text:
- HubPages»
- Education and Science»
- Philosophy
FIRST CAUSE Argument for Creation - REFUTED
THEISTS say that God is 'the' Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.
ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is 'the' Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.
AGNOSTICS say that we are limited beings, and can never "know" who or what created the Universe.
Q: So who is right? Who makes sense? Which position is the rational one?
A: NONE! They already decided for ALL of us that the Universe was created. And they made this decision by merely converting a contradictory CLAIM into a fact.
Most people are conditioned to accept irrational claims like, Creation, as 100% proven certainty; and meaningless terms, such as, Uncaused First Cause and Infinite Regress, as absolute unquestionable "knowledge". Such folks need to understand that a CLAIM is any "positive assertion" which deviates from the default position of 'existence'. Since the proponents of Creationism wish to deviate from this default position, the onus is on them to provide an analysis which rationally explains that the "creation" of space & matter at some instant in the past, is a VIABLE option. Proofs, truths, facts, certainties, evidence and authorities are the hallmarks of Religion. The only objective criterion is a rational explanation.
Q: So what does this gibberish, "Uncaused First Cause", even mean?
A: Absolutely NONE of the parrots of the First Cause Argument can even tell you what 'a' cause, 'an' effect, 'an' event, or even an object is; never mind 'an' Uncaused First Cause. They don't even understand what the word "infinite" means or whether it's applicable in any context. They have been spoon-fed these breathtaking contradictory arguments from their favourite authoritative celebrities who don't even understand the arguments themselves.
This article will explain:
1) Exactly WHY Christianity's beloved First Cause Argument is in complete violation of the Law of Causality. Whoever uses the Law of Causality in the context of "First Cause" or "Creation from Nothing", is either embarrassingly foolish, or intellectually dishonest.
2) Exactly how the sleight of hand conversions of concepts, verbs, and "nothing", into imaginary objects, are deceiving the audience into accepting the First Cause Argument.
3) The ontological contradictions hidden within all First Cause Arguments.
4) Exactly WHY the Universe (space & matter) is IMPOSSIBLE to "CREATE", whether under the guise of a God, a Singularity, out of nothingness/void, or by any other conceivable means.
5) The 4 possible Creation scenarios asserted by humans throughout millennia. The application of the Law of Causality to ANY Creation "claim" will easily explain why the Universe is eternal – it had no beginning and will have no end.
We will explain why space is omnipresent and precedes God, and why God cannot perform "causal actions" without the existence of Target objects. This means that space and matter were already there BEFORE the alleged creation event. The Universe is indeed eternal.
The FIRST CAUSE argument is the "bread & butter" for Christianity's God hypothesis - the eternal creator. You will be surprised to understand why it doesn't have a leg or limb to stand on. It's Game Over for the Uncaused Creator!
Describing nature with the concept of Causality goes back to at least Aristotle where we have its first formal documentation. Aristotle formalized a theory of causality for the first time in human thought, which brought together elements of various thinkers of his time. Aristotle first introduced his theory of causality as a way of understanding the human experience of physical nature. His theory was instantly accepted in the known world by philosophers and theologians who used it as a tool for structuring their arguments, and demonstrating the reasoning behind their claims.
From a Scientific perspective, the Law of Causality pertains to the Physics of nature itself, rather than to any subjective or biased experience of it. In nature, causal actions occur between objects: mediators and targets. And causal actions occur whether an observer is there to make them evident or not. Absolutely ALL causal actions occur between objects. Causal actions do NOT occur between concepts. Whether the objects are invisible to a human observer is IRRELEVANT to the issue of Causality. All objects, whether invisible or not, have an inherent being or structure. All objects are entities which have the intrinsic property of shape – they have form! This is the only property that allows objects to be spatially separated from their background.
Even God cannot elude His objecthood and structure to His being, which gives Him shape. Those who disagree that all entities/objects have shape/form, whether invisible or not, including God Himself, have a LOT of explaining to do! God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is 'something' rather than 'nothing'. In order to be 'something', God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being.
Even the God of the Bible is not stupid. God knows that absolutely all entities MUST have shape. And He goes out of His way to tell us so in no uncertain terms:
Deuteronomy 4:16 "so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman"
Numbers 12:8 "With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD."
And God goes a step further by disclosing to us that ALL invisible entities, like light, air, and even God Himself, absolutely have shape (form):
Job 4:15-17 "A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?"
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light"
Amos 4:13 "He who forms the mountains, creates the wind"
So the Law of Causality is absolutely applicable to ALL entities/objects whether they are visible, invisible, made of flesh, inanimate, living, dead, and even if the object is God Himself!!!!!!
Aristotle's Law of Causality is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B)
Its specific application in the context of Creation is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B). At event consummation, there is a resulting Output (object C)
For example:
Aristotle uses the example of a builder creating a house to describe the Causality of Creation.
"A builder (object A) is using material (object B), to create a house (object C)"
All the concepts pertaining to the Creation event are:
Cause: The "act" of imparting action (surface-to-surface contact) with the material (object B), as performed by the builder. Synonym: "causal action" (a verb).
Effect: The "change" realized by the material (object B) during the duration of the "causal action" imparted by the builder (object A). Synonym: "change effect".
Event: The phenomenon of Creation (house built) from initiation of Creation, to termination of Creation. An event is always consummated.
The ACTORS participating in the Creation event are:
Object A: The MEDIATOR object (builder) imparting "causal action".
Object B: The TARGET object (material) undergoing "change effect".
Object C: The OUTPUT object (house) resulting from the consummated event.
Cause, effect, and event are all concepts, and not actors participating in the Creation event. The actors participating in the Creation event are the following objects: A (the Mediator), B (the Target), and C (the Output).
We must not forget that the crucial ACTORS to any causality argument are the objects, like A, B, and C, shown above. Without a minimum of TWO "actor objects", there is absolutely NO causality argument that can be established.
So what do these elusive terms, "CAUSE" and "EFFECT", mean?
a) "Cause" and "effect" are VERBS. They are concepts, and not objects. There is NO such thing as 'a' cause or 'an' event; 'a' cause or 'an' event does NOT exist. Only objects, like Mediators and Targets exist!
b) "Cause" is what something DOES (i.e. action), not what something IS. Specifically, "cause", is the action that object A (the mediator) DOES to object B (the target) while interacting with the target.
c) "Effect" is what something DOES (i.e. changes), not what something IS. Specifically, "effect", is the change in object B (the target) while interacting with object A (the mediator).
d) Object A (the Mediator) and object B (the Target) must BOTH exist, BEFORE the Mediator can perform "causal actions", and BEFORE any "change effect" can be said to have been realized.
So what does the MEDIATOR (object A) do to the TARGET (object B)?
1) At event initiation, the Mediator moves toward the Target object and imparts surface-to-surface contact with the Target.
2) At this stage, the Mediator object has imparted "causal action" to the Target object.
3) Simultaneously with 2, "change effect" is realized by the Target object while interacting with the Mediator.
4) At event termination, the phenomenon is formally termed: Consummated Event.
The details of the "causal action" stemming from the Mediator, and the details of the "change effect" realized by the Target are issues which MUST be critically analyzed and explained in the Theory stage of one's "claim" (i.e. Theory of Creation). The proponent of Creation MUST rationally explain to the audience all the WHY's and all the HOW's of the Physics and ontological details associated with the claim.
a) If the explanation has no contradictions, then we say that the Theory is "rational", and hence the "claim" is viable (i.e. the event "could" have possibly happened as specified by the claim). Consummated events cannot be proven. Certainty plays no role in consummated events; they are only "claimed" to have happened in the past.
b) If the explanation has a single contradiction, then it will elucidate the Theory as irrational, and hence render the "claim" IMPOSSIBLE.
Remember: A contradiction always tells us what cannot be the case; i.e. what is impossible!
The monotheistic religions have regarded Aristotle's Metaphysics with both appreciation and hostility. Christian, Islamic, and Jewish theologians generally approved of his well-ordered, teleological world in which the Law of Causality describes how natural processes are directed toward the fulfillment of particular ends. Yet Aristotle's philosophy was viewed as hostile to newly established Christian tenants in the late 2nd century. These included the doctrines that God is the "ultimate cause" of the existence of the Universe, the resurrection of the body, and the full immortality of the soul.
In Book Eight of his Physics, Aristotle describes what he calls the "Unmoved Mover" or "Prime Mover," which is the ultimate source of motion in the Universe, but is itself unmoved. For Aristotle this is an abstract conception of an impersonal god, who dwells at the edge of the universe and causes object motion. Although the Unmoved Mover was regarded by many as a god, it did not create the Universe. Aristotle reasoned why the Universe was uncreated in his philosophical argument for the eternal universe (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3).
Even though the monotheistic religions loved the idea of a prime Godhead overlooking the Universe, they hated the idea of an impersonal God who didn't create all of existence, and who was not personally connected into the cultural and emotional aspects of human existence. In Aristotle's eternal world there is no room for miracles, for providence, for reward and punishment either, and thus the basis of religion is totally shattered. So as Christianity progressed through the centuries, it was particularly compelled to repudiate Aristotle. Theologians thus tended to reject or reinterpret what they took to be Aristotle's offensive philosophical works. They even went as far as reinterpreting and rewriting Aristotle's inconvenient laws of logic and inconvenient causality laws in order to suit their personal tastes and objectives within the Christian movement.
Contrary to Aristotle's Law of Causality, in the thirteenth century, most Christian philosophers tried to reconcile Aristotle's logic and causality with the Christian idea that God created the world out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo). As a consequence, Aristotle's "unmoved mover" which set all objects in motion, was transformed into a "creating cause of existence". More generally, the Liber de Causis (a Neo-Platonic Arabic work of the ninth century, translated into Latin in the twelfth century) had a decisive influence on the concept of causality. Christian theologians and philosophers reinterpreted and modified portions of Aristotle's works in order to make them fit within Christian dogma. These actions resulted in making the Law of Causality inapplicable to the new dogma of Christian Creationism, "creation from nothing".
Aristotle reasoned that "creation", in the sense of matter surreptitiously appearing from "nothingness", is contradictory and hence, impossible. Aristotle's Law of Causality could not be reconciled with "matterless motion", as all causes, without exception, are verbs that are mediated by a "mediating" object to a "target" object. Whereas Christianity's dogmatic paradigm asserted "Creation from Nothing", which meant that matterless "nothingness" will somehow acquire motion and participate in causality; specifically, it will be imparted with causal action from a mediating God, and result in an effectual output of matter and space (nothingness).
But space (nothingness) was ALREADY there! How is it possible to create space, when space is already "nothing"?
It doesn't take a genius to understand that such contradictions are akin to arguing that "married bachelors smell like triangular square circles". It doesn't make any sense to claim that causality can be imparted on "nothing". The only "nothing" in the Universe is SPACE. Although space is our conception of nothing, it is not artificial in the sense that we invented it as a concept. Concepts are artificially invented by humans. But space was "discovered" by humans. Space is not a WHAT. Space is that which lacks shape. Space is nothing. So as "nothing", space can only be described via negative predication. Space is non-causal and not caused. It does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges for a mediator to "grab" on to and perform causal actions on it. We're done!
Not only was Aristotle's Law of Causality changed in order to facilitate the irrational Christian dogma that the Universe was "created from nothing", but it was also covertly REIFIED with DUALITIES by future theologians and philosophers, such as, St. Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig, just to name a few. Through the past 1400 years of mindless philosophical arguments which were used by theologians to convince the uneducated masses of Creation,..... theologians used ambiguities to convert the terms 'cause', 'effect', and 'event' from VERBS (concepts) into NOUNS (real objects). Today, these 3 terms are used interchangeably with the term 'object', as shown in the examples below:
- 'The' cause is 'the' event that made it happen. (cause and event = objects)
- God is 'an' uncaused fist cause for all of existence. (God and cause = objects)
- Humans are 'the' effect of God. (Humans, God and effect = objects)
- God set the event in motion that caused us to exist. (God and event = objects)
Is there no ontological difference between 'cause' and an 'object'?
Is there no ontological difference between 'God' and 'cause'?
Is there no ontological difference between 'effect', 'event', and an 'object'?
Can God make 'causes', 'effects', and 'events'?
Can God set 'events' or 'causes' in motion?
Do people even understand what they are saying? Have people lost their brains?
Yes, there is a difference. And God cannot make 'causes', 'effects', or 'events'; neither can He move them! God can only build 'objects'. Causes are actions or verbs which are MEDIATED by God upon other objects.
Remember: The Law of Causality necessarily requires a minimum of 2 objects:
1) The mediator (God).
2) The target object of the mediator's causal action. The mediator will necessarily impart "causal action" on the target object, which will realize "change effect".
** And in the special case of Creation, there is a resulting "output object" from the consummated event.
And no, people who mindlessly parrot such nonsense do not understand what they are saying. But no, people have not lost their brains; they just REFUSE to use them. People will mindlessly parrot whatever terms their favourite celebrity (authority) uses in their presentations. And they will happily do this without so much as blinking, and without even understanding the basics. Then they will go to Internet forums in order to defend a concept which they haven't a clue about. But that issue is of no significance to them. They prefer to instead defend an irrational idea because they watched a YouTube video of their favourite celebrity defending it. That is all they're interested in doing!!
But why is this issue I'm raising so relevant? Why am I nitpicking on petty semantics? I mean, we all understand the usage of these terms, right?
WRONG! Such terms which embody concepts cannot be used as ACTORS in any argument, presentation, or theory; especially in physics or in any context of reality. Love does not swim. Justice does not run. Beauty does not fly. Not in reality! If you are going to be clear for the sake of understanding, then you must be clear. Otherwise, your claim that "God is 'an' uncaused first cause" is pure baloney. It is irrational and has no meaning whatsoever. So this is not semantic nitpicking. People have been accustomed take too much for granted. And theologians count on that in order to easily PROVE their arguments and have them readily accepted. The theologian has to specify exactly what he means when he gives a scientific presentation on Causality and Creation. No euphemisms, figures of speech or ambiguities are allowed when understanding is at stake. Especially when understanding has the capability to influence people's beliefs, and ultimately their lives. Theologians and philosophers don't like to use rigorous, unambiguous, and scientific terms because such consistencies destroy their arguments, if not their Religions. There is no other reason for a presenter of Causality and Creation to fall back on such wishy washy notions.
The buck stops here. When it comes to issues of ontological existence (reality), and the existence of God, there is no room for....."nudge nudge, wink wink, you KNOW what I mean!"
Q: What benefits do theologians and philosophers obtain when introducing DUALITIES into their arguments?
1) They eliminate crucial problems which are DAMAGING to their arguments, because dualities allow them to COVERTLY make use of MATTERLESS MOTION. This novel idea allowed them to use the expression, 'a' CAUSE (irrational notion), in a very deceptive way that made it seem that "cause" was a noun (an object), specifically, the object God! So they conveniently eliminated the troubling objects B and C from Aristotle's Law of Causality. And now, 'the' EFFECT is an object (irrational notion) which didn't exist before, but now has magically resulted directly from God in the appearance of the Universe from nothing. In this irrational interpretation, there is only ONE object, God, which is synonymous with CAUSE. So there is no motion or causal action imparted by God to "create". But then the EFFECT is the Universe, which magically appears out of nowhere! Only fools will swallow such concocted nonsense!
2) Now they established a situation where 'a' cause, which is a concept or "nothing", is also treated as God (duality). So "nothing" now performs actions, specifically "creation", and it is irrationally associated with the object God. This allowed them to convolute the Law of Causality and conveniently eliminate from their analysis the TARGET (object B), which the "causal action" was directed to. It is this TARGET object which was the source of heartaches and sleepless nights for many theologians and philosophers. Now that it has been ELIMINATED from Aristotle's Law of Causality, the phrase, 'a' cause, is synonymous with God, and axiomatically made God the ONLY NECESSARY OBJECT in the Theologian's new irrational Law of Causality. How convenient is that? This allowed them to easily FOOL people into thinking that God is the one and only, Uncaused First Cause. How could people miss such underhanded trickery? To borrow from a Capitalist slogan: "A fool is born every minute of the day!"
3) This reification and alteration to the Law of Causality also made their arguments SHORTER, because uneducated people back then could not follow an argument that was more than 3 lines long. And it made their arguments more convincing (believable). The audience now "believed" these arguments as PROVEN fact! How could they not believe them? I mean, God was now a magical creator and 'a' CAUSE; specifically, 'an' UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, even though this was contradictory to the Law of Causality. Now they have a spoon-fed argument which they THINK they understand, so they swallow it a face value without so much as blinking. Duh, but it sounds convincing to me!!
In fact, to this day, almost everyone and their brother considers the following terms as synonyms: cause, effect, event, and object. And the scary part is that they haven't a clue how to distinguish between them. And that's why these First Cause arguments are geared towards such folks; which sadly comprise the majority of the population.
Today, theologians, apologists, theists, naturalists, spiritualists, atheists, philosophers, logicians, and even mathematical physicists, have mindlessly inherited this SAME tradition from theologians of the past. They are now parroting this breathtaking knowledge as if they know what they are talking about.
WELL THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! And they shouldn't be able to fool anyone with half a brain. Causality necessarily requires 2 objects: the mediator (object A) and the target (object B). Only if the mediator performs a causal action on itself, can we disregard the secondary target object. But even in this case, the mediator must be mereologically comprised of at least 2 component objects; otherwise it cannot impart causal action onto itself.
As demonstrated by the societal appeal of Religion, Einstein's Relativity, Quantum, and the Big Bang Theory, many people harbour preconceived notions that consider matterless motion and creation from nothing to be logical possibilities. In fact, some even consider such notions as absolute proven certainty!
Today, people are unable to understand the ontological contradictions in the following list of impossibilities:
- Theologians ascribe motion to 'a' CAUSE, which is already a verb (i.e. nothing!!) that must be mediated by a mediator A to a target object B. Then they say that God is this CAUSE, by using reification. And they conveniently eliminate object B in order to make their arguments work.
- Theologians ascribe motion and causal actions to "nothing".
- Relativity ascribes motion to 0D particles, space, black holes, and concepts such as 'length', 'mass', 'time'.
- Quantum ascribes motion to 0D particles, space (quantum fluctuations), concepts such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and the various Standard Model particles.
- String Theory ascribes motion to 1D strings.
But isn't ironic, that theists and atheists accuse each other of believing in Creation from Nothing, when in fact, they are both creationists who clearly believe in Creation from Nothing and matterless motion?
In summary, I hope the reader now understands how Aristotle's Law of Causality was reinterpreted by the monotheistic religions in order to dogmatically and covertly allow the IRRATIONAL notions of:
1) Creation from nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).
2) Matterless motion.
3) The reification of concepts (nothing) into objects. Specifically, the conversion of 'cause', 'effect', and 'event' into gratuitous spur-of-the-moment OBJECTS that can be used to suit any argument.
In the next section we will analyze "creation" from BOTH the theistic (God) and atheistic (Singularity) perspectives. But before we begin, let's establish our rational approach to the ontology of creation so that we understand what creation entails:
1) Do you agree that "creation" is a verb, an act that necessitates the motion of a MEDIATOR entity which always existed? Yes or No?
2) Do you agree that the act of "creation" necessitates "causal action" from the MEDIATOR? Yes or No?
3) Do you agree that "causal action" CANNOT be imparted on "nothing"? Yes or No?
If you are not in agreement with the above 3 points, then you are practicing one of the worst Religions imaginable: a religion which asserts ontological contradictions as facts. Your religion is not based on "faith". It is instead based on the worship of "contradictions/impossibilities".
I will now do what every atheist fears: I will grant the theist and theologian the premise that God is the Uncaused First Cause.
This is the atheist's worst nightmare! Atheists prefer to attack God and immediately dethrone Him from His asserted beginningless existence. There is no reason to attack God and it is very unscientific to do so. We don't attack objects in science, we use them to either explain the viability people's claims, or to explain their contradictions.
Since creation is the theist's "claim", I will use their own Causality argument for an Uncaused Creator to determine if their claim has any merit, validity, or viability. And in order to do so, the claim of creation must NOT have any ontological contradictions. The same analysis will apply to the Big Bang Theory's assumption of the Singularity.
Since mathematical physics posits that the Singularity is 0D (shapeless), has no width, no height, no length, then it is NOTHING, and the Big Bang creation theory FAILS right here and now! Creation from nothing is impossible. The Big Bang is absolutely NO different than Religion. It is absolutely EQUIVALENT to the doctrine of an Uncaused Creator God!
But, just to give these atheists a fighting chance against the theists, for argument's sake, let's assume the Singularity is a real object with shape.
Let's use the notation, "object A", as a convention to refer to an object with no beginning, that is, either God or the Singularity. So object A will be the MEDIATOR in the foregoing analysis.
Now we are able to analyze the act of "creation" from an ontological perspective with no bald premises, no logical semantics, no proofs, no assertions, no opinions, no biased observers, no subjective evidence and no BS!
In the foregoing analysis we will ACCEPT the Theistic and Big Bang assumption that either God or the Singularity is the Uncaused First Cause: The Creator. We will use the Scientific Method to determine the viability of this assumption at the conceptual level. We will critically analyze the process of creation and rationally explain WHY an Uncaused Creator, can or cannot, impart "causal actions" through all the creation scenarios that are ontologically possible. There are only 3 scenarios which are ontologically possible for an Uncaused Creator, and we will exhaustively analyze all 3 of them. If any of them lead to contradictions, then we will have rationally explained WHY that particular creation scenario is not viable and is ontologically impossible.
For the purposes of this analysis, we will use object A as a moniker for either 'God' or the 'Singularity'; it is synonymous with either of them. Hence we will assume that object A is a real object that always existed (it was not created).
So let's analyze the 3 possible ontological scenarios for the Causality of Creation:
SCENARIO 1 – Causality on Something
This is an example of creation out of something (Creatio ex Materia).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon another object, B, which always existed without cause, in order to "create" the Universe (matter & space). This scenario is an example of Causality on Something, because TWO "actor objects", the Creator (object A) and the material (object B) have always existed without being caused. The result of the event of Causality on Something mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.
1) Before the causal action of "creation" can begin, do you agree that an object, call it object A (God or Singularity), is necessarily required to have always existed (without cause or beginning), in order to perform this CREATION action we call, "cause"? Yes or No? If No, go to 3.
2) From 1, if Yes, then do you agree that "at least" another object, call it B, MUST exist in order to have causal action performed on it by object A, so that object A can "create" something from it? Yes or No? If No, go to 4. Absolutely ALL creation actions require a physical Creator object A, to mediate its "creation" causal action upon a Target object B, in order to create object C. This means that existence is an ontological necessity and it precedes any cause/action. Before a causal action can occur, AT LEAST 2 OBJECTS MUST ALWAYS EXIST, object A and object B. In the context of "creation", object A will impart causal action on object B, in order to "create" object C from it. Both objects A and B have no beginning – they were never created! They necessarily ALWAYS existed! But object C was ASSEMBLED from at least object B. It was not created from nothing! It is impossible to realize any scenario where object A imparts a causal action, without at least one Target object, namely B, having always existed. Any notion suggesting otherwise, is either an ontological impossibility, or object A has to perform a causal action on "itself" or on "nothing" (see 4). Go to 5.
3) From 1, if No, then you are SERIOUSLY in trouble! You will need to rationally explain how causal action can be performed without an object to mediate the action. You are positing a state of nothingness. How does "nothing" perform causal actions? Go to "SCENARIO 4".
4) From 2, if No, then do you agree that object A must impart causal action on itself, and SACRIFICE ITSELF in order to "create" something? Yes or No? If Yes, then go to "SCENARIO 2". If No, then go to "SCENARIO 3".
5) From 2, since object A and "at least" another object, B, must have always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour these objects and allow them to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothingness), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Space precedes causes; it necessarily precedes motion. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
6) From 5, we have rationally explained that space, object A, and "at least" one or more objects, namely, object B, were ALWAYS present and could not have been created. Since SPACE WAS NEVER CREATED, and necessarily is the background for all objects, then space is necessarily OMNIPRESENT. SPACE IS EVERYWHERE, contouring all objects (invisible or otherwise). Space has no boundaries or borders to cross. Space is "nothing". Only objects have boundaries (i.e. shape), not space. There is no "outside of space". Therefore space cannot be "transcended". No object, including God, can do that magic trick – no matter how much they kick, scream, and shout!
Conclusion from Scenario 1:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can't be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.
Space is "nothing"; it has no shape and is therefore neither finite nor infinite. Space is unbounded and borderless. Therefore space is ETERNAL because it cannot be created or destroyed. Since space must necessarily enclose and contour God, this makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The Uncaused Cause Argument assumes God to be eternal, but space is already OMNIPRESENT AND ETERNAL. God is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space! There is no other way about it. Space is there without God, but God cannot exist without space. Space is IMPOSSIBLE to create as its omnipresence necessarily wraps all objects. God must be IN space in order to move and perform causal actions, like "create".
Similarly, one or more objects (B, B1, B2,...Bn) always HAD to exist as targets in order to facilitate the causality of "creation" from either God or the Singularity. These objects are matter (atoms). And since matter cannot be created or destroyed (converted into nothing), therefore matter has no beginning and no end. This necessarily implies that the amount of matter (atoms) in the Universe is constant. No new matter can ever be created. Therefore God is not omnipotent; He is not able to do whatever He wants. God cannot defeat nor contradict the omnipotence of "nothingness" and "matter".
Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter in this scenario of Causality on Something, this means that object A was just another matter object (atoms) in the possible constant amount of matter in the Universe: A, B, B1, B2,...Bn.
This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. Space and matter were already there. They were always present with no beginning or cause, at least in the form of objects A and B.
So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one's self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation "claim" we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 2 – Self-Causality
This is an example of creation out of the being of God (Creatio ex Deo).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon itself, in order to "create" the Universe (matter & space). We must understand that without at least TWO "actor objects", causality is impossible. So in this particular case, object A must necessarily consist of at least two component parts, and not a single continuous indivisible finite piece. Only then can object A, as a whole, impart causality upon itself, that is; upon its component parts. The result of the event of Self-Causality mediated by object A upon itself is intended to be the Universe.
1) Object A will impart "causal action" upon itself, and sacrifice its component parts in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).
2) From 1, since object A has always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). And space necessarily contours all the component parts of object A in order to allow them to move when imparted by causal actions. Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
3) From 1, it necessarily follows that object A is made up of matter (atoms), and breaks pieces of matter from itself and distributes them in the Universe. Since space is omnipresent, it necessarily contours all the matter (atoms) in the Universe, even before they were dismembered from object A.
Conclusion from Scenario 2:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can't be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). They can only distribute atoms which they already have. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! In this Self-Causality scenario, God is necessarily made up of matter and would have to sacrifice His own matter in order to disperse it in space. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe. If anything, God can only build it from pre-existing matter.
If God dismembers Himself to distribute matter, then what becomes of God? Isn't God a living being? How much matter can God afford to lose before He stops living?
But of course, since space necessarily contours all of God's matter (atoms), why would God need to disperse these atoms in space? They are already IN space. Their distance of separation is meaningless and irrelevant as to whether the matter currently in the Universe comprises God's being or not. If we conceptualize and visualize all the matter in the Universe from a "bird's eye" perspective, we could easily "join all the dots" to outline an object and claim that this object is indeed God. So what then is the difference about how the Universe is NOW, versus at the alleged moment of Creation? The only difference is in the 'location' of the matter (atoms); there is no other difference.
Well, the Devil's advocate may say that God is still alive because He still has matter connecting and comprising His being,.... even though the rest of the matter in the Universe is disconnected from God and therefore comprises OUR "separate existence". After all, God is outside of space and matter.
But the Devil's advocate would be DEAD WRONG! Absolutely every single atom in the Universe is gravitationally bound to every other atom. This means that all the atoms in the Universe are physically interconnected with each other! So if God's being consists of atoms (and it MUST be if He sacrificed his matter), then God is incapable of having his own SEPARATE existence from the rest of the matter in the Universe, including us. If we are capable of having a beginning and an end to our life, then obviously God MUST have a beginning and an end to His life, because after all, He consists of atoms. Only matter is eternal, life is not, because life is NOT an object, life is a concept. Life is not what something IS; life is what a collection of atoms DO!
Life consists of a collection of atoms, which come together under gravitational attraction in specific configurations, to form an object that is able to move of its own volition against gravity. If crucial configurations of these atoms dislocate from the object, or if other atoms combine with the object to alter these crucial configurations, it is said that the object has come to the end of its "service life". And since the atoms of God are necessarily gravitationally bound to all other atoms in the Universe, then God's atoms are influenced in the same way our atoms are influenced. This means that if God did exist, and did have life, and sacrificed his matter to distribute it in space, then God's life has either come to an end, or it will come to an end. There is no escaping it. God can be as omnipotent as he wants in this scenario of Self-Causality, but even He is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space & atoms. Since God necessarily consists of atoms wrapped by space in this scenario, then He is powerless to them.
So God cannot have it both ways. God cannot say that He sacrificed Himself by dispersing matter all over space, and yet have the capability to be a separate discrete entity, because absolutely ALL matter is interconnected. All matter is attracted to each other via gravity. There are NO discrete entities which are separate from matter; all entities are interconnected at the atomic level. God cannot be OUTSIDE of matter anymore or any less than He can be OUTSIDE of space. There is no such "outside" context when it comes to the ontological primacy of existence. Space has no borders to cross and thus cannot be transcended. All of matter is interconnected at the atomic level, so God cannot sever these eternal interconnections, for if He could, He would destroy His atoms and His being. Therefore God cannot transcend matter. In this scenario of Self-Causality, God is necessarily all of matter......whether He likes it or not!
Q: So then, what did God create, build, assemble, or organize in this Self-Causality scenario?
A: Nothing that wasn't already there! To posit that a God exists who simply increased the distance between portions of his matter to enable our existence to "assemble", is an irrational and ludicrous notion. All the matter was already there! And it was already interconnected! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL!
Regardless, the quantity of matter in the Universe is constant; it cannot be created or destroyed. If the universe was composed by an unlimited quantity of matter, the Universe would be a single infinite solid block of matter, and there wouldn't be any space at all. Such a scenario would not permit motion, life, let alone a God.
The BEST that proponents of creation can do in this scenario is to use the words 'God' or 'Singularity' as synonyms for "matter". It is obvious that if 'God' or the 'Singularity' existed, they MUST have necessarily been composed of matter (atoms). Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter, this means that it can be conceived to be a conglomerate of matter (atoms), which comprise a constant amount of matter in the Universe (i.e. objects: B, B1, B2,...Bn). The Universe would be no different back then, than it already is today; other than for the locality of matter. There is no other option!
This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one's self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!
If theists, atheists, or other creationists wish to refer to all the matter in the Universe as 'God' or 'Singularity', then more power to them, as that would make them Pantheists. Synonyms are no substitute for a rational explanation to the contradictory claim of creation.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation "claim" we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 3 – Causality on Nothing
This is an example of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon "nothing", which was always around without cause, in order to "create" the Universe (matter & space). In other words, object A will perform "Creation from Nothing". Object A must necessarily impart causal action upon space (nothingness), since no other medium is available to create from. The result of the event of Causality on Nothing mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.
We must understand that without at least TWO "actor objects", causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!
This scenario defies the Law of Causality! An Uncaused First Cause is IMPOSSIBLE in the context of Creatio ex Nihilo!
1) Object A will impart "causal action" upon "nothing" in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).
2) From 1, since object A must impart causal action on "nothing", and since space is "nothing", then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
3) Since object A will attempt to impart "causal action" upon space (nothing), it will absolutely FAIL to perform any causal actions. Why? Because space is nothing. Space is non-causal, not caused, shapeless, structureless, boundless, and incorporeal and it is not a Target actor in causality. Only objects can possibly be "actors" in causality. Causality necessarily requires SURFACE-TO-SURFACE CONTACT between TWO objects, A and B. Since object A is the only object assumed to always exist, it is impossible for it to impart causal action on its background medium of nothingness, space. Space is the necessary background medium giving form and contour to object A. Space is what gives spatial separation to object A, thus enabling it to be an entity, and giving it the ability to move against the background. God cannot rub elbows with space (nothing) and cause actions on it. All the objects in the Universe are constantly moving in space. If we deem this motion as "causal action", then WHY aren't they "creating" new matter in the process? The creation of matter from space is indeed impossible!
Conclusion from Scenario 3:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can't be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms) from nothing. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. In this scenario, object A is indeed a conglomerate comprised of all the atoms in the Universe. Creatio ex nihilo is impossible! Causal actions cannot be imparted on the nothingness of space. Therefore, in the scenario of Causality on Nothing, it is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.
So whoever posits the scenario of Causality on Nothing, has to understand that object A is ALREADY representative of all the matter in the Universe. All the matter was already there! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL! You can call it God if you wish, but that is completely irrelevant.
The ramifications of this scenario are similar to that of scenario 2, Self-Causality, and so are its conclusions about object A and its component parts being equivalent to all the matter in the Universe.
But the most important issue here is that Causality on Nothing VIOLATES THE LAW OF CAUSALITY! There is absolutely NO causal action. Causal actions necessarily require the motion of at minimum, TWO objects. This means that object A must act as the Mediator of causal action to a Target object, say, object B. So object A will be in motion and impart causal action via surface-to-surface contact of another object, B, which will necessarily impart motion to object B. God cannot rub elbows with nothingness, and cannot impart motion or "causal action" on it.
This scenario of Causality on Nothing posits the irrational idea of "matterless motion", which is completely IMPOSSIBLE because it is an ontological contradiction. Space cannot have motion imparted on it because it has no shape, no structure, and no boundary or surface to contact. Only objects can have motion imparted upon them.
So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space. But it was unable to impart a causal action on space, as space is motionless and non-causal. Thus it was unable to create matter from nothing. Such a magic trick is indeed impossible under any context!
The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals with a dishonest agenda to push.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation "claim" we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 4 – Causality out of Total Nothingness
This is another variation of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo), where there is no mediator or any object present. Even space is said not to be present in such a scenario. So it is a case of Self-Creatio ex Nihilo.
This is an irrational creation scenario posited by those fools who claim to believe in a "Creator-less Creation from Nothing", where nothingness is the "mediator" imparting causal action on itself to create a real "output" object".
The fools who posit this scenario are no different than those who posit any variation of Creation from Nothing. We already settled this issue before. Nothingness is non-causal and not caused. Nothingness does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges. Hence, as a MEDIATOR, it cannot come in contact with itself in order to perform causal actions on itself. We're done!
And I can't wait for the proponents of this scenario to explain to me with the luxury of detail, exactly how 'nothingness' is different from 'space'. I will crack open a bottle of champagne just to hear that explanation. I will not give such fools the time of day by discussing this scenario further in this article, as there is NOTHING to analyze! If there was such a scenario as total nothingness, then we wouldn't be here discussing it.
The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no MEDIATOR or no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation "claim" we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
Of course, "Causality on Nothing" is the most popular causality scenario posited by theologians. They covertly treat 'a' cause as a noun (object) and make it synonymous with God, as in: "God is 'the' cause of the Universe".
So we have a situation where the Law of Causality is contradicted because a minimum of 2 objects are required for causality, the MEDIATOR and the TARGET. But there is NO target object, even though the unsuspecting audience is under the impression that the target is the Universe, it is in fact the word "cause" which confused them and threw them off course because it is treated as an object. So the audience interpreted this ambiguous sentence as: God imparted 'a' cause, which seems to be the "causal action" (but it is not), and the effect or outcome was the Universe (but it wasn't).
It is easy to understand that there was NO "causal action"!!
Q: What was the target object on which the "causal action" was imparted upon?
A: There is no target object. And the Universe is not the target object because it is the end result of the event of creation.
By treating verbs/concepts as NOUNS in a sentence, the unsuspecting audience thinks the sentence is about REAL 'things'; i.e. things which exist. But it's not the case. The ontology of Causality deals ONLY in real objects, not concepts or missing objects. Concepts don't exist; they require a conscious observer to conceive them. Objects precede all concepts. Objects were around before humans arrived to conceive of "causes" and "effects", and decide whether the 'mediator', 'target', or 'output' objects are representative of "causes" or "effects".
It's no wonder why such "fast and loose" ambiguous language with metaphors and euphemisms to drive home the point is HIGHLY DESIRABLE by theologians and philosophers. It has to be, as they have no legitimate and rational means of rounding up mindless followers to join their Religion. But their party hasn't stopped there. They have managed to brainwash the mindless atheists and mathematicians to parrot the same irrationalities without having a clue of what they are talking about. But there is no surprise there, as most atheists are ex-Religionists and most mathematicians are Religionists.
Without understanding the underlying principles of ontology and Causality, people cannot even begin to comprehend the fatality that is hidden within ALL First Cause Arguments. People are used to going on the Internet and YouTube to educate themselves on this contradictory First Cause Argument, without so much understanding the basics. Then they will parrot this nonsense to others like it's some Nobel Prize winning knowledge. Even Stephen Hawking is a clueless victim to this SCAM as is evident in his presentations on physics, causality and the Universe.
As you can see, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE SLEIGHT OF HAND which 99.99% of all people fall victims to, no matter what their level of education. The human brain is first and foremost a "pattern recognition machine", and this is the most efficient job that it does most of the time. And in this mode, the human brain automatically fills-in the missing 'target' object in the Uncaused First Cause scenario. And it fills it in with the reified object noun "cause". And the unsuspecting observer swallows up the argument as absolute fact without even using a neuron to think about it.
So naturally, it is almost impossible for most of us to spot such contradictions as missing target objects in the above example. Most of us prefer to BELIEVE what we are told by "perceived" authorities. Humans are extremely LAZY creatures. They prefer to have their "knowledge" spoon-fed to them from a decorated authority, rather than spending a few minutes of critical thought to figure things out for themselves. And this is the primary reason why we have beliefs in Gods, creation of existence, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, black holes, warped space, time dilation, time travel, 0D particles & singularities, particle accelerators, ghosts, spirits, monsters, etc. It's business as usual here on Earth!
Here is another popular example that is often asserted by theists:
"Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call God."
And if we replace the word 'God' with 'Singularity', we will get the breathtaking atheistic version of the First Cause argument. So I guess that one is proven fact too, huh?
Homework: Can you spot the 3 ontological contradictions (reification of 'cause', matterless motion, creation from nothing), in the above statement?
If you have ever debated a Christian, you will inevitably see them choose arguments that allow them to play on both sides of the fence.
Christianity's bread and butter is Aristotle's Law of Causality in its application to the First Cause argument for the creation of the Universe. Christian philosophers often claim that:
"Nothing exists without a cause; and the uncaused first cause of the Universe is God."
Isn't it ironic, that theologians, philosophers, and theists use Aristotle's Law of Causality to attempt to prove their claim of creation, when in fact, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at MINIMUM, the existence of 2 objects: the MEDIATOR (object A) and the TARGET (object B).
And in the specific application of Creation, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at minimum, one OUTPUT object from the consummated event. Under the ontology of Causality, Creation in any form, under any mediator, under any context, is completely impossible!
Why is this basic concept so difficult for people to understand?
1) If God is going to perform a "causal action" for Creation, then it rationally follows that He will perform this action on a TARGET, right? Otherwise, what is it that He is going to perform?
2) And it rationally follows that the result of that consummated event will have an OUTPUT that stemmed directly from the TARGET, right? Otherwise, where is the OUTPUT object going to stem from, nothing?
3) So BEFORE Creation, there must have been at minimum 2 objects always existing: God and the Target, right? This means that matter is necessarily ETERNAL!
4) And AFTER Creation, there must have been at minimum 3 objects existing: God, the Target object, and the Output, right?
I mean, this is straight forward stuff. There is no reason for somebody to use deception and dishonesty to make their argument acceptable, right?
It is painfully obvious that:
As I explained in my analysis of the 4 possible scenarios for Creation, "creation from nothing" contradicts Causality and is thus ontologically impossible. Anybody who attempts to use First Cause Argument to account for the claim of Creation, is either a VERY ignorant person, or a charlatan!
C'mon people.....God must have given you a brain. Use it for a change. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
But don't get me wrong. I am not here to pick on theists, as atheists, logicians, philosophers, mathematicians, and mathematical physicists are no different when it comes to understanding the ontology of Causality. They have all been taught to parrot this nonsense by Religionists. So let's pick on them for a change, shall we?
One of the many disturbing examples out there can be found in the writings of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the eminent British logician and philosopher of the 20th century. Russell, an atheist himself, once claimed that:
"If everything must have 'a' cause, then God must have 'a' cause. If there can be anything without 'a' cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.....There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without 'a' cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about 'the' First Cause." -- Bertrand Russell (Why I am not a Christian)
It's obvious that the Law of Causality as applied to Creation even eluded the much praised Bertrand Russell. Even Russell, a famous mathematician and logician, did NOT understand the basics of Causality and ontology. For if he did, he would not have made such a silly childish argument against God being 'the' First Cause. He was blind to these fatal ontological contradictions in his above remarks:
1) He did not notice that he is reifying 'a' cause and 'the' First Cause, from a verb, into an object.
2) In his statement, "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without 'a' cause", HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! If say, for argument's sake, that it is possible for the Universe to come into being (which is impossible), then that event MUST ABSOLUTELY be mediated by a MEDIATOR that imparted "causal action" upon a TARGET. To say, like Russell did, that a consummated event does need to be caused by a mediator, not only violates ontological existence and Physics and logic, but is TOTAL LUNACY!
3) He did not notice the implicit necessity of matterless motion in the First Cause Argument.
4) He did not notice the necessity of "creation from nothing" in the First Cause Argument.
Such a smart person should have pointed out that Causality requires at minimum 2 objects: the mediator and the target. And from this he should have concluded that creation under any context is impossible. So Russell was indeed WRONG in his conclusion....he should have spent a lot more time thinking about and understanding the Law of Causality. He gets a failing grade.
If God cannot create space and matter, especially when matter was ALREADY present in the 3 Causality Scenarios I outlined earlier, then what makes theologians, philosophers, and logicians think that God can create "out of nothing"?
How is that even a possibility?
Why would any logician attempt to use childish emotional arguments to attempt to discount Christianity's "creation from nothing" myth?
Are these people on drugs or something?
Creation from nothing, or any sort of creation of space and matter, under any context, is easily shown to be completely IMPOSSIBLE via the Law of Causality. An Uncaused First Cause is instantly shown to be impossible because it is an ontological contradiction.
Should we accept as fact, or believe in, or have faith in the possibility of a triangular-square circle?
Can God be omnipotent and not-omnipotent?
Can God make parallel lines intersect, while still maintaining their parallel nature?
If you are a human being with HALF A BRAIN, you must concede that there are things which a God CANNOT do, no matter if His life dependent on it. In fact, many Christian apologists and logicians (William Lane Craig and Matt Slick come to mind) will explicitly tell you in no uncertain terms, that God CANNOT defy the laws of logic, and God CANNOT defy the ontology of nature.
It takes the worst kind of Religion imaginable to base its beliefs in pure contradictions. It takes the most dishonest and heinous Religion imaginable to teach its followers to worship and base their lives on pure contradictions. An honest and real Religion bases its epistemology on what is rational and reasonable. And it bases its faith and belief system on the UNKNOWN and UNEXPLAINABLE, which it attributes to God. Unfortunately, Christianity is no such Religion, as it bases its epistemology on impossibilities which are easily explained to be impossible!
People can make up all the excuses they want in order to protect their ignorance, their emotional biases, or their Religion. But one thing is a definite 100% certainty: All irrational claims and excuses have inherent contradictions which are easily unravelled, .....not by logical proofs, observations or evidence, .....but by critical thinking and analysis. Intellectual dishonesty never prevails, especially in Creation Arguments, whether in support of God, or of the Singularity and Big Bang.
No matter how you approach the First Cause Argument, and no matter what the context, when you critically analyze the ontology of Creation, you always reach the same conclusion: THAT MATTER WAS ALWAYS THERE. Even if God was there, matter was necessarily with Him, whether as another object, or in the composition of His being – whether He likes it or not. But the ultimate death blow to Creation is that space necessarily precedes God. God cannot exist without space contouring Him and allowing Him the free-will to move. Space reduces God's free will. Space is MORE formidable than God!
Therefore, God is not omnipotent, not omnipresent, and does not have ultimate free-will,......and if God is said to exist.....then God is necessarily comprised of matter (atoms), just as we are. God would be just another being, maybe much bigger and more power than us, just as the dinosaurs were, or maybe even bigger.
The Devil has his career to think about. Without God to set some authoritative standard, there would be no authoritative negated standard and no Devil; and vice versa. If there was no God the Devil would have to pack it in; he would have to shut down his business; he would be run out of town. That's why the Devil has sent his advocates to tell me that I have it all wrong. The Devil's advocates have their stake in "creation". They have put all their eggs in that basket. Without creation from God, the Devil and all the other characters in the mythical story vanish in an instant!
The Devil often sends his advocates to beat me up with their arguments from ignorance. Here are some responses I've received in my exchanges with theists and atheists:
"Hey, how do you KNOW with certainty that God is an object? How do you KNOW that God has shape/form? Our Lord is not like you or me. He is not visible, He has no structure. You cannot SEE my Lord in order to prove your claims. God is immaterial. Take your trash elsewhere. You are a pathetic simple-minded clown making wild claims you have no evidence for!"
How do I "know" that God has shape? How do I "know" that God is an object?
Job 4:15-17 "A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?"
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light"
God tells us that ALL objects have shape/form. God tells us that He has shape/form, even though He is invisible. Absolutely ALL invisible objects have shape/form, even the mediator object for light, and even God Himself. God cannot defy the ontology of nature – no exceptions!
"God said it....I believe it.....that settles it."
So who is the pathetic simple-minded clown??
Whatever God or any authority tells us is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Neither I, you, God, nor anyone else can claim to KNOW anything to be 100% true, or even 1% true. There is no objective way to resolve such biased observer-dependent claims. And my analysis does not go down the irrational path of truths, proofs, facts, knowledge, wisdom or faith. We only need to think critically in order to explain why God is 'something' rather than 'nothing'.
God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity; a being. It is taken on faith that God exists. So if God is an entity, if God is something rather than nothing, then God necessarily has some type of intrinsic structure; God necessarily has shape! Therefore God is indeed an object (that which has shape). The specifics of God's shape are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The point is that God is 'something'. God can most certainly be invisible, just like the invisible mediators for light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc., which are objects. But like all these invisible 'things' which mediate those phenomena, God has 'shape' as well.
Nobody needs to SEE God in order to critically reason that God is an object. Nobody needs to see the physical mediating mechanism for gravity in order to reason that it is a physical object which is in contact with all matter. The existence of objects is observer-independent. The Sun is an object whether or not you were born to SEE it. Even a blind person can reason that the Sun is an object. So if God is 'something' rather than 'nothing', then God is necessarily an object! And there is no such anything as "immaterial". Anything that is negatively predicated is actually referring to nothing. Only space is immaterial. Only space can be negatively predicated. If God is said to be immaterial, then obviously, God is nothing.
"Dude, how can you tell us that you KNOW exactly what happened at the moment of Creation? Were you there to actually SEE God fail at creating the universe? Can you PROVE what you are saying? What is your evidence?"
Claims regarding God, ontology, creation, or any claims for that matter, have nothing to do with what we can know, prove, see, or have evidence for. Any such claims can be hypothesized, conceptualized, visualized, and critically reasoned in order to reach an objective conclusion of whether they do or don't have merit, validity, or viability. This is the only objective, observer-independent, and unbiased method we can use to assess claims made by humans. All it takes is a single ontological contradiction to demonstrate a claim to be IMPOSSIBLE.
So let me ask this of the Devil's advocate: "Do you objectively KNOW, can you objectively make EVIDENT, and can you objectively PROVE that your right arm 'exists'? Are you sure that you can handle such a formidable ontological challenge?"
For those who disagree; for those who would like to "prove" me wrong; for those who want to make ME look foolish....here is YOUR chance:
I am officially on the record as challenging anybody to objectively prove that their right arm exists. They are free to post their "proof" in the comments section so they can tell the audience how they intend to go about proving their claim. That should be an easy task, right? Well, they can try.....but only then will they be able to realize how the words KNOW, EVIDENCE, PROOF and CERTAINTY humble even the most intelligent of logicians. If the reader still doesn't understand why claims of KNOWLEDGE, EVIDENCE and PROOF are the hallmarks of FANTASY, LUNACY and IRRATIONALITY, then I am willing to sweeten the pot for them in the hopes that they GET IT! If the reader can prove that their right arm exists, I will PayPal them $1000 US so they can donate it to their favourite charity. Any takers? Nope, I don't see any! "Truthers", "Provers", and "Logicians" always RUN from a challenge rather than admit to their ignorance.
So to answer the Devil's question: there is nothing to "know" about the moment of creation. The issue at hand has nothing to do with knowledge. The issue has to do with a critical analysis and understanding of the claim that is posited by theologians. Creation is a CLAIM, remember? The "moment of creation" is a supposed consummated event that is THEORIZED by theologians.
We don't need to "SEE" God attempting to "create" in order to understand whether it is possible for Him to do so. Knowledge, truth, fact, proof, or evidence plays absolutely NO role here! The only way to assess this claim of creation is to take it at FACE VALUE and critically analyze all the details surrounding the claim. If there are ontological contradictions, the claim is instantly discarded as it has been rationally explained to be IMPOSSIBLE.
"You don't know everything. You have to accept that there are limitations to human intuition, and that common sense is not always applicable. We are not gods. Some things we cannot KNOW for sure, like God or Creation for example."
Oh, really? But yet you KNOW that what you just said is true? So what is the objective criterion for deciding what is "common sense" and what isn't? Should I ask for my mailman's opinion, Oprah's opinion, Lady Gaga's opinion, Pat Robertson's opinion, Stephen Hawking's opinion, or Einstein's opinion? Whose opinion would be better? In fact, the opinion of a "mouse" carries the SAME weight, as far as opinions go.
We resolve these matters objectively by reasoning them through, and identifying any inherent contradictions. And if we destroy the belief systems of celebrities such as Pat Robertson and Stephen Hawking, then that would fall under the category of: TOO BAD!!
What does subjective "knowledge" have to do with anything? We can never "know" that claims of consummated events are the case. We can only explain whether they are rational and viable, or contradictory and impossible. The issue before us an objective one: Are we gonna wait around for some authority to spoon-feed us what we are supposed to KNOW or BELIEVE, or are we gonna grab the bull by the horns and use our brains to think for a change?
Only fools will make such wishy-washy excuses as limited knowledge and intuition because they don't have the balls to admit that they don't understand the difference between an object & a concept, the difference between existence & nothingness, the difference between rational & irrational, and the difference between reality & delusion. These fools went to University for 4+ years just so they could warm up a seat and get a certificate of attendance!
For those who want to nitpick on the terms 'rational' and 'irrational', I am 10 steps ahead of you! I explain the difference between rational & irrational in detail in my hub: Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED.
This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a very long time. St. Augustine was famous for routinely using such tactics to win his religious arguments and instantly prove that his God exists in any situation.
St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we can NEVER KNOW God:
"If you understood him, it would not be God." (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663)
Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can use it to win BOTH sides of the argument. He argues that if you don't KNOW God, then you are a really stupid idiot:
"Those who say these things do not as yet understand Thee, O Thou Wisdom of God, Thou light of souls; not as yet do they understand how these things be made which are made by and in Thee." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)
And by using this antidote, St. Augustine claimed to KNOW EXACTLY what God was up to before the Creation of the Universe; even though he unwittingly implicated himself to damnation with this knowledge! He argued that God was of course preparing Hell for those who wanted to KNOW God:
"Behold, I answer to him who asks, 'What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?' He was preparing hell, saith he, for those who pry into mysteries." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12)
Unfortunately, St. Augustine's stupid circus show is still prevalent in all sectors of society, especially in Theology, Atheism, and Mathematical Physics. People always fall back on lame EXCUSES in order to protect their biased arguments and beliefs from being destroyed by rational explanations.
Enough of this lunacy!
All these fools can take their excuses about Limited Intuition, Knowledge, Evidence, Truth, Proof, etc. and shove them!!
Let me repeat it again in case it didn't sink in: If a claim, any claim, is critically analyzed and explained to be contradictory, then whatever the claim posits to be the case, is an impossibility!
Whoever thinks they can refute my case is welcomed to post in the comments section a rational explanation of how it could be possible that there was no space and no matter in the past. They will need to explain HOW God can go about creating space, when space was ALREADY there preceding God. The will need to explain HOW God can go about creating matter, when matter was ALREADY there as one of the ACTORS in the Law of Causality. Without matter being always present, causal actions are impossible! If God is powerless in creating space from nothing, then how can he possibly create matter from nothing? These are magic tricks which man speaks of God. God is clearly humbled by the incredible omnipotence of space and matter.
In summary, here is how we rationally put ALL Creationist arguments to rest:
1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.
2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.
3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
4) Space is formless, shapeless, unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing! It is the void.
5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object. Existence without space is impossible!
6) There is NO object that can occupy all of space, or enclose space - including a supposed "Universe object".
7) Matter cannot escape or "transcend" space, because space has no boundary. There is no structure, surface, or edge to cross. We are all trapped in "here" (space) for eternity.
8) The Creationist claimed scenario where there once was no matter AND no space is inconceivable and ontologically impossible. Causes don't exist; especially an "Uncaused First Cause". Only objects exist.
9) If there is a God, "He" is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even He can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of and NO cracks to slip through. So He'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Formless & borderless space humbles the most arrogant of gods, even the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, God couldn't have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – it's impossible! We have "free will" because God does not, as even 'He' cannot escape this prison 'He' is credited for building. So if God exists, He is just another insignificant being that satisfies the human involuntary compulsion to worship....He may very well be Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, or some Hollywood Celebrity. Mindless beings are obsessed with worshipping conceptually-important (authoritative, celebrity, idol) characters.
Therefore, we rationally conclude that matter & space are ETERNAL. God and the Singularity are Hypotheses that die at inception!
a) The God Hypothesis of the big 3 monotheistic religions is invalid not only because it leads to absurdities and contradictions, but because it is ontologically impossible for it to be used in a Theory to rationally account for the Creation of space and matter.
b) The Religion of the Big Bang is absolutely NO different than that of God's Creation, sans the intelligent being. The Big Bang hypothesizes a 0D singularity having no Length, Width, or Height, and definitely no background to contour it and give it form and existence. This 0D singularity supposedly created not only space and matter, but an artificial concept known as 'spacetime'. So it is even MORE surrealistic and irrational than any Hypothesis that has ever been conceived by any religion!
The nonsense of Creation under the guise of God, the singularity, or by ANY other mechanism has been put to rest. It is impossible. We're done!
Nature had no beginning and will have no end. Rocks, gases, stars and atoms recognize no past or future, which are conceptions of a human brain. Nature only functions in PRESENT MODE, the NOW, and as such, nature is effectively the only perpetual recycling machine – it is non-entropic! Atoms have no ability to rub their elbows against space, grind to a stop, and die. They float in space and gravitationally interact with each other forever. God cannot create atoms from scratch. And as such, even He cannot alter the eternal activity of atoms.
Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre wanted to prove that God created the Universe. So he found ways to conjure up the Big Bang for the science department in the Vatican. And of course almost everyone accepted his theory; most of the members in the scientific community were theists themselves.
1) Christians like to argue that their position is NOT "Creation from nothing" because it was God who created the Universe. Atheists do the same, but say it was the Singularity that created the Universe when it exploded, and expanded.
2) Christians allege that they don't know what happened BEFORE creation, although St. Augustine claimed to have KNOWN that God was preparing HELL for those who pry into such mysteries (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12). Atheists do the same, and tell you that it is unscientific to ask such questions (pry into such mysteries), because it's like asking what is north of the North Pole, i.e. like asking where HELL is.
3) Christians want the Universe to begin AFTER God created the heavens and the Earth and said "Let there be light!" They will do anything to AVOID such questions as "Where did God come from?" Atheists do the same. They want the Universe to begin AFTER the Singularity exploded and started expanding (Let there be BANG!). They will do anything to AVOID such questions as "Where did the Singularity come from?" They both claim that such questions are meaningless because time did not exist back then. Little do these mindless clowns realize, is that TIME DOESN'T EVEN EXIST NOW! Time is a concept invented by man.
If you are ever accused of murder, tell the judge and jury that it's MEANINGLESS to ask such questions as: "Where were you and what were you doing the days leading up to the murder, and the day of the murder?"
Tell the judge and jury that it's like asking: "What is north of the North Pole?"
Tell the judge and jury that TIME only began at the INSTANT the murder occurred (t=0), and that anything before that is MEANINGLESS and must be SUPPRESSED in order to PROTECT you from inquiry and scrutiny, and allow you to walk out the courtroom having PROVEN your case of "not guilty".
What is so SPECIAL about the God Hypothesis and the Singularity Hypothesis that compel their proponents to enforce biased rules and regulations so as to prevent public inquiry and "snooping around"?
Why don't we do this in court cases?
Isn't the hypothesis that YOU were at the crime scene before the murder took place?
Isn't the hypothesis that God or the Singularity were at the crime scene before the Universe began?
Isn't the theory that YOU made prior preparations to commit the murder, and committed it in the manner the prosecutor outlines in his explanation?
Isn't the theory that God or the Singularity created the Universe because of some prior events leading up to "creation", and it happened in the manner the Christian Apologist or the Big Bang Apologist outlines in his explanation?
Can you believe how accustomed we've become to letting such clowns get away with murder? Aren't we incredibly stupid to let such contradictions walk out the door and declare victory that they've PROVEN their case?
Causal "creation" can take on the 3 possible scenarios which we explained: Causality on Something, Self-Causality, and Causality on Nothing. There are no other options.
We rationally explained why all 3 scenarios lead to ontological contradictions where God or the Singularity cannot create space and matter. We explained why in all 3 scenarios, matter was necessarily pre-existing; it had no beginning of creation – IT WAS ALREADY THERE!
Indeed, that which is necessary must also be eternal, for if something is necessary it can never begin to exist or cease to exist, but must have always existed. Since matter and space are not contingent, they are not necessitated by any "external" causal action. That which is not contingent is by definition necessary and thus never had the potential to not exist, let alone the potential to be created via "external" causal actions mediated by some God entity.
And besides, there are NO causal actions that are "external" to the Universe. There is no "outside" to the Universe. The Universe cannot be transcended. The Universe encompasses all of space and matter. Space is omnipresent – it is everywhere, and has no borders to transcend. All matter, invisible or otherwise, is gravitationally interconnected at the atomic level and hence no entity, including a God, can transcend and escape the interconnectivity of matter.
Existence is the default situation as existence obviously exists. Existence is not a claim. Existence was already there. Only "inexistence" and "creation" are claims. And they are CONTRADICTORY claims. Creation of existence under any context is impossible, as explained.
If there is a God, then God was definitely assembled "within" space. This means that matter necessarily preceded God. It had to, because space forbids God from being 'eternal'; and ontological causality forbids God from being a 'creator'. So if God is assumed to exist, then it follows that God was naturally ASSEMBLED by matter, and is subject to death, just like any other living being in the Universe. This means that matter is indeed eternal......and as for God.....He would just be a simple being, either like us, or some other life form. But God's ontology is irrelevant. The key issue is that it is impossible for God to be an "eternal being" or a "creator".
Therefore we conclude that the claim of Creation, whether via a God, a Singularity, or in any other context, in not only irrational, but also, completely IMPOSSIBLE!
The Universe is eternal; it cannot be created or destroyed.
This is one of the finest (philosophy of) science articles I have ever read. So consistent in your logic that I was hooked. You've made me excited about science and physics again! Apart from articles in your hub, are there any websites or books you'd recommend to learn more?
I feel like my whole world turned upside down, which is actually quite scary as well as exciting.
I think you may be misunderstanding the philosophical concept of causation. Things which exist can exist by either of 2 ways: Either contingently (they are caused by another) or necessarily (they MUST exist). Numbers and abstract entities exist necessarily. God also exists necessarily--by definition of His nature, God MUST exist. Otherwise you face the conundrum of infinite regress of causes (yes I read your treatise on that topic and it was equally incoherent)
Impressive effort! How can I compete?
I must admit, I skipped over certain paragraphs to get to "SCENARIO 2 – Self-Causality" because my own take on things probably falls into this category.
Can you point out where (if at all) you discuss this category from the 'accidental cause' (unintentional cause) position?
As a firm 'believer' in the Big Bang theory, I find the idea that maybe I unwittingly subscribe to a 'cause with intent' rather than an accidental cause worrying! I had no idea the 'singularity' you speak of had any design on creating the universe at all! Did said singularity have a choice?
I'm quite taken aback that you can lump together an intended cause (God) with an unintended cause (Big Bang).
Ok, I had a good idea you would pick me up on the 'believe' when it came to the Big Bang. I should have said 'I subscribe' to it.
Time is short at the moment as I leave for Spain on Friday and have lots to de before I go, but intend to come back to this on my return.
Enjoyable hub all the same. I still think there is room for an unintended (accidental)cause and have already started a hub on this very subject.
Cheers for now, and will speak soon.
Thanks fatfist!
I'm off to the family apartment on Mojácar Playa, on the south east coast. Not a big spirit drinker but will certainly have a brandy for you (any excuse to consume alcohol!).
I have only ever been to the Greek island of Crete (twice). Lovely people.
Enjoy your break!
If we all drank enough brandies, would a black hole show up in our wallets the next morning? :D
Fatfist is to broke to do any kind of traveling.
Yeah I said want to fight about it?
Sorry if it's a n00b question, but (!!!), when you said just above that:
"... it is impossible for 'something' to arise from 'nothing'. We explain what is impossible by showing an ontological contradiction. This is the only way to show what is impossible."
(Had to look up "ontological contradiction" btw!) ...isn't this a LOGICAL contradiction, and IF so; doesn't this mean that logic is indeed a part of critical analysis (of reality/existence)? Or if not; why not?
[My own intuition is leading to an answer somewhere vaguely along the lines of "binary reasoning" (i.e. exist / doesn't exist) isn't a part of logic (IF/THEN), but of reason generally and rationality, and/or; logic is a part of reasoning, not the other way around. But I'm confused on the issue, as I've never had any formal intellectual training (I'm a self taught drop-out, thanks to Hubs like yours!).]
Thanks in advance...
I am not fundamentalist creationist. The presumptions of the philosophical materialist are highly suspect. With the regards to the above discussion- not convincing. Bottom line is that the following singularities are, in truth, not REMOTELY close to being explained. If, for the latter two, one invokes Darwinian evolution- again, not adequate to account for the ontological leaps.
Dead matter......life
Life.........conscious life
We don't know how this happens. But we DO know that this does NOT happen via intentionality or agency. How? Intuition presumably.
Hi fatfist! Hope your holiday was as enjoyable as mine was. I should have used more sun block as I'm peeling like a snake! Got a lovely tan though.
Right, down to business. I have a few questions I need to ask;
1) Atheists do not have a rule book, socialise with each other (generally), or form organisations. A belief in the Big Bang is not an essential piece of the atheist's kit. How can you justify listing atheists as believers in the Big Bang theory? How do you come to the conclusion that all atheists believe this?
2) The Big Bang theory does not require an uncaused first cause. Am I missing something here?
3) What parts of the Big Bang theory do you not agree with? I would be very interested to know.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Atheist = Theist in disguised.
Dark Energy = Magic
Dark Matter = Spirit
Black Holes = Devil
Point Horizon = Unicorns
Space Time = Priceless
Welcome back!
Ok, there are two main versions of the theory (that I know of); the BB from nothing; and the reciprocal(?) BB. The former requires matter to come from nothing, the latter does not (the universe expands and collapses ad-infinitum).
You say;
"Well, here is the issue....when somebody presents a theory (Big Bang or otherwise) which attempts to explain a claim (ie. space & matter were created), "
The BB theory is built around observations - not the other way around! However, the 'Steady State' theory is indeed claim based.
You ask;
"The issue falls squarely on the proponent of the BB theory to rationally explain:
1) The initial scene BEFORE the BB. Was there something or nothing or both or what??
2) How can a singularity, which is 0D, magically produce 3D objects and space (which is already nothing)?"
The BB theory does not even attempt to explain anything before the BB. This is where I think you misunderstand the theoretical process.
The singularity, absense of spacetime, and reciprocating universe, etc. are all scenarios that "work" with what we observe. They could all be wrong, but ideas equally as astounding will always take their place. And your idea that matter is infinite and the universe has always existed is equally as astounding!
What we observe is an expanding universe. It's as simple as that. Even Fred Hoyle (who first used the term 'Big Bang' to ridicule the theory) agreed that the universe is expanding. The difference is; he claimed that when there is enough room between galaxies other new galaxies appear to fill the spaces (according to his Steady State theory).
Along the lines of Cromper's discussion, I am always curious about the explanation of redshift as a Doppler effect, when sound (the actual Doppler effect) is produced in an atmosphere, while the so-called redshift of light supposedly occurs over a vacuum.
How can that be?
Does the Doppler effect of sound occur in a vacuum?
The two key "observations" that BB hangs its hat on are redshift and cosmic background radiation. My contention has been not that the observations are wrong but that the explanations of the observations, the interpretations of that data are wrong.
I think we are both misunderstanding each other here.
"We need to be very careful with our terms here. The BB is an alleged consummated event which supposedly took place in the past."
Yes the supposed BB happened in the past but the theory is based on today's observations.
"Then there lies the primary problem! If some human being, like Priest Lemaintre, CLAIMS that some "event" took place in the past....but he can't even propose WHAT the initial scene was like BEFORE the event...."
If it was a CLAIM then he was wrong to make the CLAIM but would be justified if he were to PROPOSE it.
"1) The hypothesis sets the INITIAL SCENE. i.e. what is the case before the event occurred, along with consistent definitions of all the key terms used in the theory."
You're talking about the end result of the theory. The BB theory concludes (or predicts) that all matter at one time in the past was in one place. Call that a hypothesis if you like. If we discover a car crash we can consider any of the many rational explanations of how it crashed. With a bit more investigation we can trace BACKWARDS to discover what caused it. The same with the BB 'THEORY' (not the BB itself), we take what we discover (or observe TODAY!) and trace BACKWARDS to come to some kind of rational conclusion.
"2) The theory is a rational explanation of an alleged consummated event. If the explanation is rational, then we can certainly say that the event COULD have happened as the theory proposes."
As I just tried to demonstrate, the theory is not an explanation of the Big Bang! The Big Bang is the explanation (or conclusion) of the theory.
"Scientific theories are never right or wrong.....they are only rational or irrational. Alleged consummated events are only in the past...."
I was refering the the various hypotheses here, not the theory.
I agree, all matter is empty space. Have you ever seen an atom? No. And no one ever will.
"Only matter (atoms) exist. Atoms are eternal....they cannot be created or destroyed."
So the existence of an atom has INFINITE duration?
To be honest with you, I'm not at all sure where you stand in this debate but would love to go further.
I go away tomorrow for a long weekend with the girlfriend so will look forward to continuing next week.
Cheers for now.
Hi Winston,
You make a good point, but then you would have to show that radio waves or light waves do not travel through space to refute the findings.
I'm not 100% sure on the figures but certain frequencies cannot travel through certain substances, such as high frequency radio waves through water, sound waves through a vacuum, light waves through earth (and other solids, of course), and so on...
The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. Water is excellent at conducting low frequencies. That's why whales can communicate over vast distances. Submarines use low frequency radio in the LW spectrum (or even lower) and can communicate all around the globe on only a few watts. However, a submarine transmitting in the VHF spectrum would not be able to communicate at all!
Irrespective of frequency, they all behave the same because they all 'wave'.
Hope this helps. (I'm a radio amateur. Can you guess?)
Sorry, meant to say; the doppler effect is the stretching or 'squeezing' of the frequency. The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength and vice versa. As the object approaches the wavelength is squeezed and so you get a higher pitch and vice versa. The same with anything that emits a frequency.
"The BB theory concludes (or predicts) that all matter at one time in the past was in one place."
This is completely bonkers. It makes nonsense whatsoever!
"The same with the BB 'THEORY' (not the BB itself), we take what we discover (or observe TODAY!) and trace BACKWARDS to come to some kind of rational conclusion."
But BB isn't any kind of rational coinclusion. It's a religious dogma. It makes no sense at any level. What we "observe" is just various incarnations of matter in motion. Red shift, for example, can have any number of possible interpretations.
But BB still either has to answer how something popped out of nothing, or a magical something "created" another magical something. Otherwise not a single ounce of it is coherent at all. It's really that simple.
"I agree, all matter is empty space. Have you ever seen an atom? No. And no one ever will."
Wooooooaaaaaaah, there. How many beers?! :P
"So the existence of an atom has INFINITE duration?"
Duration is time. Time is a concept, i.e. does not exist. Eternal simply means 'time-less'. Atoms are eternal (NOT infinite!) because there's no such thing as time. TIme requires a human observer to invent the concept.
But Mr Fatfist can clear that one up a bit.
I would normally be happy to carry on debating your views because I am genuinely interested in what you say, but I detect a personal agenda here which has nothing to do with what you claim, and everything to do with those you seem to have taken a dislike to.
You can't have a sensible debate by forcing your own tight rules on terminology and such like. Nitpicking on such a grand scale becomes tiresome after a while which is why I'm running low on enthusiasm and cannot justify putting any more effort into what could otherwise be an awe-inspiring and enlightening hub.
I'll take a look at your other hubs in the meantime.
I would normally be happy to carry on debating your views because I am genuinely interested in what you say, but I detect a personal agenda here which has nothing to do with what you claim, and everything to do with those you seem to have taken a dislike to.
The Atheist/Theist Cromper FAIL.
Cromper are you going to call stephen hawking to save you from the wrath of fatfist.
Or Cromper are you going to call God to save you from the wrath of fatfist.
I don't recall ever making the CLAIM that matter was 'created' or came from nothing. I simply remain open to the POSSIBILITY, just as I remain open to the possiblity that matter (or should I say atoms?) are/is 'eternal'.
This is why I'm giving up; because either I am not articulate enough to explain where I sit in all of this, or you are not listening to me. Whichever one it is I cannot get my message across.
Just as evolutionary theory does not require organic matter to come from inorganic matter, so the BB theory does not require matter to come from nothing. The theories only deal with the matter which exists, irrespective of how long it has existed. It is you who does not understand the theory.
Have you got anything constructive to add to this debate, or are you just fatfist's muppet? LOL!
How can it be rationally possible for matter to spring from nothing?
I think this is the point Fatfist is trying to help you address - open mindedness should not include the irrational. The irrational is covered in philosophy.
For example, you state you are "open to the possibility" that "matter was 'created' or came from nothing".
The first premise of Alvin Plantiga's logical argument for God begins, "It is possible that a maximally great being exists in some world."
The first premise of your response to Fatfist begins, "It is possible that matter was created or came from nothing."
Do you see the point? This is not science. This is philosophy. Both premises deal with irrational subjects, god and creation ex nihilo. Neither argument has any bearing on reality. Also, because both begin with a description of possibilities, neither argument can ever prove a necessity - the phrasing is always contingent on the word "possible".
Concerning the Big Bang, the entirety of its observational power rests in redshift. Without the Doppler Effect for redshit, there is no expansion, and without expansion there is no Big Bang. Cosmic Background Radiation is a sideshow that has easy alternative explanations.
If redshift is wrong, the Big Bang theory is wrong.
So when you are alluding to the ideas of the Big Bang, you are alluding to a philosophical argument (it is possible that..." that rests on an observation that relies on an irrational basis for it to work (Doppler Effect carries over to light and in vacuums.)
In my opinion, that is really all Fatfist is trying to get across - that modern physics and cosmology is not really science but philosophy.
Rational thought does not require proof; philosophy is a method of proofs. How can these two mix into a theory?
You're right! The idea that matter came from nothing is certainly irrational.
Throughout history humans believed the earth was flat. We can all sympathise with their beliefs because it would have been rational from a non-the-wiser human point of view. In those days, the idea that the earth was round would have been laughed at! It would have been irrational because we would have fallen off if we went around too far, wouldn't we?
I don't mind the term irrational, and I'm very happy to keep the door wide open on ideas deemed so.
But then there are 'absurdities'. It's perfectly rational to believe the earth is flat, but to believe it rests on the back of a giant turtle is absurd!
And that is the difference.
While the idea that matter came from nothing is irrational, it is not absurd.
Just as evolutionary theory does not require organic matter to come from inorganic matter.
Cromper aka theist/atheist.
Evolution = Genesis = Big Bang Theory. Crap after Crap
I will try to explain why the BB theory makes sense to me - someone who studied amateur radio (20 years ago now) before he knew anything about the theory. This is purely from memory!
Everything resonates at a certain frequency - even the bones in our bodies! Sound resonates from our vocal cords through the air in waves which peak and trough so many times per second (20-120 times?). In the Doppler Effect the waves travel towards us and so the peaks and troughs pass us faster which increases the frequency (times per second). Likewise as the source of sound travels away from us, the peaks and troughs of the wave pass slower and therefore the frequency reduces. Sound cannot pass through a vacuum so to transmit audio through space we need to send it electromagnetically.
Radio waves are generated (these days) by passing an electrical current over slivers of quartz crystal and mixed (synthesized) to achieve a frequency which will be a denomination or multiple of the frequency we want to use. All frequencies have harmonics (we hear this in music and singing, but they also exist in radio) and so we can filter out the harmonics we don't want and use the one that we do. This is the 'carrier wave' which transports the voice (or what ever sound we want to transmit). The voice resonance is added to the carrier wave and then 'let loose' through an antenna (which also resonates).
The length of an antenna is very important! You can guess the frequency of a transmitter by looking at the length of its aerial. The length needs to be the same as the wavelength or denominations of such. 1/2 wave and 1/4 wave antennas are most common for CB radio, for example. The wavelenth of CB radio is 11 metres (36 ft?) and so a half wave antenna (commonly known as Silver Rod) is 18ft long. There are other lengths such as 3/4 and 5/8th wave antennas but I think I've made my point here.
If the antenna is the wrong length the radiated waves will struggle to transmit and, depending on how far out the measurment is, will 'reflect back' into the transmitter causing damage to the equipment. It's like trying to squeeze an elephant through a catflap, but the same happens if the antenna is too long too, because it is the harmonic length that's important, and not how long the antenna is. This is why we need antennas of varying length.
Waves radiate omnidirectionally. To direct them in any particular direction we need to add at least one antenna 'element' called a 'reflector'. This is an extra, slightly longer, antenna placed at optimum distance parrallel and in line to the 'driver' (our initial antenna) which literally bounces the waves back towards the driver like a mirror. The reflective element stands alone without any connection to the transmitting equipment. It is not powered in any way, it only acts as a mirror.
To make the antenna more accurate in its direction, we can add 'directors' to the antenna array (now called a 'beam') on the opposite side of the driven element to the reflector. Just like the reflector, the directors are stand alone and are not powered in any way, but they are cut slightly SHORTER than the driven element. The more directors we use, the more accurately we can direct the radiation to its target.
Ever looked at a TV antenna? See how many elements there are? Even though TV antennas do not transmit, the principle is the same when receiving signals as when transmitting.
The reason I talk so much about antennas is to demonstrate the physical nature of radio waves. Not only do they act the same as sound but they also act the same as any 'object'. Throw (driver) an object against a wall (reflector) and aid its forward path (directors).
Light waves behave the same as radio waves which behave the same as sound waves, so we can apply the same principles when talking about the Doppler Effect. (Someone is probably going to prove me wrong here, but this is my understanding)
White light consists of a spectrum of colours from infra-red up to ultra-violet. Using the Doppler Effect we can already see how red-shifted white light suggests it is travelling away from us. Is there another explanation for this? I don't know.
'Cosmic Background Radiation' is in the microwave range which is below visible infra-red. It is suggested that this radiation is light that has been red-shifted so much that it no longer resembles light, which makes sense. Is there another explanation? I don't know.
The amount of microwave radiation detected is the same whichever way we look out into the universe which can suggest a number of things but most importantly; that either we are at the dead centre of the universe (creationists rejoice!) or that there is NO centre to the universe.
To suggest that we are at the dead centre is 'absurd'; to suggest there is no centre is 'irrational'.
Then we get into the realms of light and gravity's effect on it.
(fatfist please note; even if the source of light has direction, the lightwaves it emits are omnidirectional - they have no direction)
We now know that light bends through space. It was previously thought that light only travels in straight lines but observations have shown during solar eclipses that stars which would otherwise be obscured by the sun can be seen. This can only be due to the bending of light as it passes the sun.
Therefore, light cannot escape matter as it will ultimately end up bending back on itself however far it manages to travel.
The background radiation tells me (and this is my idea, not that of science) that our universe is the same size as it was at the very start of the Big Bang (irrational). We only see the matter in our universe 'spreading out' because we are inside the universe. To an outsider, the universe is not getting any larger but the contents are fading away! And the rate of this fading away is equivalent to the speed of light!
Light particles remain frozen in space relative to the 'outside'. It is the ripples (waves) they create in space that expand outwards that are observed as light. For anything to travel faster than light the 'fading' process would need to be reversed and would require an infinite amount of energy, therefore it would be impossible.
Our universe should not exists at all! It is trying to vanish out of existence, such is the nature of its behaviour.
You make some very interesting points which I intend to address on my return from work.
Very briefly, I understand sound, radio and light waves to be nothing more than waves that pass through a medium. As for passing through space I do not have an answer and niether does science. I'm sure that will please you.
I'm trying not to give too much away as I'm currently writing a hub related to this so you'll have to forgive me if I don't delve too much into the 'vanishing universe'.
Cheers for now.
I agree with you regarding waves. I keep my mind open on this still because radio signals possess a tiny amount of voltage which, when received, needs to be substantially amplified to get the modulated information (if any). This implies either the voltage has travelled from the transmitter to the receiver (like a blob of energy through empty space), or the medium it has used to 'wave' the information from TX to RX is itself electrical.
OR... My theory that there is no travelling involved by either party! And this is a part of my 'Vanishing Universe' theory. (It needs a better name, such as 'Condensing Universe' or 'Conflicting Universe')
fatfist, you keep on repeating your mantra about how 'objects' and only atoms exist. How do you get to claim objects and atoms are the only things that exist when they are made of empty space? Are liquids and gasses conceptual?
I know you have already commented on this but the amount of writing here makes it difficult to refer back to particular comments.
Ooh, Mr Peavley!!!
Sorry, meant to add;
Waves in water and sound waves which rely on matter as a medium to travel through will eventually die away to nothing (because the energy is absorbed by the medium). This does not happen with electromagnetic waves in a vacuum.
Does this point to an absense of a medium?
atoms are the only things that exist when they are made of empty space?
Cromper is not even trying anymore.
This guys still does not get the basic definition of concepts and objects wow.
Cromper what is a concept ? please give your definition.
Cromper what is and object ? please give your definitions.
...or better still, what is a Prome?
We're going back into things that exist and things that do not.
As I asked before; are gasses and liquids concepts? Or are they objects?
There made of atoms so they must be objects.
But cromper what is space made off or lack off?
Ok, got that.
Is the speed of light (c) a limiting factor at the quantum level?
(Just a quickie before I leave for work)
You wrote earlier;
"The only rational explanation is that the transmitter and the receiver are physically connected by a medium at the atomic level."
I was under the impression that connections at the atomic level are not limited by 'c' - that the relationship of one atom with another billions of miles away is instant. 'c' is not a limiting factor of gravity. The effects of gravity are instant no matter what the distance is between 2 objects.
Radio signals travel at c (slightly less through atmosphere) so what is the limiting factor in space where there is only a connection at an atomic level?
Sorry fatfist, perhaps I am missing something here.
If the radio signal uses a medium at an atomic level and the limiting factor is the knock on effect of atoms, then am I correct in assuming you are suggesting there are atoms in empty space?
I'm still confused.
Am I getting this correctly? If we take 2 atoms billions of miles apart, and they torque their interconnecting medium, the effect of the torque from one atom to the other will still be subject to the limit equivalent to the speed of light?
Or will the torqued effect be instantaneous?
This is a fascinating conversation!
Of course, this is all assuming that the medium between atoms can be torqued, and why not indeed! If it was rigid the torqued effect would be instantaneous. That would be interesting.
Cheers fatfist.
I could be back with more questions for you. My own theory negates the need for strings whilst still maintaining that no EM radiation needs to travel between objects. Maybe my own interpretation of things is more related to string theory than I thought!
Food for thought.
Cheers for now.
This is a fascinating conversation!
Cromper turning into the Dark Side.
Aka string theory is a joke.
I have been thinking.
As we know, light cannot pass through opaque objects. Does this suggest that not all atoms are connected to each other via the medium we have been talking about?
If there is a 'torquing' from the TX point to every other atom that exists then there is obviously something stopping the information from continuing along its path as it reaches 'populated' bodies of atoms (objects).
Also, radio signals sometimes 'bounce' off the earth's ionosphere in unpredictable ways which is surely an 'interruption' between the torquing at TX and every atom that exists?
For example; Atom A torques along the string to atom B, but at a point in between there is an interaction that prevents atom B from receiving the torqued information.
What is the interaction?
I can only imagine that a local atom (C) takes custody of the string, receives the information, but sends nothing to atom B.
But then why would atom C take over the A-B string when it already has connections with both anyway?
However, the main problem is this: Even if you 'torque' a string there is still an instantaneous decrease in length which pulls the two ends closer together even if the 'twist' is received later. The only way to combat this would be with string having only 1 dimension. Even then, it would need to be rigid!
fatfist! We need your help!!!
Fatfist has forsaken my comments. I pray to god to punish you fatfist.
[[The rope consists of 2 threads twined in dna-like fashion between all atoms in the universe. A torque of the rope does not pull 2 atoms together because the rope has link-lengths which determine the wavelength of the pulse being sent along the rope. And since each atom performs a quantum jump, it alters the link-length (wavelength) of the rope depending on the rate at which it torques it. And atoms in different media, obviously vibrate (torque) at different rates. Atoms are only perpetually "pulled" together because these interconnecting ropes are under "tension".]]
By this, do you mean that not all atoms pull on eachother because tension between ALL atoms is diffused, as the atom vibrates due to zillions of interconnections to it? (In other words, the ropes wind around the atom and exit at different connecting ropes along it?)
Interesting stuff.
Just going back to the notion that only objects exist because they have size, shape and location - this isn't strictly true.
The size, shape and location of an object is constantly changing analogously, even if it is only at the atomic level. Therefore, the size, shape and location of an object can only exist in the past.
Even if we were to take exact measurements instantly and in synchronicity, by the time we receive those measurements through whichever measuring devices we use, the size, shape and location of the object will have changed and will be no more than an electromagnetic record of what it was in the past at a certain point in time.
In this respect, objects are only temporary whilst the electromagnetic information they leave behind is permanent. This is why we cannot change the past - because what we 'think' is real, isn't. The only reality is waves and frequencies.
The only thing that 'exists' is atoms, not objects.
Perhaps if there were no torsions whatsoever then there would be no space or time, which begs the question; where did the torsions come from?
I am a fellow student - not an opponent. I don't know why you're so defensive and confrontational. To put your mind at ease I will read the hub you suggest and educate myself further...
You cannot claim that 'size, shape and location' define things that 'exist' when they are conceptual! Just like TIME, size, shape and location are concepts!
No matter how complicated or simple your explanation is, it STILL needs an explanation. String (Thread) Theory is simple, makes sense, and it works! I appreciate your down-to-earth explanation.
But it does not explain itself!
You cannot say to me "there is no explanation", because that is like "God is eternal"! Need no explanation, right?
By asserting that atoms are eternal, you are making a claim which requires faith. Faith that atoms need no answer. That atoms always existed.
Personally, I believe matter came from nothing. I don't believe in 'time'. And I don't believe anything caused anything to happen. It just happened!
All will be revealed in my next hub...
Personally, I believe matter came from nothing.
Amen lol
Hey fatfist i need some pointers i am going to start trolling this place.
I am going to start with there big bang theory and then move on to The Dogma of God and then eventually the religion of evolution.
When your done trying to impress yourself you'll want to get some facts into your house of cards.
Christians do NOT rely on the first cause argument..they dont care about it one bit and most have never even heard of it.
The knowledge of Christ is done through the MIND supernaturally. God didnt set the world up so only philosophers were saved. This isnt a detective mission.
The world is set up with a message that moves those who are FOR God to ask him for the truth. Its now in our mind as a fact because we gave ourselves to Christ.
Thomas Aquinas 5 ways were not formulated to convert people. They are just an attempt refute the stupidity of the lost.
It is God who converts through the heart. Those who are Gods WILL come to Him--PERIOD. NO ONE will be lost or saved based on clever arguments. Their hearts will be moved by the simplicity of Christ or they will flatly reject the God that made them.
If this was based on clever arguments there would have to be one LAST piece of evidence that would finally convince you--as with any argument. The problem is if one line of the argument is later debunked in your mind you will no longer believe.
God forbid salvation is like that-- where we are blown to and fro, like the wind, in our faith. God supernaturally puts the truth in our minds when call on Christ--nothing can debunk that.
As Jesus said--No one can snatch those who are mine out of my hand.
Just saw your comment here too and read this article. Really cool! There are some great arguments I can use here. It's a good hub to learn from.
My other question is this (if you have time for a n00b, don't wanna piss you off!):
Can the arguments against religion not also be applied to governments or nation states as well (i.e. voting/praying, priests/politicians, hell/prisons, sin / social contract... and so on)?
Prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have meaning, to have relative, numerical, value, to carryany weigh the Reality of Everything existed as a Steady State of Singularity, a State or Condition in which an an untold number of Individualities, Indivisible Singularities existed with none being relative to another, each alone in the Emptiness of the undifferentiated Singularity of Time and of Space; Time, Space, and Motion, each existing without meaning; Cause and Effect, the Evolutionary Process not being a factor in the existence of the Reality of Anything.
The State or Condition of the Reality of Everything, the Steady State of Singularity, a state in which an untold number of the Individual of an Indivisible Singularity existed, a State in which nothing was readily apparent, nothing was measurable as to location or momentum in Time and Space, nothing having relative, numerical value, The Steady State of Singularity, the Reality of Everything existing without meaning.
Prior to the Moment the Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause it was Impossible for the Universe, Reality as we now know it to be, to become a Manifest Reality; The Probability of the Universe, Reality as we now know it to be to become a Manifest Reality was made possible because of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to have a dual quality, to have, relative, numerical, value, to have meaning, to carry any weight; the relative value of the Reality of First Cause lying in its Dual Quality.
The Reality of First Cause being an Creation, was an Effect born of an Affect, a State or Condition, yhe Reality of First Cause being an Effect that became First Cause, the First in Series, being the beginning of, the direct cause of Space-Time, the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, the Beginning, the Start, the First in a series of events that began Process that made Manifest the Universe, the Reality of Everything as we know it to be according to Natural, ordinary, the usual means, the Evolutionary Process born of the Dual Quality, Nature, of the Reality of First Cause, Cause and Effect.
This whole conversation relies on the assumption that the universe is static in some form, and that is naive. As much as fatfist likes to sit on the 'throne' of knowledge, string theory is not the end of all exploration.
The 'Shrinking Atom' theory debunks ALL of fatfists arguments.
Shrinking Atom lol
Unless I have completely misunderstood, you are subscribed to the string theory explanation which bridges the gap between quantum and relativity theories. String theory itself is 'made to fit' even though there is no evidence to back it up.
And so there is another little known theory called 'shrinking atom theory'. It suggests that atoms shrink at a rate equivalent to the speed of light. If atoms shrink, there is no need for string theory to tie together relativity and quantum theory.
Eddie 5 weeks ago
This whole conversation relies on the assumption that the universe is static in some form, and that is naive. As much as fatfist likes to sit on the 'throne' of knowledge, string theory is not the end of all exploration.
The 'Shrinking Atom' theory debunks ALL of fatfists arguments.
The above was added to my post on the Uncaused Cause; starting with "Prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have meaning, to have relative, numerical, value, to carry any weigh the Reality of Everything existed as a Steady State of Singularity.
My question being could something be Steady without being Static; The Reality of Everything existing as a Steady State of Singularity prior to the Moment of Creation, the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, being an Original Product, being born of an affect, a particular State or Condition, Being a Creation, being born of an Affect, rather than a series, a continuum, a Process, the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause being an Effect that was the First in a Series, the Beginning of a Continuum such as Space-Time, the Beginning of a Process such as the Evolutionary Process, the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause being an Effect born of an affect, being a Creation made manifest the Reality of First Cause.
First Things first; thank you for your response.
I have no desire for you to Kill your article!
I have no Knowledge, understanding, of a shrinking Atom.
I reserve the use of the Word Particle to represent an Individuality, a Singularity so Infinitely Finite as to be Indivisible, Absolute.
The Hubb will limit the size of my response so I will post several responses.
The Reality of First Cause;
What was on the Mind of God prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Creation of the Universe, of the Reality of Everything?
Not a Dam Thing, Nothing was on the Mind of God other than the Creation, the Random Generation of the Reality of First Cause.
The Reality of First Cause, having been Randomly Generated, was a Creation.
Being an Original Product of the Mind of God, The Reality of First Cause although being an Effect born of a Affect, a particular State, Condition, of the Mind of God, was born of the Alchemically Transfiguration of a Singularity having no Relative, Numerical, material, value; the Reality of First Cause, being a mutation, a Transmutation.
The Reality of First Cause being an Effect born of an Affect being the First Singularity to have, relative, Material, value, a Numerical value of One.
Made manifest, having Material Value, the Reality of First Cause, an Effect born of an Affect, rather than having a direct material cause, being a Transmutation, ushered in the Relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time.
The Reality of First Cause, originally being no more that an product of the Mind of God, having been Alchemically Transfigured, being a Transmutation, was made Manifest a Singularity having a Numerical Value of One, was made manifest the Reality of First Cause, an effect made manifest the First, the beginning of the Four-Dimensional Continuum.
The Reality of First Cause being an Effect, being the First Singularity to have an Effect, being a Causeless Cause, being the Reality of First Cause.
Being an original product of the mind of God, Cause and Effect is not the Source, the Origin of, is not the Cause of The Reality of First Cause, The Reality of First Cause having no direct material cause.
If you cant state your position in few words, then you don't know what your talking about.
Wayne wrote;
When I first read some of you posts I thought that you might be a person that I might communicate with, However after realizing how you distort Reality, facts, to fit your need, I have all but given up hope.
"My question being could something be Steady without being Static"
fatfist wrote;
What do you mean by "steady" and "static"? I hope you understand what you are saying and not just throwing words around in the hopes of making strawman arguments, like all the other parrots do.
Wayne wrote:
I understand my question, but by your response I do not believe that you do.
fatfist wrote;
WAKE UP CALL: If there was 'something' prior to your alleged Creation, then there was NO Creation, as matter already existed. Creation is a VERB (i.e. action/motion).
Wayne wrote;
As stated by you above, that Creation is a verb is incorrect; Creation is a Noun.
fatfist wrote;
All actions require an actor (i.e. matter/object) to mediate them. Matterless motion is impossible....got it, or does this need some time to sink in after a weekend of binge-drinking?
Wayne wrote;
If by action you mean motion having displacement?
I agree.
Fatfist wrote;
Your argument clearly shows why matter is ETERNAL. Go ahead, formulate any argument you like....no matter how you phrase it, it will always show that matter is eternal and there was no alleged creation.
Wayne wrote;
Not so!
"I reserve the use of the Word Particle to represent an Individuality, a Singularity"
Fast Fist Wrote;
Ummm, sorry wayne, you can't do that. A 'particle', like a particle of dust, is a term reserved for objects, not for concepts. All objects have shape. Singularities do not have shape because they are concepts. All concepts have ZERO dimensions i.e. 0D.
So it's best if you just use the term 'singularity'.
Wayne wrote;
I agree! Singularity is my First Choice; I only used the word particle because of your use of the Term Shrinking Atom; many others using the word particle to represent some erroneous whatever.
Fatfist wrote;
The word 'infinite' is an abstract concept that is only consistently defined and used within the context of abstract mathematics, never in physical reality. It is impossible for anything to be "infinite" in reality. Why? Because if there was, we would not exist, as it would take up everything.
Adjectives like infinite, cannot describe concepts. Only adverbs can describe verbs and concepts.
Wayne Wrote;
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
I agree, the term Infinite is an Adjective, but an adjective is not limited to being descriptive of only an Object.
I can see Infinite as modifying a Noun, but not being limited to modifying an Object, something that exists in the material sense of the world.
Fatfist wrote;
And remember....since infinite is an irrational concept, it cannot be said to be 'indivisible'. What is indivisible is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity.
Wayne wrote;
I have no intention of trying to refute what you claim to be common everyday speech, people always saying that objects, concepts, and verbs are infinite, nor that you believe that to be not only irrational, but impossible. Not to mention that it violates grammar.
I do not accept that as being fact.
I agree that to say, that a material reality is infinite is no doubt an irrational concept, but then, as I said, a Singularity has no relative value, worth, carries no weight, is not a factor, has no Numerical value, no quantity, no mass, is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and or momentum, Motion, in Time and Space, does not exist in the material, Physical, sense of the word, Singularity also not being subject to the relativity of Time and Space, being Eternal, Everlasting.
I say that the Indivisible Singularity is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity, Singularity.
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
And yet atheist make fun of theist for believing in concepts. lol
Fatfist wrote;
And remember....since infinite is an irrational concept, it cannot be said to be 'indivisible'.
Wayne wrote;
you say "and remember, since infinite is an irrational concept, it cannot be said to be 'indivisible", like it is a statement of fact, not so; besides I never used Infinite as a single term, I said Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity and I never reference to an object as being Infinite.
Fatfist wrote;
What is indivisible is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity.
What is the difference between a fundamental constituent of Matter, Matter ultimately made up of an indivisible entity and an Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity that is so minute, Infinitely Finite, as to have no quantity, no mass, to not be readily apparent, as to not be measurable as to location and or momentum in Time and Space, in Space-Time, a Singularity that is relative to NoThing, that has no Numerical value, that has a Numerical value of Zero-O.
Fm Wikipedia;
a noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing or abstract idea.
Webster's defines Creation as being a Noun.
Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.
You said that I posted, "in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist".
Just another one of you false statements.
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality; in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
Wayne: "Singularity is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity, Singularity."
Fastfist wrote;
Ummmm.....Wayne....are you on drugs man????
You just told the audience that 'a' singularity has no shape, is not an object, and thus DOES NOT exist! Now you claim that matter is made up of a fundamental constituent, the singularity, which does NOT EXIST. Thus matter/objects/things/stuff/people/cars/planets/stars.... do NOT exist according to YOU!
Wayne wrote;
I said no such thing!
Perfect example of you nature to distort facts.
My post read;
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
Your distortion of my post leading to you conclusion.
Great, then Singularity is a concept, an abstraction, it has no shape and is thus not an object. It is impossible for concepts, like singularities, to exist. We're done!
Wayne wrote;
In order to exist In the material sense of the word
something would have to have quantity, mass.
Fm Wikipedia;
Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.
(Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.)
Yeah, Fatfist, I can't see how you missed this - it's in all the Harry Potter movies. Harry waves his wand and says the magic word and presto! something from nothing!
MY first mistake was not being critical of you posts; you continuously distorting reality to fit your needs; Take your statement below for example.
Someone else, not me Wayne wrote;
"fatfist likes to sit on the 'throne' of knowledge"
You seem to be responding to above that does not belong to me.
Fatfist wrote;
First things first.....there is no knowledge. The Scientific Method is predicated solely on a Hypothesis (objects and initial scene) and a Theory (rational explanation of a consummated event). There is NO provision for "knowledge" in the sci method. Knowledge is subjective; Science is objective. Understand the difference? It is only in Religion where they already KNOW everything....and the body of "knowledge" (i.e. dogma) was written by the first Priest who was voted into office.
Wayne wrote;
Being all knowing is not limited to Religion.
Being All Knowing is a Trait belonging to anyone that believes, without it being a Fact, that Imagines themselves to be God Like, All Knowing, having Knowledge that Knowledge does not exist;
Said God Like Individuals being nothing more than a Know-It-All.
You falsely attribute several statement to me, in the body of your post that you can find in any of my posts.
"I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist ..."
2. Wayne: "in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist"
I have posted numerous time that the statement in my post as you continue to pervert reads;
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality; in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
Fatfist wrote;
"I never used Infinite as a single term, I said Infinitely "; as attributed to me.
Wayne wrote;
again you distort my post.
My post reads, "Infinitely Finite"
Fastfist wrote;
Wayne, I hope this doesn't offend you....but....you are a brain-dead troll. You really need to sue your mother quick before the statute of limitations runs out.
Singularities do not exist. It was YOU who said that this is a FACT. Please go and re-read what you wrote....you are on the RECORD!!
Wayne: "in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist"
Wayne: "in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist"
Wayne: "in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist"
Wayne: "in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist"
Wayne: "in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist"
Wayne Wrote;
You are not only Blind, Deaf and Dumb, you are double Dumb.
If you can not show where in the body of one posts that I made this state as posted, you will have proven yourself to be a Liar, FUll Of It!
AKA Winstion;
Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.)
Yeah, Fatfist, I can't see how you missed this - it's in all the Harry Potter movies. Harry waves his wand and says the magic word and presto! something from nothing!
Wayne Wrote;
The Statement; Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.) was taken from Wikipedia.
Although Accidents have no Single Direct Material Cause, Accidents do not just Happen; Accidents are Created.
You do not seem to Know, understand the difference between something born of cause and effect and something that has been created.
Wayne82587 Wrote
I'm Free.
(The Statement; Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.) was taken from Wikipedia)
Oh, the High Priestess Wikipedia herself? I never knew. What was I thinking?
We are not worthy! We are not worthy! Shwinnggg!
(You do not seem to Know, understand the difference between something born of cause and effect and something that has been created.)
I may not know much, but at least I know not to capatilize the word know in the middle of sentence.
- The High Priestess Introduction to English -
Please take note as to what I wrote in my first post 4 months ago in reference to Singularity, the Reality of Everything.
Prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have meaning, to have relative, numerical, value, to carry any weigh;
the Reality of Everything existed as a Steady State of Singularity, a State or Condition in which an an untold number of Individualities, Indivisible Singularities existed with none being relative to another, each alone in the Emptiness of the differentiated Singularity of Time and of Space; Time, Space,
and Motion, each existing without meaning; Cause and Effect, the Evolutionary Process not being a factor in the existence of the Reality of Anything.
Scientifically speaking, is it possible for something to exist without being readily apparent, without being accurately measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space???
What is the Particle Wave Duality????
You do not have to accept my primes, of course, but you need to understand what I said.
In an attempt to clarify what I position on the existence or non existence of a Singularity, I will make the following declaration.
I say, "that a Singularity does exist (but not being readily apparent, not being accurately measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space) Singularity does not exist in the material sense of the word; Singularity simply can not be Scientifically proven to Exist, does not Exist in the Material Sense of the word.
I offer up this post as proof that I did not lie!!!
Fatfist, you realize if you wrote a book or took donations for article requests, I for one would pay for the amazing shit you write, right? Seriously dude. Get on Lulu or iBooks or something. Or let me shout you beer money to write a very short article ona topic of my choosing. It's win win. We're al gonna die soon, and I can't get enough of your awesome articles. If you were ever to head down my way before the Zombie Apocalypse hits, I'll buy you a large beer or ten.
Wayne brings to my mind an assembly of mathematicians who are only interested in talking about numbers but refuse to assign any values to any number.
There are only two choices: something or nothing. The fact that there is now something means only one of two things: something came from nothing, which requires rational explanation as to how this was done. Or, something is eternal and there never was a period of nothing.
The mathematicians want to preach to you about the first zero that preceded zero without explaining how zero was transformed into a positive number.
There are two simple explanations how zero transformed into a positive number: quantum and magic. Of the two, magic makes the best case.
El Dude here, got a login now. No idea how to ping you via Hubpages, can't find a button.
Maybe I'm an internet moron, or perhaps it's made of 0d particles, but I swear I can't see such a button! This is what I see:
I want to thank Fatfist and AKA Winston for their questions!!!!!
This may sound corny but, I am thrilled with your two questions.
My answer to your question is only going to be as good as your two questions, which I believe to be Excellent.
I have been working on the answer all morning, at least 5 hrs., this being everything that I have ready to Post.
In trying to answer your question, the only thing that I have accomplished so far is to succeed in Opening a can of Worms, Pandora's Box, Crap; I would have to go and look into the, Evil Eye, the Face the of Medusa, DAMN.
I want to stop right here and answer one of AKA Winston's earlier questions before I get in to the conceptualization of a Singular Object, an Individuality, a Singularity that is so Infinitely Finite, minute, as to be Indivisible, as to not be readily apparent, as to not be measurable as to location and or momentum in Time and Space, Space-Time; Which in fact is not even subject to the Relativity of Time and Space, nor the Relativity of Cause and Effect, that can not be shown to exist in the Material sense of the word, that can not be shown to exist as an Object; said Singularity being shown to be nothing more than a concept, an Idea, an Illusion, a conjecture, a speculation a Theory; The Existence of said Singularity that exist alone in the Emptiness being Unknown, is at Best and Uncertainty, can not be shown to Be Or Not To Be a Reality, to exist or not to exist, One Way or Another.
What was AKA Question????
AKA Winston questioned my Intelligence because I seem to capitalize a lot of words right in the middle of a Sentence.
My Answer!!
In the Spoken word we use inflection in our tone of voice showing the passion that we have for whatever the Subject.
In the written word, a writer, the author, any and every One, Person, Male of Female, has the literary right to take liberty with grammatical rules, such as whether or not it is proper to capitalize a word in the middle of a sentence, in order to show their passion about a particular Subject, Word.
This is your last chance to present your argument, my patience has run out with you, so please LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY.
I already asked you this before, so I will copy/paste it again, FOR THE LAST TIME:
If you want to present your argument about your singularity, then you first have to tell the audience whether your 'singularity' is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT.....there is no other option.
Object: that which has shape
So which is it.....is your 'singularity' an OBJECT or a CONCEPT??
Don't post anything else.....don't post anything from wiki....don't tell me your life's story.....don't tell me what you had for lunch.....just answer the key question of YOUR presentation. Remember: you present, and the audience asks you questions.
Wayne wrote;
I want to thank for your time and trouble responding to my posts, your question is very important to me.
The answer being that My Singularity is both a Singular Object and a Concept.
I also want to thank AKA Winston for the Statement he made in his last post, which I find very impotant to my quest.
" The mathematicians want to preach to you about the first zero that preceded zero without explaining how zero was transformed into a positive number.
There are two simple explanations how zero transformed into a positive number: quantum and magic. Of the two, magic makes the best case.
You are correct AKA Winston, it is all about Magic,
An Alchemical Transfigurataion, Hocus Pocus, Abracadabra.
Alchemy; any magical power or process of transmuting a common substance, usually of little value, into a substance of great value.
It is all about zero, a Singularity having Numerical value of Zero being transformed into a positive number, a Singularity having a Numerical value of One.
Again I thank your for your response to my post, to include your criticism.
Whenever I find something in any of my concepts that dosen't hold up I Junk it.
To date, even though my concept may need some refinement, I have said nothing that I am ready to toss to the Junk Pile
"The answer being that My Singularity is both a Singular Object and a Concept."
This is impossible, Wayne....here's why....
Object: that which has shape Concept: that which doesn't have shape It is impossible for any word in any language to resolve to that which DOES and DOESN'T have shape. This is a violation of the basic ontology that an object cannot be ITSELF (with shape) and NOTHING (no shape) at the same time.
The folks over at the Logic Club will have a "field day" with you. They will tell you that your response violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.....not to mention that it also commits various Logical Fallacies, like: Reification, Non-Sequitur, Equivocation, Argument from Ignorance, Amphiboly, Inconsistency, Conflicting Condition, Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise....just to mention a few. So the logic guys would slaughter you if you were to make such a statement on their turf.
Clearly, it is impossible for a ball to be ON and OFF the table at same time....just as it is IMPOSSIBLE for any word, like 'singularity' to resolve to BOTH an object and a concept. All words are mutually exclusive of their categorization. The two CATEGORIES OF CLASSIFICATION are either OBJECT or CONCEPT. They are two columns on a table. All words fall into one or the other column....never both!
Wayne wrote;
I am going to refer to your ball as though it were a Particle, an Object, an Infinitely Minute, Finite, Indivisible Singularity; the Term Infinite used to mean immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time.
An Object, an Individuality, an Infinitely Minute, Finite, Indivisible Singularity Indivisible Singularity, a Ball, whatever you call it, for my purpose I will call it a Particle.
What is the difference a Ball that is on and off the table, an Indivisible Singularity that is both an Object and a Concept, and a Particle Wave Duality
I have been looking to find your classification of Words,
Object or concept and can not find that definition anywhere!
Could you direct me to where I can see this in writting
with my own eyes??
(Could you direct me to where I can see this in writting
with my own eyes??)
Do you realize all you are doing is asking for an authority to tell you what to think? You really do seem to miss the entire point of rational/critical thinking that Fatfist espouses.
I don't mean this comment as insulting, but only expressing my own perplexity as to why so many readers miss the entire point and get lost on tangents that really do not pertain.
I am now going to admit that I am a blithering Idiot.
I made the mistake of not reading Fastfix's complete Hubb before I posted a response.
In all honesty I simply thought that I was getting involved in open discussion
about The Reality of First Cause.
Not having read you complete Hubb I did not realize that I was involving myself
In someone's person concept, Theory, conjecture, speculation, they knowing everything
is to know about the two categories of words, oncology, Scientific thought, they believing their Concept as to the Reality of First Cause being an absolute fact,
they knowing that All words categorized as giving definition to either an Object or concept.
Truly Stupid on my part because the author has no room in his concept, theory as to the Reality of First Cause, that the discussion is closed, with every statement his Hubb being an Absolute Fact, Truth, Reality, no part of his Hubbe being nothing more than his personal Concept as to the Reality of First Cause.
What a dumb shit I am.
Could you direct me to where I can see this in writting
with my own eyes??)
AKA Winston
Do you realize all you are doing is asking for an authority to tell you what to think? You really do seem to miss the entire point of rational/critical thinking that Fatfist espouses.
wayne wrote;
Well Fatfist must think he has the authority to tell me how to think.
Fatfist's Hubb is Filled with concepts that he considers to be an Object, absolute fact, a reality that exists independent of his own mind.
AKA Winston wrote;
I don't mean this comment as insulting, but only expressing my own perplexity as to why so many readers miss the entire point and get lost on tangents that really do not pertain.
wayne wrote;
AkA Winstion, you do not have the ability to insult me.
I appreciate you comments.
What the HELL is this guy on about.
Wayne wrote;
Say what you will, I still find value in your criticism, your Hubb; Thank you for your responses.
I still have not read your complete Hubb.
I agree that you have a good Argument against a large number of erroneous arguments in favor of the eistence of the Reality of First Cause, however proving an argument in favor of the existence of the Reality of First cause to be, a bad, an invalid argument, does not proven your argument against the existence of the Reality of First Cause to be a good, valid, argument, you only having proven an Absolutely Bad argument to be invalid.
Fastfist wrote;
Wayne wrote;
at the very beginning of your Hubb you wrote.
This article will explain:
1) Exactly WHY Christianity's beloved First Cause Argument is in complete violation of the Law of Causality. Whoever uses the Law of Causality in the context of "First Cause" or "Creation from Nothing", is either embarrassingly foolish, or intellectually dishonest.
Wayne wrote;
The Reality of First Cause is not God, the Reality of First Cause is simply the First Singularity to have relative value, to have a numerical value of One; The initial space, Place e in a series being reserve for a Singularity having relative value, a
numerical value of One, another singularity being added to each space, place, that follows in the series, the continuum, the process; the Space, Place before the Space, Place, reserved for a Singularity of One being left Empty, Blank, being reserved for a Real Whole Indivisible Number, a Number having no relative, nada, nothing, zip, having no numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero,--O.
The decimal numeral system (also called base ten or occasionally denary) has ten as its base. It is the numerical base most widely used by modern civilizations, an empty space, place, before the First in a Series, the beginning of a Continuum, a Process being left Blank, Empty, void, being reserved for Zero—O, a real Whole indivisible Singularity have no relative, numerical, value.
The equation representing the numerical base most widely used by modern civilizations, the decimal system; being O/1(n)
Mathematics is god? Then man is above god as mathematics is an invention of man.
I thought facts were assumptions and not synonymous with opinions? Or am I confusing a fact with a statement of fact?
Hello again Fatfist,
Your approach to debate is to close the door on all possibilities. 'Go home folks, there's nothing to see here!'
When it comes to facts it does not matter one iota if they're all wrong or we are interpreting the observations incorrectly - what matters is they are facts in the sense that we can rely on them to predict the effect of a cause (for instance).
Really, you yourself sound like a preacher who closes the door on debate by pointing out that no one can know the true answer. This is true, but then the preacher is just as helpless as the rest of us and cannot himself know the true answer.
Fatfist, I have no idea what your beliefs are and I am simply far too confused by all your comments in this hub to come to any kind of conclusion. I am prepared to accept what you say about First Cause, but it would be silly for me to stop the search here and just have 'faith' that you are right.
I don't think you understand a lot of what has been said to you by others who have placed comments here. Either that or you are blinded by your own determination not to be shown to be wrong in any part.
It's easy to put a coat on and protect yourself fom the rain, but that doesn't mean it isn't raining!
You bet your bippy I close the door on utter garbage like this:
Reading the adulatory comments of St. Krauss' flock is comedy gold. They are mesmerized with the incantations of "virtual particles," and "expansion" all in the complete faith Krauss knows exactly what he's saying and that they understand Krauss.
"Fine....then please cut & paste anybody's comment who has explained why creation or first cause is possible. If it is possible, then I wouldn't be able to contradict their statements...right??"
I was actually talking about ALL comments - not just comments relating to first cause.
You could give a bit more thought to the idea that atoms might shrink, which I posted a while ago. If you can do the math and dismiss the 'shrinking atom' theory, then I will admit defeat!
One thing you CANNOT say, is that atoms do not shrink! It is POSSIBLE that atoms shrink, unless you can PROVE otherwise.
I am not claiming atoms DO shrink, but the theory should stand up to scrutiny as a viable alternative to string theory.
So, would you accept this as a possibility, or impossible?
In that case we are all as dumb as each other and neither you nor I have any authority to make any claims of truth over any other!
That's all I needed to know.
One question which requires only a YES or NO answer:
Is everything I say wrong?
I am very happy to talk ONLY about the atom. Would you like to start the discussion?
Space is not nothing. It has properties which makes it something.
The Reality of First Cause does not exist as a concept; the Reality of First Cause being a Singularity having relative value, having a numerical value of One-1, is material to the beginning a series events, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.
The Reality of First Cause being the First in a Series of events, being the direct cause of the System of Chaos that has resulted in the Manifest Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, of the Reality of Everything; The Reality of First Cause being the direct Material cause of the Law of Cause and Effect.
There were numerous errors in my previous post that you are talking about, which confused the point I was trying to make.
After re-reading my post I found it to be confusing even to me.
This Post has nothing to do with zero-O, Allah.
This post does reference a Singularity having relative, numerical, value, having a numerical value of One-1.
A Singularity of One-1 attains its relativity, numerical value by being the First Singularity, Number, in a series, the beginning of a continuum, a process.
A Singularity of One-1 has material worth, quantity, mass, does not exist as a concept.
fatfist wrote;
space = matter = singularity = Allah!!
I will bet you $5000 that you cannot disprove that!
Wayne wrote;
I could not disprove, "space = matter = singularity = Allah!!
If I wanted to, which I do not.
I do not have any need to dispove anything in your posts; In fact I am empressed with you Knowledge.
Before I can understand what you are saying you will have to give me your definitions of space = matter = singularity = Allah!!
I'm an atheist and so I don't have any priests. I'm not interested in trying to prove or disprove anything. I don't disagree with your theory of the universe or whatever it is. I'm trying to understand it more clearly. Apparently we disagree on the definition of the word "nothing". I think the supposed properties of Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are imaginary. However I think the properties of space are real. Do you think that space can be bent, collapsed, stretched or inverted? Light is a transverse wave and transverse waves only occur in solids. So wouldn't that make space an object? If space were really nothing at all why would it take any time at all for light to travel through space? Do you think the universe is expanding or rather is the distance between the galaxies increasing?
fatfist wrote;
We are? talking about what an object IS as opposed to what it DOES. Weight is a MEASURE of how many atoms comprise an object. We determine this measure by MEASURING, not by counting atoms. We still don't know how many atoms comprise the kilogram standard sitting in France.
In fact, the kilogram doesn't weigh a kilogram any more even though it hasn't moved significantly...
Is it that the kilogram doesn't weigh a kilogram any more or is it the international prototype of the kilogram that resides in Sèvres, France doesn't weigh a kilogram any more?
I started reading this, and stopped. Why is this article calling theists "parrots?" That turned me off. If you're going to make an Ad Hominem attack, then you lose the argument.
If you don't know what an Ad Hominem is then there is no sense in posting. BaaaCACAAAWK! Polly wanna cracker?
fatfist wrote;
Try to follow.....there is only ONE kilogram!
Wayne wrote;
I follow everything but your statement that there is only ONE kilogram.
Fatfist wrote;
This is THE standard or reference by which we compare our body against when we stand on a scale to get a measurement of our weight. The scale is calibrated to relate to this standard sitting under a glass jar in France.
From the internet;
the international prototype of the kilogram that resides in Sèvres, France that was found not to weigh a Kilogram any more, as compared with its official copies.
Perhaps the Earth's Magnetic Field has a minute effect upon the weight of some objects.i
Pure fantasy. Your laws came from where? Matter came from where? Space? Time? Information? Intelligence? Order?? Where did all this come from? It created itself? More religious speak!
In the beginning (Time) God created the heaven(Space) and the earth (matter). God is outside of our puny laws-he created them. And they point to a Creator. Where did God come from? Don't know. Where did your universe come from? You don't know. It's a religious question!
Another person, who very obviously DID NOT even bother to read before commenting.
"God created the heaven(Space)"
Wayne wrote;
"Heaven" is not Space, The Heavens and the Earth is used in reference to the Mass of Objects, the Reality of Everything to included that which is interpreted to be God, that occupies the Emptiness of Space.
A Singularity, in order to have a numerical value of One-1 must exist as the First in, the Beginning of, a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process; A Singularity having no relative, Numerical value having a Numerical value of Zero-O, Nada, Zip, Nothing, Zilch.
The Existence of Nothingness thought to be nothing more than hype, a big ballyhoo, does exist but not as an object that is readily apparent, measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space, Space-Time; Nothingness, not existing in the Material sense of the Word, is Immaterial, a Spiritual Reality.
Nothingness, existing an Immaterial, a Spiritual, Reality, as the Transcendental Quantum Steady State of Singularity having no relative, numerical value, the Emptiness of Space being Filled with an untold number of Individualities, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities with none having relative, numerical value, the Reality of Everything having a Numerical value of Zero-O, nada, zip, nothing, zilch; Nothing being readily apparent, nothing being measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space, the Existence or Non-Existence of Nothingness being Uncertain.
The Reality of First Cause burst onto the seen as a result of the Spontaneous Generation of Singularity of One-1, the existence of a Singularity of One-1 being the result of the Transfiguration of a random Singularity having not relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O.
The Reality of Everything prior to the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the transfiguration of a random Singularity of Zero-O that resulted in the creation of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, existed as, a Mass, an unknown quantities of Infinitely Finite Individual Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value; Mass prior to the moment of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, existing as a Transcendental Quantum State of Singularity; Time, Space and Motion each existing as an Individuality, as an Indivisible Singularity, Time, Space and Motion not being relative, cause and effect not in existence prior the moment of the spontaneous generation, the Creation, of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1; En being the direct material cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.
The Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity existing as a Mass, an Untold number of of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero, Nada, Zip, Nothing, Zilch; the motion of the untold number of Singularities having no relative numerical values being meaningless, existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction, the Motion of the Reality of First Cause having displacement, angular momentum, veloctity of speed and direction.-
Not existing prior to the Creation, the spontaneous generation of the First Singularity to have relative, a Numerical value of One-1, a Singularity of Zero-O being the place holder, the space preceding a Singularity of One- being left blank, being void of relative numerical value. Having numerical Value of Zero-O, Nada, Nothing, Zip, Zilch.
If you were able to look upon the face of God it would seem as though had been made Blind, for you would see nothing.
Man is not to speak of God; to speak of meaning to give a name to, Names being reserved for objects, a person, place or thing; objects being readily apparent, measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, being subject to the relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time.
The Only option is that which is perceived to be God exists as the Nothingness, as a Transcendental Steady State of Quantum Singularity, the State or Condition of the Reality of Everything, the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of Space, Time; Motion existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction.
fatfist wrote;
It is impossible for a being like God to create space, when God necessarily requires space in order to be something. Without space, God has no shape/form and is nothing. No Theologist has ever proposed God to be nothing…..so I can't see you doing it either. God is necessarily SOMETHING instead of nothing….there is NO other option!
Something: that which has shape. Synonym: object, entity, thing, body, figure, essence…
Space: that which lacks shape
God is 'something' instead of nothing because God necessarily has shape/form. Here, read your Bible for a change:
Numbers 12:8 -- "With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD."
Job 4:15-17 -- "A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?"
An object without the background of space is linguistic oxymoron AND an ontological contradiction….Linguistics 101 & Physics 101.
Since God needs space in order to be something….space preceded God….space is more powerful than God! It is impossible for God to create space (nothing/void). Ergo, it is impossible for God to create the Universe.
Wayne wrote;
That which is believed to be God, being Omnipresent, is the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion, prior to the Moment of the Creation, the spontaneous transfiguration of a Random Singularity having no relative numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O that preceded the First Singularity to have a numerical value of One-1, the first in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process; The Emptiness of Space being the place holder of the Reality of Everything, the Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity.
Man that was a mouthful, Wayne. I think I read that on the side of a candle, or was that Dr. Bonner's Soap?
fatfist you are correct, a real compliment.
Thank you for the recognition!
I had no expectation of you, as smart, Intelligent, as your are, to understand a thing that I said.
No doubt, everything that I said was just so much gibberish to you monkeymind.
Hermes Trismegistus; Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail----O.
Fatfist wrote;
Don't get offended.
Wayne wrote:
I am not offended; this was the most polite response you have made to one of my posts.
Fastfist wrote;
Wayne. When you present your argument it has to make sense. You have to define your terms and use them consistently.
Here is an example: "That which is believed to be God, being Omnipresent, is the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion"
wayne wrote;
It is my belief that Time and Space were undifferentiated prior to the Moment that Time and Space because Relative because of the Transfiguration of the Motion of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O, a Singularity of Zero-O being reborn a Singularity of One, having a relative numerical value of One-1, En being the direct material cause of the Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word.
fastfist wrote;
Surely you jest. You claim God is "nothing" and that 'it' fills the "emptiness". Is "emptiness" like a glass you can fill? Does it have a border/boundary like a glass? If so, then what is outside this boundary? If not, then it ain't a container of sorts. Don't you see your contradiction?
Wayne wrote;
I do not see were I used the word container.
I do not see a contradiction!!!!!
Yes, God is something just as Nothingness is something; Nothingness not being nothing, Empty Space.
Nothingness existing as a Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity, in which no Individual, infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, in which Nothing was readily apparent, nothing being measurable as to location or speed within the Emptiness of Undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion, the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness being meaningless, existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction, an individual, infinitely finite indivisible singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero, Nada, Nothing, Zip, Zilch.
If God is Nothingness and God is omnipresent, Infinite, Boundless, Immeasurable, Infinite, then so is Nothingness; God, Nothingness being omnipresent, Infinite, fills the Emptiness of Undifferentiated Time and Space.
Time Space and Motion not being relative until after the transfiguration of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O, not until the spontaneous generation of a singularity having relative, a numerical value you of One-1.
The existence of God, Nothingness, being Uncertain, existing within undifferentiated Time and Space, not being relative; God, Nothingness, having no border/boundary like a Glass, is not a container; the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion being Infinite, Immeasurable.
Our Knowledge of the existence of the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, like Gravity is Uncertain; our sense of Time, Space, Motion, and Gravity being dependent upon our observation of the affect of the relativity of Time, Space and Motion, Differentiated Time, Space and Motion, displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.
Fastfist wrote:
And time, space, Gmotion are concepts. They are not entities. In fact….there are NO entities to mediate these concepts because the initial scene you proposed is nothingness. So all you did was contradict yourself again in the same sentence.
Wayne wrote;
I do not see a contradiction!!!!!
Fatfist wrote;
So please…..try to understand what you propose before you post it. Being offended is fruitless. Spend your time to try and understand objects & concepts so you can communicate meaningful ideas to others.
You really can't expect people to converse with you and take you seriously when even you haven't a clue what you're saying. I shouldn't even have to mention this to you.
Wayne wrote;
Thank you for the recognition!
I had no expectation of you, as smart, Intelligent, as you are, to understand a thing that I said.
I did not say that because I was offended. I think you are smart, intelligent; your declaration of the Non-existence of God and the Reality of First Cause is very profound.
It is not my expectation that people converse with me; my only hope being for a few to understand what I am saying.
"Our Knowledge of the existence of the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, like Gravity is Uncertain; our sense of Time, Space, Motion, and Gravity being dependent upon our observation of the affect of the relativity of Time, Space and Motion, Differentiated Time, Space and Motion, displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction."
Well fuck me sideways, that's a STUNNING conclusion! If only I had done 20+ years of math and shagging goats, maybe then I'd understand this DIVINE WISDOM.
Apparently, we don't know shit about any fucking thing. And at the same time, it's all proven and fact and truth and ACCURATE -- God help us it's ACCURATE! -- so we can all go fuck a monkey!
"Yes, God is something just as Nothingness is something; Nothingness not being nothing, Empty Space.
Nothingness existing as a Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity, in which no Individual, infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, in which Nothing was readily apparent, nothing being measurable as to ..."
Holy shitting thunderbolts! I need me some of that Quantum LSD they give you when you collect your PhD. Yeah I'll basically swallow ANYTHING at this point, even Carl Sagan's astronomical COCK, if I can only get as stoned as this guy!
I can only apologize for my blasphemy -- 10 lashes and 3 bloody marys for me.
fatfist, It is not my intent to win an argument; your posts due however present an augment, the argument being that your concepts are not proven fact, are uncertain.
fastfist wrote;
Surely you jest. You claim God is "nothing" and that 'it' fills the "emptiness". Is "emptiness" like a glass you can fill? Does it have a border/boundary like a glass? If so, then what is outside this boundary? If not, then it ain't a container of sorts. Don't you see your contradiction?
`Wayne wrote;
I do not see were I used the word container.
I do not see a contradiction!!!!!
Fatfist; If you would please be critical of the following Post, However could you be more specific as to my contradictions.
I am an atheist that believe in God, the True God, not the God of Blasphemers, the True God not being an Object, person, place or thing, God not being readily apparent, not being measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, God being Omnipresent, Infinite, God being Nameless, can not be spoken, God not being a Materiality, being Immaterial, a Spiritual Being, State or Condition; the Reality of Everything existing as a Transcendental Steady State of Quantum Singularity, to included the Singularity of Time, the Singularity of Space, the Singularity of Motion, prior to the Creation, the spontaneous generation of the first singularity to have relative value, to have a numerical value of One-1; En, the Reality of First Cause being the direct cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.
I am going to explain my use of the word Blasphemy even though it is used mostly in reference to God, I use Blasphemy in reference to things spoken of that sacred, Secret, Hidden, Things, things that the Blasphemer knows nothing about; anyone speaking the name of God, that speaks of God as being a person, place or thing, as being an Object that occupies Space, being a Blasphemer.
Fatfist wrote;
It is impossible for a being like God to create space, when God necessarily requires space in order to be something. Without space, God has no shape/form and is nothing. No Theologist has ever proposed God to be nothing…..so I can't see you doing it either. God is necessarily SOMETHING instead of nothing….there is NO other option!
Wayne wrote;
God has no boundary; in order for God, the Source of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything to exist it must be infinite, Omnipresent, God would have to exist as the State or Condition of the Reality of Everything, rather that being an Object, Something; God filling the Emptiness of Undifferentiated Time and Space prior to the transfiguration of a random Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O; a Singularity of One-1 being Spontaneously generated; the conversion of something of no relative, numerical value, a Singularity having a numerical value of Zero-O, being reborn, Transfigured, spontaneously converted into a Singularity having greater numerical value than Zero-O, Nada, Zip, Nothing, Zilch, into a Singularity having relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity in order to have relative, a Numerical value of One-1, must be the first in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.
An Individuality, a Singularity, must be Indivisible, Undifferentiated; The Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity existing as an Untold number of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical, value.
Reality, existence, in the material sense of the word, requires that an something be readily apparent, be measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time; existence, in the material sense of the word requires that an object have motion, motion having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.
First, Thank You for you response.
I find myself coming to all kinds of new conclusion,
Thank You!
Fastfist wrote;
"I think the supposed properties of Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are imaginary. "
This is one of the tactics I use to get people thinking. Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are PROPOSALS which are first and foremost, objects.
Object: that which has shape.
Wayne wrote;
The problem is, that to give a name to, to speak of, to give definition to any Sacred, Secret, Hidden, Entity, any Reality, the existence of a Singularity having no relative numerical value, the existence of which (existence in the physical sense of the word) is Uncertain, that is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, is Blasphemous; "Knowledge" of the existence (existence in the Physical sense of the word) of any Hidden Reality, is Absolutely Bad Knowledge (is guileful, deceptive, duplicitous, erroneous, has a dual quality); Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge.
Fatfist wrote;
SCENARIO 3 – Causality on Nothing
We must understand that without at least TWO "actor objects", causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!
"A Singularity of One-1 has material worth, quantity, mass, does not exist as a concept."
Fatfist wrote;
Great! So YOUR singularity hypothesis is an object, not a concept.
Wayne wrote;
Not exactly!!!
A Singularity in order to exist as an object, in the Physical sense of the word, must have relative, a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity of One-1 existing in part, as part of a greater whole, a plurality, existing as one of two or more actors, as the first in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the First, the beginning, of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.
A Singularity of Zero-O being a Transcendental Singularity, not having relative, a numerical value of One-1, not existing in part, as part of a greater whole, a plurality, not existing as one of two or more actors, as the first in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, not being the First, the beginning, of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, a Singularity of One-1 coming in between the Transcendental Singularity of Zero-O and the number Two; a Singularity of One-1 following a Singularity of Zero-O and preceding a plurality, the number Two; a Transcendent Singularity of Zero-O existing without the need to exist in the Physical sense of the Word.
You poor tormented soul! Please take your meds today!
You pointed something out to me, but not on purpose.
Instead of saying that Zero-O is Transcendental, I should have said all numbers are Transcendental; that natural, real, whole, numbers exist without being subject to existing in the physical sense of the word.
No doubt numbers do not exist but what they add up to does; for instance like when you said,
"without at least TWO "actor objects", causality is impossible"; Real, Whole, Natural Numbers even though they do not exist in the physical sense of the word, are used in reference to Objects that exist.
True numbers have no physical present however in order for a object to exist it must be readily apparent; said object must be measurable as to location and moment; measurement requiring the use of numbers to give definition to Motion, Location, Momentum.
displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.
"We must understand that without at least TWO "actor objects", causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!
I understand completely, your Objective sense of Reality, However.
Man in order to find a meaning to life must Live Well; being able to live the Good Life requiring Man to be Light Hearted, which requires Man to Transcend the Physical Reality of the Material World.
As above so below.
The Numerator being greater than the denominator results in a Fractal, the Two that are One, being an Improper Fraction.
The Two that are One must be reduced to the lowest common denominator in order to be a proper Fractal, Fraction.
I have come to the conclusion that I should have said that Man must live well rather than live the Good Life in order to find a meaning to Life; the meaning of the good life to a Materialist being exaggerated by most, while living well is a more modest form, gives meaning to life without going to the extreme of
totally rejecting, dismissing, ignoring, the Phyical Reality of the Material World.
The Materialist living life in the exterme ends up being heavey hearted, not light hearted.
Transcending the Physical Reality of the Material Word does not mean that you loose Touch with Reality; Rationalization, leads to Irrationality.
If thin Single Eye be filled with darkness how great
then is the Evil within.
I see myself as being a Rational Empiricist.
Fatfist wrote;
Those who claim to transcend reality have put themselves into a delusional state of mental disconnection....not physical. When the mind plays tricks on you, it always messes you up.
Wayne wrote;
I agree with you Whole Heartedly.
In responding to your Post the first time my intent was to discuss the existence of the Reality of First Cause, as used in reference to the Physical, Material Universe.
Not to bore you to death, but I need to repeat a couple of conjectures.
In the Theory of the Big Band, the Theorist were logically required to begin with a Singularity, a Big Bang (Explosion defined as being a rapid expansion of Heat and Gases) which resulted an Expanding Universe, the coalition of particles forming the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the Physical, Materiality World of Reality, Objects, things that are measurable as to location and momentum as they move through out the Emptiness of Space; Which I say is Hog Wash, except for the coalition, Gravitation, caused by the gravity of Motion.
This is the most complete thought on the subject to date, which means that statement is subject to change.
I have always believed that the Theory of the Big Bang and an Expanding Universe was nothing but Blasphemy, the word Blasphemy better describing the passion of my thoughts than "How Wash."
When you make statement about Sacred, Secret, things, things that are not Readily Apparent, that are Hidden, not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time then the statement is False, at best a half-truth, a Lie, a Misconception of the Truth; you have missed the Mark, the Point, the Statement is Blasphemous.
Back to Transcending Physical Reality of the Material World.
"Those who claim to transcend reality have put themselves into a delusional state of mental disconnection....not physical. When the mind plays tricks on you, it always messes you up."
Wayne wrote;
Language is just no much Babel because language is built upon Metaphors.
Medusa, Pandora, and Eve (each said to be the First Woman), have very much in common with Diana, Goddess of the Moon, Medusa being referred to as Beautiful Evil, Di as in Dianna meaning two, the Silvery Light of the Moon playing second fiddle to Golden Light of the Sun, First Light; Moon Light being an Illusion, being a mere reflection of Light of Day, without being the Light of Day itself, being the Second Light of the Sun, Twice Light; Twilight being the second Great Light that was separated out from in between Night and Day, after the Day was First separated from the Night, the Darkness.
Of course we all know that Moon Light drives men Crazy, Wild, but not as much so as does Feminine Wile, Will.
Sin; the Akkadian god of the moon: the counterpart of the Sumerian Nanna.
Sine, Abbr. Sin.
Geom. (originally) a perpendicular line drawn from one extremity of an arc of a circle to the diameter that passes through its other extremity.
Getting to the point.
Eve, the cause of the down fall of Man, that which has substance, the physical Reality of the Material World.
I know, you think that I am playing tricks on my own Mind!
Just about ready to rap it up.
OK, here is the deal.
Logic, is used to understand the Physical World of Reality, to define, give a Name to the Physical Reality of the Material World, Objects; is used to deal with the Objective world of Reality.
Men are more logical than women, but Women make up for the lack of Logic with Woman's intuition, Reason, Rationalizations, Man being to Pig Headed to listen to reason.
Reason is used to give names, to give definition to Concepts.
OK, here it is;
Man, born of the dust of the ground, is a Material, Physical Being.
Woman not being Man is not born of the dust of the ground, is not a Physical Material Being, is Immaterial; Eve as a creation was born of the Air,
born of the clear blue sky, came from somewhere out in left field, was born of Nothingness, has no substance, worth, the Great Femininity being a Creation, born of the Air, is immaterial, a Spiritual Being.
The Fruit of a Single Source of Knowledge is the source of Knowledge having a dual quality, is the greatest cause of all suffering; Absolutely Bad Knowledge being born of speculation, theory, Reason, Rationalization, being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge; Knowledge having a dual quality, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Thoughts, Ideas, Concepts, Speculation, Theory, conjecture as to the existence of Reality that does not exist in the material sense of the word, that does not exist independent of the Mind, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistake to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, Knowledge of a Reality mistaken to exist as an Objective Reality.
Fatfist wrote;
"Those who claim to transcend reality have put themselves into a delusional state of mental disconnection....not physical. When the mind plays tricks on you, it always messes you up."
Wayne wrote;
One more Pearl of Wisdom, conjecture, about something that is not readily apparent.
The would be savior of Man, the Christ himself, not being born of Man, although a Male child, Man being logical rather than Rational, would have to die in the Flesh, his Physical Body, Being, Spirit, placed the grave, laid to rest, so as his Spirit might rise up to the Heavens, Transcend the Physical Reality of the Material Word, becoming a Spiritual Being.
That however is not the end of the story.
Once, having risen up to the Heavens in his Spiritual Body, the Spiritual Body to return and enter his Flesh Body, so as to walk the Earth having both a Physical Body and a Spiritual Body; that which is above being the same as that which is below, the Fractal of Man being reduce to the lowest common denominator, the Two becoming One-1, the Whole of a Single Reality.
Re 'right arm existing':- ever been to a pub and tried drinking a beer ? Unless you are left handed, have a prosthetic right arm or use some other unorthodox method of getting glass/bottle to your lips you will find you have a right arm! cheers.
PS forgot to say great site - lots of fun.
Certainly makes people think about their answers if they are trying to find an answer to life, the universe and everything.
Possibly useless for providing the resources for everyday physical living but great mental stimulation!!!
cheers again
I have a quick question I haven't really read all of this but how did space and time come to be? It just didn't come from nothing...
Also may I add you are talking like God isn't all powerful, like what he has said isn't word some things we can't rap our minds around... And we never be able to!
Okay, then we're did space come from? For if space is nothing then how can it be eternal, for it does not exist and naturally if something doesn't exist them it can't go on in time for it does not exists...
Also, you yourself admitted that God can be all powerful thus, if He is all powerful then what says space and time control Him? Also, may I ask you how did we get brains like we did and form a conscience? For a brain requires a creator and a creator must be eternal, also they require that something more powerful then the brain itself must exists, thus there is only one explanation God for space and time cannot think thus they could not create the brain! Nor could space and time because they do not think!
You are not using proper argument skills you are attacking the presenter of the argument first off this shows weakness in your argument. Secondly, God is not in space or time He is of his own, that we can not comprehend... Also creation is the combination of things how was a watch created many parts were combined to create it, thus food, was combined to create me, thus you have constricted yourself for you said creation is impossible which is false because if creation is impossible how does this website for example exist? And space is not all powerful, it can't do anything, for how can nothing do anything?
scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.] However, God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God" The Bible describes God as a Being who has always been and always will be—"from everlasting to everlasting." He, therefore, had no beginning. Hebrews 3:4 again states, "every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God," indicating that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect as are houses, but rather, is the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being who initially set all effects into motion. The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.
"God is not in space or time He is of his own"
"….but necessarily surrounded by space in order to have form/shape."
Wait what? You think God has form/shape? Don't you know what 'omnipresent' means?
Or are you suggesting that God *must* have 'form/shape' on pain of not being a meaningful thing to posit?
He has the power to come to us in shape because he is all powerful but he is not of matter but a spiritual being read the bible and TRY to understand it!!!
The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that "causality," in physics, is "the principle that an event cannot precede its cause" (2003, p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it.
If you think the universe has no natural cause like I do!!! Then you not believe it came from god leaves you with nothing.... So how are did everything come to be?????????
For you to say existence was always here is against the law of cause and effect..... LAW you know what that means.... Don't you???
You can't comprehend that God has the power and is the beginning and the end... Understandable but God is the only possible way we are here right now!! Sorry to knock you if your high horse but you waisted your time with the ridicules article!!!
You will never have physical proof of god!! Read the bible that's not what he wants!! So if that's what you want you are SOL But if you think real deep and understand the bible I believe you are smart enough to find God!!
One more thing you think atoms were just here and they know no beginning and no end!! Where did they begin?? In nature everything has to have a beginning..... RIGHT??? You think I'm and idiot sir your explanation is just.... Wow.... All you said is atoms have always been here.... That's impossible and you contradict your self over and over again!! Thanks for strengthening my faith even more through your impossible explanation of the existence!!!!
A Creator would only be necessary if, in the Beginning, prior to the Creation of the Reality of First Cause there was only Darkness upon the Deep; reminding you that at this point in Time, before Time and Space had become relative; the Reality of Everything existed as Singularity; a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, meaning of course, that sense Singularity was the only thing that exited, the Macrocosm existed as a State Nothingness.
Nothingness being a state or condition in which nothing was readily apparent, noting was measurable as to location or momentum; the Motion (momentum) of a Singularity being meaningless, a Singularity not being relative, existed alone in the emptiness, had no relative, numerical value; Singularity, 0/1 not being a primordial number.
The Law of Causality requires two objects; Two being the first number, quantity, to have material, have relative, numerical, value; which of course shows that the existence of matter was not only not probable, the existence of a, material, physical Reality was an Impossibility; therefore the existence of the Universe as we know it to be must be Eternal, Ever Lasting; there is no Creator.
Before the Moment of Creation, before the Light was separated from the Darkness, before anything was made readily apparent, attained numerical value, Everything existed is a State of Nothingness, there only being Darkness upon the Deep.
When the Day was separated from the Night the Sun became the Light unto the World, the Empirical World of Reality as seen in the Light of Day.
Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail--O
Ya! Amen Ra!
Mankind's Salvation, the Hidden, the Secret, the Sacred Knowledge of Immorality having, been gleaned, evolved, over a long period of Time, could have been, distorted, perverted, lost forever if the Greeks had not hidden the Sacred Knowledge of Immortality in Greek Mythology.
The Historical Knowledge of the Immortality was hidden by the Greeks in Myth, Religion.
The sacred Knowledge of Immortality being placed in a vessel, a jar, a bottle, an ark, a Grail, in order to preserve the Historical Knowledge of Immortality for the prosperity, for the Salvation of Mankind.
Mankind's Savior, Salvation, Fundamentally Speaking, exists without shape, form, design, Man's Savior not existing as Material Object, not being an equalizer, a weapon; Man's Salvation existing as a Spiritual Reality, being a Creation; a Creation being an original product of the mind, Man's Savior, Salvation being Boundless, not being bound by the Fundamental Laws of Causality.
It being necessary to build a vessel an arc, a grail, Myth, Religion,
in order to preserve, the Hidden, Secret, Sacred, Historical Knowledge of Immortality, Mankind's Salvation, Savior, the Knowledge of Immortality having been preserved.
Man being required to interpret, not Translate, the Historical Knowledge of Immortality; Immortality being spoken of not in reference to the Individual Man, but to the Immortality of Man as a Species.
Ninety-Nine percent of every Creature that has ever existed on the Planet Earth now extinct, due to the Competitive Nature needed to Fight and to Win the Battle for the Survival of the Most Fit.
Man being born naked, incomplete, flawed, not born fully dressed, quipped, to become Immortal, the Ultimate Survivor.
Man being born bare, born less than a mere animal; being a Mortal Being, born to only Die, to become Extinct.
Man must become more than a mere animal if Mankind is to become the Ultimate Survivor, an Immortal Being; Man must find a way to end the Cycle of Life based upon the Law of Causality, Case and Effect; there being no meaning of Live for a Mortal Being; Man being bound by the Law of causality, being born to die, to become extinct, unless of course Man as a Species could find a way to become the Ultimate Survivor, to become Immortal.
Wow, Wayne reads like a candle, or a Dr. Bonners soap bottle.
It was not my intent spam.
May argument is not Religious, just the opposite.
Does physics have anything to say about Primordial numbers.
By definition why are not O and One-1 considered to be primordial numbers?
Is there a difference between a Singularity of O which has no relative, numerical value and a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1.
How can there be two Singularities, I say two because they each have a
totally different Nature.
In the long run my whacko gibberish will explain the Reality of First Cause, which is not God; In fact it is my intent to prove the non-existence of God.
A singularity can not have relative, a numerical of one-1 unless it is deemed to be in motion; I know a Singularity does not have motion; maybe that is why the first primordial number is defined as being 2.
The First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity attaining relative numerical value by being the first in a series, the beginning of a Process such as the Evolutionary Process, being the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time.
You win; I should not try to communicate with a person that has created the best Theory of Nothing that I have ever heard of.
I truly do appreciate you Knowledge; you have saved me a lot of leg work acquiring knowledge that I have use for.
I agree with our beliefs about a bunch of empty headed mathematicians that do not seem to understand that the Math that will explain the Theory of Everything is based only upon the Logic of elementary math, the used of cardinal and ordinal number, math based upon Singularities and Multiples there of.
I missed this in one of your posts and never responded.
fatfist 2 years ago Hub Author
"I am going to refer to your ball as though it were a Particle,"
A ball is a particle by definition because it is an object with shape.
Object: that which has shape. Synonym = exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk.
"ball....an Infinitely Minute, Finite"
Nonsense to the Nth degree!!!!!
Fatfist, anything can be referred to as being a particle compaired to something that is larger, however a particle is not a ball, is not an object, a Particle as a Singularity is not an object.
In basic, natural. Math, using real whole cardinal and ordinal numbers Math uses only Singularities and combinations there of.
Very misleading title, since just about all of your "refutation's" are nothing more than internally inconsistent IDEAS. This is such a simple concept to understand that children instinctively comprehend it, but as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss" http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28... http://geochristian.com/2013/08/29/it-is-more-reas...
fatfist, wrote; Wayne,
"I am going to refer to your ball as though it were a Particle,"
What's your point.