I have made a lot of arguments, some are trolls while some are kind of intellectaul. Today, I want to give you scientific reasons why a creator most likely doesn't exist.

I am going to explain this using the lawof conservation of energy, law of conservation of mass and theory of relativity. I will try and synchronize them to make my point clear.

The law of conservation of energy states that in close system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside. ... The only way to use energy is to transform energy from one form to another.

The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as the system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed.

What this means is that, if the universe is a closed system, it means that mass and energy have always remained constant, since the universe is 100% energy and mass, it means that the universe has always existed, it was never created and cannot be destroyed. The keyword here is "closed system" it brings us to the question of whether the universe is a closed or open system. Before we discuss that, we have to chip in the mass/energy equation from the theory of relativity, which says energy is directly proportional to mass E=mc^2. So wherever you see matter, it means it's energy and vice versa.

Is the universe a closed system? If the universe is a closed system it means that the universe can always exist on its own without a creator. If the universe is an open system, it means that it gets energy input from outside which also implies that the law of conservation energy also applies from that source of energy. For the purposes of your question, the answer is probably "closed". You could have come to that answer just by asking yourself why it is that you care whether it's open or closed. The reason you care, I assume, is because you want to know whether the law of conservation of energy and similar laws apply. So then, why does whether it is open or closed affect that? Because an open system might have energy added to it or subtracted from it by an external source/sink of energy. So then, shouldn't it be obvious that if you think the universe isn't connected to anything else, or you define the word "universe" so that it includes everything that could possibly affect anything, then there's no reason (at this level of discourse) the laws of thermodynamics wouldn't apply?

So thermodynamically, the universe cannot be an open system, whatever causes the exchange of energy with the universe is automatically part of the universe and that realm clearly still operate within the confines of the law of thermodynamics.

So it doesn't make sense scientifically that the universe was created.

There is a universe from nothingness. However, nothingness is not a zero or a blank state. It is something, in the negative or opposite state. Think of matter, we have anti matter; particles and anti particle.

Moreso, there is a creator. The problem could have been the choice of word. There can never be a universe from nothing, cuz there was a cosmic singularity which beget the universe till date

FOLYKAZE:
There is a universe from nothingness. However, nothingness is not a zero or a blank state. It is something, in the negative or opposite state. Think of matter, we have anti matter; particles and anti particle.

We don't know if the universe comes from nothingness. That's not what big bang says.

According to the law of conservation of mass and energy, there havs to be antimatter.

Matter+Antimatter has to equal zero. Well, that brings us to nothingness

Workch:
I have made a lot of arguments, some are trolls while some are kind of intellectaul. Today, I want to give you scientific reasons why a creator most likely doesn't exist.

I am going to explain this using the lawof conservation of energy, law of conservation of mass and theory of relativity...

See Suicide!

Na Creator, they make Law! Eg God say you must chop herbs and meat and you Obey!

Mr. Toyoda talk say if you use d key wey E give you for the New Camry to start, the Camry must start. Law.

Where there is A Law, There is Aaw Giver and there must be the Law-Giver.

Dtruthspeaker:


See Suicide!

Na Creator, they make Law! Eg God say you must chop herbs and meat and you Obey!

Mr. Toyoda talk say if you use d key wey E give you for the New Camry to start, the Camry must start. Law.

Where there is A Law, There must be the Law-Giver.

this is not a discussion for dullards. Move and let smart people comment

Workch:
this is not a discussion for dullards. Move and let smart people comment

Translation! Move let me and my kind console ourselves that there is No God!

Dtruthspeaker:


See Suicide!

Na Creator, they make Law! Eg God say you must chop herbs and meat and you Obey!

Mr. Toyoda talk say if you use d key wey E give you for the New Camry to start, the Camry must start. Law.

Where there is A Law, There is Aaw Giver and there must be the Law-Giver.

Well im they exercise im Creator given right to hang imself!

Dtruthspeaker:


Translation! Move let me and my kind console ourselves that there is No God!

The truth is that God foretold what is happening today in the Bible!
So if atheists are also PREACHING about their opinion we are not surprised but there's nothing you people can TEACH.
So continue with your preaching!

Workch:
We don't know if the universe comes from nothingness. That's not what big bang says.

According to the law of conservation of mass and energy, there havs to be antimatter.

Matter+Antimatter has to equal zero. Well, that brings us to nothingness

If you say matter + antimatter equals zero, in principle it implies nothing should exist, but here we are, solid and strong as matter. When the two meet, they annihilate but leave energy behinds.

Zero is fictional, there is no nothingness, there must be something and some may choose to call that thing God or Creator or Cause

FOLYKAZE:


If you say matter + antimmer equals zero, in principle it implies nothing should exist, but here we are, solid and strong as matter. When the two meet, they annihilate but leave energy behinds.

Zero is fictional, there is no nothingness, there must be something and some may choose to call that thing God or Creator or Cause

Well, something will exist until the antimatter collides with matter which has been experimented severally.

Stop hastily jumping to your God conclusion. Be smart enough

FOLYKAZE:


If you say matter + antimatter equals zero, in principle it implies nothing should exist, but here we are, solid and strong as matter. When the two meet, they annihilate but leave energy behinds.

Zero is fictional, there is no nothingness, there must be something and some may choose to call that thing God or Creator or Cause

In a system, if you have same mass of matter and antimatter, nothing will exist.

The question a smart person would have asked is where are all the antimatters? And not reaching a god conclusion

Workch:
Well, something will exist until the antimatter collides with matter which has been experimented severally.

Stop hastily jumping to your God conclusion. Be smart enough

If this collision resulted in nothingness or zero, can you explain why it hasn't annihilate all the matter in the universe immediately after the big bang?

Secondly, this thread is about a Creator, a term which implies God. You shouldn't get angry I chose to deploy God here...

NB; I perceive God as some form of energies and particles in the universe

Workch:
I have made a lot of arguments, some are trolls while some are kind of intellectaul. Today, I want to give you scientific reasons why a creator most likely doesn't exist.

I am going to explain this using the lawof conservation of energy, law of conservation of mass and theory of relativity. I will try and synchronize them to make my point clear.

The law of conservation of energy states that in close system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside. ... The only way to use energy is to transform energy from one form to another.

The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as the system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed.

What this means is that, if the universe is a closed system, it means that mass and energy have always remained constant, since the universe is 100% energy and mass, it means that the universe has always existed, it was never created and cannot be destroyed. The keyword here is "closed system" it brings us to the question of whether the universe is a closed or open system. Before we discuss that, we have to chip in the mass/energy equation from the theory of relativity, which says energy is directly proportional to mass E=mc^2. So wherever you see matter, it means it's energy and vice versa.

Is the universe a closed system? If the universe is a closed system it means that the universe can always existed on its own without a creator. If the universe is an open system, it means that it gets energy input from outside which also implies that the law of conservation energy also applies from that source of energy. For the purposes of your question, the answer is probably "closed". You could have come to that answer just by asking yourself why it is that you care whether it's open or closed. The reason you care, I assume, is because you want to know whether the law of conservation of energy and similar laws apply. So then, why does whether it is open or closed affect that? Because an open system might have energy added to it or subtracted from it by an external source/sink of energy. So then, shouldn't it be obvious that if you think the universe isn't connected to anything else, or you define the word "universe" so that it includes everything that could possibly affect anything, then there's no reason (at this level of discourse) the laws of thermodynamics wouldn't apply?

So thermodynamically, the universe cannot be an open system, whatever causes the exchange of energy with the universe is automatically part of the universe and that realm clearly still operate within the confines of the law of thermodynamics.

So it doesn't make sense scientifically that the universe was created.

This is an insightful piece.

Anyone with a strong background in science, especially Physics, can also make a strong argument for the existence of a creator of the universe scientifically, or even call the universe itself a system (God), which all things in existence are components of.

While there have been numerous perspectives on the existence of God or a creator of the universe in history, in recent times, I find Otem's philosophy on the subject quite deep, especially due to the fact that it looks scientific.

About the universe being a closed system, and the highlighted part of your post, the Otemic philosophy is based on some of those propositions highlighted in your post, with detailed explanations given in Otem's thread below and in OtemAtum's book of history.

The thread offers an interesting perspective on the Beginning of the Universe, which really has no beginning nor end since time doesn't really exist:

https://www.nairaland.com/4462945/otem-sapiens-historical-account-saviour

My own position on the subject of God's existence or non-existence is agnostic. Due to the current stage of the scientific understanding of our universe, I find that position convenient.

Workch:
In a system, if you have same mass of matter and antimatter, nothing will exist.

Something exist, energy.

Can you explain why antimatter hasn't annihilate all the matter in the universe immediately after the big bang?

Workch:
The question a smart person would have asked is where are all the antimatters? And not reaching a god conclusion

You don't whine me to dance to your tune sir.

FOLYKAZE:


Something exist, energy.

Can you explain why antimatter hasn't annihilate all the matter in the universe immediately after the big bang?



You don't whine me to dance to your tune sir.

if hasn't because it hasn't collided with matter.

FOLYKAZE:


If this collision resulted in nothingness or zero, can you explain why it hasn't annihilate all the matter in the universe immediately after the big bang?

Secondly, this thread is about a Creator, a term which implies God. You shouldn't get angry I chose to deploy God here...

NB; I perceive God as some form of energies and particles in the universe

If you perceive God as energy then I cannot argue with you because you are also energy, a chemical energy in this case.

Going by the definition of energy, it means everything is energy and everything is God or maybe you have a specific form of energy you think maybe God

Workch:
if hasn't because it hasn't collided with matter.

No sir.

The Big bang and it aftermath produced equal numbers of matter and antimmater. Applying your submissions, that when same amount of matter and antimatter collides nothing exist, how come then do the universe seems to have more matter than antimatter? Do the antimatters dissappear or something?

Secondly, how does the energy resulted from the aftermath of antimatter matter collision amounts to nothing or zero?

A001:

This is an insightful piece.

Anyone with a strong background in science, especially Physics, can also make a strong argument for the existence of a creator of the universe scientifically, or even call the universe itself a system (God), which all things in existence are components of.

While there have been numerous perspectives on the existence of God or a creator of the universe in history, in recent times, I find Otem's philosophy on the subject quite deep, especially due to the fact that it looks scientific.

About the universe being a closed system, and the highlighted part of your post, the Otemic philosophy is based on some of those propositions highlighted in your post, with detailed explanations given in Otem's thread below and in OtemAtum's book of history.

The thread offers an interesting perspective on the Beginning of the Universe, which really has no beginning nor end since time doesn't really exist:

https://www.nairaland.com/4462945/otem-sapiens-historical-account-saviour

My own position on the subject of God's existence or non-existence is agnostic. Due to the current stage of the scientific understanding of our universe, I find that position convenient.

Agnostic view is OKay bro.
I think about it sometimes as well, but one thing we are sure of is that the Christian description of a God has been disproven. We are sure it doesn't exist, but for a deistic God? We don't know yet

Workch:
If you perceive God as energy then I cannot argue with you because you are also energy, a chemical energy in this case.

Going by the definition of energy, it means everything is energy and everything is God

I think that's really the truth or is close to the truth.

But then, until scientists understand nature and the universe better, and our place in the universe, the highlighted is subject to further questioning and skepticism.

Workch:
Agnostic view is OKay bro.
I think about it sometimes as well, but one thing we are sure of is that the Christian description of a God has been disproven. We are sure it doesn't exist, but for a deistic God? We don't know yet

Yes, I agree with your views (or facts) on the Christian description of God or the Islamic one, they both look childish and dull.

Workch:
If you perceive God as energy then I cannot argue with you because you are also energy, a chemical energy in this case.

Going by the definition of energy, it means everything is energy and everything is God or maybe you have a specific form of energy you think maybe God

Ye are Gods, John 10:34

From the Yoruba spirituality, everything that exist is conscious and active, thus are Gods.

FOLYKAZE:


No sir.

The Big bang and it aftermath produced equal numbers of matter and antimmater. Applying your submissions, that when same amount of matter and antimatter collides nothing exist, how come then do the universe seems to have more matter than antimatter? Do the antimatters dissappear or something?

Secondly, how does the energy resulted from the aftermath of antimatter matter collision amounts to nothing or zero?

The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter.

Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy.

Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay.

So we don't know this yet, no shame is admitting that we don't know.

FOLYKAZE:


Ye are Gods, John 10:34

From the Yoruba spirituality, everything that exist is conscious and active, thus are Gods.

That's not the definition of God by standard.

If it's a god then it has to have supernatural abilities. Your definition of God also make dogs, pigs and even inanimate entities gods because they carry energy as well.

Atheist all over centuries, past to present thought that saying "there is no God" will give them peace...

But still they have no peace...

They still need to do an atheist Evangelism to get converts to satisfy their conscience...

Why do they still feel insecure?

Atheism is yet another religion with doctrine called science. Preachers called scientist/researchers and members called atheist, who can fume, argue like other religious fanatics do.

A001:

I think that's really the truth or is close to the truth.

But then, until scientists understand nature and the universe better, and our place in the universe, the highlighted is subject to further questioning and skepticism.

I don't think there's nothing we don't know about our place in the universe.

We are doomed if we don't even get out here in the next 1 million years, humans are inconsequential to whatever happens in the universe

Workch:
That's not the definition of God by standard.

If it's a god then it has to have supernatural abilities. Your definition of God also make dogs, pigs and even inanimate entities gods because they carry energy as well.

And who are you to rule out the standards?

So yes, my definition applies to everything.

Isn't it strange that a body of water, stream, river, ocean are been worshiped by some people but that water that runs in your tap is not?

Ever wondered that cows are worshipped or revered in india but it is knifed into beaf here?

Ever wondered why stones are revered in some part of the society but same is grinded into gravel by you.

Until you know what makes God a God, you do not fit to discuss what you don't know

FOLYKAZE:


And who are you to rule out the standards?

So yes, my definition applies to everything.

Isn't it strange that a body of water, stream, river, ocean are been worshiped by some people but that water that runs in your tap is not?

Ever wondered that cows are worshipped or revered in india but it is knifed into beaf here?

Ever wondered why stones are revered in some part of the society but same is grinded into gravel by you.

Until you know what makes God a God, you do not fit to discuss what you don't know

So by your definition, a GOAT is also a god since it carries energy?

Crude oil is more of a God to me based on this definition

vinceyinnovation:
Atheist all over centuries, past to present thought that saying "there is no God" will give them peace...

But still they have no peace...

They still need to do an atheist Evangelism to get converts to satisfy their conscience...

Why do they still feel insecure?

Atheism is yet another religion with doctrine called science. Preachers called scientist/researchers and members called atheist, who can fume, argue like other religious fanatics do.

This post only shows your high level of ignorance about how science works. In the world of science, there are no dogmas and absolutes.

Considering these, calling science a doctrine shows you don't know what a doctrine means.

In science, no fact, law, or principle is beyond questioning. What is called a doctrine can't be questioned.

Workch:
I don't think there's nothing we don't know about our place in the universe.

We are doomed if we don't even get out here in the next 1 million years, humans are inconsequential to whatever happens in the universe

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean we know all things there's to know about the universe or our place in it?

By getting out of here, do you mean the earth or the universe as a whole?

A001:

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean we know all things there's to know about the universe or our place in it?

By getting out of here, do you mean the earth or the universe as a whole?

We don't know all things but we know what will happen to humanity if we don't leave this planet to mars.

Workch:

Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy.

Since energy is God, we arrive back at God. And that there is no nothingness or zero except the negative state of a particle.

Do tell, isn't energy or pure energy or whatever you choose to call it same thing as matter?

Workch:
Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay.

So we don't know this yet, no shame is admitting that we don't know.

No offense in not knowing.