• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Science has the burden of proving that two masses collided to create existence without breaking the laws of physics. What created that matter? What set it in motion?

    I’m only saying the argument works both ways. I’m also very against dogma over science. I’m a scientific person who simply believes it’s equally possible that there was, and was not, interference-based creation of existence.

    • flerp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re begging the question(s).

      As far as we know, matter can’t be created or destroyed. Before asking “what created it” you have to demonstrate that it even CAN be created.

      And “what set it in motion?” Have you ever seen anything NOT in motion? Everything is moving relative to everything else.

      As far as we have observed, there is no such thing as “nothing” or “motionless.” To ask a question like how does something come from nothing, or how did things begin to move, you are assuming states that we have never observed to be possible.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Both matter creation and spontaneous motion are against by the laws of physics.

        The current theory of the perpetual expansion of the universe is that all objects are moving away from the universal center due to the Big Bang. It is supported by observations of directional movement and evidence of perpetual slowing toward universal entropy. That explains the motion we observe in all of existence. It does not explain the existence of two enormous masses prior to the Big Bang, nor what caused them to be in motion to collide in the first place.