On The Eternity of Matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dom_Malquisto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dom_Malquisto

Guest
The question is about the old problem of eternity of matter. I know that some ancient and medieval philosophers such as Aristotle and Avicenna argued on that subject. We have here not only christians thinkers but jews and islamics. In short, the three major monotheistic religions. Indeed It’s a philosophical question.

I did not have enough time to search through those questionings and arguments. It appears to reflect on the concept of real infinitum and the Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel. By the way, I would thanks if someone could explain briefly to me (if possible) about this questioning.

The main thing is, why can’t I, by ways of logic, accept the eternity of matter? In other words, that the matter always existed instead of that God always existed (as said in Aquinas).

I think that it’s not a good argument saying that “everything must have a cause”, because using this, one raised the statement(?) that in spite of some phenomena doesn’t evidence a cause, we can’t neither say that it does have a cause nor that it doesn’t have. They were talking about virtual particle (physics).

I’m asking this because it’s a stuck point on my debates, specially with atheists.

Sorry for any grammatical error. please correct me.

Thanks to all.
 
Great question. From my understanding, Danwkins’ use of the word “nothing” in explaining how something could come from nothing, for Atheists, actually is refering to something. I saw a debate between him and Cardinal George Pell in Sydney where he referred to someone, though I can’t remember on the spot, who is theorizing that since matter and anti-matter cancel each other out, left alone the proces might work in reverse. That’s how he dealt with the question at least.

I think it’s a neat way of him admitting that sure, something has to have always existed. That being said, I think that defending matter is really inadequate when you think about it. It sounds weird to ask, but if there is some eternal matter from which all things come, then why didn’t it start creating sooner rather that later? I don’t find this so much a question of the first thing but the first action. What was the first thing that happened? Atleast with God we can say that He was and is the first and eternal act. He’s also a person able to choose to do this and that. With matter we ask, why this? Because it’s a logical necessity? Sure, but why did it have to create something else? Could I ever get some eternal matter and get rid of it? That last one was for fun, but yes those are my thoughts.
 
Dom_Malquisto said:
The main thing is, why can’t I, by ways of logic, accept the eternity of matter? In other words, that the matter always existed instead of that God always existed…
Click to expand...
Matter doesn’t really exist anyway, it’s just a sort of theoretical universal construct. Analyze matter down to it’s most basic components and there’s nothing there. So, I guess my question for atheiets is: since matter isn’t really there, how can you be talking to me?
 
There is more and more scientific and cosmological evidence of the Big Bang theory. And in that theory, the universe and all created things in it had a beginning.

Please note that there is a high probability that the shape of the universe is flat hence infinite (yet expanding - more space) and if so was born infinite.
 
William Lane Craig says the argument goes “anything that BEGAN to exist must have a cause”.

not anything that exists.
 
Heres how it works. ( the fun thing about posting is sounding like a boss

We are the achievement of the collision of light toward and out of the search and journey of light, through space to express its properties ( constant-actual self and origin of light-abundance of element)

So the rock goes through space looking to express itself , out of itself and is satisfied when it is stopped by a big planet…or big rock. The little rock is now scattered about and express’s the laws of its environment and its crumbled properties making up its composition.

In humanity light finally finds its purpose in joining the element from its origin and is able to self express its constant nature in the inner actual self. The…actual self…is a measure , a non relative measure and only identifiable on its own, without the interference of concept or idea for preservation, including the on-going silent relationship with …known self.

The concept of the human being:

Actual self…known self…socially understood self…Three distinct in One…This is the how we are made in Gods image…

Our job is to satisfy the the objective which light has set out in self explaining its property.

Light is different, it is the only constant, our actual self complies…but

our job is to bring what?..a determination in content to the actual self.

The only way to bring a decided determination of content to the actual self is to include a meaning which is void of the finite. Remember the idea of motion in light is in fact a constant, the content which can bring greater content into the actual self MUST be void of material relative significance.

So logically we are on the right track.

Imagine an illuminated cell, now imagine your actual self bringing a quantity of content to that cell…now the illuminated cell of light has achieved its purpose in finding a way to express all of its properties. You can draw a picture of yourself(content) in the cell of light. Thats how it is and the cell remains in infinity with added content-you as it is not relative to matter any longer, it is in union . Creation is actually romantic in many ways.We could cross reference gender , social…theres just no end to it
So thats how it works.
 
I just re read this and will make an adjustment in the last , I think sentence.

Thats how it is and the cell remains in infinity with added content-you as it is not relative in a consequential indifference to matter any longer, it is in union

( so added , in a consequential indifference.
 
CTuck said:
I saw a debate between him and Cardinal George Pell in Sydney where he referred to someone, though I can’t remember on the spot, who is theorizing that since matter and anti-matter cancel each other out, left alone the proces might work in reverse. That’s how he dealt with the question at least.
Click to expand...
If I got it, you’re talking about the inverse of putting in contact matter and anti-matter. By my low knowledge on the issue it will result in energy (the “natural” way); that is, you may want to make matter and anti-matter from energy. I don’t know more than this, but it sounds empirically consistent.

When I said about virtual particles, I was talking about a phenomenon which matter and anti-matter (if I’m not wrong) apparently appears from a “nothing”, collide and return to this “nothing.” This was being said to be some kind of proof that the cause-consequence principle (in logics) was refuted, since there is a phenomenon which configures on a effect without cause. They were using this to say that the universe could be spontaneous, not coming from anywhere else (creatio ex nihilo?). The maximum I reached was that they were been mistaken on that point. How could they concluded this? It stills seems logically inconsistent to think that something can come from nothing (and when I say God’s creation, though I believe this can happen, it’s still logically inconsistent. But God isn’t bound to our logically, indeed).
40.png
CTuck:
I think it’s a neat way of him admitting that sure, something has to have always existed. That being said, I think that defending matter is really inadequate when you think about it. It sounds weird to ask, but if there is some eternal matter from which all things come, then why didn’t it start creating sooner rather that later? I don’t find this so much a question of the first thing but the first action. What was the first thing that happened?
Click to expand...
Actually I’m saying that as we can say that God always existed, as he doesn’t began to exist, why can’t they say that matter always existed, using the same argument? No I’m not excluding the theory of Big Bang, but including it. I may talk about the Big Crunch, or even on Nietzches’ thoughts on a cyclic universe. I know that maybe I extended this too much, but it’s just to get the idea. Their arguments are on:

1: Why should the universe had a beginning?
2: If so, this universe needs to be the first?
3: Can’t the universe be a cycle of self destroying and creation?

I think after all that it all lays on the thoughts of Stephen Hawking, and my question is how refute those thoughts.
Julia Mae:
Matter doesn’t really exist anyway, it’s just a sort of theoretical universal construct. Analyze matter down to it’s most basic components and there’s nothing there. So, I guess my question for atheiets is: since matter isn’t really there, how can you be talking to me?
Click to expand...
What you mean by that “nothing”? By nothing I understand the negation of what exists, the non-exists, where relies that nothing. This is why there are no definition for nothing besides that it doesn’t exist, as evil may be the negation of good (the non-good). By that way, I may think that matter doesn’t exist, and I’m not talking physically but in a universe set of real, this may looks illogical. Perhaps an allusion to early Gnosticism and moreover to Parmenides’ negation of movement and denial of the senses.
 
i hate these infinitely long posts

condense and to the point please
 
itullian said:
i hate these infinitely long posts

condense and to the point please
Click to expand...
Here we are then:

1: Why should the universe had a beginning?
2: If so, this universe needs to be the first?
3: Can’t the universe be a cycle of self destroying and creation?
 
The Solution part 1. Matter undergoes change, whether of constitution or position.
The Solution part 2. But every change happened a finite time ago.
The Solution part 3. Therefore, matter cannot be eternal.

That’s all there is to it, pumpkins. 😃
 
empther said:
The Solution part 1. Matter undergoes change, whether of constitution or position.
The Solution part 2. But every change happened a finite time ago.
The Solution part 3. Therefore, matter cannot be eternal.

That’s all there is to it, pumpkins. 😃
Click to expand...
But the fact that matter undergoes change on constitution or position don’t mean that it started to exist. In a statement like that, the movement is eternal, in past and on future. So, the idea that the universe can condense and expand indefinitely.

I think that just saying about the nature of movement is too classical in mechanics. Maybe it’s not a strong enough argument. However you putted a interesting point here.
 
Dom_Malquisto said:
What you mean by that “nothing”? By nothing I understand the negation of what exists, the non-exists, where relies that nothing. This is why there are no definition for nothing besides that it doesn’t exist, as evil may be the negation of good (the non-good). By that way, I may think that matter doesn’t exist, and I’m not talking physically but in a universe set of real, this may looks illogical. Perhaps an allusion to early Gnosticism and moreover to Parmenides’ negation of movement and denial of the senses.
Click to expand...
How about just looking at the physics? What do you think “matter” is? Whatever the answer, when you analyze that down it’s components, there’s nothing there. Reality, as some call Time, is just an event horizon.
 
Dom_Malquisto said:
But the fact that matter undergoes change on constitution or position don’t mean that it started to exist.
Click to expand...
If matter has always existed, there are two histories to consider:

1.) A history in which matter has always existed, but began to change – but how could it have begun to change?
2.) A history in which matter has always existed, and has always changed – but this would entail the logical impossibility of an infinite regression.
 
Julia_Mae said:
How about just looking at the physics? What do you think “matter” is? Whatever the answer, when you analyze that down it’s components, there’s nothing there. Reality, as some call Time, is just an event horizon.
Click to expand...
No self respecting physicist or scientist would say this let alone agree with you.

It is so sad when people throw in technical or high sounding words, like ‘event horizon’ - evident from your post that you don’t even know what it means - to appear knowledgeable.
 
ivebeenshown said:
If matter has always existed, there are two histories to consider:

1.) A history in which matter has always existed, but began to change – but how could it have begun to change?
2.) A history in which matter has always existed, and has always changed – but this would entail the logical impossibility of an infinite regression.
Click to expand...
That’s it! Is the phenomena of change accountable?
 
It is so sad when people throw in technical or high sounding words, like ‘event horizon’ - evident from your post that you don’t even know what it means - to appear knowledgeable. \
Click to expand...
Right on, fms ! 👍

Although the person who used the expression ‘event horizon’ is listed as Catholic,
we see this technique used all the time by the A-team.

They’ll use long posts filled with convoluted claims that have no continuity, because the terms they used are so ill-defined.

I could say a ‘flying blue whale’ would prove gravity is weaker than we thought, but it wouldn’t make sense because it’s not about a real situation.
Sombody else said:
Is the phenomena of change accountable?
Click to expand...
Does anybody even know what that means? 🤷
You can’t tell if he’s for or against something. :hey_bud:
 
CTuck said:
That’s it! Is the phenomena of change accountable?
Click to expand...
Accountable according to what criteria, accountable by whom, by which ablative of agency? Is any thing other-than-change accountable? Is permutability the universal predicate of the extant? Is change the aseity of the ontic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top