Filling in the Gaps

[Ceridwen018]

I don't suppose YOU have an idea as to why, without a God, atoms came out of nowhere, then started MOVING for no good reason at all, and then eventually randomly came together to create life so complex that we in all our "genius" can't even figure out how it happened.

Uncertaindrummer posted this response in my other thread, "Stop the Madness", but my response would have been way off-topic, so I decided to make a new thread.

In this quote, Uncertaindrummer is using the ever classic, "Filling in the Gaps Argument". He is taking a scientific question without a clear answer, and "filling it in" with the all-purpose answer, "God did it".

Lets take a look at history: Back in the "long, long ago", people had a very primitive understanding, if any, of the natural world. In their minds, God created lightening, rain, tides, waves, and all other natural "phenomena." Over time, while people may still technically attribute these things to God, (because science and religion are compatible like that ), they have developed a deeper understanding. Instead of saying, "God is making it rain," for instance, one might say, "God is causing water to evaportate due to the thermal energy released from the earth. The thermal energy is a byproduct of the use of the sun's energy, and the water vapor that ensues will condense in the sky as clouds and eventually precipitate back to earth as it returns to its liquid state as water, and what we know as rain."

Likewise, although science does not yet have a "posterboy-esqu" theory for how the first matter came to be, (at least not a theory that I can effectively wrap my mind around), given the pattern of history, the probability that science will find the answer is quite high.

Until then, we can continue to fill in the gaps with whatever suits us best. I like the leprechaun theory, personally.

 

[michel]

Awwwww and I thought you were going to come out with some fantastic new theory and discovery!!!


It may be unscientific - but until someone manages to defeat the truism that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed", I'm going to stick with "God did it."

Sorry if that disappoints you .

 

[Jaymes]

I thought that matter was destroyed during the process that gives atomic bombs such power? Or is that just me being confused again?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... until someone manages to defeat the truism that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed", ...

You do such a wonderful job exemplifying the laughable!

 

[michel]

You do such a wonderful job exemplifying the laughable!

Well, I have to give you an excuse to laugh Deut! - Instead of making your usual curt comments, don't you think it would be more productive to point me to a site that shows the above statement not to be true ? - I am willing to learn, but unless someone is prepared to help me, I am stuck with what I know.

 

[Fluffy]

In this quote, Uncertaindrummer is using the ever classic, "Filling in the Gaps Argument". He is taking a scientific question without a clear answer, and "filling it in" with the all-purpose answer, "God did it".

What is the difference between doing this and assuming scientific theory to be true? If one is to take a solipsistic attitude towards both examples that is.

 

[Ceridwen018]

What is the difference between doing this and assuming scientific theory to be true?

Because, Fluffy, we don't assume scientific theories to be true. We test them, and make sure we've got it right.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It may be unscientific - but until someone manages to defeat the truism that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed", I'm going to stick with "God did it."

Hang on a second there, michel: are you saying that, because you believe matter cannot be created, you believe God created matter?

 

[Fluffy]

Because, Fluffy, we don't assume scientific theories to be true. We test them, and make sure we've got it right.

But, since science has been unable, so far, to find a way of verifying the inputs to our senses and the reality that this creates for us, any further scientific theories must be based on the assumption that reality is true. Therefore they are assumptions within themselves since they only work given a prior assumption, one which, I might add, has no verifiable evidence, rational logic or any other proof which might add weight to holding such an assumption.

 

[michel]

Hang on a second there, michel: are you saying that, because you believe matter cannot be created, you believe God created matter?

Yes. I believe in the 'God created all in six days, and on the seventh he rested'
I believe that God 'supplied' all the elements necessary to kick-start the big bang, and start up the whole machinery of evolution.

 

[michel]

I thought that matter was destroyed during the process that gives atomic bombs such power? Or is that just me being confused again?

Jensa,

My physics is from school. Because I am somewhat older than you guys, I still understand that whenever there is a reaction, there can be no loss of matter.

I maybe totally wrong, and if I am, please someone put me right, but I believe that for example, the atom bomb's energy release and destruction is turned into a different kind of matter - ie heat, light, sound and radio active waves.

A simpler example is a light bulb; if a light bulb consumes 100 watts/hour, the light output from the old fashioned bulbs might be comparable to 40 Watts of energy; the other 60% of the energy that ghoes into the bulb is dissipated as heat - as you know if you have ever touched one that has been on for an hour or so.....

I am quite prepared to believe that these theories are now 'old hat' and have been proved wrong, but until someone teaches me otherwise, I am ignorant of any other facts. As I replied to Deut - I wish that instead of ridiculing posters who do not have his intellect, he helped those members lear, his posts would be more productive.........

 

[Fluffy]

Jensa,

My physics is from school. Because I am somewhat older than you guys, I still understand that whenever there is a reaction, there can be no loss of matter.

I maybe totally wrong, and if I am, please someone put me right, but I believe that for example, the atom bomb's energy release and destruction is turned into a different kind of matter - ie heat, light, sound and radio active waves.

A simpler example is a light bulb; if a light bulb consumes 100 watts/hour, the light output from the old fashioned bulbs might be comparable to 40 Watts of energy; the other 60% of the energy that ghoes into the bulb is dissipated as heat - as you know if you have ever touched one that has been on for an hour or so.....

I am quite prepared to believe that these theories are now 'old hat' and have been proved wrong, but until someone teaches me otherwise, I am ignorant of any other facts. As I replied to Deut - I wish that instead of ridiculing posters who do not have his intellect, he helped those members lear, his posts would be more productive.........

Michel, whilst a clear link has been shown between energy and matter, I do not think it is correct to say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Energy, as understood by modern physics, certainly cannot be either.

Also I think that Mr. Spinkles question has a lot of truth in it. If you hold the above to be true then why make an exception and why make that exception to be your god?

 

[painted wolf]

I do beleive that you are confusing energy and matter Michel. Matter can indeed be distroyed, however energy can not.. energy simply changes states. However matter is made of energy and is one of its states. Matter can be distroyed but the energy that makes up that matter can not.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes. I believe in the 'God created all in six days, and on the seventh he rested' - in the context that God's year is a thousand of one of ours.

I believe that God 'supplied' all the elements necessary to kick-start the big bang, and start up the whole machinery of evolution.

Ahh, so you DO believe matter can be created or destroyed. In other words, if scientific discovery shows that matter cannot be created, you will believe that god created matter.....and if scientific discovery shos that matter CAN be created, you will believe that god created matter.

I'm not attacking you here michel, (honest ) I'm just observing that the conservation of matter really appears to have nothing to do with your belief in a Creator.

 

[Ceridwen018]

But, since science has been unable, so far, to find a way of verifying the inputs to our senses and the reality that this creates for us, any further scientific theories must be based on the assumption that reality is true. Therefore they are assumptions within themselves since they only work given a prior assumption, one which, I might add, has no verifiable evidence, rational logic or any other proof which might add weight to holding such an assumption.

Whether or not this reality is "true" is a question for philosophers, not scientists. Science considers things that can be percieved using the 5 senses to be "true" or "real".

 

[Fluffy]

Whether or not this reality is "true" is a question for philosophers, not scientists. Science considers things that can be percieved using the 5 senses to be "true" or "real".

I agree that science is based on things that can be percieved using the 5 senses. It is totally unjustifiable to make the leap from this to "true" or "real". The fact that this is not sciences place is irrelevant. It is a necessary requirement for science to become a fact and not just another belief.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Again, Fluffy, it is not science's job to discern if this reality is real, or if this is the only reality, etc. Addressing your concern, however, I think it is perfectly acceptable for science to assume this reality to be real, because they have no reason to think otherwise. There is nothing about this reality that would suggest it was 'unreal", nor have any other realities made themselves known.

At the end of the day, however, if this reality wasn't real, then there'd be no point in changing science anyhow.

 

[michel]

Michel, whilst a clear link has been shown between energy and matter, I do not think it is correct to say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Energy, as understood by modern physics, certainly cannot be either.

Also I think that Mr. Spinkles question has a lot of truth in it. If you hold the above to be true then why make an exception and why make that exception to be your god?

Fluffy and Painted Wolf

Am I wrong in thinking (For sake of example)- that someone drags a house brick on rough concrete; some of the brick turns into dust, and some remains whole; the energy put into the act of dragging the brick comes to that of the heat dissipated by the friction....?
(I was looking for a simple example)
Painted Wolf; can you give me an example of matter having been destroyed ?

Mr_Spinkles,

"I'm not attacking you here michel, (honest ) I'm just observing that the conservation of matter really appears to have nothing to do with your belief in a Creator."

Of course; that is it in a nutshell. Why should a creator have to comform to the physical laws of the world he has designed.?.......I would have thought that his abilities would have been far beyond those that he endowed in our universe...........


Example:- you are God, you have a Mecano set; you assemble the mecano set so that it can be functional. Are you made up of little strips that attach to other with nuts & bolts?

To my way of thinking, God is so impossible for us to imagine that his power is something we can have no knowledge of - all we have as an indication of his might (as a believer) is the Universe

Am I making any sense ? - or do I still sound like a totally confused babling idiot?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Am I making any sense ? - or do I still sound like a totally confused babling idiot?

Well, as you're aware, I see no reason to believe in unevidenced and inherently unknowable things (especially while simultaneously rejecting many of the unknowable things of other religions). However, aside from that what you've said in your last post makes sense.

I think we can both agree, then, that whatever science has to say about matter being created or destroyed is irrelevant to whether or not a supernatural being (or many supernatural beings, or perhaps some kind of impersonal, supernatural "force") does create/did create matter.

 

[ch'ang]

can you give me an example of matter having been destroyed ?

Yeh matter is destroyed/changes state in an atom bomb it turns the matter into energy at such an amazing rate that enough energy is released to level anything in a huge radius (don't know to many stats for the A-bomb) so much energy is released because matter takes up a lot of energy as shown in the equation energy(e)=mass(m) x the speed of light(c) squared. On where the energy to make matter in our universe came from check out http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/cy/cyclic_model.htm if you are really into physics like me :jam: if you want some lighter reading on how the universe came to be check out http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1484/480406.pdf (sorry if that’s pretty heavy its the lightest I could find. You could also check out http://www.scienceforums.net/ and ask the people there some questions they know their stuff quite well, just don't talk anything religious they will rip you to pieces. Sorry if i got carried away with the science links but its my thing