are descriptive, not prescriptive. They merely describe how things behave, not why.

 

[rkrispies]

FWIW (from a PhD in Chemistry), the law explains what is and nothing more. The mass & energy in a system is the same at the beginning as it is at the end. It says nothing about what happens in the middle or where the mass/energy comes from or goes to.

Chris

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Laws of Physics are descriptive, not prescriptive. They merely describe how things behave, not why.

Thanks for answering:

I asked this question because people get all upset when you say that God is responsible for physical things like the effect of gravity. But people don’t get upset if we say that God is responsible for the conservation of matter… I’m just trying to understand why and what the limits are?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Science teaches that the law of “conservation of matter” keeps objects in existence from one moment to the next.

However, Catholicism teaches that God keeps object in exitence from one moment to the next - He holds all creation in existence, and creation would cease to exist if God stopped holding it in existence.

Which is right? Do objects stay in existence due to the law of conservation of matter, or does God hold them there?

There’s no contradiction between​

• an Eternal, Uncreated, Single, Unique, Transcendant & Universal Cause
• a multiplicity of created, subordinate, & secondary causes

A very inadequate illustration: there is no contradiction between saying that a post is caused by

• the intelligence of the typist
• the fingers of the typist
• God

• All three are causes of posts, in very different ways. So with the choice in your question: it’s not necessary, because God’s activity does not obliterate the action of created causes, such as gravitational attraction: it is the guarantee of the reality of secondary causes, not the enemy of them.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for answering:

I asked this question because people get all upset when you say that God is responsible for physical things like the effect of gravity. But people don’t get upset if we say that God is responsible for the conservation of matter… I’m just trying to understand why and what the limits are?

People get upset because attributing the action of real secondary causes to the Unique “Primary” Cause of all secondary causes leaves no room for the reality of those secondary causes: it over-simplifies the picture. It is defective as theology, not least because it implies that God pushes things around as though they had no reality or life from Him. It’s close to the idea that the heavens of Aristotle’s cosmology in its Christianised form were pushed by angelic movers - which is fine for pre-Copernicans, who had only Ptolemy & Aristotle to go on: but is a backward view to take when one has 500 years of much more accurate cosmology to go on. It makes Catholics look astoundingly obscurantist; which is very “upsetting”. What is even worse, is to substitute unfounded stuff like that for the empirically verifiable facts & scientifically useful hypotheses of planetary motion: angelic movers belong to angelology - not to science. And the same applies to replacing secondary causes by their Unique Cause: for to do that cripples science, & does nothing to promote sound theology. ​

If some people wish to run for cover to the Late Middle Ages - for no reason given - most of us don’t: being Catholic should not require anyone to adopt out-dated positions on such matters. What is to come next: rejection of medicine for failing to insist that epilepsy is caused by demons ? Or do we go back even further, & attribute thunder to the motion of JHWH’s cherubim-chariot as it moves through the heavens ? Given the regressive & anti-scientific tendencies observable hereabouts, those questions are less absurd than they ought to be.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

People get upset because attributing the action of real secondary causes to the Unique “Primary” Cause of all secondary causes leaves no room for the reality of those secondary causes: it over-simplifies the picture. It is defective as theology, not least because it implies that God pushes things around as though they had no reality or life from Him. It’s close to the idea that the heavens of Aristotle’s cosmology in its Christianised form were pushed by angelic movers - which is fine for pre-Copernicans, who had only Ptolemy & Aristotle to go on: but is a backward view to take when one has 500 years of much more accurate cosmology to go on. It makes Catholics look astoundingly obscurantist; which is very “upsetting”. What is even worse, is to substitute unfounded stuff like that for the empirically verifiable facts & scientifically useful hypotheses of planetary motion: angelic movers belong to angelology - not to science. And the same applies to replacing secondary causes by their Unique Cause: for to do that cripples science, & does nothing to promote sound theology. ​

If some people wish to run for cover to the Late Middle Ages - for no reason given - most of us don’t: being Catholic should not require anyone to adopt out-dated positions on such matters. What is to come next: rejection of medicine for failing to insist that epilepsy is caused by demons ? Or do we go back even further, & attribute thunder to the motion of JHWH’s cherubim-chariot as it moves through the heavens ? Given the regressive & anti-scientific tendencies observable hereabouts, those questions are less absurd than they ought to be.

Thank you for taking my question seriously and providing a great answer full of philosophical reasons!

I’m perplexed: my motivation for saying that God causes gravity was to show that we need not fear modern theories any more than we fear the theory of gravity - because God is actually the cause of all physical and biological processes that science understands. But, I guess I’m not going to help anyone out with my line of thinking!

Also, by viewing God as the cause of every physical process from outside of time eliminates the conflict between our physical past as shown by science and our theological past as shown by revelation.

However… I’ll just assume that I must be before my time, since no one else sees how smart I am to think of this

 

[JDaniel]

Science teaches that the law of “conservation of matter” keeps objects in existence from one moment to the next.

However, Catholicism teaches that God keeps object in existence from one moment to the next - He holds all creation in existence, and creation would cease to exist if God stopped holding it in existence.

Which is right? Do objects stay in existence due to the law of conservation of matter, or does God hold them there?

It is nothing more than two ways of considering the same thing. To say that, “God keeps creation in existence”, is the same as saying, “I am driving my car to the store.”

To say that, “the existence of the laws of thermodynamics keeps matter in existence,” is that same as saying, “I enter the mechanical device, called a car, I depress the accelerator and gasoline moves to a place where it is mixed with oxygen, then that mixture is moved to a place where it receives a spark which ignites it causing the fast build up and release of pressure, which causes the cylinders in the motor to go in and out, causing a rod to turn, which, etc., etc,. etc. . . .”

The first is the statement of it in a general way and the latter is the statement of it at a more specific level.

jd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But is it really the same thing?

Let’s say God created a second universe. In the other universe, God didn’t create the “law of conservation of matter”. Instead, in the other universe God just remembers how many particles there were, and what type, and keeps the same number of particles from moment to moment.

What would be the difference between the two universes? What property could any person, or even God himself point at to distinguish the two? Unless you deny that God keeps the particles in existence from moment to moment in our universe, you won’t be able to point to anything that differentiates the two.

 

[4Horsemen]

There shouldn’t be a disconnect between the scientific explanation of the nature of things and the theological explanation of divine causality. God is the efficient Cause and the final Cause of all His creation. It seems to me that science turns its back, so to speak, on the teleological argument that natural events cannot be understood without reference to functions and goals. Otherwise, we have a dualistic explanation with a purely mechanistic view of the cosmos.

As stated in the OP:
“However, Catholicism teaches that God keeps object in exitence from one moment to the next - He holds all creation in existence, and creation would cease to exist if God stopped holding it in existence.”

I believe that to be true on one level, the theological. But when referring to the mechanics of our world (like jdaniel’s post on starting a car-- an efficient cause begins the motion of the dynamics of the engine which has a serial effect), we creatures are acting in the natural order of things created by God since He, Himself, made the laws of nature. In that sense, we are subject to them even though we may have mastery over them.

What I’m trying to say is that Classical natural philosophy is not a rival to natural science and vice versa. The Classical philosopher assumes that there is continuity between what everyone already knows about the world around us and scientific theories. There are some, however, who hold that science is destined to replace our ordinary knowledge of the world. The Classical view doesn’t prefer common sense (reason) to science as if they are rivals. Both are part of the knowledge of nature.

Feel free to judge the thinking process. I’ve been reading a couple of books on St. Thomas Aquinas. I’m very much in the learning process).

 

[Drawmack]

Science teaches that the law of “conservation of matter” keeps objects in existence from one moment to the next.

However, Catholicism teaches that God keeps object in exitence from one moment to the next - He holds all creation in existence, and creation would cease to exist if God stopped holding it in existence.

Which is right? Do objects stay in existence due to the law of conservation of matter, or does God hold them there?

They are both right. God created and uses the law of conservation of matter to keep items in existence. When are people going to realize that science and theology are not in opposition to one another? Theology tells us who created everything and why. Science tells us how He created and with what.

 

[Drawmack]

Thanks for answering:

I asked this question because people get all upset when you say that God is responsible for physical things like the effect of gravity. But people don’t get upset if we say that God is responsible for the conservation of matter… I’m just trying to understand why and what the limits are?

That’s because, sometimes, people are silly. Of course God is responsible for gravity. What part of everything do people have trouble understanding?

 

[Drawmack]

But is it really the same thing?

Let’s say God created a second universe. In the other universe, God didn’t create the “law of conservation of matter”. Instead, in the other universe God just remembers how many particles there were, and what type, and keeps the same number of particles from moment to moment.

What would be the difference between the two universes? What property could any person, or even God himself point at to distinguish the two? Unless you deny that God keeps the particles in existence from moment to moment in our universe, you won’t be able to point to anything that differentiates the two.

What’s your point?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What’s your point?

My point is that there is no difference between a universe with a “law of conservation of matter” and a universe where God just keeps the same particles in existence from one moment to the next.

And since there is no difference, the “law of conservation of matter”, or the “law of gravity”, or any other law of nature, is nothing but a way of speaking, or a way of thinking, about how God “predictably keeps particles in existence” or “predictably moves particles around”.

 

[JDaniel]

But is it really the same thing?

Let’s say God created a second universe. In the other universe, God didn’t create the “law of conservation of matter”. Instead, in the other universe God just remembers how many particles there were, and what type, and keeps the same number of particles from moment to moment.

What would be the difference between the two universes? What property could any person, or even God himself point at to distinguish the two? Unless you deny that God keeps the particles in existence from moment to moment in our universe, you won’t be able to point to anything that differentiates the two.

You only throw in a nuance after I answer your original question? You’re making me crazy! :banghead:

I really don’t want to get into the hypothetics of another universe handled differently. My original answer is basically that there are always at least two sciences of things, such as nature. One would be a general science (of nature) and the other, a specific science (of nature). The first science would be how we would view the world of mobile beings before we went to school for training in a specific field of study, such as physics.

These days, the student bypasses the general science and goes right into the specific science. This leaves him without the proper knowledge that a complete science might provide. Thus, every theory, or hypothesis, and certain laws in modern science fail to provide us with “certain” knowledge on many things. For example, atomic theory. Science postulates that matter is made up of discrete particles, that behave as if they consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We can’t actually view them, but, chemistry bears out that these particles probably appear similar to our several conceptions of them.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

My point is that there is no difference between a universe with a “law of conservation of matter” and a universe where God just keeps the same particles in existence from one moment to the next.

And since there is no difference, the “law of conservation of matter”, or the “law of gravity”, or any other law of nature, is nothing but a way of speaking, or a way of thinking, about how God “predictably keeps particles in existence” or “predictably moves particles around”.

You are correct. One is the simple statement of what happens, the other is the complex breakdown of the mechanism of how it happens. Depending upon what one does for a living is generally how one perceives it.

jd

 

[Drawmack]

My point is that there is no difference between a universe with a “law of conservation of matter” and a universe where God just keeps the same particles in existence from one moment to the next.

And since there is no difference, the “law of conservation of matter”, or the “law of gravity”, or any other law of nature, is nothing but a way of speaking, or a way of thinking, about how God “predictably keeps particles in existence” or “predictably moves particles around”.

I have a couple problems with this. First of all, you cannot just state that a universe without a law our universe has is the same as our universe. It might be, but it might not be because to the best of our knowledge it does not exist. There is no way to know this. Thus you are stating an axiom without proper support for that axiom and thus, any statement based on that axiom is flawed.

Secondly, the problem comes in with the word predictably. If God is doing it predictably, then God is following a formula (otherwise it would be unpredictable). Thus, there is a formula which can be figured out. Once that formula has been figured out, we give it a name. So, I will agree that these are names for God’s devices. I will agree that they are a way of thinking about, or looking at, God through His creation. But, I wouldn’t phrase this the way you have.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I have a couple problems with this. First of all, you cannot just state that a universe without a law our universe has is the same as our universe. It might be, but it might not be because to the best of our knowledge it does not exist. There is no way to know this. Thus you are stating an axiom without proper support for that axiom and thus, any statement based on that axiom is flawed.

I’m just asking you to join me in trying to imagine that other universe, for the sake of discussion.

Here’s what I see when I try to picture it:

God wills that a particle exist, and it exists. God being omniscient sees all-at-once the particle as it exists in each moment in eternity. In spacetime a particle which looks like a point to us, would look like a line to God. So God creates a line in spacetime.

Now, God doesn’t create the line from one end and work to the other end. He just wills and the entire line (the particle with its existence through all time) comes into existence. God doesn’t create a dot/particle at one point in time and watch it grow into a line - he creates all instants at one time.

So, looking at it like that, does it make any sense to talk about the particle “moving according to a law of gravity” or “maintaining existence according to the law of conservation of matter?”

It doesn’t make any sense to me… because I can’t imagine how it would be any different from God’s perspective one way or the other.

Secondly, the problem comes in with the word predictably. If God is doing it predictably, then God is following a formula (otherwise it would be unpredictable). Thus, there is a formula which can be figured out. Once that formula has been figured out, we give it a name. So, I will agree that these are names for God’s devices. I will agree that they are a way of thinking about, or looking at, God through His creation. But, I wouldn’t phrase this the way you have.

 

[Drawmack]

I’m just asking you to join me in trying to imagine that other universe, for the sake of discussion.

Here’s what I see when I try to picture it:

God wills that a particle exist, and it exists. God being omniscient sees all-at-once the particle as it exists in each moment in eternity. In spacetime a particle which looks like a point to us, would look like a line to God. So God creates a line in spacetime.

Now, God doesn’t create the line from one end and work to the other end. He just wills and the entire line (the particle with its existence through all time) comes into existence. God doesn’t create a dot/particle at one point in time and watch it grow into a line - he creates all instants at one time.

So, looking at it like that, does it make any sense to talk about the particle “moving according to a law of gravity” or “maintaining existence according to the law of conservation of matter?”

It doesn’t make any sense to me… because I can’t imagine how it would be any different from God’s perspective one way or the other.

Here is the problem I see with this. God exists outside of time. You are binding him to time and simply saying that he sees it all at once. Think of it this way.

You and I are not bound by height or depth. We are free to move up and down in space. Does this mean that at every moment we see all possible ways we could possibly be in this space or see this space from every possible perspective. No. This is how God sees time.

Additionally if we take your premise of how God sees, and does, things out of the material and apply it to other things it completely looses credibility. For, if everything happens as God wills and God wills everything from the start to the finish. This would mean that no one has free will, we only have God’s will. Thus you are saying that God wills people to be sinful and this is against His nature. So, if God has made laws that govern the properties of humans and allows those laws to keep acting even when we utilize our free will to work against Him, why is it so hard to believe that He made laws which govern the properties of matter and He simply allows those laws to keep working (except in the case of miracles which is why they are miracles)? I mean why would someone powerful enough to create everything make more work for themselves? Isn’t it more reasonable to believe that He interacts to create miracles and does not interact to create stasis?