First, the brief facts, and then the intriguing question:
In the Nineteenth Century, physicists established what they called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It stated that, within a closed system, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but remained constant over time. In the Twentieth Century, and in response to Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, this Law was updated to include mass as well as energy. It is now called the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy.
To put it succinctly, both mass and energy may change forms and be transferred about from here to there, but they are never spontaneously generated and they never cease to exist.
So there you have it–wrapped up all nice and neat, as they say. But there’s a problem; if, within a closed system, neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed, then how can we explain the existence of mass and energy in our own universe? Only two options exist under the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:
- Our universe (along with all its mass and energy) has always existed, or
- Our universe is, or was at some point in the past, not a “closed system”. That is, the energy and mass that exist here must have come from someplace else.
Neither possibility is convenient to conventional science. Indeed, it is now quite the fad to believe in a “Big Bang” that was the source of what we see today in the Universe. But who can explain the source of the energy that would have been required to make the “bang”? And, as I have asked in another post, what could have been the source of the supposedly-compacted mass that went “bang”?
If either the energy or mass came from elsewhere, then just where is that?
Could we justify a continual ignoring of this difficult question on the grounds that it is “outside the scope of science”? Or would that be irresponsible? Be careful how you answer, because if you say it would be irresponsible, you condemn a great number of scientists who hold that the existence of God is “outside the scope of science”, and who thus refuse to deal with the obvious question.
I cannot prove the existence of God, just as you cannot. Honesty bids me confess, however, that I cannot disprove it, either. Nor can I honestly pretend that the question of our origins doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that these questions are huge and deserve a great deal of thought and examination. When a scientist tells you that the question of God is simply “outside the scope of science”, he’s telling you that he’d rather not talk about it, and that he supposes you’re dumb enough to find his dodge convincing.
Likely, he won’t hesitate at all to go on and on speculating about how the “Big Bang” played out, but ask him to speculate about how a creator model might have played out and you’re sure to get a quick schooling on how that’s “outside the scope of science”, or even about how believing in a creator is silly or stupid.
I can get this sort of irrational and inconsistent justification from a preacher. (And I often do!) Dishonest reasoning and argumentation is out of place no matter who uses it. People’s minds deserve better use than that.
So back to the Law of Conservation for a moment—
It’s interesting to me that some scientists will tell us that our sun came into existence 4.6 billion years ago, and has 5 billion years of fuel left before it expands into a red giant, effectively destroying our solar system. How can they possibly know this if they do not know the particulars of the origin of the Universe? Indeed, they cannot.
What they are not telling you is that their assertions are based on some pretty big and unprovable assumptions. They’re assuming that the Universe is a closed system, and that it’s been closed since it began. And if they want to enjoy a stable scientific environment, they’re going to have to keep on saying this, for to admit otherwise would be to start a major dust storm in the scientific community.
You see, if the system has always been closed, then it stands to reason (if the Law of Conservation is accurate) that the mass and energy have always been here. And if this is the cause, what could possibly have been the impetus of the “Big Bang”? Or if we’re so certain that the mass and energy have always been here, then we must question the validity of the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. There’s nothing “nice and neat” about it, no matter how diligently someone may try to calm our inquiring minds.
The fact of the matter is that there are an awful lot of things we simply do not know. Sadly, far too many have managed to make a living out of pretending that we do know. In science and religion, such scoundrels are plentiful. And the real crux of the matter—the real gut-wrenching fact—is that such scoundrels thrive because there the public is so utterly ignorant as to be easily taken in by them.
I suppose I have forgiven myself for it, but it still grieves me to think of how many years I went about repeating whatever it was I had found convincing without ever having “done the math” for myself. As I run further and further from such ignorance, it is my hope that I will find many, many others running along in the same direction.
Jack
