In the “Kansas vs. Evolution” thread, someone brought up the fact that something had to exist first as a proof for the existence of G-d.
Now, anyone who’s not new to this board (or at least my posts) knows what I believe. But I write the following with the intention to be non-partisan.
Obviously, something had to be first.
One of the laws of physics is Conservation of Matter and Energy, which means that while matter and energy can be converted from one state to another, neither can ever be created from nothing or obliterated into nothing.
Therefore, whatever came first must be an exception to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, as we understand it.
Now, there are three possible approaches to figuring out the answer to “where did it all come from?”
The first thing was supernatural (e.g., G-d as defined by most world religions). It therefore exists outside the laws of physics, and is capable not only of creating matter and energy from nothing, but of having been created from nothing itself.
The first thing was a natural object, and there is an exception to the LoCoMaE, but the current state of our knowledge of physics has yet to identify it.
Someone (Gaudere?) mentioned something about quarks popping up out of nowhere. Does this mean that the LoCoMaE does have known exceptions? Has that law been rewritten to explain them? Or do they fit within previous understandings?
If you are a dedicated atheist, does that mean that you believe approach 2 is truer than approach 1 above? If so, why?
Chaim Mattis Keller
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective