Big Bang vs. Intelligent Design... a new side - thoughts, please?

Question

One of the most important and foundational principles of the laws of physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed..."

and before I go on, I just want to say that this law, this fact, is backed by every scientist and textbook and encyclopedia in the world... (maybe not EVERY, but..) so at least wikipedia the darn thing if you don't know what you are talking about...

So, not that I am promoting intelligent design in any way, but if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, than how did nothing (that's a hard thing to imagine - actual nothingness) explode and create all of the matter in the entire ...universe...?

You are negating one of the most fundamental and proveable ever scientific beliefs in the process!

Isn't this Big Bang thing just as rediculous as intelligent design? Instead of saying "God came from nothing and created everything in the universe" you are saying "Nothing came from nothing and created everything in the universe."

?

so lets all sidestep the question then... I didn't do my homework that says "MATTER CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED"

It's pretty straightforward...

Answer 1

Can you explain why quantum mechanics and gravitational studies even with string slices cannot be properly commingled?

Mans feeble mind that only operates at less than 10% of its faculties cannot make a fully grounded law statment about matter.

- but then -

Does it really matter?

Answer 2

At a lecture by cosmologist Brian Swimme I first heard that astronomers do in fact witness something created in outer space, in an area of nothingness, no thing, a spacial vacuum. Atoms appear and disappear. Scientists do not have all of the answers. Nor do scientists discount God. What they do have is a discipline in order to avoid the kind of superstitions that were around in the middle (aka dark) ages. Otherwise a student could answer every question on their science exam with "God did it." In a "Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawkins does ask the question, what was there before the big bang.

Ether, you ask the kind of question that is broached in college. I would like to suggest taking some liberal arts evening coarses at a good university near you.

Answer 3

You are merely assuming the default state of reality is nothingness, which is an absurdity, and then concluding that there must be a creator , another absurdity, to resolve the first absurdity, all the while ignoring the realization that nothingness is not constrained by laws of causality and noncontradiction, as there is nothing to enforce them.

All you have really done is to claim that without a creator, the default state would be nothing, and then boticed that since there is not nothing, there must be a creator. If you change your initial assumption, the conclusion changes as well.

The proper conclusion from conservation of energy is that the universe has always existed in some form. You probably don't like the proper conclusion, since it's excludes a creator.

Answer 4

Great Job! I totally agree! For as long as we know ppl have rejected the law of causailty. If I knock over my computer you'll think "who knocked it over? Was it pulled? Could it of been the desk? In this "effect" we are now living in, they have tried to explain a world without cause.

Other arguments ive heard of was "how does disorder become order?" History proves that it the opposite that which is in order tend to become disorder (does that make sence? someone posted it on another question) OR that if the evolution is correct how did we come with a universal moral law? (which some admit we have others dont, this is a HUGE topic cant explain in too much detail) OR me just being curious ...

Who came 1st, the male or the female?? If one was w/o the other, they CANT exist. (unless someone tries to say they are asexual, but c'mon)

Answer 5

Dear Ether:

°°° you write: "One of the most important and foundational principles of the laws of physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed..." "

I don't know where you found such a "truth", but:

- there are scientific observations according to which matter is destroyed by anti-matter;

- some scientific theories predict that void fluctuations would create matter.

Answer 6

Most people refer to a very short period of time (about 1 trillionthof a second) of rapid expansion of matter as the "big bang." The same people also make note of the fact that prior to this rapid expansion, there was a similar contraction. See: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

Answer 7

I think that both theories can be completely compatible, at least I subscribe to both theories. Why is it so hard to believe that when God did create the earth, he created it or "let things happen" through natural, evolutionary processes. Most of the Bible was written in figurative language, so I think it's foolish to take everything that the Bible states LITERALLY. After all, the Bible also authorizes stoning prostitutes to death and authorizes a husband to beat his wife and children. I think that the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God, but who were also fallible/human, so their interpretations were also mistakenly incorporated into the writing.

Answer 8

Please bear in mind that the Big Bang theory, like evolutionary theory, is a hypothesis. That is to say: this is the working model that we have of how it works, and we are improving it all the time. As opposed to religious doctrine, which states: this is absolute truth, complete, no more questions.

To me, it makes more sense to say "based on the best scientific evidence, this is what we think happened" and admit gaps, or questionable areas.

Incidentally, gravity is a theory too... it could be all our guardian angels pushing down on us... but no one seems to be upset with Einstein on a religious level... probaby because there is no ego involved there... ^_^

Answer 9

You answered your own question and don't even realize it do you?
I'll give you a hint, it has to do with cycles.
Matter collapses and collects into one ultradense unit and then when it can't support itself anymore, it explodes outwards. Then it collapses again and again and again.
Who knows how many times this has happened or will continue to happen?
When the planet you're standing on is 4.5billion years old, time becomes meaningless in such a discussion.

Answer 10

But a supreme being makes much more sense in my opinion. Two atoms uniting and creating an entire endless amount of galaxies with humans that coexist in a perfect atmosphere....just doenst seem to likely.