"Conservation of Matter" = Heresy?

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, I think it is answerable and has been answered. However, you won’t accept the answer. This is like the child that asks, over and over and over, “Why, mommy?” just to say the words and get mommy to react.

Now, two can play the same game: So, you’ll ask, “So it’s God who does it.” And I’ll say “No, God made it to do that on its own” and you’ll say “How does it do it on its own?” and I’ll say because God made it do it on its own." **And you’ll ask, “How does it do it on its own?” And I’ll answer, “Because God made it do it on its own.” **And, after a few weeks, someone will Section 8 us and we’ll be mumbling to ourselves, in straight jackets somewhere.

You must be trying to make a point. What is it?

jd

“Because” isn’t a real answer. It’s a non-answer. That’s my point. THe question was “How” and you answered “Because”… because is an answer to a Why question, not a How question.

Scientific questions always regress down a chain of more and more detail, until they reach a limit where there is no answer. For example:

Q: Why do things fall?
A: They fall because of gravity.
Q: How does gravity work?
A: Gravity is a force that pulls objects together. It is proportional to the masses of the objects and the distance between them.
Q: Why is there gravity?
A: Gravity exists because there is a force between every proton, neutron and electron and every other proton, neutron and electron. The mass and therefore the gravitational attraction of an object is proportional to the number of these particles that it consists of.
Q: How does this force work?
A: This force works by gravitons going between each particle.
Q: How do gravitons work?
A: They just do. Because. God told them to. Stop asking questions.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here’s another way of asking it:

“The parrticles behave that way because God ordered them to”

Okay, but how does that work?

1. The particles don’t have ears, so how did they hear God’s order?
2. Who heard this order from God and carried it out?

 

[JDaniel]

“Because” isn’t a real answer. It’s a non-answer. That’s my point. THe question was “How” and you answered “Because”… because is an answer to a Why question, not a How question.

Scientific questions always regress down a chain of more and more detail, until they reach a limit where there is no answer. For example:

Q: Why do things fall?
A: They fall because of gravity.
Q: How does gravity work?
A: Gravity is a force that pulls objects together. It is proportional to the masses of the objects and the distance between them.
Q: Why is there gravity?
A: Gravity exists because there is a force between every proton, neutron and electron and every other proton, neutron and electron. The mass and therefore the gravitational attraction of an object is proportional to the number of these particles that it consists of.
Q: How does this force work?
A: This force works by gravitons going between each particle.
Q: How do gravitons work?
A: They just do. Because. God told them to. Stop asking questions.

I knew ultimately that you wanted to make a point. Now (as if I didn’t already know!) I know what that point is. However, you could be wrong if you conclude that science stops at some point, and then, must make the leap to God. When it comes to quantum matter, we are limited by our current technology. However, as we have all seen, technology keeps getting better and better. So, while we may only be able to theorize how the Law of Gravity actually works today, tomorrow we may know more.

At some point, there must be God. But, think about a causal chain. How many sub-causes will we pass through until we regress back to God as the First Cause? It doesn’t matter if the cause is motion, in the sense of local motion, or if it is coming-to-be. Along the way of discovery, we may pass through a near-infinite number of motions or, causes, until only one is left.

jd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I knew ultimately that you wanted to make a point. Now (as if I didn’t already know!) I know what that point is. However, you could be wrong if you conclude that science stops at some point, and then, must make the leap to God. When it comes to quantum matter, we are limited by our current technology. However, as we have all seen, technology keeps getting better and better. So, while we may only be able to theorize how the Law of Gravity actually works today, tomorrow we may know more.

At some point, there must be God. But, think about a causal chain. How many sub-causes will we pass through until we regress back to God as the First Cause? It doesn’t matter if the cause is motion, in the sense of local motion, or if it is coming-to-be. Along the way of discovery, we may pass through a near-infinite number of motions or, causes, until only one is left.

jd

Exactly… and that last cause is God. So the deepest, ultimate, answer to the question of why something comes to be, or moves, is that God puts it there or God moves it. That’s what I’m saying.

 

[Drawmack]

“Because” isn’t a real answer. It’s a non-answer. That’s my point. THe question was “How” and you answered “Because”… because is an answer to a Why question, not a How question.

Scientific questions always regress down a chain of more and more detail, until they reach a limit where there is no answer. For example:

Q: Why do things fall?
A: They fall because of gravity.
Q: How does gravity work?
A: Gravity is a force that pulls objects together. It is proportional to the masses of the objects and the distance between them.
Q: Why is there gravity?
A: Gravity exists because there is a force between every proton, neutron and electron and every other proton, neutron and electron. The mass and therefore the gravitational attraction of an object is proportional to the number of these particles that it consists of.
Q: How does this force work?
A: This force works by gravitons going between each particle.
Q: How do gravitons work?
A: They just do. Because. God told them to. Stop asking questions.

You are making a very basic flaw, which surprises me from a scientist.

Science addresses what and how. Theology addresses who and why. Science tells us, to the best of our current understanding, what is going on and how it happens. Theology tells us who made that going on and why it was made to go on. You’re meddling the two topics which is why I told you that you sounded much like a young earth creationist – they do the same thing.

 

[Drawmack]

Exactly… and that last cause is God. So the deepest, ultimate, answer to the question of why something comes to be, or moves, is that God puts it there or God moves it. That’s what I’m saying.

You’re not wrong in this statement. But, when you expand this to say it is God’s direct and intentional intervention with every single particle movement is incorrect, because that takes away man’s ability to act as a free agent, at that point man can only act as an agent of God, which means that when man sins God is participating in that sin. The flaw is not the statement, the flaw is to assume that God willfully and intentionally micromanages this instead of simply defining laws that his creation will obey.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This statement, right here, contradicts everything you have been saying. If the particle has free will then certainly God isn’t moving it around at his whim.

I didn’t say partiles have free will. I said that their behaviour is to some extent based on random quantum events. I think God makes the quantum events happen as He wills.

It is beyond God’s ability to keep you alive and breathing for 10,000 years?

God can keep me alive for 10,000 years. But I can’t do it myself even if He orders me to.

So, God is sinning. You said God couldn’t sin. If God participates in the sin then he is sinning.

God’s permissive will isn’t a sin. You need to look up some catholic theology! Look up “permissive will”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s like a screen-saver with a ball that goes around bouncing off the walls - the edge of the screen. It looks like its following “laws of physics” and laws of physics can compute with accuracy where it will be in the future and where it was in the past, but really, its just the computer redrawing it in different locations at different times, giving the appearance of laws of physics. The universe is like that.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You’re not wrong in this statement.

YAY! I WIN!

(just kidding)

But, when you expand this to say it is God’s direct and intentional intervention with every single particle movement is incorrect

Let’s look a bit closer at what this really means…

direct: 17. without intervening persons, influences, factors, etc.; immediate; personal

intervene: 4a.To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development:

So if God doesn’t “directly intervene” then He doesn’t involve himself in the situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development (in the physical realm) without an intervening person, influence or factor.

I guess the intervening influence is the physical law?

, because that takes away man’s ability to act as a free agent, at that point man can only act as an agent of God, which means that when man sins God is participating in that sin. The flaw is not the statement, the flaw is to assume that God willfully and intentionally micromanages this instead of simply defining laws that his creation will obey.

I explained in an earlier post how the soul can still be a free agent.

 

[Drawmack]

I didn’t say partiles have free will. I said that their behaviour is to some extent based on random quantum events. I think God makes the quantum events happen as He wills.

Why is it so hard for you to conceive that God, being the only perfect mathematician, created a mathematical formula and willed that particles obey this formula? No one is claiming that particles have free will, that would be silly. However, without individual particles being able to act in accordance with a created law instead of direct intervention by God then larger organisms, made up of particles, loose their free will.

God can keep me alive for 10,000 years. But I can’t do it myself even if He orders me to.

Ummm, if God orders you to, then you can. See, once God ordered it you will still have to eat, drink, and not kill yourself. A person can use their free will to end their lives prematurely otherwise suicide would not be a sin.

God’s permissive will isn’t a sin. You need to look up some catholic theology! Look up “permissive will”

It’s not in the index of my Catechism, I looked it up the first time you mentioned it. You need to provide links for claims of being backed up by Catholic theology!

If it takes God’s direct intervention for man to sin then God is a conspirator in the sin and being a conspirator to another’s sin is a sin. Thus if God’s direct intervention were needed for the synapses to fire and cause the body to move then God would be sinning.

 

[Drawmack]

It’s like a screen-saver with a ball that goes around bouncing off the walls - the edge of the screen. It looks like its following “laws of physics” and laws of physics can compute with accuracy where it will be in the future and where it was in the past, but really, its just the computer redrawing it in different locations at different times, giving the appearance of laws of physics. The universe is like that.

You are 100% correct. You see the programmer does not physically manipulate the code in your computer to redraw the ball. He simply wrote the program and now the program runs to create the appearance of the ball bouncing around the screen. And, God programmed the Universe in much the same way.

 

[slyOne]

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?

The law of conservation of matter is, like all Newtonian laws, conditional in nature, not absolute.

For one, mass is convertible to energy divided by the speed of light squared. Converted mass is mass that is no longer in existence, an actual violation of mass conservation.

Secondly, CP violation can occur, which produces mass from nothing at no loss of energy in the system. Another violation of mass conservation.

So by default God wins. As usual.

 

[Drawmack]

YAY! I WIN!

Let’s look a bit closer at what this really means…

direct: 17. without intervening persons, influences, factors, etc.; immediate; personal

intervene: 4a.To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development:

So if God doesn’t “directly intervene” then He doesn’t involve himself in the situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development (in the physical realm) without an intervening person, influence or factor.

I guess the intervening influence is the physical law?

What I said was: “But, when you expand this to say it is God’s direct and intentional intervention with every single particle movement is incorrect.”

If I replace my words with your definitions, which it the appropriate way to do this, I get: “But, when you expand this to say it is God’s and no other intervening person’s, influence’s, or factor’s and intentional involvement of Himself with every single particle movement is incorrect.”

It’s a little clunky, but it still says that God does not, without the use of something else, cause the particle to move. What I am postulating is that this something else – which my statement says must exist – is the laws He created to govern particle movement.

I explained in an earlier post how the soul can still be a free agent.

Yes, you said that God sins.

 

[Drawmack]

The law of conservation of matter is, like all Newtonian laws, conditional in nature, not absolute.

For one, mass is convertible to energy divided by the speed of light squared. Converted mass is mass that is no longer in existence, an actual violation of mass conservation.

All matter is energy. Converting the energy from potential energy (energy stored in an object) to some other kind of energy (say for example burning a match to create heat) sill obeys the conservation of matter principle because the energy still exists, it simply exists in another form. In order to break the conservation of matter principle you would have to destroy, or create, matter without releasing, or using, energy.

Secondly, CP violation can occur, which produces mass from nothing at no loss of energy in the system. Another violation of mass conservation.

Reputable citation please?

 

[slyOne]

All matter is energy.

All couches are ghosts. Ummm, no?

Reputable citation please?

physics.uc.edu/~kayk/cpviol/CP_A0.html

www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/special/cp.htm

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/141428/CP-violation

bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/nobel/nobel_80.asp

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP-violation

I hope these are sufficient.

 

[Drawmack]

All couches are ghosts. Ummm, no?

Look ma, I can make a completely unrelated statement and use that to disprove your statement because I have no idea how discussion works. Here is a brief synopsis, for a better explaination reread the thread you are posting on.

The atom, which is what makes up matter, is mostly open space. What makes it appear solid is the energy which holds the tiny particles within it in place. Matter is energy, it is potential energy.

Now, I’ll look through your sources and see if they actually support what you say.

 

[Drawmack]

physics.uc.edu/~kayk/cpviol/CP_A0.html

www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/special/cp.htm

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/141428/CP-violation

bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/nobel/nobel_80.asp

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP-violation

I hope these are sufficient.

Well, wikipedia is not a reputable source, but the others were good. They seemed to be getting into quantum and anti-matter physics. These branches of physics do not obey the laws of physics. This doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about, when you talk about spontaneous formation of matter without a reduction of energy in the system. All the laws change in the quantum and anti-matter world, that does not mean that it is proven obsolete in standard physics.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What I said was: “But, when you expand this to say it is God’s direct and intentional intervention with every single particle movement is incorrect.”

If I replace my words with your definitions, which it the appropriate way to do this, I get: “But, when you expand this to say it is God’s and no other intervening person’s, influence’s, or factor’s and intentional involvement of Himself with every single particle movement is incorrect.”

It’s a little clunky, but it still says that God does not, without the use of something else, cause the particle to move. What I am postulating is that this something else – which my statement says must exist – is the laws He created to govern particle movement.

What if these laws are the rules God uses to decide how to move things around… does that count as indirect, since he’s using a rule?

 

[slyOne]

Well, wikipedia is not a reputable source, but the others were good. They seemed to be getting into quantum and anti-matter physics. These branches of physics do not obey the laws of physics. This doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about, when you talk about spontaneous formation of matter without a reduction of energy in the system. All the laws change in the quantum and anti-matter world, that does not mean that it is proven obsolete in standard physics.

I included wikipedia as a source just because it is easier to read. And yes I know what the sites are getting into.

Well what I was trying to say is that although conservation of mass applies in Newtonian physics, the formation of the universe is explained though quantum physics in ways Newton’s physics can’t. Specifically, since CP violation occured in the formation of the universe, then Newtonian physics cannot be singularly applied. I really don’t know what you mean by standard physics, but if you were referring to universe formation as I was, Newtonian laws like conservation of matter are not necessarily applicable.

To make a small correction to your statement: quantum branches of physics do not obey the laws of Newtonian physics.

 

[Drawmack]

What if these laws are the rules God uses to decide how to move things around… does that count as indirect, since he’s using a rule?

Not really. Using the rule to become indirect is using a rule to become hands-off so to speak. I’m saying his will is there and ever present. What he actively wills if for the rule, or law, to govern matter. Then matter operates according to the law because God does not will it should stop.

God is all powerful right? So, if God looks at, all, matter and says alright you will exert a force on all other matter in proportion to the number of protons in you. Then all matter will behave this way. God will not have to willfully push particles together to create gravity. He can operate passively by just willing that this law he created stays in existence.

Kind of like, if there is a task on the computer which I do manually. I directly interact with and control the computer to complete this task. Then, one day, I write a program to complete this task. Now, I no longer directly interact with the computer to complete the task but indirectly through the program I wrote.