A
Anesti33
Guest
I don’t need to, because it’s immaterial to how we live our lives, except where we have faith in God.
How to defend creation against "matter and energy have just always existed"?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
L
lelinator
Guest
Why wouldn’t I? That would be like sticking my fingers in my ears and pretending that you don’t exist. You’re so much more fascinating than that.
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
Says the solipsist. Why would it ultimately matter to you what or how anyone else thinks?
Computer generated reality . . . please. Immature sci-fi fantasy. The type of thinking that pretentious philosophy 101 students dream up in their parents’ basement.
L
lelinator
Guest
Unless you want me to accept your argument for God, then you do need to prove it. On the other hand, if you don’t care what anyone else thinks then you’re fine. It’s up to you.
L
lelinator
Guest
Because you’re amazingly fascinating. And I just love a mystery.
See what I mean…fascinating. Don’t forget what I said about that box.
Last edited:
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
If your posts are supposed to be clever or thought-provoking, they’re not. They’re just annoying.
Last reply to you. Maybe we’d have a better conversation in a different thread.
Last reply to you. Maybe we’d have a better conversation in a different thread.
L
lelinator
Guest
Actually I was trying to channel Bradski…I was going for snarky.
Ehhhhh…maybe. But you need to loosen up a bit. Dogma don’t impress me much.
S
Servant31
Guest
I was a physics major in college (not sure that it would be helpful here, and was a loooong time ago) so I’ll try to hit a few ideas.
Each theory is based on mans best attempts to make sense of what is observed. Light behaves a certain way, but as we understand it more and more things get more complicated (wavelike behavior). Without the necessary observational advances we simply couldn’t even begin to form a hypothesis. However it still existed long before our observational methods were capable of making it an understandable problem.
I’m often reminded of the discussion between Einstein and Bohr:
Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe
Bohr: Don’t tell God what to do
Some claim Einstein was an atheist, I personally haven’t bought into that. It would seem we see what we want to. But in either case it reminds us that we describe what we observe, nit that what we observe must adhere to our description
- Secular ideology adopts the null hypothesis in many circumstances. This places the onerous on the postulant, (prove your me that something exists). The problem with this type of thinking is that science is based on observation, then hypothesis. Its existence and phenomena is presupposed to exist because it is clearly observable. We less commonly ask, “does this exist”, but much more frequently, “how does that which exists work”. When something is unobservable (directly or indirectly) science simply can’t address it intelligently. The question of God really is difficult for science because it isn’t purely a scientific question. It seeks to extrapolate.
- The idea that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed presumes a universe which has always existed, in one form or another. Further, it’s eventually still a theory, highly tested surely, but still based on hypothesis which could turn out to be disproven. But disproven or proven it’s still a theory based on observation, describing the observable universe.
Each theory is based on mans best attempts to make sense of what is observed. Light behaves a certain way, but as we understand it more and more things get more complicated (wavelike behavior). Without the necessary observational advances we simply couldn’t even begin to form a hypothesis. However it still existed long before our observational methods were capable of making it an understandable problem.
I’m often reminded of the discussion between Einstein and Bohr:
Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe
Bohr: Don’t tell God what to do
Some claim Einstein was an atheist, I personally haven’t bought into that. It would seem we see what we want to. But in either case it reminds us that we describe what we observe, nit that what we observe must adhere to our description
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
And see where that got him…Tolle_Lege:
Actually I was trying to channel Bradski…I was going for snarky.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
This is just another way of saying ‘matter and energy is matter and energy’.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Why would it?
F
FiveLinden
Guest
‘They’ are responding to the claim that matter and energy ‘must’ have been ‘created’. What must they?
M
Mmarco
Guest
As a physicist, I have a very direct objection. In fact, what we call “energy” or “matter” in modern physics is described as an abstract mathematical stucture. All the properties of “energy/matter” can be expressed only as mathematical properties of
abstract mathematical models. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it.
Even if we assume that energy has always existed, the point is that energy cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if an intelligent God conceives it . Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of an intelligent God, conceiving if as a mathematrical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of an intelligent and conscious God, i.e. a personal God.
There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are. This is for me the most convincing argument against materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) and in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Sure, but you’re just arguing for infinite regress here. The real question is “why does it exist?” or perhaps “how did it come into being?”. We can’t answer that from a scientific perspective. And, “it always existed” – as a putative scientific answer – is really just a faith-based response, not one that proceeds from any empirical basis.
Same response as the first question: that’s your assertion, so don’t ask me to disprove it – demonstrate that it’s true, or admit that it’s just an opinion!
Somewhere, Decartes is facepalming…
No; it simply describes how matter and energy work in a closed system, without asking “how did they get there?”.
S
Servant31
Guest
They are using the theory that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then stating that as a reason the the universe has always existed. I agree it only works as a theory in a closed system.Servant31:
No; it simply describes how matter and energy work in a closed system, without asking “how did they get there?”.
However by stating it as a “proof” of the eternal existence of that system they are asserting the theory as the proof, which is an assumption, and circular logic.
S
Servant31
Guest
If your interested there is a near death experiencer, Dr. Eben Alexander who deals with this question specifically. He calls the scientific perspective on consciousness “reductivist materialism”, where the chemical/ electrical brain is presumed to be the origin of consciousness. The faith perspective is clearly the opposite, where the soul exists independently, but in our world tied to, the body.
L
lelinator
Guest
That’s your refutation? That I need to demonstrate that it’s true, otherwise it’s not true? Can you demonstrate that you exist anywhere other than in my mind, and if you can’t, then does that mean that you don’t?
It’s not that I’m asserting that solipsism is absolutely, positively true, I’m simply asserting that it’s possible. And it certainly appears as if you have no way of refuting that assertion. So it seems that you agree, solipsism is indeed possible.
Now as to whether or not I’m God, if I am the creator and sustainer of this reality, how am I not the God of this reality?
I do believe that you’ve underestimated Decartes. What’s knowable and what’s possible are two different things…some people seem to get those two confused.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. I’m telling you that it’s your claim, so it’s your responsibility to prove it, not my responsibility to refute it!
I don’t have to. All I have to do is ask you to demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise… just one guy’s opinion.
So… just a logical possibility? OK… I’m good with that. It goes in the category of claims like “it’s logically possible that men dressed like the Amish live in underground tunnels on the moon.”
“Logically possible” is the weakest of all assertions. It doesn’t at all assert that it’s true – just that it “could be true”, but there’s nothing to demonstrate that it’s reasonably expected to be true.
Yet, he claimed that he knew that he existed, and wasn’t the construct of some demon. “Cogito, ergo sum”, remember?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
This fact in and of itself supports a Divine Creator.The unmoved ,mover.
B
Beryllos
Guest
You have opened quite the Pandora’s Box here in the CAF/Philosophy forum. I’m glad to see a wide variety of responses.
So far, I’m not seeing much to convince your homeschool students. I certainly would not focus on physical explanations like conservation laws. You could leave it as a mystery for them to think about, guided by your personal witness of faith, hope, and love. I say mystery because they may wonder about this for a lifetime, even as they believe in God. Your job is not to answer every question, but to give them the tools and methods to face these and other questions throughout life.
With my (non-homeschool) kids, those being my own children plus my religious education students, I first tell them that these are good questions, and they should keep thinking about everything and asking questions. Then I tell them how I, as a scientist, believe that the universe was/is created by God.
My witness is mainly based on signs of God’s wisdom and love, not just in my life, but in the whole universe. We examine the physical universe and we see order and beauty at every scale from atoms to galaxies. The fundamental properties of space, time, matter, and energy seem to be fine-tuned, as if to make the universe more full of possibilities.
Even disorder and destruction seem to have a purpose. A star explodes with extreme violence, and it provides elements needed elsewhere for life. Genetic damage and transcription errors sometimes cause cancer, but also make evolution possible, effectively drawing order from disorder. High-performing systems like the human brain tend to operate near the boundary between creativity and chaos, and I think it has to be that way.
To me, all these reveal the existence of a wise, generous, and loving Creator.
You have your own life experiences and reasons for faith. How can you communicate them within your homeschool program?
Last edited:
- Status