In the beginning…
2009 April 17
I think we can get beyond the thoughts of do we exist. Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” ( I think, therefor I am.) should work for this debate. If not…well I don’t guess it really matters because this isn’t even happening. Ugh. Well, if we are here, and I believe we are, then we came from something. Now the question I am about to pose is not how did the universe begin, we can get to that. Instead, going a bit deeper, to the first and smallest molecule of matter.
“Where did matter come from?”
I am excited to see where this leads us. If you haven’t looked yet. Take a minute to check the rules in the “What’s it all about?” tab above.
Where do the science books say matter begins?
By the primitive germ. There’s more to this if you would like to read…
The Secret Doctrine
By H.P. Blavatsky, edited by Boris de Zirkoff
Vol II
Anthropogenesis
sorry, that’s if you’re talking about organic matter.
Now what I should have done is read the darn thing instead of going willy nilly into it. lol
Pg 732 from aforementioned book….
It is the “many” that proceed from the one–the living spiritual germs or centers of forces–each in a septenary form, which first generate, and then give the primary impulse to the law of evolution and gradual slow development.
Kathy, the problem that I see is not in that many comes from one or few but where does “one” come from? How do you get one from nothing. I couldn’t access the reference. Care to post it?
I think that question will kinda lead to the how did we get here/in the beginning/big bang thing. I am not certain how it all started; however, the theories that have been presented in science have at the very least been tested and the answers either support or deny the hypothesis. If the “theory” is supported by YEARS of testing, I tend to lean in that direction. The study of science and how all of this “came together” encompases SO many studies (earth science, astronomy, biology, etc) that it would be almost impossible to just quickly answer that particular question with just a line or two. (Which is why I suspect Atlas posted the question in that manner.)
However, just typing your question into Google, I came up with this site: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631 which has a pretty decent explaination in scientific terms. Now, in terms of a higher power, there is just not any OUTSIDE evidence of such an existance (outside meaning things not of the human origins i.e. the holy books, holy stories, etc.) and certainly not anything that has been (or can be) tested.
At this time, with the information that is at hand (both secular and non-secular), this question is not able to be fully answered.
The Big Bang theorizes something happened but between what? What went bang? I’m not trying to over do it here but I agree with JT, we should start at the very beginning.
Also, there are no test to support the Big Bang. I can’t imagine that scientist have created something from nothing…well except some of the theories (lol).
I agree with you, it is possible that many things happened, but nothing happened until there was something. What we call the specific sciences today is unimportant without knowing what that “something” that started it all is.
What could we call “outside” evidence? Maybe our existence? The design of something as simple as a leaf structure? A cell? A rock?
That was an informative site. I have invited them to join the discussion. The writer, Sara I believe, suggests that matter comes from light packets. I feel like we are getting closer now but where do the light packets come from? What is their source?
Here’s a good reference to start this discussion of “Intelligent design”:
http://www.y-origins.com
Just as DNA has revolutionized criminal forensics, the work of paleontologists has shed new light on human origins. Being an honest man, Charles Darwin made no bones (pardon the pun) about predicting that the forensic fossil evidence would ultimately prove his theory right or wrong.
But just as experts can jump to the wrong conclusion with regard to criminal evidence, so in the world of paleontology, a tooth, jaw, or piece of skull has often created premature headlines of “Missing Link Found.” Paleontologist Michael Boulter summarizes the problem with identifying fossils correctly:
It’s very hard to piece together a few broken bones from a fossilized group of differentially aged primates scattered over a desert or cave floor and to be sure that they come from the same animal….It follows that the reliability of any description that attempts to recognize an actual species cannot be totally objective.1
Boulter is alluding to the fact that, being human, most scientists look at a fossil through the lens of their own presuppositions. For example, those who wanted to make a case for humans descending from apes were quick to jump with joy over the supposed discovery of the “missing link” called Piltdown Man. Featured in the London Times, New York Times, and various science journals, they made it a textbook example of the connection between apes and humans. However, forty years later, in 1953, it was revealed as a fraud.
Frauds like the Piltdown Man are rare, and although objectivity is often lacking, there is actually a wealth of fossil evidence depicting the history of life on our planet.
So in order to see what the forensic evidence says about Darwin’s theory, we need to hear from paleontologists themselves about the evidence they have gathered during the nearly 150 years since he launched his theory. Our starting point is to clearly understand the predictions Darwin made regarding his theory and the fossils that should have resulted.
Many of the scientists in this publication have made comments about the powerful indications of design in our universe. Some have gone so far as to state that new scientific evidence has compelled them to believe in God. Others in this list have adamantly argued against a designer, believing only in a material universe that somehow mysteriously appeared out of nothing. To them, any evidence for a designer is laughed off as “unscientific”.
http://www.y-zine.com/y-originsdevelopment.htm
We believe it is wrong to laugh off evidence, regardless of which way it leads. In Y-Origins magazine, we have laid the evidence out so that the decision a reader makes about our origins is based upon fact rather than prejudice. As Plato believed and taught, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
This seems to have a healthy balance of folks contributing to this article….
Doug: For the record, your response doesn’t actually address the question asked. It is a non sequitur. Quit it with the prostelytising already.
That aside: “Where did matter come from?”
The question is misleading – from my understanding of modern ‘big bang’ (a misnomer) theories is that matter ‘condensed’ out of the raw energy of the ‘big bang’ as that energy expanded and cooled. So the real question becomes:
“Where did energy come from?”
To which the only honest response is: “I don’t know.”
That said, I am prepared to offer a dishonest response – for reasons I’ll get to later.
Considering the question of “Why is there something and not nothing”, it is trivial to asser that the universe must exist in some kind of state. Even non-existence itself is a state. If the universe is even non-existent, then that itself defines the concept of a state of non-existence.
Then we have two things; utter void (non-existance), and the concept of ‘one thing’ – namely, non-existence itself.
And once we have two things, we also have three things – the concept of two things, the concept of ‘one thing’, and non-existence itself.
And once we have three things, we also have four things… and five things… and six things… and so on and so forth.
Thus, number is, by necessity, bootstrapped from the void. ‘Energy’ is itself a mathematic construct imposed on nature – it is the natural consequence of the existence of number in a ‘directed’ way – the natural expression of number is the sequential addition of each natural number + 1.
Every possible universe is an expression of the base numbers of the reality. This is a fiction and fantasy – but in the absence of any knowledge to the contrary, it is a competing fantasy with the fantasy of Intelligent Design (which is just the latest hypercritical mask of theism).
Until one or the other can be validated or invalidated, then neither is true and both are suspect – and thus I restate my original position, that the only honest response to the essential question is: “I don’t know”.
So at this point, we could agree that neither ideas are flawless that is creation or science?
Creation needs a creator and science needs matter or energy.
Nothing + Nothing=Nothing
Let’s leave this question for the moment…we will need to revisit, as in my view, one’s origin may answer many questions. Let’s move on to the next question.
“How can we explain that every human and animal are the same but different.”
I’m gonna have to get pedantic about terminology here. Sorry, but it’s important.
‘Creation’ is an idea about how the universe began. It in turn rests on the foundation of another idea: Primum Movens.
‘Science’, on the other hand, is not an idea. It is one way in which we can assess and evaluate ideas. An idea supported by science can be said to be scientifically true, and an idea not supported by science can be said to be either scientifically false, scientifically false (but still workable) or not even scientific.
So while it is true that both the idea of Creation is flawed (all ideas are flawed) and that the way of assessing ideas that we call Science is flawed (all ways of assessing ideas are flawed), it needs to be pointed out that these two things ‘Creation’ and ‘Science’ are very different creatures.
Once again – sorry to get all pedantic on you. I just didn’t like the implied relationship of equality between Creation and Science in your statement above. But to be clear: They’re not inequal because one is ‘better’ than the other. They’re inequal because they’re drastically different things, the way that a chair and the color purple are drastically different things.
To the best of my knowledge, Primum Movens is not a scientific idea. By extension, neither is Creation.
I know of no scientifically true idea that can fill the same purpose as Primum Movens. I can, however, invent unscientific alternatives to or variants of Primum Movens that contradict Creation: This is an important point, because it shows that we cannot evaluate Creation as true unless we have some meaningful way of evaluating it against these alternate ideas.
*sigh*
Right. That’s over with. On to the next question:
Evolution is the scientifically true explanation for this phenomenon.
Just wondering where you’re going with this.
You need to discuss the differences between micro and macro evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#morphological_parahomology
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Christian Theism is the belief that God is a personal, transcendent Creator of the universe–and of us. Essentially the Christian world view.
“There are two things in life you can be sure of.
1. There is a God.
2. You are not Him.”
Christian Theism answers the question, Why is there something rather than nothing, by confidently asserting that first there was God and nothing else, then He created the universe by simply speaking it into existence. The Bible’s opening sentence is an answer to this most basic of questions: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
HEY ALL PLEASE POST IN THE QUESTION ABOVE”S THREAD. THANKS…..