I never said anything about creation. You obviously have trouble reading before quoting. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot come into being. Just as matter is not created or destroyed. All things must be traced back to a fixed starting point. It was in direct refutation of crank, who argued physical matter just expanded into existence. In philosophy, there is another law, which says one can not stretch past the bounds of reality. Two laws were broken. The law of thermodynamics and the law of non-contradiction. If anything, this works against creation and the big bang alike. Just as matter can't be expanded past the bounds of reality, a god can't just poof up existence. Which is why I'm pantheist.
Interesting. Now, here (IMHO) is a reference in the 'Bible' that parallels the Law of noncontradiction.... creating a condition of either/or in relation to a persons spiritual status, and showing an excluded middle (ground/frame of reference). 1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Whatever the case, basic reason shows that the BBT is false. You can not be void and existent at the same time.
It is not necessary for you to use the word "creation" in order to describe a creation event. However, looking back at what you said, you actually did use the word "creation". "Because things can't just come into existence. Everything in the universe has a fixed starting point. An initial creation. Incorporeal matter doesn't imply god, but divinity. Divinity means the greatest possible thing imaginable. Are you saying that physical matter was always there? I would be forced to point out the philosophical errors in that belief." Please do point out the philosophical errors inherent in believing that matter has always existed. I'll await your "proof" with bated breath.
Proof? I didn't make an assertion, only that crank's was wrong because it broke the law of thermodynamics and non-contradiction. Say what you want, but that holds true. How about you refute the law of non-contradiction? Can you do it? Obviously not, because it is a law. Not a theory, but a law. When people try to violate laws, then they're fools or ignorant. As you and crank are making the claim that matter has always existed, it is up to you to prove it. Not me. You are asking for proof to a claim you made. Which is silly.
I dunno. Isn't Stephen Hawking the guy who created most of those laws anyways? He's a very smart person and I find what he has to say very interesting when it comes to the creation of the universe. Also I am pretty sure Science is not stagnant and is ever changing and evolving as new knowledge is found. Who's to say Scientific laws must remain permanent and unchanged? If they discover something new that affects the laws it would have to change.
I realize that but he is a huge figure in the Scientific community and has created quite a bit of advancement and progress in Scientific thoughts, theories and ideas. Would you disagree that Science is in fact not stagnant and can be ever changing depending on new found information and facts?
If they are a law, then no. There is no such thing as a scientific law. Only laws of reason. If something violates reason, then the thing in question is not reasonable. If something isn't reasonable, then it is false. Science must constrain itself to the laws of reason.
??? Sorry but you lost me. What is the law of reason? Are we still talking Science or have we just gone into Philosophy?
Like I said before I am not the best at Science or even math for that matter. Although I do think it's interesting to learn about when presented in an entertaining and educational way. So I did a little Google search on Scientific Laws. http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html It appears that it is probable that Scientific Laws can change when data and evidence changes.
Science and philosophy are intertwined. Science is based on reason, is it not? How can we determine things without using reason and logic? Therefore, when a scientific theory violates a law of reason and/or logic, that theory is considered false. There is no way around this truth.
If it can change then it is not a law. Then it is considered a theory. This isn't rocket science. Definition of Law: a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
Obviously, however our understanding of the way things work can change and thus the laws that conduct them no? And it has been observed that matter can appear from nothing of course it appears you'd have to change your thought process when it comes to that nothing and the way matter and anti-matter cancel each other out and produce energy in the process. Interesting stuff. http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ing-theory-says-matter-can-be-conjured-vacuum I don't think Science is stagnant, I think it can change as new information, knowledge, evidence and facts are discovered. It might be hard to accept or change the way you think based on what you believe is an absolute, but I don't think Science deals in absolutes anyways. It is constantly evolving. - - - Updated - - - I don't think you are understanding what I am saying though. Laws CAN change as our knowledge and as evidence changes and grows. In other words, if we found new information that explained something we thought was an absolute, the law explaining this would have to be changed. Science is not absolute. You must keep an open mind that it can change.
NO! A law is an established fact. Facts cannot change. I can't stress this enough. This isn't true. Source it and cite it from a credible source. The law of thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. End of story. Non-contradiction shows nothing is always something, so the establishment that void created existence is false. According to Aristotle. Laws cannot. A law is an established fact. If it can change than it shouldn't be a law, but a theory. You haven't disproven the theory. It is called a law for a reason. It is established and true. You're basically saying that the law will one day be proven false. Well I'm telling you it hasn't, and likely never will, because it is classified under correct terminology as an "established fact".
I am and I'm telling you it is false. I have an open mind, but for the same reason we accept gravity pulls down, I accept that matter cannot be created or destroyed. A law is an established fact! It CANNOT change if it is truly a law
But what are established facts? A group of Scientists agrees on it and therefore it becomes fact. However it is still suspect to change should new evidence appear. It is just not very likely. You're not terribly open minded are you? Does the idea that proven facts can actually change when new evidence appears truly bother you so much? Again, you are letting your preconceived notions about laws being absolute and permanent affect your ability to remain open minded. We may disagree, I am just not of the opinion that Science is ever stagnant, even the laws that govern it. I believe many things are possible should Scientists observe, test and study something new that would contradict their proven laws. Perhaps we should agree to disagree? I am not as knowledgeable about this as you are, that much is evident. But my curiosity has been piqued and I am interested in learning more about this subject. I have never claimed that I have disproven it. I apologize if what I am saying is frustrating you. That is not my intention at all. I just find it silly that any Scientist would close off his or her mind and deal solely in absolutes. I think when they have more open minds to greater thoughts and ideas they are more likely to discover more and advance our progress and knowledge of Science and how the world and universe work. Anyhow, I concede for now as I actually have to run off to work. But thank you for the discussion as short as it was.
That is very true and is expounded upon in Genesis 1: 1 and 2... In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was void and without form....."
when did I make the claim that matter has always existed? what I did say was that you can't claim something can't come from nothing, then say a creator (which is something) came from nothing. either something CAN come from nothing (including creators and/or universes), or something was always there. I made no claim either way, but you did.
