Time to Start Over: First, Face Delusion

If you are a confirmed atheist, please prove that matter created matter.




Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. 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. Therefore, the quantity of mass is conserved over time.

Asking me to prove that matter created matter is to ask me to disprove the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry, I can’t do that. But there is no impediment to an understanding that matter is eternal, other than our preconceptions. Perhaps you can indicate why those law are more likely than not to have been falsified in a creation ex nihilo, dependent upon the folklore of an anonymous bronze age mystic (Genesis 1).

1 Like

Quick question: Have you had any chance to read David Hart’s analysis on “Being.” He uses only reason to unpack the full implications of Christian theology (more often than not in the first three or four centuries) on this question. Many atheists dismiss him as one more believer trying to sneak theism in the back door (shades of Anselm) but he is challenging and stimulating to say the least. This is no elementary approach to these issues (ala Intelligent Design). Still appreciate your comments!!

No, I haven’t read Hart. It sounds interesting. I’m not so interested in Christian theology as I am in the historical causes of the emergence of Christianity itself. Still, I may take a look. I’m never reticent to read other viewpoints.


Wouldn’t you imagine this reasoning goes against the accepted theory of the Big Bang?

As I understand the theory, the big bang originated with an extreme concentration of matter that underwent a sudden massive expansion. Whether or not the theory is factual, it is not a sudden appearance of matter out of nothing. But does the big bang concept actually qualify as a formal scientific theory? Or is “theory” being used in the vernacular of a possibility? I certainly don’t know.


My understanding (emphasis on “my”) seems to be held by others in that the Big Bang Theory is just that: theory but unprovable. Maybe our esteemed though long-winded contributors might care too recreate their typing fingers and their minds in other ways discussing it… LOL


That depends whether the Big Bang began as a white or black speck. LOL!


Until another theory can successfully explain dark energy and dark matter, the Standard Particle Theory is the dominant theory. It has the best description of the subatomic world.

The question that remains unanswered is, “Why is there matter instead of nothing?”


There is no why. The fact is that existence exists. It then follows that we must recognize it, identify it, categorize it, and understand it.


This is the main difference between science and religion. Science gives us the facts but religion helps us make meanings in life. We need both.


Difficult not just with the Gospel and the rest of scripture. It’s impossible to reconcile with concept of a mentally stable human being.

Imagine having a dad that goes to great lengths to tell his children that he loves them unconditionally and would do anything for them, even take a bullet for them. Said parent also tells his kids that if they do not live life with zero personality flaws and zero poor choices, that there will come a time when he will soak them in gasoline and set a match to them. To make make matters worse, being agnostic about their own flaws doesn’t count. Likewise, honestly struggling with bad decisions or the consequences of past bad decisions does’t count either. And here’s the kicker…there is no set date as to when this immolation will take place. It could happen at any time.

What kind of monster does that to a child? How does the above scenario not produce massively insecure individuals who who have a really warped concept of love. Imagine the fallout this warped concept would generate in the kids’ lives until their dying days. This would be the ultimate in “double messages”. And that is what many looking at the doctrine of the sanctuary (as it is almost always articulated) are left to deal with…a double message that portrays God as a monster. A God with the scars of the crucifixion on one hand, and can of gasoline, a book of matches, and a hidden countdown timer in the other hand.


This, exacerbated by abuse, was what had me suicidal throughout my teenage years. Is it any wonder I’ve come to the place I’m currently at. It doesn’t help when some condescending brother or sister says, “But you need to understand that…”

Rubbish! :joy:


Rubbish! is quite right. I would add that the hypothetical dad I described is engaging in emotional/psychological abuse to the extent that I’d report him to CPS. This kind of abuse is more difficult to prove than physical or sexual abuse, but it is damaging in its own right.


Definition: Religion A system of thought designed to help avoid the facts of reality.

Religion, at its core is based upon arbitrary concepts; presuppositions which are simply proposed without grounds. The fact that many “need” religion to find meaning has nothing to do with a proper apprehension of reality. Rather, it has to do with that which we wish reality to be, and moving on from there.

None of this is to say that only religion can offer meaning.


Yes…rather like one of the Vestal Virgins. :laughing:

1 Like

Really well thought out and written essay. I enjoyed the lively discussion that followed and am looking forward to more. Thanks

1 Like

Henry…I am curious as to when you believe that the SDA Church became, “Laodicean”.

1 Like

Please help. I’m about to go crazy searching the internet to confirm the definition of “Religion A system of thought designed to help avoid the facts of reality.” To help avoid the facts of reality or is it to help establish and identify meanings in life?

Would you be kind to send me a link where you got your definition? Thank you.

1 Like

Relax. It came from Bart’s best musings.

I note that the title of the article being discussed is themed “Face Delusion”. Whether or not religiosity is "needed, is it not the essence of “delusion” to build a system upon an arbitrary presupposition?