Atheist believe that everything came from the Big Bang, well scientists explain to us that in the beginning there was nothing and in the flash of a light we had the universe... How did everything come from nothing? Where did that something come from if it was originally nothing?
Christians believe that God created the universe and everything in it, as it states so in Genesis Chapter 1 and 2. Everything happens because God allows it to.
What i want to know are the facts Atheists think they have on why God does not exist, and a Christian explain to them the facts that are in the Bible.
For every "fact" science has, the Bible has a better counterargument. So then why don't we begin?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Facts ?
yes
Please give me an example of what you call nothing.
"Nothing" as in, in the beginning of time scientists have stated that there was nothing but complete emptiness in the universe and then out of nowhere an explosion of light occurred thus making the universe and everything in it. So like i asked where did that something come from if it was originally nothing
Using the word “nothing” is not an example. Give me an example of nothing.
You made a claim that “scientists have stated that there was nothing but complete emptiness in the universe” you named no scientists making such a claim. Since you did not provide names, I asked for an example of nothing; however, you are unable to provide even one example: obfuscation!
No intelligent people think something came from nothing. Energy has always existed and the fact that it can't be created nor destroyed, pretty much proves it. "Nothing" is only a concept in our minds. We have not one example of "nothing" in the universe. Rather than admit you could not give an example, you refused to answer the second time I asked. Some people may refer to the beginning as nothing, but vacuum energy is still something.
There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy -- via natural processes.
Your either being dishonest about “nothing” or taking something out of context.
Firstly, the most highly regarded cosmogonic model to the origin of the Universe is the Universal Expansion ("Big Bang") theory. The implications of said theory are that all matter and energy, including physical space and time themselves, physically came into existence 13.8 billion years ago.
The first law of thermodynamics--the law which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed--breaks down at the Planck wall, or 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang.
Now, these vacuum fluctuation models have serious problems which pretty much render them obsolete.
Firstly, where did this vacuum state come from? If it has existed literally forever, and it is truly sufficient for the production of our Universe, then our Universe would have been produced forever ago, and we would observe an infinitely old universe; we do not have such observations.
Secondly, in a finite amount of time, a finite number of events will happen. Thus, in an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of events will happen. If this vacuum state were truly eternal, it would have produced an infinite number of universes at every point in the vacuum state, and we would observe our Universe merging and colliding with other universes. Once again, we do not have such observations.
shock of god - "The first law of thermodynamics--the law which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed"
That isn't the first law! Nice strawman. Also matter can be created and destroyed, that is what particle accelerators do!
Firstly, I'd like to share something with you:
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
READ MORE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
Secondly, the large hadron collider does not literally destroy particles. What it does is collides particles together a near-light speeds so that we may observe their subatomic constituents. Some of the mass may be converted to energy during this collision, but the energy/matter does not go out of existence.
Quantum mechanics allows for the creation/destruction of matter/energy. Albeit small amounts, but creation/destruction nonetheless.
Quantum mechanics does not deal with the literal creation or destruction of matter. Quantum mechanics deals with converting matter (mass) into energy, and vice versa.
I am sorry to say but shock of god is right on matter, just because he copy pasted it though.
I wonder if he understood what it is being stated there or how it actually supports any of his unsupported claims.
First of all, the law is on CLOSED systems, it does not apply on open space where secondary factors may effect the experiment.
Secondly, even if it applies for the entire universe(which is not proven yet but there is evidence for it), it does not in any way imply a god at all, it actually proves that god is not needed to create anything anymore because the universe would be infinity big and infinitely small.
It would actually prove that energy was always there and there was no creation at all, thus god is not needed.
The idea of creation is a theistic idea, in fact there is more infinite things on this planet then finite.
Every atom can be infinity divided, energy is infinite in the vacuum, numbers are infinite, etc...
Infinity and finite things are complimentary, actually the finite things are just boundaries we apply on levels of infinity like numbers.
It is a shame that our physics is mostly built on the finite things though.
Infinity is hated by most physicists and they try to remove it from the formulas as much as possible.
Energy is conserved, matter is not. For example, here is a process which destroys matter (notice we started with matter, but end with no matter):http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Feynman_Diagram_of_Electro...
This is not a matter of debate, matter is made up of 99.999% space and space has infinite energy .
Matter is a label we give to a composition of energy. Some even speculate that the 99.999999 of an atom is what is defining the nucleus and the nucleus vanishes into space when the energy changes composition.
This is one of the explanations given for the double slit experiment.
Up to this day we still do not know what the hell is an atom. We just give it a label as matter but we are still shaking our heads on what it really is made of.
The nucleus of an atom is made up of quarks that appear and disappear at the speed of light.
That means that half the time they become space. You as a human half the time become space itself.
So describing matter as a collection of energy is irrefutable.
Some suggest that you cannot destroy matter you can only change its composition in a way that it does not reappear after becoming space.
"Nothing" does not mean you destroyed matter at all. it means that its vibrations(which makes up its boundaries) are not the same.
Did you know that nothing really touches, nothing ever touched anything in the universe?
There are theories that suggest that the space around us is dividing itself to infinity and creating boundaries that we call atoms suns black holes, etc...
So to say matter is destroyed is quite incorrect, the best answer by far is that we do not know yet.
Also, for what it is worth, here is an example of the creation of matter (this time we start with no matter, and have matter at the end):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Feynman_diagram_for_P...
As I said, you are not creating anything but changing the composition of the energy in the vacuum.
Nothing is created out of nothing.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The problem lies with your definition of nothing.
The empty space is infinitely full. There is more energy in 1 cm cube of space then all the stars/black holes in the universe.
Like swimming in the sea, the fish does not feel the water because it never experienced a different medium.
Not long ago oxygen was considered nothing until it was discovered.
It is pretty arrogant to assume that somebody can create something out of nothing, everything around us says otherwise.
I don't like to spam people with off-site quotes, but clearly you aren't going to take my word for it, so I don't see an alternative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
“The closely related concept of matter conservation was found to hold good in chemistry to such high approximation that it failed only for the high energies treated by the later refinements of relativity theory”
“The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It is approximately true except in certain high energy applications.”
“A particular difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter" is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place over time, even within isolated systems.”
“Also, mass must be differentiated from matter (see below), since matter may not be perfectly conserved in isolated systems”
“However, matter is so nearly conserved in chemistry that violations of matter conservation were not measured until the nuclear age”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter:
“However, matter is not conserved in such systems, although this is not obvious in ordinary conditions on Earth, where matter is approximately conserved.”
At long last gentlemen, matter is not conserved...
Isn't matter is made of energy, doesn't it break down into energy if exposed to a sufficiently powerful energetic state? Didn't Einstein propose just that hypothesis?
Yes, let me give you an analogy: You are in a sealed room and it has 5 houses made out of lego blocks and you have no way of creating or destroying lego blocks. Each house contains 100 lego blocks. So there are 500 blocks in the room, and this number can not change: the number of lego blocks is conserved. However you can tear apart the lego houses and build lego cars with their blocks: the number of lego houses in the room can change, so it is not conserved.
To add to my above example, the known particles are sorted into 2 categories which have very different properties. Fermions (houses) and bosons (cars). Fermions and bosons are both made out of energy (blocks). However, fermions are matter, bosons are not. There are well documented interactions where you start with fermions and end with bosons (number of houses is not conserved). You will notice however that energy can be conserved (number of blocks is conserved).
your claim was that matter is created and destroyed out of nothing which does not mean not conserved at all.
Not conserved means that it state has changed, destroyed means that it is non existent anymore which I showed you that it is not the case.
Every quark in your body is appearing and disappearing at the speed of light right now. You are claiming that every time it vanishes it is being destroyed.
You claimed that your own body is being destroyed and recreated at the speed of light, which is nonsense.
You body is transitioning in a loop from the physical state and the space at the speed of light.
No destruction is taking place as far as we know up until now.
That is what I mean, matter is more a function of energy in quantum physics, isn't it. So matter isn't really being destroyed, it is being converted back into energy at that level, so the paradigm shifts. The conservation is of energy, that energy can be expressed as particle or wave or both, but it isn't lost only changed. In that sense, matter is a misnomer, because people think of it as separate from energy when it isn't. This, of course, isn't observable on a macro level; but that still doesn't change the physics. In conclusion, the vast majority of any atom, molecule, or mass is being reshaped constantly even if it appears constant.
yea you are correct, one of the theories is that energy in the vacuum is shaping everything and we do not feel it because it is in perfect equilibrium and all forces are cancelling each other out.
If you squash all the energy of the universe including the suns, black holes, etc... into 1 cm cube of space you get around 10^55 gm/cm^3.
That means a density of 10 with 54 zeros behind it. can you imagine how bright that is?
When it was calculated the RENORMALIZED(formally infinite) Vacuum density is 10^93 gm/cm^3.
Yes the entire universe is 39 orders of magnitude short then the energy of just 1 cm cube of space.
Then you find people saying that space is empty, for people who know this knowledge they appear as if they do not know what they are talking about.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/26/empty-space-has-more-...
You are quoting people that clearly are syaing that they do not understand what matter is and are taking as an assumption that if it vanishes its is not there.
They are not saying that it is being destroyed like you did.
I did not claim that matter does not disappear into the space.
I said it is not being destroyed but rather transformed into space.
Your claim was not supported with evidence.
And no I do not take your word and neither anybody's word for it but I would be glad to learn new discoveries if available.
I have studied this subject trough and no reputable scientist will dare say that he knows for sure that matter is destroyed.
If he does and does not demonstrate it then he is wrong because he is not being scientific and claiming things he cannot support.
watch this to see how much we don't know, and how much humble one must be when trying to understand what matter is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXQjRBLwsQ
Jeff - “Not conserved means that it state has changed”
No. Conserved means the quantity's derivative with respect to time is 0: If X is conserved then dX/dt = 0. dX/dt is the infinitesimal rate of change for the quantity X. If the amount of X ever increase or decreases, X is not conserved, by definition. The amount of matter in a closed system can change, therefore its derivative with respect to time is not 0, therefore it is not conserved.
Additionally, Emmy Noether proved in 1915 that any conserved quantity of a physical system exhibit a 1:1 mapping to a symmetry. For example: energy/mass conservation demands time translation symmetry, momentum conservation demands space translation symmetry, and angular momentum conservation demands space rotation symmetry. So if you want to insist that matter is conserved, please tell us the symmetry it maps to.
-------------------------
Travis Hedglin - “So matter isn't really being destroyed, it is being converted back into energy at that level, so the paradigm shifts.”
Yes, you can break matter into energy, then use the energy to create something that is not matter. The matter ceased to exist and was not replaced with other matter. We call that destroying matter or more technically annihilating it (and this process is represented mathematically by an annihilation operator). You can also take energy from a source other than matter, then use it to create matter where none existed before. We call that creation (represented by a creation operator). This is why matter is not conserved. If we want to quibble and say that isn't creation and destruction/annihilation, OK, but those are the terms used in the field.
You are trying to map conserved with destroyed but you are wrong and it is childish.
"We call that destroying matter or more technically annihilating it (and this process is represented mathematically by an annihilation operator)."
No, you call that and you are wrong. You should have said conserved and not destroyed.
just admit that you were wrong and lets move on.
Else support your claim that matter is completely destroyed into nothing.
Where is the scientific quote that says that matter is created out of nothing or destroyed into nothing?
You will find only conserved and not conserved, because they do not know if it is being destroyed or not.
That is science, they do not jump to conclusions.
You made a claim and now you expect me to support a different claim regarding something else, support yours first.
I really don't understand your complaint. Is your argument based on the idea that matter that gets annihilated isn't destroyed? Really?
"annihilated isn't destroyed"
annihilated IS destroyed
the use of destroyed or that something comes out of nothing is simply not proven or not supported by evidence.
That is all.
You are making a claim that space is empty when it has been proven that it is not and there are theories based on evidence that it is the space that is shaping all things.
Just because you can't see something, it does not mean that it was destroyed, it just means that you cannot see it anymore.
This is what we call a False Dilemma fallacy, just because you cannot see it, you are forcing the conclusion that it was destroyed.
Then you are doing a Equivocation fallacy where you are changing the meaning of "not conserved" to make it mean your original claim which was "created or destroyed".
First of all I do understand what is being stated.
Secondarily, the first law of thermodynamics does apply to the entire Universe.
Energy has not always existed, the first law of thermodynamics breaks down at the Planck wall (10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang), so that by the time we gat all the way back the Big Bang itself matter can be created or destroyed.
As far as infinity is concenred, spacetime is not infinite. The reason physicists try to remove infinity is because things cannot be objectively infinite. Infinite exists in the mathematical sense, such as numbers, but not in the objective sense, as in having an infinite number of apples.
Pages