Civil Discussion About Religion

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

No, I am not admitting that something can be created without a creator. I am admitting that something has to be "devine" or superhuman to be created without a creator. There is a big difference there.
The ONLY thing that was created without a creator was God.

So again I ask, if God didn't make it, then who or what did? Something had to have started it all, so who / what was it?

Better question (which I posed many posts ago but has gone unanswered):

Who says the universe was ever actually created? Why couldn't it have just always existed?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Better question (which I posed many posts ago but has gone unanswered):

Who says the universe was ever actually created? Why couldn't it have just always existed?

I already answered this...all of our known world had a beginning. Everything you know had a beginning. That's what science tells us, so of course it is very natural to believe that there is no way it just always existed. Something had to have made it.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I already answered this...all of our known world had a beginning. Everything you know had a beginning. That's what science tells us, so of course it is very natural to believe that there is no way it just always existed. Something had to have made it.

So based on your observations that everything IN our world has a beginning and an end, you BELIEVE that something had to have given a beginning to our world.

That's my point, that's your belief. Doesn't make it so.

And science does not tell us everything has a beginning. I'm not sure where you're getting that? Perhaps you could explain that one to me? One of the laws of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. You can separate it into tiny atoms, but you can't get rid of it. Likewise, you can't create it.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So based on your observations that everything IN our world has a beginning and an end, you BELIEVE that something had to have given a beginning to our world.

That's my point, that's your belief. Doesn't make it so.

And science does not tell us everything has a beginning. I'm not sure where you're getting that? Perhaps you could explain that one to me? One of the laws of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. You can separate it into tiny atoms, but you can't get rid of it. Likewise, you can't create it.

Well, part of my thoughts actually goes against the matter theory. Like, how can a star become a supernova, then explode, vaporizing most particals, and creating a black hole? Where does that matter go? Some matter can be destroyed into a gas form, which goes against the matter theory as well. Of course this hasn't been completely proven by science since humans have yet to get samples of an exploding stars.
There is a plant in Chicago that takes atoms and destroys them, converting the explosion process into energy. The matter itself is gone, but it does live on in the form of energy. So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter. I think at some point science will change it's mind on this theory. I could be wrong...but at the very least I see them adding stipulations to this theory.

About my beliefs...well, right back at you. Just because it is your belief, doesn't make it so. I am just saying look at what sceince and history has shown us. Everything has a start. You're using the thermodynamics theory as basis to say not everything has a beginning. But your eyes tell you other wise. I am 32 years old (on Monday), before that, I was a mere nothing..something my father created over time. I had a beginning. You had a beginning. Everyone on this planet had a beginning. That is the theory of life. So these theories can not co-exist if they are both taken extremely literally.
I think at this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because as we break this down to exact point, I say it HAD to be made, you say it's possible that it was already here. That's pretty much a stalemate. So I'll be lingering around looking at other subject to speak of, but seems this particular subject is dead.
Look forward to future discussions...I'm sure our paths will meet again.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, part of my thoughts actually goes against the matter theory. Like, how can a star become a supernova, then explode, vaporizing most particals, and creating a black hole? Where does that matter go? Some matter can be destroyed into a gas form, which goes against the matter theory as well. Of course this hasn't been completely proven by science since humans have yet to get samples of an exploding stars.
There is a plant in Chicago that takes atoms and destroys them, converting the explosion process into energy. The matter itself is gone, but it does live on in the form of energy. So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter. I think at some point science will change it's mind on this theory. I could be wrong...but at the very least I see them adding stipulations to this theory.

All of this is 100% incorrect.

In a black hole, the structure of the star collapses, and all the matter gets sucked into a tiny space. All the atoms that were there before are still there, they're just compressed into a much smaller place.

With all that matter compressed into such a small place, the gravitational field becomes so strong that light (made up of charged particles) cannot even escape the black hole. So when you look at a black hole, it appears there is nothing there, but there is matter at the core. You just can't see it because the image of the matter cannot escape it's own gravitational field. If you don't believe me, hit up Wikipedia for black holes.

On "destroying matter into gas form", you obviously haven't had much chemistry background. When you have water, it is in liquid form. When you boil it, it turns to gaseous form, or water vapor. Boiling water does not cause the H2O molecules to disappear. All of the H2O molecules are still present in the air. That's how the humidity gets higher in the summer. Warmer air holds more water vapor. The matter does not get destroyed when it goes into gas form - it's still present - just in a different form.

When that plant in Chicago uses it's linear accelerator (aka atom smasher) to break atoms apart, it does not destroy the atom in the sense that the atom is now suddenly gone. It breaks the atom apart into it's particles, separating the protons and neutrons held in the nucleus from the electrons orbiting the nucleus. The separation of those particles causes a mass chain reaction as those particles attempt to latch onto other atoms nearby, causing an imbalance in their chemical charges, and releasing more particles, which then in turn latch onto other atoms nearby, and so on. The reaction happens nearly instantaneously, and if not controlled, causes a nuclear explosion. The process can be controlled by using uranium to collect the homeless charged particles displaced by the smashing of the first atom. When the uranium is done being used, it contains tons and tons of charged particles, which emit harmful radiation. This process was invented by Einstein and company in the Manhattan Project, and gave rise to the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The same process is now used in every nuclear power plant across the country, in a controlled environment, and is used to generate electricity. All this is to say, the atom may be broken apart, but the pieces of the atom are never eliminated, simply displaced.

Matter cannot be destroyed. It can change states (liquid, solid, gas), it can be broken down into simpler substances (digestion), and it can be broken into pieces (nuclear reactions). But the matter never vanishes.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter.

This statement flies in the face of the law of Thermodynamics, which has been PROVEN to be correct. Hence they call it the LAW of Thermodynamics, and not the THEORY of Thermodynamics.

Too many people need to brush up on scientific terms:

Law: Has been proven and has never been broken.
Theory: Has not been proven, but evidence supports it.
Belief: No evidence exists, you just think it's true anyway.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This statement flies in the face of the law of Thermodynamics, which has been PROVEN to be correct. Hence they call it the LAW of Thermodynamics, and not the THEORY of Thermodynamics.

Too many people need to brush up on scientific terms:

Law: Has been proven and has never been broken.
Theory: Has not been proven, but evidence supports it.
Belief: No evidence exists, you just think it's true anyway.

While I understand the commonly used terms, they are placed by humans to help understand a process. We, as humans, are flawed and make mistakes. Just because we call it a "law" doesn't make it so. I have used the same argument on this over and over by saying everyone said the world was flat...it was a "law" until someone had the guts to keep going. Then it was broken. I'm sure you heard the expression, all laws are made to be broken. I am not debating Thermodynamics, I just beleive that in our time this "law" will change. Then what will it be when it is changed? Simply a theory.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I understand the commonly used terms, they are placed by humans to help understand a process. We, as humans, are flawed and make mistakes. Just because we call it a "law" doesn't make it so. I have used the same argument on this over and over by saying everyone said the world was flat...it was a "law" until someone had the guts to keep going. Then it was broken. I'm sure you heard the expression, all laws are made to be broken. I am not debating Thermodynamics, I just beleive that in our time this "law" will change. Then what will it be when it is changed? Simply a theory.

OK you're right, if we ever prove that matter can be destroyed, then the law of thermodynamics will no longer be considered a law.

But that doesn't change the fact that every single one of those examples of destroying matter that you provided (black hole, vaporizing, atom smashing) do not destroy matter. They only change it's state. I just think that before you go trying to use science to explain your beliefs, you should understand science a lot better first.

For a guy who has been harassing me to consider other viewpoints, you seem to have deeply rooted beliefs without giving any consideration to gaining knowledge of correct science. To me, that's not giving proper consideration to the opposing viewpoint.