BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
I offered known to be fair. I allow for the possibility only. But my comment works either way. Let’s say that there is (definitively) NO such mechanism. What follows? Simply that matter cannot be created or destroyed.Wait a minute! What are you going on about now? I see what you were hinting at. You're right.
Once again:
Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy (something cannot be the cause of it's own existence), would simply be there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. The term known gratuitously confounds both the philosophical and scientific reality of the matter.Good eye!Hence, simply, there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.
Thinking and writing about logical arguments is especially hard. One should always avoid gratuitous words, as they readily serve to imply or express things not intended.
And yet, it exists. So, if it wasn’t created …. Where’d it come from? If it came from God, presumably he may have created it. But we get back to that violation of the premise problem.
It seems as though you think that maybe I’m just being quarrelsome. That’s not my intent. I’m genuinely asking questions. I’m more than willing to consider each and every proposed answer. But if they don’t scratch that itch, I’ll say so. If the answer raises another (maybe tangentially related) question, I’ll ask that too.
Not to be vexatious. But to see if I can get a clear handle on it.