Matter Cannot be Destroyed – or Created
Matter as we know it can be neither created nor destroyed, only converted. All we can see, measure, and know shows us that matter and energy have always existed (a difficult concept to grasp, but far easier than saying the same thing about a deity which himself breaks those laws). So our question becomes: “Does a being live today that possesses the ability to break the laws of physics as we know them and create the universe”
Sadly and anticlimactically, we can soon end the discussion.
Since the laws of physics are well defined and tested, we would need ample evidence that the laws of physics have been broken or at least horribly misunderstood. However, we have none. We have no evidence anywhere that matter or energy has been created from non-matter. There is no evidence that this ever occurred, and we have no valid theories that would support such an instance. Separating the topic from the “existence of a god that can change the laws of physics” to one where no gods are involved – a situation where the laws of physics are said to have been broken and matter has been created from nothingness -- will yield an unbiased answer.
There cannot be a god.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.
There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?
If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?
Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.
This is a known law of science , which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.
This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.
So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.
However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.
Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"
Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says:
"Everything tends towards disorder"
So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true.. And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic...
. God created everything in the beginning, winding it up like a great clock, so to speak. Because of sin and the curse, however, it has been running down and "perishing" ever since. Jesus also said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away" (literally, "are passing away") (Matthew 24:35)" - Waxing Old, like a Garment by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Things wear down. Nothing gets better by itself.
If I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in, you would think this was absurd to say the very least.
Yet in essence this is what the Big Bang theory teaches.
The Big Bang theory also teaches that in another 80 to 100 billion years, all of the matter that makes up our Earth and solar system will become compressed again, drawing in on itself and fold up once again into a tiny dot.
A Big Bang is said to occur every 80 to 100 billion years.
If the Big Bang theory is true, then I sure hope Jesus comes back soon, otherwise we’re all going to get squished!
As absurd as the "Big Bang" theory is, it is widely accepted because the only other choice is a Divine Creator. And some people will believe the most ridiculous theory, rather than even entertaining the possibility that there could be a Creator.
As I see it, there are only 2 choices.
Either someone created the Earth,
or the Earth created itself..
(despite all the known Laws of Science saying it couldn't have happened this way).
Now there are those who say that maybe God used the "big bang" to create the world.
Well, God is God, and he can do anything he wants but scripture tells us that this is not how he created.
God’s creation was one of order, not random processes.
Those who try to reconcile the Big Bang with scripture do themselves and the Bible injustice. For the Creation account and the Big Bang differ greatly in the order of events. (If you do not see a chart below, then your browser does not support "tables")
Order of events in the Biblical account of Creation, compared to the order of events in the Big Bang theory.
Biblical Creation Big Bang
bible BIG BANG
Earth was created before the stars Earth formed long after the stars
Plants were created a few hours before the sun. Plants formed after the sun formed
The sun was created on the fourth day after the earth The sun formed before the earth
The sun, moon and stars were created at the same time The sun formed from older stars
The best evidence against the Big Bang is the existence of Polonium Halos.
American physicist Robert V. Gentry's research shows that rocks known as Precambrian granites were created almost instantly as a part of the creation (as recorded in Genesis 1:1) and "are not the product of the evolution of the earth."
CREDITED TO : http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
I agree that matter cannot be created or destroyed but that does not prove anything about the existence of God. I belong to a Christian religion that teaches that matter co-exists with God and that God created the world and all that is in it by "organizing" pre-existing matter. Nor does the statement about the nature of matter tell us everything there is to know about matter. For instance, matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. The essence of that truth is mind boggling in its importance. The mere idea that we can prove that God does not exist by reliance on our imperfect and incomplete knowledge of the nature of matter simply shows what babes in the woods we are about physics and the natural laws upon which God has hung his creations. In prehistoric times every happenstance that was not understood was credited to God as a miracle. We still do that today but our knowledge of the world and the laws of physics has greatly increased. So we pronounce fewer miracles, but they do still exist. God simply utlilises nature in ways we do not fully understand. If we knew everything we would be Gods ourselves. But please don't deny God because we think we already know everything. What arrogance!
Fact is energy or matter can not be destroyed. They can only be modified from one form to another.
It is timeless. All things are created from it. Energy is GOD.
Anything else said is a mans interpretation - presentation subject to misrepresentation.
...but it is not a zero-sum game. Energy is used in the conversion, and that energy is not able to be recaptured to be turned back in to matter. Consider the light emitted by all the stars. Light can be trapped by black holes, but even black holes have been theorized to evaporate. And then there is the second law of thermodynamics, but that is a minor issue. This leads to another theory which has the universe dying a 'heat death ' due to lack of energy.
If indeed there is a god and he did create the universe 'ex nihilo' then it follows that there were no laws of physics involved in such an act. It does not follow that we must have 'ample evidence' of the breaking of such laws as it is not clear that creation is still underway. As for theories, there was a time when the sun orbited the earth and the earth was the center of all things. No other theories existed...until Galileo took a hard look at what was going on. One need not have theories to have reality.
There may be a god, but we may simply lack the tools to see him. Perhaps he doesnt want us to see him directly as that might overwhelm our free will in choosing to believe or not believe in his existence. Or, perhaps he is very visible yet we decide to define him out of our existence because the existence of such a being would be too troublesome. And it also may be that we are simply unable to see god because of who he is.
I belive the law of conservation of mass actually does the opposite of what you are saying. It disproves the Big Bang theory that states we came from nothing but a few chemicals that collided and formed earth and humans overtime through the process of evolution , which is also a theory. Both the Big Bang and Evolution theories are theories because they cannot be proven. But yet we got here somehow right? Why can't we figure out how we got here then? Is it possible that discovering the reason we are here and where we are going when we die involves having faith in something you cannot see? Honey, seeing is not believing, but believing is seeing. Just look at your body. It wasn't until I began studying to be a nurse and studying the anatomy and physiology of the human body that I realized how truly complex and beautiful it is. You are a creation. You are a work of art. You are a masterpiece. Every creation, every work of art, and every masterpiece has a creator, an artist, and a master. You are the most beautiful creation of all, made for a specific purpose - created with the ability to think, feel, reproduce, and love. If you have faith, evidence supporting God's existence is all around you.
"It disproves the Big Bang theory that states we came from nothing but a few chemicals that collided and formed earth and humans overtime through the process of evolution , which is also a theory.'
Actually the Big Bang theory does not say that everything came from nothing, nor does evolution say that a few chemicals collided to form humans.
"Both the Big Bang and Evolution theories are theories because they cannot be proven. But yet we got here somehow right? Why can't we figure out how we got here then?"
The best descriptions that we have for those two processes are the current Expansionary Model (the big bang) and the Modern Synthesis theory (evolution).
"It wasn't until I began studying to be a nurse and studying the anatomy and physiology of the human body that I realized how truly complex and beautiful it is. You are a creation. You are a work of art. You are a masterpiece."
I'm surprised that a nurse would say that!
The human body is amazingly complex, but if we look at it from an intentionally designed point of view it is a terrible example. Our eyes contain a built in blind spot, as well as being virtually blind... our spines are incredibly awkward and prone to failure, our reproductive process is full of leftovers from previous species ( babies in the womb grow fur at one point, only to lose it later on), the prostate is just begging for problems...
Yes, I am a future nurse and I did just say that because I meant it. If you do not see the beauty your body and this world possess, then you are blind to it. I can see all of it's beauty and it constantly amazes me. I think that makes me a great person for the medical field.
Albert Einstein said the more he studied the universe, the more he belived in a higher power. The idea of God is not crazy. It actually makes perfect sense. But science will not even consider it. Why?
If the Big Bang and Theory of Evolution are the best theories science can come up with to explain how we got here, then they need to come up with different theories because these two are flawed. The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. All the stuff that is on earth now is all the stuff that we will ever have. It cannot be destroyed and new matter cannot be formed. All it can do is change forms and states. Then how do you explain the Big Bang Theory? Did chemicals collide and form our earth? Or was all the matter of the earth just already there? Well if they believe all the matter was just there, then science has not discovered how our earth was formed. Something needed to put that matter there. Something bigger than us.
And Evolution? The Second Law of Thermodynamics discussed the principle of entropy: That nature tends to decay overtime and things go from complex to simple. But the THEORY of evolution states that we started out as single-celled organisms and slowly evolved into human beings. Nature helped us adapt to our environment ? Well, how could nature do that when a LAW of this earth states that over time nature decays matter and organisms (as in when we die) and things of this earth will go from complex to simple? This theory contradicts a proven law .
“Yes, I am a future nurse and I did just say that because I meant it. If you do not see the beauty your body and this world possess, then you are blind to it. I can see all of it's beauty and it constantly amazes me. I think that makes me a great person for the medical field.”
I am not saying that the body is not beautify, or that it is not a source of amazement… but if it is designed that our bodies are an example of profoundly poor design.
Albert Einstein said the more he studied the universe, the more he belived in a higher power. The idea of God is not crazy. It actually makes perfect sense. But science will not even consider it. Why?
“The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. All the stuff that is on earth now is all the stuff that we will ever have. It cannot be destroyed and new matter cannot be formed. All it can do is change forms and states. Then how do you explain the Big Bang Theory?”
This is consistent with the Big Bang Theory… which does not postulate the creation of matter from nothing, but rather the expansion of the underlying space time.
“Did chemicals collide and form our earth? Or was all the matter of the earth just already there? Well if they believe all the matter was just there, then science has not discovered how our earth was formed. Something needed to put that matter there. Something bigger than us.”
Some of the matter from that nebula that the sun formed from accreted into the planets. This nebula contained virtually all the matter that is now found in the solar system (with the possible exception of stray asteroids or comets that may have been picked up since then).
“And Evolution? The Second Law of Thermodynamics discussed the principle of entropy: That nature tends to decay overtime and things go from complex to simple.”
In a closed system (one where no additional energy being added), add an external energy source (like say a huge ball of hydrogen and helium undergoing fusion) and entropy can appear to be reversed. If you view the whole system (earth and sun) you will see the net loss.
“This theory contradicts a proven law .”
As I explained above it does not, entropy is reduced locally because we have the sun adding energy (with a few other sources, like geothermal energy, coming in a distant second)
It's mass can not be created or destroyed not matter. Energy has mass. Get the science right.
Can you elaborate on that statement? Energy is such a broad term after all.
If I carry a ball up to the top of a hill does it gain mass? Does a photon have mass?
"If I carry a ball up to the top of a hill does it gain mass?"
The ball or the hill?
"Does a photon have mass?"
No.
Does the ball gain mass? It is gaining energy (potential)
Photons have (are) energy, if energy has mass then why don't photons have mass?
I can make no more sence out of science then you can make out of religion . Well, maybe a little.
If you do not understand the Science then why do you keep making unsupported Scientific arguments?
I understand enough to know that you are twisting it to support your anti-religious attitudes. Why do you make judgments on religious ideas you have no understanding of?
“I understand enough to know that you are twisting it to support your anti-religious attitudes.”
Can you give specific examples of where I have ‘twisted’ Science to support my anti-religious beliefs?
“Why do you make judgments on religious ideas you have no understanding of?”
I only make judgments on statements that seem to intrude into the realm of Science or physical reality. Debate the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin, or the average rate of souls passing through St. Peters gates and I’ll have nothing to say… but start talking about irreducible complexity or otherwise misrepresenting Science and I’ll be sure to have a few words to share.
Your original statement was that it was not matter but mass that could not be created or destroyed, and that energy has mass. The first bit is true, it is mass that is conserved in a closed system … and the argument is poorly worded in that sense. However in a closed classical system matter it can also be said that matter is conserved (and I think it would be accurate to say that most of the population would not understand the difference between mass and matter).
Your statement about energy having mass was also rather puzzling… Mass and energy are equivalent in special relativity (Energy is equal to the relativistic mass times the speed of light squared), thus energy ‘has’ mass and mass ‘has’ energy… but this is where things start getting tricky! If I measure the mass of a single particle as it flies buy me I will get its relativistic mass, but if I then match velocities and directions with the particle and measure its mass I will get its invariant mass (a smaller number).
Since energy can never be created or destroyed and subatomic particles have mass. I assumed that there expert confused matter for mass. He then understands science less then I do.
If the laws of physics apply then why is matter destroyed in a Black Hole?
I think there is a God and I have no idea why He created you.
Matter is not destroyed when it enters a black hole... it adds to the mass.
There are questions about entropy in relation to black holes... specifically do black holes 'destroy' information.
All we realize only exists in our mind.
Matter can be destroyed. See Stephen Hawking's 2005 essay on Information Loss in Black Holes. The entropy of a black whole is considered below:
S = (c^3)(kA)/(4)(hbar)(G)
where S is the entropy, c is the speed of light, k is Boltzmann's constant, A is the surface area of the event horizon, ħ (hbar) is the reduced Planck's Constant and G is the gravitational constant.
If the above equation is found to be absolutely true, that the entropy of black holes consume physical information, human beings would have to wonder by what catalyst matter is created?
I to have always had strong beliefs about god and the universe and have as well made my decision about religion and I do not believe in a god. But if matter can not be created nor destroyed, where did it all start out at? The BIg Boom theory states that the universe was like a balloon which under compression finally exploded causing a chemical reaction beginning life in our universe and our universe itself. But something can not come from nothing. How did the first universe come to be? My argument has always been "we are still discovering this answer" but i have yet to see scientists evaluate this answer any further than I myself have. Any words of comfort?
You are very smart.. The Law of Conservation does go against the Big Bang Theory. The Law of Conservation is a law - it has proven to be true. The Big Bang Theory is often treated like a law by scientists. It is taught in public schools but it has not been proven and is therefore known as a theory. The Law of Conservation you can believe for sure. The Big Bang Theory contradicts the law , therefore, you should not believe it. You are not alone, a lot of people think that we are still looking for the right answer to how we got here, but you are right, scientists have not found the answer. It is the biggest question of all. We are advancing in so many other ways but we cannot find the answer to this. It is because the answer involves faith? I would encourage you to be open-minded to Christianity and God. I would encourage you to study the human body and look at the world around you. How every part of your body works together to form you. How we have certain needs such as food , water , and oxygen, and how all these needs are met for us here on Earth. Earth is the one planet that we know of that is capable of sustaining life because it is placed in the perfect spot... not too close to the sun, yet not too far away. Is this by chance and coincidence or was it planned? You are a creation and a masterpiece and all creations and masterpieces have creators and masters. I encourage you to open up your heart and mind to all possiblities: the possibility of God. I encourage you to have faith. There is a God that created Love and loves you more than you could even imagine. Best wishes and God Bless.
Science teaches that there is a First Cause that is infinite and beyond observation. In other words what most people call God. Forget religion . Think of the universe as a large pool of energy . Every action or thought causes energy, ripples across the pond, the butterfly effect. Creation is the interaction of all the ripples.
The universe cannot be infinetly old, according to my very limited knowledge, because heat flows from warm to cold bodies. If the universe has always existed, everything should be the same temperature. Where am I wrong?
This universe hasn't always existed. It had a beginning and it will cease to exist when it reaches absolute zero unless something changes.
Your reasoning is nonsense and has no sound justification.
What William Carroll reminds us , “St. Thomas Aquinas developed an analysis of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo that remains one of the enduring accomplishments of Western culture. The key to Aquinas' analysis is the distinction he draws between creation and change. The natural sciences, whether Aristotelian or those of our own day, have as their subject the world of changing things: from sub-atomic particles to acorns to galaxies. Whenever there is a change there must be something that changes. The Greeks are right: from nothing, nothing comes; that is, if the verb "to come" means a change. All change requires an underlying material reality.
Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some already existing material. If, in producing something new, an agent were to use something already existing, the agent would not by itself be the complete cause of the new thing. But such a complete causing is precisely what creation is. To create is to give existence, and all things are totally dependent upon God for the very fact that they are. God does not take nothing and make something out of "it." Rather, anything left entirely to itself, separated from the cause of its existence, would be absolutely nothing. Creation is not some distant event; it is the continuing, complete causing of the existence of everything that is. Creation, thus, is a subject for metaphysics and theology, not for the natural sciences.
What is essential to Christian faith, according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or mode of the formation of the world. Aquinas' firm adherence to the truth of Scripture without falling into the trap of literalistic readings of the text offers valuable correction for exegesis of the Bible which concludes that one must choose between the literal interpretation of the Bible and modern science. For Aquinas, the literal meaning of the Bible is what God, its author, intends the words to mean. The literal sense of the text includes metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech useful to accommodate the truth of the Bible to the understanding of its readers. For example, when one reads in the Bible that God stretches out His hand, one ought not think that God has a hand. The literal meaning of such passages concerns God's power, not His anatomy. Nor ought one think that the six days at the beginning of Genesis literally refer to God's acting in time, for God's creative act is instantaneous.”
Recent speculations that the universe began as "quantum tunneling from nothing" reaffirm the ancient Greek principle that you cannot get something from nothing. For the "vacuum" of modern particle physics, whose "fluctuation" some see as bringing our universe into existence, is not absolutely nothing. It is not anything like our present universe, but it still is something. Or else, how could it fluctuate? Even if the universe were the result of the fluctuation of a primal vacuum, it would not be a self-creating universe. The need to explain the existence of things does not disappear.
So to say that matter cannot be created or destroyed just indicates its within a closed system and has no bearing on whether God brought it into existence or not.
That law, the conservation of mass-energy exhibits itself in two ways: one, therefore their cannot be absolute contingency- no Esistence -as the contingency argument so requires;two, it exhibits itself in quantum energy, whence comes matter-energy. So here, science indeed does exhibit no reason to posit a dvine creator
Science finds no cosmic teleology- no preordained plans for events in Existence. Thus arises the atelic argument that therefore one cannot posit God as behind events.
To posit God as somehow involved would be the new Omphalos argument that God hides Himself as the epistemic distance argument would endorse in effect. John L. Schellenberg observes that that distance reflects His hiddenness so much that He probably doesn't exist!
therefore,there cannot be absolute...
Citing the law of conservation of mass-energy against God/creatio ex nihilo is absurd. The law only applies after the Big Bang; in all likelihood energy conservation was violated at the Big Bang.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031106212441/http :// www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11609.html
Had the law been violated, then one might invoke Him but then one would still be saying fatuity as He is so incoherent as His properties so contradict each other as we ignostics so loudly proclaim. The law is perpetual: the present is key to the past.
One should always look for natural causes and explanations as that is our experience that makes for the presumption of naturalism. They are despite Leibniz the sufficient reason.
Ex nihilo is fatuous as it is contrary to experience and to posit nothingness is to posit nothing whatsoevr as knowledge. See Peter A.Angeles "The Problem of God: a Short Introduction."
The occult adds nothing to knowledge! As atheologian Keith Parsons notes , it merely invokes the fig leaf of ignarnce.
"All we can see, measure, and know shows us that matter and energy have always existed."
The author's statement above simply is not accurate. Big Bag theory, while certainly not an established fact, is widely accepted. According to that theory, matter as we know it did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Indeed, the physical laws of the universe that we are so familiar with did not exist. We cannot know what laws prevailed because the conditions prior to the Big Bang are beyond all experience and, so far at least, are untestable. One may well deny the Big Bang and that's fine, but the statement that matter and energy have always existed is not supported.
You said, "we would need ample evidence that the laws of physics have been broken or at least horribly misunderstood. However, we have none." The so called definitions of the laws of physics as man understands them are researched and refined every day at universities all over the world. People are still receiving PhDs and grants, so yes, there is ample proof that our understanding of physics is still being refined. Every single day.
You are seriously misinformed about the nature of scientific knowledge.
Yes, our understanding of physics is constantly being refined. However, there are some basic concepts that have been confirmed over and over again and are not in doubt. Yes, occasionally we find a special case in which an old rule seems not to apply, but that leads us to the discovery of new, broader rules, which can be simplified in each special case to the old ones. We have wholly rejected some very old theories, most of which were formulated before the idea of the scientific method was popular. (As a "scientist" Aristotle claimed that objects fall because they want to, and that projectiles move forward because that is in their nature.) However, by and large we are building upon old knowledge rather than scrapping it entirely.
One of the concepts which we come to, time and time again, in all different areas of physics, is the concept of symmetry and conservation. There are several fundamental quantities (or related pairs quantities, like energy and mass, or space and time) that follow invariance rules. Conservation of mass and energy is a very basic, foundational principle, and one which is not at all in doubt among scientists.
No need to attack. When you say things like "You are seriously misinformed about the nature of scientific knowledge." then you lose a civilized debate. Debate the topic, not the person.
I agree with you on most of your points about what science and research are. I'm an engineer, not a scientist, if you care to draw a distinction. So, I know science changes when consensus changes. God's laws of nature don't change, but the human understanding of those laws changes via peer review. No need to go back to Aristotle. Just go pull some textbooks off the shelf from the 1930s.
Yes, conservation of mass and energy are not up for debate here. This debate is about God. He is free to violate any law of physics he wants, since he created them in the first place. Look at the elegance of the universe. How could that have happened by accident? Also, if we hold to the fact of conservation of mass and energy, then how did the big bang happen?
Faith and Science are two very different things. God created the laws of nature that we call Science. No doubt, he has violated them a few times as serves his purpose. God also created the faith that humans must exercise in order to understand a bit more of him each day.
You claim to have an objection to the statement "matter cannot be created or destroyed" yet show no evidence to the contrary.
The icing on the cake of your "argument" seems to be blindly asserting that god isnt improbable; again without any proof or explanation.
Care to provide some?