How/Where does matter spontaneously materialize?

[BBruch]

I was reading something that said...

"The bedrock of the so called intelligent design movement is that matter cannot come from nothing. Illustrating one of the many reasons intelligent design isn't allowed in a class room is that physics shows that matter does indeed spontaneously materialize, and that the true evidence of a universe with a God, would be one in which nothing existed. In fact, it has been said by Nobel Prize winning scientists that because there is material in the Universe, is proof God doesn't exist."

So can anyone explain where there is proof that matter spontaneously appears? I would really like to know more about this.

The reason I was looking up an article like this is because lately I've been getting into small pointless religion debates with some of my deeply religious classmates. But no matter how logical/rational what I say to them is they always seem to talk me down with the stupidest points. I just want to find a good argument for why god doesn't exist.

Also, I know I'm probably sounding like a big douche bag right now but I have respect for what people choose to believe. I don't go up to every religious person I see trying to tell them what they know is invalid. But this has been bugging me for the longest time. Urgh... please help!

 

[projektMayhem]

There is no evidence of the existence or non-existence of a god, nor is it wise to expect such. You are wasting time debating with religious people - the very nature of faith is the rejection of reason and hence no argument you bring can be successful, by definition. In fact, you will have the opposite effect. Your repeated attempts to bring reason to their brain will only strengthen their faith.

IMO, Sam Harris has the right idea on dealing with this issue. Simply treat religious people as if they are silly, as we would do for someone who claims to see Elvis or Bigfoot or alien craft.

When you quote something, you should usually attribute the source, so that we may vet its authenticity and believability.

 

[BBruch]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_arguments_that_God_does_not_exist

^ Thats what I was reading from. I understand that actually. I'm very well aware that I'm wasting my own time arguing with religious people. I even expected a lot of responses similar to yours.

I didnt come here to be criticized, I just want to know where there is a study that shows that matter spontaneously appears and if anyone has a good argument against religion.

 

[ZapperZ]

There is something logically contradictory about this whole thing.

So let's start with the principle that something cannot come out of nothing. If one claims that this is the evidence for "God", then one then has made a logical contradiction, because you've accepted that there's God, and that God didn't have a "maker" or didn't come out of nothing. In other words, who made "God" and where did God come from? To argue that god didn't come out of anything implies that one HAS accepted something out of nothing. So one is being logically inconsistent - not accepting that something can come out of nothing, while at the some point, switch gears and accept that something can come out of nothing.

This is BEFORE we argue about vacuum fluctuation, etc. in Quantum field theory.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is something logically contradictory about this whole thing.

So let's start with the principle that something cannot come out of nothing. If one claims that this is the evidence for "God", then one then has made a logical contradiction, because you've accepted that there's God, and that God didn't have a "maker" or didn't come out of nothing. In other words, who made "God" and where did God come from? To argue that god didn't come out of anything implies that one HAS accepted something out of nothing. So one is being logically inconsistent - not accepting that something can come out of nothing, while at the some point, switch gears and accept that something can come out of nothing.

This is BEFORE we argue about vacuum fluctuation, etc. in Quantum field theory.

Zz.

The problem there is that by definition [according to religious beliefs], God has always existed. There was no beginning. In the case of the universe, there was.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_arguments_that_God_does_not_exist

^ Thats what I was reading from. I understand that actually. I'm very well aware that I'm wasting my own time arguing with religious people. I even expected a lot of responses similar to yours.

I didnt come here to be criticized, I just want to know where there is a study that shows that matter spontaneously appears and if anyone has a good argument against religion.

I don't keep up with this stuff much anymore, but as I understand it, one model from String Theory suggests that the universe has always existed and the Big Bang was a transformative event, not the beginning everything. Before the BB, the universe was an eleven-dimension hypersurface.

This is the only explanation I've heard that removes the need for something to come from nothing. In a sense, it would solve the problem the same way religion does.

 

[thorium1010]

The problem there is that by definition [according to religious beliefs], God has always existed. There was no beginning. In the case of the universe, there was.

It is a belief, so nothing can be verified. well in the way we could make an assumption/belief that the universe is just cyclical (i.e. beginning and end)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is a belief, so nothing can be verified. well in the way we could make an assumption/belief that the universe is just cyclical (i.e. beginning and end)

That has nothing to do with my response. Zapper cited an apparent logical contradiction where there is none.

As for the universe being cyclical, that would seem to be ruled out by the now known acceleration of the expansion, due to "dark energy".

Incidently, back before we knew about the accelerated expansion, back when people were arguing about the notion of a Big Crunch, I remember the Hindus pointing to the cyclical universe concept as being consistent with their religious beliefs.

 

[thorium1010]

How is there no contradiction ? as i posted previously, it is a stated belief / assumption that a god/supernatural always existed according to religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How is there no contradiction ? as i posted previously, it is a stated belief / assumption that a god/supernatural always existed according to religion.

Zapper cited an apparent logical contradiction in religious beliefs. It was in fact a misrepresentation of those beliefs. I didn't say anything about those beliefs being true or not.

 

[thorium1010]

Zapper cited an apparent logical contradiction in religious beliefs. It was in fact a misrepresentation of those beliefs. I didn't say anything about those beliefs being true or not.

so beliefs cannot be a contradiction in themselves.It is not a misrepresentation of any belief. So it is stated/believed (acc to religion) that the supernatural always existed, but the universe was created. And you cannot see a contradiction here ?

 

[JaredJames]

so beliefs cannot be a contradiction in themselves.It is not a misrepresentation of any belief. So it is stated/believed (acc to religion) that the supernatural always existed, but the universe was created. And you cannot see a contradiction here ?

I'm not sure if 'contradiction' is the right word, but I do see what is meant here and I must agree.

They willing accept a god(s) existing infinitely, but can't accept the universe has* (cutting the 'god factor' out so to speak).

* Not saying the universe has done. But there is something of a logical contradiction in their choice.

 

[thorium1010]

I'm not sure if 'contradiction' is the right word, but I do see what is meant here and I must agree.

They willing accept a god(s) existing infinitely, but can't accept the universe has* (cutting the 'god factor' out so to speak).

* Not saying the universe has done. But there is something of a logical contradiction in their choice.

It seems to me a logic that does not follow (contradiction maynot be the correct word ) even for the religious.

 

[BBruch]

I don't keep up with this stuff much anymore, but as I understand it, one model from String Theory suggests that the universe has always existed and the Big Bang was a transformative event, not the beginning everything. Before the BB, the universe was an eleven-dimension hypersurface.

This is the only explanation I've heard that removes the need for something to come from nothing. In a sense, it would solve the problem the same way religion does.

Can you explain what an eleven-dimension hypersurface is for me? And how does it remove the need for something to come from nothing?

 

[JaredJames]

And how does it remove the need for something to come from nothing?

It doesn't. It just extends the time a bit.

Bear in mind science doesn't say anything pre-big bang so you can't give a scientific opinion prior to that time.

Invoking a god(s) simply adds to problems. You go from who created the universe to who created the god - a pointless addition.

If the above is correct that they believe that god 'just is' and simply exists for all time then there's nothing you can do. There's no argument. There doesn't need to be one. They are blanketing any possible avenue and preventing a logical discussion. Namely, ignoring the issue.

Just accept it's a waste of time debating with them and leave it at that.

 

[BBruch]

It doesn't. It just extends the time a bit.

Bear in mind science doesn't say anything pre-big bang so you can't give a scientific opinion prior to that time.

Invoking a god(s) simply adds to problems. You go from who created the universe to who created the god - a pointless addition.

If the above is correct that they believe that god 'just is' and simply exists for all time then there's nothing you can do. There's no argument. There doesn't need to be one. They are blanketing any possible avenue and preventing a logical discussion. Namely, ignoring the issue.

Just accept it's a waste of time debating with them and leave it at that.

If I managed to convince one of my Christian friends to be an Athiest it wouldn't be a waste of time to me. But I am still very interested in understanding what an eleven-dimensional hypersurface is. Do you have a link or something that could dumb it down? I have a feeling no one here wants to explain this to me. >.>

 

[ZapperZ]

The problem there is that by definition [according to religious beliefs], God has always existed. There was no beginning. In the case of the universe, there was.

It may not be a religious paradox, but it still is a logical paradox. It started with the principle (a non religious one) that something cannot be created out of nothing. Based on this logical, non-religious axiom, one erroneously conclude that since there is something, it must be created by something else, i.e. God.

It is THEN that this axiom stopped being applied and then religious axiom takes over when dealing with the property of god, i.e. one changes the rule of the game. This is a blatant contradiction of logic.

Zz.

 

[Evo]

If I managed to convince one of my Christian friends to be an Athiest it wouldn't be a waste of time to me.

Why would you want to do that?

 

[Dotini]

Possible dumb question: is it ruled out that matter cannot be created from energy?

thanks,
Steve

 

[JaredJames]

Possible dumb question: is it ruled out that matter cannot be created from energy?

thanks,
Steve

Nope.

The actual rule is that energy can't be created or destroyed, not matter.

 

[Dotini]

Nope.

The actual rule is that energy can't be created or destroyed, not matter.

So is it technically possible for the Universe to have consisted only of energy before any matter was created?

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Nik_2213]

"... is it ruled out that matter cannot be created from energy?"

Pair production... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Note that you need something to soak up the momentum change...

IIRC, there was a different process at work during the phase-changes of BigBang's primordial fireball to quark soup, then protons and neutrons etc...

 

[JaredJames]

So is it technically possible for the Universe to have consisted only of energy before any matter was created?

Yep.

 

[ZapperZ]

Possible dumb question: is it ruled out that matter cannot be created from energy?

thanks,
Steve

Look up "pair production". And this is not just a theory, it is an experimental fact.

Zz.

 

[Dotini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

"In other words, since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by something, pair production by a single photon cannot occur in empty space; the nucleus (or another particle) is needed to conserve both momentum and energy.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
"matter can be created out of two photons"

Could pair production, and hence the universe, have begun from something as modest as energy, two photons and empty space?

 

[Drakkith]

Why would you want to do that?

Why wouldn't you want to do that?

The reason I was looking up an article like this is because lately I've been getting into small pointless religion debates with some of my deeply religious classmates. But no matter how logical/rational what I say to them is they always seem to talk me down with the stupidest points. I just want to find a good argument for why god doesn't exist.

Don't let them talk to you down to stupid points. I like to tell them they aren't allowed to use logic at all in their argument, because that would be admitting science is correct.

 

[JaredJames]

Why wouldn't you want to do that?

I can't stand people pushing their beliefs on me, so as long as they don't try to do it I refrain from enforcing strict atheism on them. That's the only circumstance under which I'll discuss such a matter in that sense ('conversion'). Although even then it's generally just talk them down with simple logic and wipe out any points they try to make. I don't venture into trying to convince people often if at all.

If they're not pushing me and trying to convert me, I just let them be. No need nor point in trying anything else, their beliefs are what they choose them to be and I have no problem with that.

Don't let them talk to you down to stupid points. I like to tell them they aren't allowed to use logic at all in their argument, because that would be admitting science is correct.

Exactly. As above.

 

[Drakkith]

I can't stand people pushing their beliefs on me, so as long as they don't try to do it I refrain from enforcing strict atheism on them. That's the only circumstance under which I'll discuss such a matter in that sense ('conversion'). Although even then it's generally just talk them down with simple logic and wipe out any points they try to make. I don't venture into trying to convince people often if at all.

If they're not pushing me and trying to convert me, I just let them be. No need nor point in trying anything else, their beliefs are what they choose them to be and I have no problem with that.


Exactly. As above.

Hrmm. I should have put a disclaimer in my post. I don't go around trying to convince everyone to convert, I was just pointing out Evo's post.

 

[Darken-Sol]

tell them god is expieriencing this universe just as much as we are. he isn't driving. if they are christian (pushier than most),IMO, you could reinforce this with a scripture or two. particularly genesis 6:7. it is god speaking of regret, which he wouldn't have were omni-anything. genesis 11:5 thru 7. here he is astonished at mans ambition and seeks to stymie our progress. why? the context almost implies fear.

 

[JaredJames]

tell them god is expieriencing this universe just as much as we are. he isn't driving. if they are christian (pushier than most),IMO, you could reinforce this with a scripture or two. particularly genesis 6:7. it is god speaking of regret, which he wouldn't have were omni-anything. genesis 11:5 thru 7. here he is astonished at mans ambition and seeks to stymie our progress. why? the context almost implies fear.

If he doesn't believe in god, why would he do this?

 

[Darken-Sol]

If he doesn't believe in god, why would he do this?

using someones own beliefs to show them your point of view can come in handy. especially to help them progress beyond the staleness of holding a perfect opinion of anything. one can only learn if they don't already know everything. most churches don't cover the scriptures which say god can make mistakes and regret them or worry. if you bring this to their attention they may re evaluate their beliefs.it may just shut them up for awhile so you can take pleasure in a minor victory.

 

[JaredJames]

The biggest problem faced is that you end up in a WBC situation where they claim only they interpret the book correctly. After all, factual or not it is all about how you interpret them.

I'm also slightly concerned with the use of "victory" and people perceiving it as such (not just you). I personally enjoy being corrected. I like being told I'm wrong and then learning from it. I certainly don't see someone correcting me as having 'won some battle' or achieving a 'victory' over me. It's incredibly petty and small minded to consider these things in such a way.

To see it in this manner, in my opinion, implies you aren't interested in the teaching/learning experience but simply want to 'one up' that person (or people). Not something that is beneficial or productive.

For me personally, this is how I see the OP's attitude. It isn't some event where they want to learn from each other, but simply to attack each other until one is "victorious" over the other. In reality they've just lowered themselves to the point of petty and futile argument.

 

[Darken-Sol]

i feel the same way, but the o.p doesn't seem to. i personally believe in a god, just not any god i have read about.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The biggest problem faced is that you end up in a WBC situation where they claim only they interpret the book correctly. After all, factual or not it is all about how you interpret them.

I'm also slightly concerned with the use of "victory" and people perceiving it as such (not just you). I personally enjoy being corrected. I like being told I'm wrong and then learning from it. I certainly don't see someone correcting me as having 'won some battle' or achieving a 'victory' over me. It's incredibly petty and small minded to consider these things in such a way.

To see it in this manner, in my opinion, implies you aren't interested in the teaching/learning experience but simply want to 'one up' that person (or people). Not something that is beneficial or productive.

For me personally, this is how I see the OP's attitude. It isn't some event where they want to learn from each other, but simply to attack each other until one is "victorious" over the other. In reality they've just lowered themselves to the point of petty and futile argument.

I agree with the caveat that sometimes upon teaching somebody something that goes against their faith one does feel like one has gained a victory over faith (i.e. that it was a feat to be able to teach somebody in spite of their absolute conviction). But I completely agree that victory in terms of "one upping" someone is pathetic. It also perpetuates the problem of people holding onto their beliefs for pride. Places like this forum are great platforms for people to air their current understanding and have it corrected in a manner that doesn't insult them. If only that behavior was more wide spread IRL we could all get a long a lot better

EDIT: however I do feel this thread is veering far from the original question that has now been answered.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm also slightly concerned with the use of "victory" and people perceiving it as such (not just you). I personally enjoy being corrected. I like being told I'm wrong and then learning from it. I certainly don't see someone correcting me as having 'won some battle' or achieving a 'victory' over me. It's incredibly petty and small minded to consider these things in such a way.

While YOU may enjoy being corrected, in my experience MOST people do not. My buddy does this all the time. We will talk about something, I'll correct him or explain something like it really is, and then he will make some sort of joke about it and the discussion comes to an abrupt end and everything goes to nonsense. I'm guessing its some sort of "defense mechanism" to avoid embarassment or something. I know many people that do this.

I see no problem with taking it as a victory when you convince someone of something, especially when you have to work hard to get it through their ignorance and unwillingness to accept something contradictory to their own views/ideas.

Now I don't take it as a personal challenge to convert people or anything else, but if I'm in a heated discussion for an hour over something and I can eventually bring the person to my side I consider that a hard won victory and take a bit of pride in it. And if I don't convince them, well no big deal, you can't win them all.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

While YOU may enjoy being corrected, in my experience MOST people do not. My buddy does this all the time. We will talk about something, I'll correct him or explain something like it really is, and then he will make some sort of joke about it and the discussion comes to an abrupt end and everything goes to nonsense. I'm guessing its some sort of "defense mechanism" to avoid embarassment or something. I know many people that do this.

I see no problem with taking it as a victory when you convince someone of something, especially when you have to work hard to get it through their ignorance and unwillingness to accept something contradictory to their own views/ideas.

Now I don't take it as a personal challenge to convert people or anything else, but if I'm in a heated discussion for an hour over something and I can eventually bring the person to my side I consider that a hard won victory and take a bit of pride in it. And if I don't convince them, well no big deal, you can't win them all.

I find it is less about "convincing" someone and more about re-educating them. I take pride in being able to do that and get satisfaction but the attitude of "I won!" just perpetuates the feelings of embarrassment you mentioned.

In my experience taking a passive and calm attitude whilst constantly showing respect for somebody's intellect (even if they are totally wrong) will speed up the process of debate. It's very easy for humans to adopt their Us vs Them response and see it as a competition between people rather than a discussion about evidence. To that end I always try to end discussions by fostering a feeling that it was a joint victory even if the whole debate was me explaining to the other person why they are wrong.

 

[Darken-Sol]

back to the o,p,s question. isn't there a vacuum state where atoms wink in and out of existence?

 

[JaredJames]

I find it is less about "convincing" someone and more about re-educating them. I take pride in being able to do that and get satisfaction but the attitude of "I won!" just perpetuates the feelings of embarrassment you mentioned.

In my experience taking a passive and calm attitude whilst constantly showing respect for somebody's intellect (even if they are totally wrong) will speed up the process of debate. It's very easy for humans to adopt their Us vs Them response and see it as a competition between people rather than a discussion about evidence. To that end I always try to end discussions by fostering a feeling that it was a joint victory even if the whole debate was me explaining to the other person why they are wrong.

Bingo.

back to the o,p,s question. isn't there a vacuum state where atoms wink in and out of existence?

Not a clue, although I have heard something similar. Don't think the context is here though.

 

[ZapperZ]

back to the o,p,s question. isn't there a vacuum state where atoms wink in and out of existence?

Note what I said in my first post in this thread:

There is something logically contradictory about this whole thing.

So let's start with the principle that something cannot come out of nothing. If one claims that this is the evidence for "God", then one then has made a logical contradiction, because you've accepted that there's God, and that God didn't have a "maker" or didn't come out of nothing. In other words, who made "God" and where did God come from? To argue that god didn't come out of anything implies that one HAS accepted something out of nothing. So one is being logically inconsistent - not accepting that something can come out of nothing, while at the some point, switch gears and accept that something can come out of nothing.

This is BEFORE we argue about vacuum fluctuation, etc. in Quantum field theory.

Such quantum fluctuation is the mechanism for many quantum phase transition processes.

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

I find it is less about "convincing" someone and more about re-educating them. I take pride in being able to do that and get satisfaction but the attitude of "I won!" just perpetuates the feelings of embarrassment you mentioned.

In my experience taking a passive and calm attitude whilst constantly showing respect for somebody's intellect (even if they are totally wrong) will speed up the process of debate. It's very easy for humans to adopt their Us vs Them response and see it as a competition between people rather than a discussion about evidence. To that end I always try to end discussions by fostering a feeling that it was a joint victory even if the whole debate was me explaining to the other person why they are wrong.

Hrmm. You've never argued vs my friends then lol. To them it IS us vs them. I've had them ask me a question first, then I give my answer, and then they scoff at me and say it makes no sense. How can you reason with someone who literally cannot understand how a particle can have "spin" and have it not be like normal spin of a ball or something. I'm not making this up when I say this, but he says "That doesn't make any sense, they should call it something else. It just doesn't make sense that it could do that, so I don't think it is correct". Evidence? Doesn't matter. Math? Doesn't matter. My calm attitude? Doesn't matter.

And then comes the barrage of tiresome statements like: "Thats just a theory, they don't really know that", and "Well, if they are right, why can't they explain ____? They can't so they are wrong."

I find that people that are willing to listen to me and accept current scientific evidence don't give me those problems to begin with, so it's much easier, obviously.

To me it comes down to this. If they person is willing to listen to you and accept evidence, then go ahead and try to convince them or whatever you want to call it. If the person immediately goes on the defensive and shuts down to logical conversation, just pat them on the back and tell them that the evil demon fairies must have gotten into your brain last night.

 

[Drakkith]

This is BEFORE we argue about vacuum fluctuation, etc. in Quantum field theory.

I don't really know anything about QFT, but I'm assuming based on your post that it IS possible for matter to appear spontaneously according to QFT?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Hrmm. You've never argued vs my friends then lol. To them it IS us vs them. I've had them ask me a question first, then I give my answer, and then they scoff at me and say it makes no sense. How can you reason with someone who literally cannot understand how a particle can have "spin" and have it not be like normal spin of a ball or something. I'm not making this up when I say this, but he says "That doesn't make any sense, they should call it something else. It just doesn't make sense that it could do that, so I don't think it is correct". Evidence? Doesn't matter. Math? Doesn't matter. My calm attitude? Doesn't matter.

And then comes the barrage of tiresome statements like: "Thats just a theory, they don't really know that", and "Well, if they are right, why can't they explain ____? They can't so they are wrong."

I find that people that are willing to listen to me and accept current scientific evidence don't give me those problems to begin with, so it's much easier, obviously.

To me it comes down to this. If they person is willing to listen to you and accept evidence, then go ahead and try to convince them or whatever you want to call it. If the person immediately goes on the defensive and shuts down to logical conversation, just pat them on the back and tell them that the evil demon fairies must have gotten into your brain last night.

I have friends like that too but I still find it far more gratifying an experience to start from the ground up and help them learn. If they aren't willing then they aren't willing but humility in debates always helps things run smoothly. I think a large part of the problem with public perception of science is that people just see know-it-alls who are out of touch with reality, we have to bridge that gap by creating an open and friendly environment where people feel respected. Although I'm not suggesting that you don't do this in general!

 

[Drakkith]

I have friends like that too but I still find it far more gratifying an experience to start from the ground up and help them learn. If they aren't willing then they aren't willing but humility in debates always helps things run smoothly. I think a large part of the problem with public perception of science is that people just see know-it-alls who are out of touch with reality, we have to bridge that gap by creating an open and friendly environment where people feel respected.

I'm not arguing against you, I agree. However, one can take the humility part all day long and accomplish nothing. Sometimes in order to stay sane one must punch someone in the face with evidence. (I should make that last sentence part of my sig) We are, after all, still human.

 

[Andrewjh07]

I find it hypocritical when scientists bash on the existence of a god. Has anyone here read Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Whose to say neither party is correct? I am not arguing for or against anything just expressing my point of view. =)

 

[JaredJames]

I find it hypocritical when scientists bash on the existence of a god. Has anyone here read Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Whose to say neither party is correct? I am not arguing for or against anything just expressing my point of view. =)

Nothing hypocritical at all.

You have to realize that science doesn't mind being proved wrong. That's part of science. Until something better comes along or evidence goes against it, the theory is accepted. Religion on the other hand doesn't like being corrected and proving something in religion wrong is not liked at all.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I find it hypocritical when scientists bash on the existence of a god. Has anyone here read Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Whose to say neither party is correct? I am not arguing for or against anything just expressing my point of view. =)

For a claim to be considered it needs evidence, in addition for the claim to be scientific it needs to be falsifiable. Claims of God fulfill neither of these.

 

[ZapperZ]

I find it hypocritical when scientists bash on the existence of a god. Has anyone here read Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Whose to say neither party is correct? I am not arguing for or against anything just expressing my point of view. =)

Why is this even relevant here?

Obviously, you're missing the POINT of several of the post. It isn't a "god bashing" thread. It is a "did-you-switch-logic-gears" to deny one thing and accept another?

Your "point of view" is misdirected.

Zz.

 

[chronon]

(It seems that this comes from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_arguments_that_God_does_not_exist)
"The bedrock of the so called intelligent design movement is that matter cannot come from nothing. Illustrating one of the many reasons intelligent design isn't allowed in a class room is that physics shows that matter does indeed spontaneously materialize, and that the true evidence of a universe with a God, would be one in which nothing existed. In fact, it has been said by Nobel Prize winning scientists that because there is material in the Universe, is proof God doesn't exist."

I would say that every claim of this statement is wrong, so I wouldn't bother trying to defend it.

Now if you believe
A:It's OK for something to have existed since t=-infinity but it's not OK for something suddenly to come into existence.
Then it seems reasonable to believe that something existed before the big bang which caused the universe to come into existence, i.e (on the basis of A) Big bang=>Creator (or equivalently No creator=>No big bang)

Certainly this was a common point of view before the discovery of the CMBR, when the big bang was seen by many as tantamount to creationism.

I would say, though, that A isn't a reasonable belief, since time is we can easily rescale the time coordinate. The real question is 'Why is there something rather than nothing', and this provides much less support for the idea of a creator.

 

[MrGamma]

So can anyone explain where there is proof that matter spontaneously appears? I would really like to know more about this.

Well... The Big Bang, in general is the "proof" that matter spontaneously generates, right?

I am sort of in the belief that the Big Bang is actually very compatible with a "creator" myth in the sense that very rapidly, over the course of 7 days, God created everything.

George Lemetaire was a Belgian Catholic Priest and the Big Bang goes to his credit right?

So I am not sure how you can argue with some one who is driven by blind faith, and why should you?

 

[Drakkith]

Nothing about the big bang proves that anything was spontaneously created. Also, matter did not exist after the big bang until the universe cooled to a low enough temperature for protons, neutrons, and electrons to form and remain stable.