Does matter exist independently by itself? Need your opinion on this please?

Question

I am asking in R&S. I mean if matter exist on its own with no creator

Answer 1

Can Life Emerge From Non-Living Matter?

No one has ever observed the creation of life from non-living matter, or spontaneous generation. Even given ideal laboratory conditions, scientists haven't been able to create life from non-living matter. Life has been found only to come from life. This has been seen so consistently that it's called the Law of Biogenesis.

Even if scientists could demonstrate spontaneous generation, it's unlikely that life on earth began this way. Two basic components of life, proteins and DNA, have characteristics that make their spontaneous generation unlikely. Proteins couldn't have evolved if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, because the parts that make up proteins, amino acids, can't join in the presence of oxygen. There had to be oxygen in the atmosphere, however. Without oxygen, there could be no ozone in the upper atmosphere and without the ozone layer, the sun's ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. How then, can evolution explain both ozone and life?

Scientists have also found that the long chains of amino acids necessary for life cannot be formed in water. This fact seriously impacts the theory that life began in "the waters of some unknown seacoast."

The creation of DNA, the basic building block of life presents an interesting evolutionary problem. DNA cells contain thousands of genes that direct the functioning of living beings, including inherited characteristics, growth, organ and system structure. The DNA for each species is unique. Certain protein molecules or enzymes must be present for DNA to replicate, however those enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA -- the DNA itself has the blueprint for the specific enzymes it needs to replicate. Each depends on the other and both must be present for replication to take place. How evolution could explain this has never been answered.
How Was the First Living Molecule Formed?

Evolutionists think that the early earth contained a primordial "soup", consisting of all the components necessary for life. Through random processes, the components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes. Let's look at the mathematical chances for life to come about in this way.

Probabilities Show Random Processes Cannot Create Life

The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred".



All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed.


The gray box describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

Insufficient Time For Creation Of Even Simplest Organisms

Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process occurred over billions of years, so they feel there was plenty of time to make all the necessary trial combinations and eventually get the correct ones. Let's test this theory for "Fred".

Astronomers estimate the universe to be less than 30 billion years old, which is 1018 seconds. Let's assume that it takes a billionth of a second for components to combine to form a trial 100 component "Fred". Let's also assume that the number of electrons in the universe, 1080, is representative of the number of basic components available for trial combinations of "Fred". This would allow 1078 trial combinations of 100 component "Fred" to occur at a time. With these assumptions, from the origin of the universe until today, 10105 trial combinations could be made (1018 x 109 x 1078). Unfortunately, to be sure to get a functioning "Fred" we would need 10158 combinations. The chance of one of our 10105 combinations being the correct, functioning "Fred" is approximately one chance in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (1 in 1053). It would take over three billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years to try all the possible combinations to be sure to create Fred. Written out, that's over 3, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 years.

There hasn't been nearly enough time to create even simple "Fred" in the universe's supposed 30,000,000,000 years of existence!




Calculating Probabilities

As an example, let's assume only two components are required to form a living system, say X and Y. If they came together in the form XY, the system would function. If they came together as YX, it would not work. The probability of a functioning system randomly forming with these two components would be 1 in 2.

For a system requiring three components to function: there are six possible ways that three components could combine: XYZ, XZY, YXZ, YZX, ZXY, ZYX. Only one of the six combinations would work. We can express the probability or chance that the correct combination of three components would occur as 1 in 6.

For larger numbers of components, it is easier to calculate the number of possible combinations of the components by multiplying the numbers from 1 to the number of components together. This is called the factorial.

To find the number of possible combinations for our two component system, we compute 2 factorial, or 1x2=2 possible combinations. For three components, the calculation is 3 factorial or 1x2x3=6; for four components: 4 factorial or 1x2x3x4=24.

The number of possible combinations gets very large very quickly as the number of components increase. For example, the number of possible combinations of ten elements is 10 factorial, or 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10 = 3,628,800. The probability of chance formation of a ten element system is 1 in 3,628,800. For chance formation of an eleven element system, the probability is 1 in 39,916,800.

Answer 2

Before answering this question we need to know what the word Matter stands for?

When we say "matter" generally we think of only the objective universe constituted by variegated objects, things and beings etc. But indeed the very term matter connotes "change in a constant flux". That means along with the external objects, one's own innner perceptions,feelings and thoughts also falls under the category of matter, for they are constantly changing. And this change to be perceived there must be an underlying changeless factor. To observe all the objects, perceptions,feelings and thoughts along with their modifications we need a changeless and immutable observer. That observer is the Consciousness. If not for this Consciousness the enchanting play of matter doesn't exist. It is the consciousness which makes the matter to exist. No consciousness No matter.
So Matter doesn't exist independent of the Consciousness.

Answer 3

I saw a fallen tree and wondered if it made a noise. Heisenberg might say that if it did, and you were there to witness it, it could have made a slightly different noise. So by deciding to be somewhere, you have altered the universe in one way or another.

There are things we do not consider matter, like that decision to be somewhere. Ideas and feelings seem non-material, we can't measure them by any standard scientific method.

Will matter still exist without these things? Perhaps, but matter would certainly exist differently. Without, say, a being's artistic vision, talent and passion, there would only be stone, clay and pigment, but not much more. Sand won't become computer chips, bauxite ore doesn't turn into CD's, plants won't become peanut-butter sandwiches, rice grains and tea leaves won't bolster an empire.

Answer 4

Seeing that the question is under Religion and Spirituality, are you asking if matter exists independently without God?

Well theists will definitely say no. One of St. Thomas's proofs deal with all of creation pointing to its creator and is dependent on that creator.

Answer 5

What you really mean is If a tree falls in the forest with no one to listen, does it make a sound?

The answer seems to be yes, although not like you think. Consider Schrodinger's cat:

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html

While the cat is in the bag, it exists in two separate and equally real states of dead and alive. Things continue to exist and events occur just by themselves in total isolation, only they are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics instead of normal physics. As soon as you look inside the bag, reality as we know it reasserts itself.

Answer 6

No, matter has a first cause.
I Cr 13;8a
12-4-6

Answer 7

Need more information. This reads like a question leading up to a question.

Answer 8

You need to watch a movie literally titled "What the Bleep Do We Know?" If that doesn't answer this question for you, I don't know what will.

Answer 9

Matter exists independent of what? And, what do you mean by itself?

Qualify your question, please. More info.

Answer 10

Everything is connected.