/sci/ - Science & Math

>Science says matter cannot be destroyed nor created

False.

>>3715901

Elaborate

>>3715901
True
Rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée. Tout se transforme

>Matter must have been created by something or someone who has been able to create, and that hasn't been created.
>I call that being, God (not the christian).
>How do you call that?

a great mystery to be investigated

Is God matter? So, where did he come from?

>>3715916

That's the point, it is called God because it wasn't created, yet he could create

>>3715895
>matter cannot be destroyed nor created
>Matter must have been created
Makes complete sense.

Serious question - does it follow logically that if something exists, it had to be created? Not troll.

>>3715908
energy cannot be destroyed or created

the current theory of it is that there is a potential field (turns out these fields don't require space or time to actually exist), quantum fluctuations in this field cause it to tunnel through a barrier, which then makes the potential start to drop, energy cannot be destroyed or created so it turns into heat, just like when you push a rock down a hill, it won't keep rolling until it reaches the same height it was dropped from because of friction which is essentially the conversion of the kinetic enegy into heat
this heat (which is photons btw) hits into eachother, shit comes out all over the place and alas we have matter

If you don't know something you have to admit that you don't know. That is science.

Making stuff up to explain things you don't know is religion.

*Energy* can't be created nor destroyed. The total energy of the universe is zero.

Problem solved.

Brahman is the lived experience that all things are in some way holy because they come from the same sacred source. It is also the experience that all things are in some way ultimately one. This is an experience that seems to defy common sense, since the world appears to be divided into many objects and types of reality. Nevertheless, when we consider reality more deeply, we recognize many unities: a piece of wood can become a boat or a house fire or ash; water can turn into a cloud or a plant.

Science says Matter can't be destroyed or created, but who cares. Science is atleast trying to answer the question of "How did it happen"

I'd rather be an Atheist and say
>"I don't know how it happened, but I'm sure will will find out eventually"

Than a Brainwashed believer and say
>"God did it"

>>3715901
you idiot.

>>3715895
Spacetime is warped like fucking mental shit at the big bang, and you still expect time to act like a causal chain of events, like causality still exists at the big bang? No sir.

Anyway what do you achieve by saying "god put it there"? What put god there? I can already hear you saying "The universe needs a cause but god is the one thing that doesnt need to be caused because it is ; eternal/doesnt exist within our logical universe/the alpha and the omega"(whatever the fuck that means). Now I'd rather skip a step, instead of answering a deep question with something that inherently cannot be explained, thereby dodging any responsibility for explanation/elaboration, and say that we just don't know yet.
Saying "god did it" is the same as saying "you cannot know the answer". Both sound to me as just a way of dodging the question. I love to say "I don't know" because do you know what comes after that statement? "Let's find out" FUCK yeah. Lets work out the answer to the deep questions by fucking science.

>>3715938
you're the idiot, that guy is correct
ever head of a nuclear power plant, guess what happens there, matter becomes energy

This problem reminds me of a strange loop.

>>3715938
>and you still expect time to act like a causal chain of events, like causality still exists at the big bang? No sir.

After bullshit like that, you expect anyone to take you seriously? Fuck off.

i think that before the cities you had field and valleys.
before tools you had cavemen.

there is always a system in place and there are always innovators of new systems.

to think that the first system, the laws that govern all other systems had to be created by something.

so bees ultimately perform a function within an ecological system, we already knowledge that but disregard the system they work within as random.

maybe that is the problem with science.

rubbish concept but i hope you get the thinking behind it.

>>3715941
Do you think that's what I meant?
What I was saying was that OP obviously meant matter and energy when he said matter. The guy I was responding to made a point that really didnt matter at all because OP could just change it to say "matter and energy", so that poster really didn't have an argument at all.

>>3715959
And I suppose you think that time is a linear dimension? Do you think you can just draw a line and say "time goes from here to here"? That's just daft. Maybe you should learn about cosmology a bit before responding again.

>>3715978
What you wrote:
>And I suppose you think that time is a linear dimension? Do you think you can just draw a line and say "time goes from here to here"? That's just daft. Maybe you should learn about cosmology a bit before responding again.
How I read it:
>HURF DURF I DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT MATH, I NEVER SAW A TENSOR IN MY ENTIRE LIFE BUT I READ THIS REAAAAALLY COOL BOOK

>>3715978
What OP posted makes no sense, even with your correction.

>Matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created
>Matter and energy must have been created

Choose one.

>>3715927
>Making stuff up to explain things you don't know is religion.

No, it's called String Theory and Dark Matter

If you think that matter implies matter is created, then why cant not-matter imply destruction?

OP assumes that because matter exists, it must have been created. But he doesnt assume that because some matter doesnt exist that it must have been destroyed.

Matter was condensed out of energy.
Energy was created before the laws of physics were.
This does not break any of out models.
2/10 - got me to reply

>>3715980
Nice try kid. I can only laugh at your post. Maybe try actually responding to what I'm saying instead of attempting ad hominem on me when you don't know shit about me and all of your assumptions about me are wrong.

>>3715978
>>3715978

>>3715986

Hurr, that's the point of calling that thing that can create ''God''

>>3715990
>Energy was created before the laws of physics
>before the laws of physics

>laws of physics
>created

I don't think you understand science as much as you think you do.

>>3715992
If you actually knew what you're talking about, maybe you wouldn't spew the loads of bullshit you're spewing.

>>3715989
This anon knows logic

>>3716007

How dare you insult the great Gene Ray

>>3715895

Congratulations on inventing the Cosmological Proof. I am recommending you for a Nobel Prize.

>>3716007
>You're spewing bullshit but I have no way to actually respond to what you are saying in an intellectual way so instead of that, I'm going to keep telling you that you are stupid.

>>3716001

>there are rules, but what if there weren't?

Remain calm, the acid will wear off in a few hours.

>>3716021
How can I respond in an intellectual way to something that is completely false beyond stating that it is and that you are retarded for saying it?

>>3715914
>only scientific answer in this thread

if you say god is whatever can create without being created, why are you choosing to call it by the loaded term god? this description bares no resemblance to any other definition of god. we don't even know if there can exist something that can create without being created and even if you assume that some described like this can exist, you still can't say anything more about it. it is a nameless untestable idea.

>Science says matter cannot be destroyed nor created
ok
>There is matter
ok
>Matter must have been created by something or someone
>who has been able to create
non sequitur

>>3716025
You could start with any part of my argument that you think is wrong. Maybe you think that time is linear, maybe you think that spacetime is made-up, maybe you think that time can still be a causal chain of events no matter how curved spacetime is.

>>3716036

No, you don't get it, man. If you give this entity who creates a special name suddenly this argument is totally valid and worth thinking about, duh!

>>3716002
I don't think you understand that I don't mean this in a literal sense.

>>3715895
>I used to be an atheist

No you didn't.

>>3716036
>>3716044

The matter of fact is that God is defined to be the creator of the universe.

This definition implicitly assumes that the universe was created.

The universe has not been proven to be created.

The definition of God is therefore fundamentally flawed.

> matter cannot be created or destroyed
> therefore something must have created it
I lol'd

>>3716044
wink nudge wink

>>3716052

Here's a better version:

> matter cannot be created or destroyed
> therefore it must have been created

you sir. are a good scientist, as you saw a flaw with a theory, and changed it to suit the conditions presented, not the other way around. I myself came to believe in a creator this way, although I don't follow all that religious mumbo jumbo that catholics go on about, but i suppose the divine being that I believe in would have to be closest to the christian god of Abraham(notice the lack of capital) as that's how I was bought up

>>3716059
Well that still doesn't make any sense.

>>3716055
I agree with your argument but you're being too fair to the OP, who didn't take the existence of a creator as a given, but tried to derive it from his first 2 propositions.

>>3715895

>>redefining 'god' to be 'that natural, unthinking physical phenomenon that caused the inflationary epoch of the universe' rather than 'invisible friend with magic powers who grants wishes and causes horrible natural disasters to smite the Bad People'

Furthermore, OP has neglected to check that this is actually a very old, tired argument that has been refuted many, MANY times. It has it's own fucking name, the 'cosmological argument'.

More than 45 posts on the cosmological argument. Why, /sci/?

>>3716031
the question is of an uncreated god,
and as none of us can imagine a situation without a beginning or an end, we cant answer the question.

in human terms religion implies after life of some sort so the can imagine no "end" but we all have a "beginning"

so no man can claim the mantle of god, within an abrahamic sense anyway.

but abrahim was externally influence by the god and before him and after him people were also influenced.

so god is ever living, he always says the same thing.

but still at the time of adam there was a god who taught him stuff.

guess he was bored of playing with dinosaurs.

still its a ridiculous question

>>3716043
Proper time is linear in any non-singular metric. Every singularity either arises as a result of a bad choice of coordinates or due to applying the theory beyond its realm of applicability. Singularities are non-physical phenomena.

>>3716089

Because nothing attracts /sci/ducks faster than a shit-tier argument for the existence of god

However I am proud of them for not falling for the 'former atheist' line.

>watching all of you people debate about stupid things which don't make any sense anyway you turn them
>and you go on with this crap every day
>many of you not realizing that our world basically consists of words (god is a word and nothing more, everything else you think of is also a word any not much beyond that except its definition and whatnot)
>not having any idea how bizzare the nature of reality is, trying to describe it with human constructs because that's all you know of
and finally
>not discussing science on a science board

>>3716102

postmodernist detected

fuck off to >>>/x/ if you cant deal with empirical reality

>>3716112
Why not just move this whole thread to >>>/x/

>>3716102
>our world basically consists of words

Fuck off.

Go back to Interior Semantics

>>3716117

Interior Semiotics

My bad.

>>3716112
>>3716117
They mad

I call that silly.

>>3716093
Well I agree with some of what you say about singularities. but I don't know why you talk about proper time. Proper time is just a measurement, I'm talking about the dimension of spacetime. Its like you trying to tell me that the Earth is round and I say that I can measure from London to Paris, therefore it is not round. You can only measure distances on the surface of the Earth because it is not very curved, it is almost flat. Like spacetime is where we are now. But you need to show me that you can still measure proper time in situations when spacetime is warped as much as it is at the big bang.

>You can only measure distances on the surface of the Earth because it is not very curved

>>3715895

You are saying that nothing is not able to exist, the very idea of nothing is something that man has invented. There is never nothing.

Problem?

>>3715914
>>3716184

I agree with these two statements.

That image make me laugh healtly sir, thanks a lot

>/sci/ducks didn't understood the joke

>>3716199
Of course they did
>Bare Grills
>Drink piss
fullretard.jpg

>>3716203
>Bare Grills
Right sir, right

I went through a wtf moment seing Bear as a waiter. But then, this image made my day

OP

Science is talking out of its arse if it says:

"matter cannot be destroyed nor created"

For it can never be proven and is hence unscientific.

Science can say:

"we cannot think of ways in which matter can be destroyed or created"

But that dosnt mean that they dont exist.

For fucks sake.

This is what happens when people take simple things too literally.

Its /sci/'s favourite fallacy

>i cant remember what the fallacy is called, 50 internets to the good sir who can remember

>>3716242

Hugo's fallacy of man.

>>3716253

What? No.

No internets for you.

>>3716242

Wow, your ignorance of science is near-total.

Name one thing science can prove.

>>3716257

The incomprehensible fallacy of the game.

>>3716260

Water is wet.

>>3716260

Uh that was my point fucking retard.

OP's resolution is off the tangent that:

"Science says matter cannot be destroyed nor created"

Is somehow the absolute truth.

Suck a dick and die you hopeless retard. Learn some fucking english if youre going to post on an english forum you stupid dickhead.

>>3716285

Prove that matter can be created or destroyed.

>>3716285

>4chan
>forum

Wow. Get out.

>>3716297

Boy you are really fucking retarded arent you.

Read the 2 fucking posts again. If you still dont understand how fucking retarded you are then print it out so that you can show it to your science teacher that he might have the patience to educate your incapable little brain you small minded piece of shit.

>>3716316
>I can't refute his argument, oh shit, I hope someone else can, or else everyone will know how fucktarded I am!

>>3716321

Maybe you should attend a fucking class in english so you can read words written in simple english you fucking retard.

My point was that YOU CANT PROVE whether it can or cannot be created unless you actually create matter. Simply because you cant create matter is not proof that it is impossible.

Have you even studied science at all you fucking retard. You can never conclusively prove the null hypothesis, you can only conclusively disprove it or conclude that the evidence is insufficient to disprove it.

Fucks sake, fucking educate yourself you fucking chimp.

>>3716329
no, but conservation of energy means it's impossible

Protip:

Conservation of energy is violated all the time on a very small time scale.

>>3716329

I think we have concluded that the evidence is sufficient to disprove the idea that you can make matter out of nothing.

Anybody who pursues a career or has furthered their education in science will undoubtedly have gotten used to agreeing with autists and asspies. Its just the community. Its not a great community, but then again if you want to play with the lasers for a living you have to put up with the asspies who share your toys in the "science corner" of the playground.

>>3716351

>I think we have concluded that the evidence is sufficient to disprove the idea that you can make matter out of nothing.

DING DING DING DING

RETARD ALERT, RETARD ALERT

Fucking told you to go back to school didnt I?

FHAIOFOIHSA I dont even want to begin explaining how fucking stupid that statement was because then it will just open up more avenues for you to express your ignorance when you defend your ignorant little shit mind.

And before you go something like:

>>I can't refute his argument, oh shit, I hope someone else can, or else everyone will know how fucktarded I am!

Let me tell you that I dont respect your intelligence enough to grace you with a proper explanation or rebuttal. You are obviously a monkey who knows deplorably little and yet have the gall to be obnoxious and unapologetic.

If you want to learn you better learn to fucking humble yourself first you fucktard, otherwise your ignorance warrants nothing but contempt.

>>3715927

As well as theoretical physics...

Matter is God

>>3716351

ΔEΔt ≒ ħ

>>3716403

See:

>>3716339

>>3716413

Only true over "real" periods of time.

this whole business of conservation of energy/mass thing is being taken too seriously.

it is simply an observable trend from our standpoint in the universe.

it is not at all usefull to the theoretical physicist, only a simple chemist or practitioner of applied sciences.

>sure is highschool in here

>>3716448
>conservation of energy
>it is not at all usefull to the theoretical physicist

Hurrr

>>3716448
I'd think the lagrangians invariance under time translation would like word with you

Assume no universe to begin with.
There are no laws of physics.
Then accidently the universe itself.

>>3716380
>FHAIOFOIHSA

Yeah okay. I think we can conclude that you've ran out of arguments.

>>3716329
it has been proven that you can't create matter, if we're using energy and matter as the same thing
that's like saying you can't prove 1+1=/=3 until you can make 1+1=3

>>3715895
>Lets substitute one unexplained thing with another.
>Herp derp oh lawdy
No.

Guys OPs post makes sense.

>According to our knowledge, matter can neither be created nor destroyed
>Matter exists
According to our knowledge, something must have created matter.
If you say that just because we don't know how doesn't mean there is no way to create matter: That's argument from ignorance.

>>3715895
>Science says matter cannot be destroyed nor created

Nope, it fucking doesn't.

Nice trollin bro

>>3715895
It's not that matter can't be destroyed/created, it's energy.

Matter is in essence, condensed energy.

The same argument can be said for any deity based religion, how did that being come to existence?

If you add infinity to either argument, both are viable theories except one is based on an infinite amount of time without addition or subtraction of energy and is known to not be entirely accurate and willing to change and adapt to new information, the other is that a bearded omnipotent deity who makes imperfect creations and then chastises them for not being perfect and is a theory that refuses any type of evidence whatsoever.

Religion has a bad name solely due to the restrictions it puts onto humanity and the people with the loudest voices who follow it.

>>3716672
>According to our knowledge, something must have created matter.

Nope. Do you not know about quantum physics?

>>3716707
Matter is a form of energy you fucking idiot.
Therefore, matter can't be destroyed nor created. Only changed back to energy.

>>3716723
>matter is in essence, condensed energy.

>implies I said matter =/= energy.

In reality, science proves the reality of religion, but most people don't understand... For example, the concept of the "Big Bang" was considered ages ago by Jews and Muslims based on the Torah and Qur'aan. The idea of evolutionary reproduction (within the same species) was also discussed in the Jewish scriptures centuries before Charles Darwin was even born. The fact that the universe was in a gaseous state was mentioned in the Qur'aan 1400 years ago, long before astronauts started visiting outerspace. Universal orbits were also mentioned, as were ideas regarding atomic and subatomic particles. The "seven heavens", which we now know as the seven layers of the atmosphere, were thoroughly explained in the Oral Torah over 2000 years ago, and they were repeated in the Qur'aan repeatedly to authenticate the concept. The same is the case with the seven layers of the earth, which is also mentioned in the Qur'aan and Oral Torah. Proven facts pertaining to the rotation of the earth, formation of mountains, human reproduction, and many other things are also mentioned in the Qur'aan... And all of these ideas are things scientists have just RECENTLY discovered and confirmed, even though the Qur'aan was written 1400 years ago...

If your religion is correct, it will be supported by science. If science is true and proven, then your religion should also be proven and factual, not based on blind faith and belief. If they disagree with eachother, then obviously one of them is wrong, and that usually turns out to be the religious idea (or at least the understanding of it)...

N/A
/Thread

>>3716746
HOW DOES ANY OF THIS PROVE RELIGION? ALL EVERYTHING U WROTE PROOVES IS DAT U CAN BE RELIGOUS AND BELIEVE IN SCIENCE. ALL OF DA STUFF U SAID WASNT JUS RECENTLY DISCOVERED BY SCIENTIST, YOUR CONFUSING ACCEPTENCE WITH DISCOVERY. JUS DA FACT DA MUSLIMS DISCOVERED ALL DAT MAKES THEM SCIENTIST BY DA STANDARDS OF DAT TIME. NOT 1 WORD OF WHAT U WROTE PROVED ANYTHING IN RELIGION TO BE RIGHT. I DO LIKE YOUR EXAMPLES THEY JUS DONT HELP YOUR ARGUMENT. IT JUS PROVES U CAN STILL BE EDUCATED AND RELIGOUS AT DA SAME TIME.

Dear OP.
I like the fact your trying to find out where matter came form, but saying it was made by a god leaves us with another unanswered question.
Where did god come from?
Because logic would state God would also have to be made out of matter.

>>3715895
>>3715895
matter can not be created or destroyed
>false

casing point: quantum fluctuations

>>3716746
and I doth proclaim any integrad functional that comprises action should hereby be invariant under gauge transformations and it was so

So all you've done is redefined "God" to mean something entirely different.

Unless you also make the needless assumption that the being is sentient you're an Atheist.

And unless you also make the needless assumption that the being is Sentient, created the universe and then took an interest in it and interferes in human affairs, you're just a deist.

Furthermore:
>Well, you need faith to believe that, aswell.
We can very easily just say we don't know where the original matter/energy in the universe came from. Ignorance is infinitely preferable to just making shit up.

>Science says matter cannot be destroyed nor created

Incorrect.

ENERGY can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter is a form of energy, but that form can be destroyed and the matter converted into a different form of energy.

If you bring a particle and antiparticle together, both are very much thoroughly destroyed. The energy they were made of continues to exist in the form of energetic radiation.

Your premise is false.

>>3717058
Most religions do not claim God is sentient.

science says energy cant be created or destroyed.
but how do we know this is always correct?

Nice arguing from ignorance, kiddo.

>I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS
>SO IT MUST BE GOD

>>3716893

and the answer to that question (i.e super-god or beta-god) will make a infinite circle of questions.
there are only 3 options:

everything "always" existed. or...
something created the thing and didnt came from nowhere.

the third option is a time paradox to save the problem: god traveled in time and created himself.

Matter creation is an abstract concept. It's like saying time exists, when the only thing that exists is our perception of time and nothing more. I personally believe there is a way to create matter, we just have yet to find an explanation for it.

>>3717173

thats rong fucker. matter is not a "perception" of humans, neither a dimension like time.
nice nihilism, btw

>>3715895
I used to be a regular atheist, until someone explained me this ;

>Chrisitians worship a magical man in the sky, who they think will grant them wishes.

How can that be? In 2011? People worshiping magic? wtf? I thought to myself, I better do something to get humanity back on track. These christians shouldn't even be considered human.

It is time to put these animals down.
I am doing my part. Are you?

I am now a
SUPER ATHEIST
/CHRISTIAN EXTERMINATOR

>>3717143
God did create himself. Jesus.

Matter is being created all the time. The fact is that the vacuum fluctuates, and up pop these little particles of matter all the time. Sadly, they are very short lived, and they always come paired with their anti-particles, which situation results in the annihilation of both their existences. Occasionally the particles fail to meet and destroy each other and a universe results. The last time that happened we got this universe.

Simple, really, and no god required.

>>3717187

Allow me to create an improved version:

I used to be an unsaved atheist, until someone asked me to consider this question:

How can God be false, when billions of people worship Him worldwide?

How can that be? Would billions of people worship a nonexistent entity? For thousands of years? I thought to myself, this doesn't make sense. I lost faith in my old atheist beliefs.

It is time to put these animals down.

I am now a
SUPER ATHEIST
/CHRISTIAN EXTERMINATOR

fuck, 4chan is full of winterfags this time of year...

Matter is not infinite
Matter is not eternal

In order for matter to exist it must be created. Matter doesn't come from nowhere.

Atheists deny this because they know what it alludes to.

>Genesis 1:1
In the beginning, God

Wait what? God predates the beginning?
1 verse in the bible answers the question science still can't answer. I can't help but laugh that people don't know the obvious.

God is eternal. If you think God needs to be created you don't even know the definition of God and need a dictionary more than anything. God is supernatural. Using human characteristics to define God and put him in a box is the sole reason why science will never answer any of these questions.

The same reason why science will make up alternatives like evolution instead.
Life cannot come from non-life. Science backs this up. Evolution is like that religious denomination that doesn't like the truth so they make up their own.

>>3717278
>In order for matter to exist it must be created.

Prove it.

If God created everything from nothing, then there would still be traces of nothing.
But there isn't and there can't be.
"nothing" cannot exist by the following line of reasoning. To speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing that exists. Since we can speak of a thing in the past, it must still exist (in some sense)

where is this nothing we came form?
all there is matter coming from the same point.
there is no nothing.

>>3717278
>2011
>believes in a magic man in the sky

>>3717292
That's an awfully large cock raping your mouth right now.

>>3717292
>If God created everything from nothing

Where does it say God created something from nothing in any religious text? more assumptions to prove a lie.

>>3717302

I used to be an unsaved atheist too, until someone asked me to consider this question:

How can God be false, when billions of people worship Him worldwide?

How can that be? Would billions of people worship a nonexistent entity? For thousands of years? I thought to myself, this doesn't make sense. I lost faith in my old atheist beliefs.

It is time to put these animals down.

I am now a
SUPER ATHEIST
/CHRISTIAN EXTERMINATOR