The origin of matter

[marke]

If God did not create original matter then did matter create itself? Do those who reject faith in God believe original matter was once concentrated in a physically small but extremely compact ball of matter that has always existed without beginning?

[Clownboat]

If God did not create original matter then did matter create itself?

You offer a false dichotomy.
This is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone presents a situation as having only two possible outcomes when, in reality, there are more options available. This oversimplification can be used to manipulate or persuade by limiting the perceived choices and forcing someone to choose between two extremes.

To answer your question, there is no reason to think that matter created itself. I don't even know why you use the word 'create' when it's reasonable that what happened is just chemicals reacting to their properties. Things we see happening today that 'create' (again, just chemicals doing what they do) snowflakes for example or the feeling we call 'love'.

Do those who reject faith in God believe original matter was once concentrated in a physically small but extremely compact ball of matter that has always existed without beginning?

Faith is required in order to believe that something false, is true.
If you want to believe in Bigfoot, faith is required.
Nessie
Allah
Alien abductions
For this reason, I argue that all humans should avoid employing faith as a reason to believe a claim.

I assume this will help you to see the flaw in your reasoning:
Since you reject that Lord Brahma crated original matter, does it follow that you then believe original matter was once concentrated in a physically small but extremely compact ball of matter that has always existed without beginning? When you answer 'no', please apply this to your question to see how it is a non sequitur.

non se-qui-tur
/nn sekwdr/
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

[marke]

If God did not create original matter then did matter create itself?

You offer a false dichotomy.
This is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone presents a situation as having only two possible outcomes when, in reality, there are more options available. This oversimplification can be used to manipulate or persuade by limiting the perceived choices and forcing someone to choose between two extremes.

To answer your question, there is no reason to think that matter created itself. I don't even know why you use the word 'create' when it's reasonable that what happened is just chemicals reacting to their properties. Things we see happening today that 'create' (again, just chemicals doing what they do) snowflakes for example or the feeling we call 'love'.

Marke: I hardly see how "just chemicals reacting to their properties" offers any solution to the problem of the origin of chemicals in the first place. Chemical reactions cannot explain the origin of matter since before the origin of matter there were no chemicals to react with one another.

[Clownboat]

Marke: I hardly see how "just chemicals reacting to their properties" offers any solution to the problem of the origin of chemicals in the first place.

I acknowledge your incredulity here.
To stick to the question you asked though, no, matter didn't create itself. Please see the law of conservation of mass.

Chemical reactions cannot explain the origin of matter since before the origin of matter there were no chemicals to react with one another. [/b]

They can. We actually have an entire theory about this very thing. I do acknowledge your incredulity here though.

In hopes of having this hit home for you.
I hardly see how a corpse can reanimate to life is incredulity and is not evidence that Jesus did not raise from the dead. That is all you are doing and what's really troubling is how you do this with a universal law.

Scientific law is the description of a naturally occurring phenomena in the world. It explains how something happens. Laws are expressed using mathematical formulas or equations. They can be proved and require empirical data to support the findings.
Theories are powerful things when it comes to science (germ theory, plate tectonics, etc), but laws are proven and cannot be denied. Laws in all cases are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence, therefore your incredulity on the matter, matters not.

[marke]

Marke: I hardly see how "just chemicals reacting to their properties" offers any solution to the problem of the origin of chemicals in the first place.

I acknowledge your incredulity here.
To stick to the question you asked though, no, matter didn't create itself. Please see the law of conservation of mass.

Marke: I do not see how the law of conservation of mass either proves mass has always existed or was introduced into the universe at some point of origin.

Chemical reactions cannot explain the origin of matter since before the origin of matter there were no chemicals to react with one another. [/b]

They can. We actually have an entire theory about this very thing. I do acknowledge your incredulity here though.

In hopes of having this hit home for you.
I hardly see how a corpse can reanimate to life is incredulity and is not evidence that Jesus did not raise from the dead. That is all you are doing and what's really troubling is how you do this with a universal law.

Scientific law is the description of a naturally occurring phenomena in the world. It explains how something happens. Laws are expressed using mathematical formulas or equations. They can be proved and require empirical data to support the findings.
Theories are powerful things when it comes to science (germ theory, plate tectonics, etc), but laws are proven and cannot be denied. Laws in all cases are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence, therefore your incredulity on the matter, matters not.

Marke: Claimingh science has no logical or scientific explanation for the origin of matter is not ignoring science, it is ignoring blind beliefs and ignorance that are falsely called science.

[SiNcE_1985]

You offer a false dichotomy.
This is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone presents a situation as having only two possible outcomes when, in reality, there are more options available. This oversimplification can be used to manipulate or persuade by limiting the perceived choices and forcing someone to choose between two extremes.

You're just simply wrong here.

Either..

1. God (supernatural, sentient, creative force) did it.

2. Mother Nature (natural, mindless force) did it.

These are literally the only two options..and I challenge you to present a third or more.

To answer your question, there is no reason to think that matter created itself. I don't even know why you use the word 'create' when it's reasonable that what happened is just chemicals reacting to their properties.

Um, no. That won't work either. These chemicals reacted in an ordered and mathematically precise fashion.

Mindless and blind processes doesn't give that kind of precision.

But minds do.

Things we see happening today that 'create' (again, just chemicals doing what they do) snowflakes for example or the feeling we call 'love'.

Chemicals doing what they do by the order of a Divine Orchestrator.

Faith is required in order to believe that something false, is true.

This is false. No one believes in stuff that they KNOW to be false.

So, you are wrong as usual.

[brunumb]

Mindless and blind processes doesn't give that kind of precision.

Yes, they do. The composition and shape of water molecules together with electrostatic forces cause the intricate and precise structures of snowflakes. No God necessary.

[Dimmesdale]

If God did not create original matter then did matter create itself? Do those who reject faith in God believe original matter was once concentrated in a physically small but extremely compact ball of matter that has always existed without beginning?

Well, let's see... did you create yourself? No, you are the effect of causes which generated you.... Do those causes have causes? Why yes, they themselves were effects of other causes....

If we go by analogy everything in our universe, though perhaps I would not use the term created, appears to have an Origin of some sort or another. So why would matter "in the beginning" be any other way? It too would need an Origin. So, no, I would not say it created itself, any more than any thing else in our experience, created itself..... There is, therefore, no good reason at all to think Matter does not have an Origin....

It is one thing to exist forever. It is another thing to have "Created itself." One needs the chicken first, without which there is no egg. There must be both an Origin as well as an Origination sprung BY that Origin....

When we speak of creation, we speak of it only within the context of time. Causes within time can bump and grind upon each other all they want. But if you go beyond time, how can anything be "created"? It must be Eternal, even if everlastingly Made.

[SiNcE_1985]

Mindless and blind processes doesn't give that kind of precision.

Yes, they do. The composition and shape of water molecules together with electrostatic forces cause the intricate and precise structures of snowflakes. No God necessary.

"That kind of precision" means the precision needed for life to be permissable in this universe... which is exactly what is needed, and what has occured.

The composition and shape of molecules together with electrostatic of forces may cause snowflakes, but those snowflakes aren't living, and they certainly aren't sentient.

Try again <-----basically, what I'm trying to say.

[William]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #6]

Either..

1. God (supernatural, sentient, creative force) did it.

2. Mother Nature (natural, mindless force) did it.

These are literally the only two options..and I challenge you to present a third or more.

Incorrect - one can actually morph those two options and from that, construct a third option.

How?

By removing the unnecessary in the two premises and merging what remains.

If "God" = Sentient creative force (SCF) and
If "Mother nature" = how the SCF shapes/constructs/manifests observable things
Then the third options presents as The SCF acting within the structures it creates and this is how things are brought into existence.

What has been removed from the 2 options you give?

1: That the SCF is "supernatural"
2: That the creation (Mother Nature) is "mindless".