appolose said:
"If we say that matter cannot be created, we only mean it in the context of our understanding of the universe". What exactly does this mean? That we are saying "Matter cannot be created, except when it can"? Science does make absolute staments: that's what a law is. The tenet "Once observed enough, it is assumed true" reflects this. Science does not say "Once observed enough, it is observed that many times", which is what (I think) you are saying; that's fairly redundant and pointless. My scenario is not at all saying that; it says that matter cannot be created physically. The 2nd observation does not say that it was created physically (which would change the theory), but merely that it was created. "Like I said: you can't come up with a scenario that suggests the supernatural. it's not possible". I am fully aware that this is your position; you need not remind of it over and over. |
No, it means that matter cannot be created without energy insofar as we know. That does not rule out the possibility, but it does mean that according to all current observations, it can't happen. If it did, we'd have to change the theories.
A law is not an absolute statement.
Are you trying to use the "matter was created" as the basis of a real argument or a hypothetical one? If the former: that is ridiculous. If the latter: there is no logical fallacy. We would just change the theories.
I'm going to keep telling it to you until you realize you are working off an incorrect assumption concerning the foundation of scientific knowledge.
