Has matter always existed?

[whoisdiss]

I have heard that the Jews did not start believing the idea that God created matter until they started studying Greek philosophy which said matter had a start. I had heard they believed matter always existed and that it was just in “chaos” and that God organized matter. That when the book of Genesis says create it is not talking about God creating everything but organizing everything. And that it was just before Jesus time when the Jews started saying that God created matter and energy and adopted it from Greek philosophy. Is there any possibility matter has always existed?

 

[Jim_Baur]

I believe Aristotle held the idea that matter always existed.

I believe that Thomas Aquinas believed it is a matter of faith to believe in a creation from nothing.

This might get me in trouble, but I believe that science has never proven a beginning of matter coming from nothing.

What is easier to imagine, nothingness bringing matter into existence or matter always existing?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t know about the Jews, but Christians have always believed matter was created

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. [John 1:1-4]

The almost universally accepted scientific theory of the origin of the universe (the Big Bang) happens to agree - all matter (and energy) came from nothing (which the Big Bang describes as a zero-dimensional singularity, which is, as far as we are concerned, “nothing”).

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am not a scientist, experimental or theoretical.

I do not believe we have enough information to solve your question.

There are too many things that we just do not know.

We do not know the size of the universe.

We do not know the essence of the physical laws.

We do not know the essence of the basic forces of nature.

There are many different kinds of science, and that is really important.

First, science would have to prove that there was a time when there was nothing.

Or science would have to prove that there physical being is necessary.

TOUGH, TOUGH, TOUGH, and that is for both points, I think.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe Aristotle held the idea that matter always existed.

I believe that Thomas Aquinas believed it is a matter of faith to believe in a creation from nothing.

This might get me in trouble, but I believe that science has never proven a beginning of matter coming from nothing.

What is easier to imagine, nothingness bringing matter into existence or matter always existing?

Frankly matter coming from nothing.

If matter always existed I am left with an unanswerable why. Why does it exist, what does it exist in, where did it come from?

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I don’t know about the Jews, but Christians have always believed matter was created

The almost universally accepted scientific theory of the origin of the universe (the Big Bang) happens to agree - all matter (and energy) came from nothing (which the Big Bang describes as a zero-dimensional singularity, which is, as far as we are concerned, “nothing”).

Yes, when our universe (the manifold we are on at present) expanded from the point of zero dimensionality to a very small volume compared to the present volume, there was a very brief time when there was no matter but there was a false vacuum.

At the end of this short period (10 ^ -36 seconds to 10 ^ -33 seconds or 10 ^ -32 seconds; also known as the inflationary epoch), the false vacuum either decayed into a stable state or a metastable state with the evolution (“creation”) of a great deal of energy and mass.

If you want something more familiar from your own experience, something you can more readily imagine, think of a jet of steam leaving a nozzle (or perhaps the hole of a tea kettle, that is if your kettle holds just a tiny bit of pressure, just enough for the steam to have to speed out and then nucleate. One of those whistling kettles is much more likely to show this than the sort where the steam just drifts out.). As it first leaves the nozzle (or hole, or whistle), it is transparent and seems to be a gas much like the air, but after a very short distance, it is filled with a fog of fast moving tiny droplets which have just nucleated out of the steam. In this example, the transparent steam is analogous to the false vacuum and the new fog is analogous to the way the universe was after the brief cosmic inflationary period. After the inflation, the universe was suddenly filled with matter and energy.

 

[RedFox0456]

Yes, when our universe (the manifold we are on at present) expanded from the point of zero dimensionality to a very small volume compared to the present volume, there was a very brief time when there was no matter but there was a false vacuum.

At the end of this short period (10 ^ -36 seconds to 10 ^ -33 seconds or 10 ^ -32 seconds; also known as the inflationary epoch), the false vacuum either decayed into a stable state or a metastable state with the evolution (“creation”) of a great deal of energy and mass.

If you want something more familiar from your own experience, something you can more readily imagine, think of a jet of steam leaving a nozzle (or perhaps the hole of a tea kettle, that is if your kettle holds just a tiny bit of pressure, just enough for the steam to have to speed out and then nucleate. One of those whistling kettles is much more likely to show this than the sort where the steam just drifts out.). As it first leaves the nozzle (or hole, or whistle), it is transparent and seems to be a gas much like the air, but after a very short distance, it is filled with a fog of fast moving tiny droplets which have just nucleated out of the steam. In this example, the transparent steam is analogous to the false vacuum and the new fog is analogous to the way the universe was after the brief cosmic inflationary period. After the inflation, the universe was suddenly filled with matter and energy.

Well you seem like you’ve studied this before. Physicist, by chance?

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Well you seem like you’ve studied this before. Physicist, by chance?

No, but thank you for that. It’s very flattering.

I’m just an old unemployed guy who had a few technical jobs in the past and read some popular science books, kept learning math on my own after college and always had ideas for inventions and so forth. I haven’t succeeded at putting my ideas into action, but I learned a lot of math along the way.

And you? What sort of work have you done?

P.S. I got back from confession about an hour and a half ago and I’m in an exceedingly good mood. The priest’s words: “You are absolved of all your sins.” kept ringing in my ears; one of the few times in my life it really hit home.

I want to go to mass tomorrow and receive communion. First time in a quite a while for me.

 

[empther]

Matter changes. ( in form, organization, position etc etc )
Change takes time.
This could not have been going on through an infinite past.
Matter has not always existed.

 

[SuperLuigi]

This might get me in trouble, but I believe that science has never proven a beginning of matter coming from nothing.

Science is based on observable, repeatable results.

 

[RedFox0456]

No, but thank you for that. It’s very flattering.

I’m just an old unemployed guy who had a few technical jobs in the past and read some popular science books, kept learning math on my own after college and always had ideas for inventions and so forth. I haven’t succeeded at putting my ideas into action, but I learned a lot of math along the way.

And you? What sort of work have you done?

P.S. I got back from confession about an hour and a half ago and I’m in an exceedingly good mood. The priest’s words: “You are absolved of all your sins.” kept ringing in my ears; one of the few times in my life it really hit home.

I want to go to mass tomorrow and receive communion. First time in a quite a while for me.

I’m a mathematician and my brother is a physicist. Great to hear about the confession! That always puts a smile on my face! I had the same reaction when I returned to confession after many years.

 

[Bahman]

I have heard that the Jews did not start believing the idea that God created matter until they started studying Greek philosophy which said matter had a start. I had heard they believed matter always existed and that it was just in “chaos” and that God organized matter. That when the book of Genesis says create it is not talking about God creating everything but organizing everything. And that it was just before Jesus time when the Jews started saying that God created matter and energy and adopted it from Greek philosophy. Is there any possibility matter has always existed?

The better questions is whether existence had a beginning? There is of course no beginning for existence since otherwise it could not be experienced since existence is equivalent to the ability to experience.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I’m a mathematician and my brother is a physicist.

That must be great. That’s how I wish things had gone for me.

Great to hear about the confession! That always puts a smile on my face! I had the same reaction when I returned to confession after many years.

I got back from church a couple of hours or so ago, and I have to say I was a little more happy when I got done with confession than after receiving the Eucharist.

I spoiled it for myself by being unable to keep from uncharitable and impious thoughts in the 24 hours or so in between confession and communion. Of course, almost as soon as I started thinking them, I said an Act of Contrition. I don’t think I committed any venial sins because almost as soon as I realized I was starting in on an impious thought, I checked it and made an Act of Contrition, but it’s kind of harder than I remembered to keep my mind under control. I’ve never tried this hard before either.

I don’t think I said a hundred Act of Contritions, but I might have. I’m hoping God won’t hold my false starts against me. I’m learning; I’m trying; I’m not very good at being pious, but at least I’m trying to do it now.

I think trying to keep evil thoughts at bay also elevates my mood a little bit. It leaves me a little bit blank, but on the whole, calmer, more at peace. Some of that blankness I fill with prayer, but my mind tends to drift and then I’m back into my old patterns. I check myself, say an AoC, and then try to get back on the straight and narrow again.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is there any possibility matter has always existed?

For all intents and purposes, matter has always existed, at least in particle form, from the time of the Big Bang. When the particles coagulated, it is theorized, two directions emerged: matter and anti-matter. Fortunately, matter dominated anti-matter so much so that the universe as we know it became possible, with the dominant element of matter in the universe being hydrogen. Imagine a universe without hydrogen. No water! No life!

No way to even ask the question: “Is there any possibility matter has always existed?”

 

[ynotzap]

Matter had a begining, if it always existed then the nature of matter is “Existence” it could never change, it would be all that it could be at one time. this is contrary to human experience. Water can be steam, steam can be ice, but not at the same time. Matter does not contain the fullness of being. It can not move itself, but is moved by Another, it can not explain itself, it can not organize itself because it is organized by another. Matter does not have intelligence, for intelligence is spiritual Part of its nature is Potency and Act, not pure Act Matter has existence, it is not existence, it is not infinite, but indefinite, and is not limiteless, but limited.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am not sure, but I think St. Thomas would argue that God could free of called being into existence eternally. However, the beings other than Himself would be contingent.

I am the OP.

I was looking to see the ideas about this.

St. Thomas, if I recalled accurately, says creation is an article of faith.

Human reason cannot answer settle the question one way or the other.

With contemporary science, I hold the opinion we still do not know enough.

We do not know the nature of material being and the laws of material being.

We know a great deal, but very, very, very little.

But most importantly, we cannot see or examine the essence of gravity and the other laws of nature.

Ironically, one of the central principles of the scientific method, math, it nature is uncertain. Does math exist extra-mentally?

How can scientists use math? The scientists only investigate physical reality, but math is not a physical reality.

We are too puny.

 

[Richca]

I have heard that the Jews did not start believing the idea that God created matter until they started studying Greek philosophy which said matter had a start. I had heard they believed matter always existed and that it was just in “chaos” and that God organized matter. That when the book of Genesis says create it is not talking about God creating everything but organizing everything. And that it was just before Jesus time when the Jews started saying that God created matter and energy and adopted it from Greek philosophy. Is there any possibility matter has always existed?

No. It is an article of the Catholic Faith, that is, a truth revealed by God, that whatever exists outside of God whether it be the material world or immaterial beings such as the angels were created by God in time, that is, they had a beginning and thus are not eternal. Thus, It is written, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas Aquinas wrote a rather long essay entitled Ente et Essentia, Existence and Essence. In the essay he has a " proof " for the existence of God that isn’t often seen. Most people interested in God’s existence are familiar with his Five Ways, but not many are familiar with his argument based on the act of existence.

First, the preamble to the argument.

1. Whatever is not of the understood content of an essence or quality is something which comes from without and makes a composition with the essence, because no essence can be understood without the things which are parts of it. Now, every essence or quiddity can be understood without anything being understood about its existence. For I can understand what a man is, or what a phoenix is, and yet not know whether they have existence in the real world. It is clear, therefore, that existence is other than essence or quiddity, unless perhaps there exists a thing whose quiddity is its existence.
2. And there can be but one such thing, the First Thing, because it is impossible to plurify a thing except: (1) by the addition of some difference, as the nature of the genus is multiplied in its species, or (2) by the reception of a form into diverse matters, as the nature of the species is multiplied in diverse individuals, or (3) by this: that one is absolute and the other is received into something; for example, if there were a separated heat, it would by virtue of its very separation be other than heat which is not separated. Now, if we posit a thing which is existence alone, such that this existence is subsistent, this existence will not receive the addition of a difference because it would no longer be existence alone, but existence plus some form. And much less will it receive the addition of matter because it would no longer be a subsistent existence, but a material existence. Whence it remains that such a thing, which is its own existence, cannot be but one.
3. Whence it is necessary, that in every thing other than this one its existence be other than its quiddity, or its nature, or its form. Whence it is necessary that existence in the intelligences be something besides the form, and this is why it was said that an intelligence is form and existence

The argument.

1. Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

Linus2nd

---

 

[sidetrack]

Anyone else’s mind rings with the word “monism” on this topic?.

 

[ynotzap]

Anyone else’s mind rings with the word “monism” on this topic?.

If by monism we mean the doctrine that there is only one ultimate principle of all reality, the answer is yes, the God who is Existence, gives existence to all reality, the spiritual as well as the physical and all truth proceeds and leads back to God