The origin of matter

[marke]

If God did not create original matter then did matter create itself? Do those who reject faith in God believe original matter was once concentrated in a physically small but extremely compact ball of matter that has always existed without beginning?

[Clownboat]

If God did not create original matter then did matter create itself?

You offer a false dichotomy.
This is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone presents a situation as having only two possible outcomes when, in reality, there are more options available. This oversimplification can be used to manipulate or persuade by limiting the perceived choices and forcing someone to choose between two extremes.

To answer your question, there is no reason to think that matter created itself. I don't even know why you use the word 'create' when it's reasonable that what happened is just chemicals reacting to their properties. Things we see happening today that 'create' (again, just chemicals doing what they do) snowflakes for example or the feeling we call 'love'.

Do those who reject faith in God believe original matter was once concentrated in a physically small but extremely compact ball of matter that has always existed without beginning?

Faith is required in order to believe that something false, is true.
If you want to believe in Bigfoot, faith is required.
Nessie
Allah
Alien abductions
For this reason, I argue that all humans should avoid employing faith as a reason to believe a claim.

I assume this will help you to see the flaw in your reasoning:
Since you reject that Lord Brahma crated original matter, does it follow that you then believe original matter was once concentrated in a physically small but extremely compact ball of matter that has always existed without beginning? When you answer 'no', please apply this to your question to see how it is a non sequitur.

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

[marke]

If God did not create original matter then did matter create itself?

You offer a false dichotomy.
This is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone presents a situation as having only two possible outcomes when, in reality, there are more options available. This oversimplification can be used to manipulate or persuade by limiting the perceived choices and forcing someone to choose between two extremes.

To answer your question, there is no reason to think that matter created itself. I don't even know why you use the word 'create' when it's reasonable that what happened is just chemicals reacting to their properties. Things we see happening today that 'create' (again, just chemicals doing what they do) snowflakes for example or the feeling we call 'love'.

Marke: I hardly see how "just chemicals reacting to their properties" offers any solution to the problem of the origin of chemicals in the first place. Chemical reactions cannot explain the origin of matter since before the origin of matter there were no chemicals to react with one another.

[Clownboat]

Marke: I hardly see how "just chemicals reacting to their properties" offers any solution to the problem of the origin of chemicals in the first place.

I acknowledge your incredulity here.
To stick to the question you asked though, no, matter didn't create itself. Please see the law of conservation of mass.

Chemical reactions cannot explain the origin of matter since before the origin of matter there were no chemicals to react with one another. [/b]

They can. We actually have an entire theory about this very thing. I do acknowledge your incredulity here though.

In hopes of having this hit home for you.
I hardly see how a corpse can reanimate to life is incredulity and is not evidence that Jesus did not raise from the dead. That is all you are doing and what's really troubling is how you do this with a universal law.

Scientific law is the description of a naturally occurring phenomena in the world. It explains how something happens. Laws are expressed using mathematical formulas or equations. They can be proved and require empirical data to support the findings.
Theories are powerful things when it comes to science (germ theory, plate tectonics, etc), but laws are proven and cannot be denied. Laws in all cases are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence, therefore your incredulity on the matter, matters not.