CREATION is IMPOSSIBLE - Space, Matter & Motion are ETERNAL

How can God create from nothing?
How can God create from nothing?
Does space have a BORDER? Can God peek inside the Universe? What is outside this supposed border?
Does space have a BORDER? Can God peek inside the Universe? What is outside this supposed border?
Have you put your BRAIN on today?
Have you put your BRAIN on today?

INTRODUCTION


This hub is a continuation of the topic of Creation and why it is impossible. My previous hubs on the Cosmological Argument, Infinite Regress Argument, and First Cause Argument have explained the exact reasons why those arguments are fallacious and intentionally conceived to mislead and brainwash people into thinking that Creation is a fact. The Creation of space and matter is NOT a fact. It is an irrational claim that is full of contradictions. No person can ever hope to provide ONE reason explaining why this claim could even be a remote possibility. These hubs explain in laborious detail why it is impossible for an entity, like a God or a Singularity, to create space and matter.

In this hub, we will approach the “claim” of Creation from the perspective of MOTION. We will explain the intricate and unavoidable relationship between space, matter, and motion. We will answer the question that everybody asks: “What came first, space, matter, or motion?”

We will explore Aristotle’s eternal Universe with an Unmoved Mover, which was claimed to be the ultimate source or cause of motion in the Universe. A detailed analysis of this model will explain the reason why Aristotle needed a “robot god” to make the Universe work, and why Religionists initially accepted this model, but later chose to resort to Creation from Nothing.

We will explain exactly why ANY claim of a “Creation” event (which absolutely necessitates motion), is self-refuting and thus impossible. This includes Biblical Creation and Creation from Nothing (non-Biblical). Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover will also be shown to be impossible.

Most people are under the impression that it is a “claim” that the Universe is ETERNAL. This hub explains why this is not the case. You will understand why Creation is a CLAIM, a supposed consummated event, which belongs to the THEORY stage of the Scientific Method so that it can be rationally explained. But DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH…...





WHICH CAME FIRST: SPACE, MATTER, MOTION OR GOD?


This is another variant of the “chicken or the egg” problem, but as you will see, it’s MUCH easier to solve.

The answer to “which came first” is: NONE!


But before we get into the details, we must first understand what ‘motion’ means. If there was only one object in the Universe, can it have motion? How could this lonely object move? What is it moving against? It obviously can’t move with respect to the nothingness of space. How could this object even be said to be in motion? It can only move with respect to another object.

What reference can this object use to establish its motion, if there is no other object by which to gauge its relative change in ‘location’ with respect to that object? Motion is a dynamic concept. Concepts always require two or more objects in a relationship. The speedometer in your car can detect your car’s motion by translating the change in location of the spinning tires from the surface of the road, to the change in location of points on a spinning shaft which are detected by a sensor. The two objects are the sensor and the spinning points.

Obviously, the concept of motion is dependent upon an object’s change in ‘location’ with respect to some reference. But what is ‘location’?


Location: The set of distances from the test object, to all the other objects in the Universe.


Location is the only concept that can unambiguously be used to define motion. It absolutely takes into account all the remaining objects in the Universe. All it takes is a single object in the Universe to move, in order for all the other objects in the Universe to instantly change their location, and hence MOVE. Location is a static concept (a photograph), whereas motion is a dynamic concept (a movie).

A single lonely object in the Universe does not have any motion because it has no change in location. Sure, if this object is a person, he can move his arms and legs, but they only have motion with respect to his body. If God appeared out of nowhere and accelerated this person to the speed of light, then the person would have motion with respect to God. But if God suddenly vanished, then the person would have absolutely NO motion, NO speed, and nor would he feel any. And of course, he would be perfectly still because he is NOT moving; he is NOT changing his location. Motion is an illusion of sentient beings with memory. They are able to keep a log of their previous locations and call it motion. That’s why you only feel the effects of acceleration, because your body is being pulled against the gravitational pull of another body.

So motion is scientifically defined as follows:


Motion: Two or more locations of an object.


So now let’s continue to answer the big questions….

Q: Can matter exist without space?

No!

Why?

Because matter needs the background of “nothingness” to give it shape/form and allow it to have internal structure. Otherwise, how can we possibly classify something as “matter” or “entity”? Matter needs to be spatially separated from the background of space; otherwise the motion of matter would be impossible. How will an object change its location with respect to another object if both objects are not spatially separated from the background?

Space is not a medium by any stretch of the imagination. Space is nothing, and thus can only be scientifically described with negative predicates. If matter did not have the background of space to contour it, then it is obvious that the Universe would be a single continuous solid block of matter; with no atoms, no gaps, and no possibility of motion. This is clearly not the case; otherwise life could not have risen from such a scenario. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to have motion without space. It is ontologically impossible for any entity, including a God or a Singularity, to exist or have any sort of presence without the background of space contouring it and giving it form.


So now that we have rationally explained why the existence of matter is necessarily dependent upon space, we have shown that space precedes matter and that space precedes motion. So the next question is:


Q: Can we have motion without matter (matterless motion)?

No!

Why?

That matter precedes motion is not only rational, but it is an ontological contradiction to posit that motion precedes matter in any way. Exactly what is going to move, nothingness? Motion is a property restricted to real objects that have ‘location’ with respect to all other real objects. Since real objects have ‘shape’ and ‘location’ (i.e. they exist), they are necessarily composed of matter. Can you conceive of any entity, including a God, a spirit, an angel, a ghost, or a Singularity, invisible or otherwise, which does not have shape and structure, and which is not composed of matter? I bet you anything that you cannot. If you disagree then please describe such an entity in detail with positive predicates. Only space (nothing) can be described with negative predication.

Motion necessitates a “change in location”. This means that ‘location’ PRECEDES ‘motion’. But ‘location’ can only be realized when there are two or more objects in the Universe, that is, matter must be present. Therefore it is only matter which can ultimately have motion. Matterless motion is impossible!





SCENARIO OF CREATION: It Necessitates Motion!


Our first ultimate question will ask….

Q: Why can’t matter be created and set in motion by a God or a Singularity?


We already explained in laborious detail why it is impossible for a “Creator” God or Singularity to be an Uncaused First Cause in our refutation of the First Cause Argument. Now let’s try to run through Creation again, but from a different perspective – the perspective of MOTION.

Let’s try to understand exactly why ANY claim of a “Creation” event (which absolutely necessitates motion), is self-refuting.


1) The CLAIM of an alleged “Creation” of the Universe sets the stage for a necessary origin where there was no space and no matter.

2) Such a claim absolutely posits that motion (change in location of matter) was not possible, AND yet, that motion (change in location of matter) was indeed possible in order to initiate the “Creation” event (requiring motion). This is clearly a contradiction because when there is “nothingness”, nothing can move to initiate an event (motion).

3) The very instant that a “Creation” event is initiated it necessarily mandates motion, which necessarily mandates that matter is absolutely present. This matter can either be present in the ‘form’ of a God, or a Singularity, or it implies that the Universe was ALREADY THERE, similar to what it is today.

4) It’s easy to understand, that since “matterless motion” is impossible, any initiation of a “Creation” event necessarily implies that matter was ALWAYS THERE to begin with….there is no other option!

5) So in order for God or the Singularity to move its being, and initiate a “Creation” event, it MUST necessarily be made of matter. We already explained why “matterless motion” is impossible in the previous section. If God’s being is matterless/incorporeal, He cannot change the location of his hand and wave it to initiate an event. God’s being cannot be negatively predicated with terms like ‘matterless’ or ‘incorporeal’. Only “nothing” can be negatively predicated. In this case, God or the Singularity would be no different than the nothingness of space – God would be “nothing”.

6) Since the only conclusion that favors a God necessitates that He consisted of matter wrapped by space, then how was this supposed God any different than how the Universe is today? If you take all the matter and space in the Universe today and call it “God”, then what have you accomplished? The word “CREATION”, by necessity of its implications, is self-refuting!


From this critical analysis of Creation, it is obvious that matter is eternally in motion. Therefore the Universe is eternal.





SCENARIO OF UNMOVED MOVER: It Necessitates Motion!


Our second ultimate question will ask….

Q: Why can’t an eternal Unmoved Mover, say, a God or a Singularity, exist alongside eternal matter that is initially motionless, but set it in motion?


Now let’s consider the situation of Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, who is eternal, and yet exists alongside eternal matter that is posited to be initially motionless.

Aristotle had claimed that such a scenario was “possible”. He had already critically reasoned and explained why the Universe was eternal, in that space and matter were impossible to create. So to posit a Creator for the explanation of the motion of matter was not even a remote possibility to Aristotle. But Aristotle was not able to reason and explain how matter could somehow be in eternal motion. The understanding of gravity was at its primitive infancy with the Greeks, who didn’t understand that every single atom in the Universe is gravitationally bound to all other atoms. They didn’t understand that atoms are perpetually in motion, spinning, vibrating, along with e-shell expansion/contractions, and atomic bonding/separation, etc. They also didn’t take into account that light, electricity, magnetism, etc. all impart causal actions to matter, and hence ultimately result in object motion. If Aristotle had taken all these motion issues into consideration, he wouldn’t have had to resort to irrationally introducing an Unmoved Mover who set all eternal matter in motion. If he understood gravity, he would have been able to explain why matter is “necessarily” in eternal motion.


Initially, all theologians, from Judaism, and from the arrival of Christianity, and even from the new arrival of Islam, embraced Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover scenario with elation. And of course, they HAD to!

What other option did they have in order to place their God in the throne of the Kingdom of the Heavens to impart motion?

Was anybody else able to conceive of a better Universe scenario where God was at the top of the chain of command?

And this is the problem with Creation in general. You don’t have many options available when conceiving a claim for Creation. And none of the options at your disposal can ever be rational and irrefutable. So how can you push your conception of Creation to the masses and get them to blindly swallow it up? There are several options at your disposal, all of which include intellectual dishonesty: covert contradictions, reification, matterless motion, ambiguities, undefined terms, arguments from ignorance, hidden faulty logic, etc.

It was Aristotle’s scenario which was used by all monotheistic religions to build a logical foundation for their Godhead. There was NO other option available to them. Aristotle's laws for motion and causality even survived to be included in Newton's classical mechanics. And to this very day, there still is no better model for a God in the Universe. Even the scenario posited by Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre, is worse, because it is positing a God who created the Big Bang from nothing (0D Singularity).

But Christian theologians had a big problem with Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover in the late second century. They needed to replace the impersonal Unmoved Mover with their conception of a personal God. The colliding of Platonism, Aristotelian Physics, and Gnosticism with Christian beliefs in the late second century gave rise to the doctrine of “Creation out of Nothing”. The post-biblical early Christian Church Fathers wanted to counteract these perceived threats. Matter was considered evil by many Christian thinkers, who purported God to be a pure incorporeal spirit (i.e. nothing). Matter was said to be dead; devoid of spirit. Therefore matter cannot be eternal. So they laboriously tried to reconcile their belief in a God spirit who creates freely and unconditionally with Greek Physics, rationalism, and eternal “matter & space”. But this was a formidable and insurmountable task. The only way to completely distance themselves away from Greek thought was to resort to asserting the doctrine of “Creatio ex Nihilo”.

But the Christians forgot to do ONE important thing....they forgot to write in their scriptures in no ambiguous terms that “God created space and matter from nothing!” Wonder WHY? Because they didn’t even believe this nonsense themselves. Creation from nothing was their “escape-route” from Greek thought. In fact, it took a VERY LONG time for the Christians to actually brainwash themselves into believing this nonsense:

The new concept of “Creation from Nothing” was first expounded by Theophilus of Antioch (185 CE) and later by Augustine, and it was thereafter mostly accepted in the churches, although it was NOT included in their creeds. It was formulated dogmatically at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) who pronounced “Creatio ex Nihilo” as an “official teaching”, and reaffirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870.


Today, most Christians are taught that the Universe was created by God, in ‘time’ and ‘out-of-nothing’. The Protestants are with the Catholics on this issue. But they are NOT with the Catholics on the issue of the Virgin Mary. And many Protestant sects are not with the Catholics on the issue of the Big Bang and Evolution. Pope Benedict has acknowledged, based on scientific evidence, that evolution is the tool used by God to create our physical beings. So the natural question arises: Why would many Protestants side with the Catholics on Creatio ex Nihilo, but not on the Virgin Mary, Big Bang, and Evolution? What scientific knowledge could these camps possibly have in order to make such incredible decisions?

Anyway, that’s why we are talking about “Creation from Nothing” today. So naturally, one would ask:


a) Would the theist wish to join the logically-minded atheist and go with the Big Bang option, “Creation from Nothing” by a personal God, who existed by His lonesome for eternity; but decided to create space and matter one fine day with a BANG?

b) Would the theist wish to stick with the ORIGINAL root doctrine of their religion, and go with Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, an impersonal God, who existed alongside eternal “space and motionless matter”; but decided to set matter in motion one fine day?


Does the theist care that Einstein, Hubble and other scientists disregarded and ridiculed the Big Bang, because they understood that the Universe was eternal? Does the theist care that Hawking wholeheartedly accepts the Big Bang, and actually believes that he can travel back in time one day to meet and argue with Einstein over this issue? Atheists don’t care; they’re none the wiser! Atheists will actually swallow any form of Creationism that is decorated by complex mathematical equations written by their favorite God-like celebrity. And they will do this without so much as thinking, even though the idea of Creation is instantly debunked at inception!

So which will it be……a or b? Which option requires the least leaps of faith? Doesn’t option b sound more reasonable?


Of course, the only rational and explainable option is that the Universe is eternal (as explained in the Creation Scenario), AND matter is perpetually in motion (as we will explain below).

Now we will explain exactly why Aristotle was in error. Let’s try to understand why in the scenario of an Unmoved Mover, it is impossible to have matter without motion, and hence the Unmoved Mover disappears:


1) The CLAIM of an alleged eternal “Unmoved Mover”, posits eternal space and individually discrete entities of eternal matter, that are initially motionless, but eventually set in motion.

2) We need to understand that there are NO discrete entities of matter in the Universe. For if there were, it would be impossible to rationally explain the mechanism of attraction. If the Unmoved Mover initially set all the discrete matter in motion, then they can collide and repel each other randomly. But how would matter attract each other incessantly? Why would a ball fall to the Earth when it was let go. Why would it not simply float or fall towards the ceiling?

3) Gravity is NOT a force. There is no separate entity that forces or pushes the ball to fall to the ground. There are NO separate entities which can possibly hang around each individual atom and decide whether they will force atoms to move in one direction versus another. There are no Quantum particles which mediate gravity. Such notions have been thoroughly debunked.

4) Gravity is a tension. Every single atom of matter in the Universe is gravitationally bound to every other atom. Atoms necessarily and incessantly attract each other due to the tension of their physical interconnections.

5) And since space & matter are eternal, then motion is eternal. It is impossible to have matter without motion, just as it is impossible to have motion without matter.

6) Since the only conclusion that favors an Unmoved Mover necessitates that all matter is eternally in motion, then how was this supposed scenario any different than how the Universe is today? The Unmoved Mover is necessarily composed of matter in eternal motion. If it is said to be living, then just like all living things, it has a limited service life. The “Unmoved Mover”, by necessity of its implications, is self-refuting!


From this critical analysis of the Unmoved Mover, it is obvious that matter is eternally in motion. Therefore the Universe is eternal.





What can we Conclude About the Scenarios of “CREATION” & “UNMOVED MOVER”?


We have to conclude that space & matter are ETERNAL. That’s why the Universe is eternal.

We have to conclude that matter is eternally in motion. This makes the Universe the only conceivable perpetual motion and recycling system. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. All matter is recycled into new objects forever.

If we can’t get matter to acquire motion in the first place, it has to be just as impossible to get matter to stop moving without outside intervention. And it is, because there is no “outside” to the Universe. Since space has no limits, no borders, no boundaries, and no exit points to slip through. No outside intervention is possible in our Universe and matter remains perpetually in motion.

Space is acausal, non-caused, non-entropic, and non-transcendable. Space is the only NOTHING in the Universe. It is impossible to TRANSCEND space. There is no outside of space where God can co-exist, reach into the Universe, grab an object, and stop its motion. For if someone claimed there to be an “outside of space”, then that MUST also be space – there is NO other option. And that’s what makes space incredibly powerful.

God is humbled and completely powerless to the OMNIPOTENCE of this OMNIPRESENT nothingness we call ‘space’. Space will NOT bend over backwards for anyone…..including, God and Einstein, just to name a few of the ignorant who have tried to bend the rules of space, but failed miserably. Not even God can force “nothing” to move, bend, stretch, split open, and spit out matter!

In similar fashion, matter is not composed of individually discrete particles. Matter is eternally gravitationally bound via interconnections at the atomic level. No amount of matter can be disconnected from the remaining matter in the Universe. The notion of an “outside intervention” to stop the motion of matter is an impossibility. Not even a God can perform such a miracle. For if there was a God, He would necessarily be composed of matter, and if He moved, He would change His location with every other object in the Universe.

So not only does space humiliate God, but matter does as well. God would be powerless in His attempt to disconnect Himself from all the matter in the Universe. God would be powerless in preventing Himself from being attracted toward all the matter in the Universe, and in preventing all the matter from being attracted to Him. ETERNALLY MOVING, OMNIPOTENT, and INDESTRUCTIBLE matter forces God to mercilessly bow down at its will. God would necessarily have a service life, just like all other objects in the Universe, whether living or inanimate. His matter would be recycled perpetually. So I guess the Christians are right in their metaphorical sense that we are all made from God. If you want to call eternal matter, “God”, knock yourself out!


What these analytical explanations show is that the matter in our Universe is impossible to create and impossible yet still, to set in motion. There was no Day One in which matter came to be, came alive, and started to move around. Not only is matter not created, but its motion is eternal too. Existence cannot support one without the other.





MATTER AND MOTION ARE INSEPERABLE


You cannot stop the motion of any atom in the Universe. This is completely impossible. Motion is realized by a change in location for an atom. This necessarily and instantly changes the location of all the other atoms in the Universe. The motion of a single atom has forced absolutely ALL the other atoms (and hence objects) in the Universe to move!

This is similar to the concept of Instantaneous Action At A Distance (IAAAD), which was first used by Isaac Newton to describe gravity’s instantaneous effect on all the matter in the Universe. Just by moving your little pinkie, the atoms comprising your pinkie have gravitationally affected all the atoms in the Universe in an instant. This absolutely makes inanimate matter more formidable than the God of the Bible.

You may think that coffee cup on your table is motionless, but you’d be wrong. Every single object in the Andromeda galaxy is perpetually tugging at it via gravitation. This induces motion to all the atoms in your cup; they spin, shake, vibrate, etc. Also, when any object in Andromeda moves, your cup will instantly move because it has changed location w.r.t. that object (two or more locations = motion).

The only way to have matter without motion would be to have a Universe comprised of a single lonely atom. This atom would be forever motionless. Introduce a second atom, and both atoms are instantly in motion forever.





MATTERLESS MOTION IS ONLY POSSIBLE IN THE IRRATIONAL REALM OF RELIGION!


Only in the deep bowels of Religion can EXISTENCE be created…..even though not a single theologian or theist can explain to the audience what it MEANS “to exist”!

Only in the deep bowels of Religion can you have motion without matter and motion without space!

Only in the deep bowels of Religion can you have matter without space!

Only in Religion can God be claimed to be absolutely nothing (incorporeal), and yet still have the capability to magically separate His nothingness from the background of space, and be able to move!

Only in Religion can the nothingness of God be set in motion, and interact with the nothingness of space, to set it in motion for the purposes of magically creating space and matter…..even though space & matter were ALREADY THERE!

Only the Christian Church Fathers had the absolute knowledge of the Divine Physics, and the Church Logic involved that makes such magical miracles happen. That’s why they dropped Aristotle’s model of the Unmoved Mover like a bad habit, and decided to try their luck with “Creation from Nothing”.

Only………..I can go on and on for hours and hours….but I’ll spare you my parroting of Religious dogma.





EVEN ‘LOCATION’ IS MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD!


As if it’s not enough that space and matter have stripped God of ALL his superpowers, every single object in the Universe has the capability to make God dance at will; just like a cowboy shoots bullets near his opponent’s feet and forces him to do the jig.

By merely moving your pinkie finger, if there is a God, you would instantly FORCE Him to move at will by changing His location with respect to your pinkie. God is necessarily in motion when He realizes two or more changes in location with respect to your pinkie. Move your finger to the left, and you forced God to instantly move to the right; move your finger to the right, and God instantly moves to the left. Move your finger up, and God instantly moves down. Turn God into your own personal PUPPET as you watch Him dance all over the Universe while entertaining your kids and your pets.

And even as you are moving your pinkie, God can feel all the pulls and tugs you impart on His being. All of God’s atoms are instantly torqued by the awesomeness of atomic IAAAD (see above). And since God cannot transcend space and matter, He has nowhere to hide, and nowhere to escape from this incessant punishment on his humbled being.

God is obviously completely powerless to the formidable power of the matter comprising your pinkie finger! God can be made to move at the will of any object in the Universe. The moment God decided to declare His authority over the Universe, He was instantly stripped of all His superpowers by eternal “space & matter”, and instantly stripped of His “free will” by the eternal motion of matter and IAAAD.

God is only a Super Megalomaniac and an Arrogant Tormentor in the conceptual realm; within the “controlled” environment of the mythological Bibles His followers author. Out here, in reality, things work much differently. Matter in eternal motion recognizes NO authorities. Matter in motion necessarily FORCES the God of the Bible to bow down before it; whether He likes it or not; no matter how much He protests, and no matter how many death threats He makes.





BUT STEPHEN HAWKING SAYS THE UNIVERSE IS CREATED – “I BELIEVE HIM!”


Stephen Hawking is a very ignorant and delusional individual who doesn’t understand the Kindergarten basics of the terms ‘Creation’, ‘cause’, ‘effect’, ‘event’, ‘object’, ‘concept’, among others. His own retractions of his irrational theories every few years in order to protect his Religious dogma of Creation and “matterless motion”, elucidates that he is nothing but a “fiction” writer who should be presenting his ideas in Astrology conventions. This is why he has a huge cult following of mindless fools who choose to parrot his celebrity without understanding the basics. Any high school student on drugs and alcohol during March Break can conceive of more rational theories than Hawking.

Hawking’s opinions on the irrational claim of “Creation” are irrelevant as to whether space and matter can be created or not. The claim of Creation is a purely conceptual issue having absolutely NOTHING to do with observations, evidence, proof, fancy mathematics, or worshipped authorities. The claim of Creation is an issue that is INSTANTLY resolved at the conceptual level right here and now, by way of critical analysis and rational thinking.

Creation, whether under the guise of a God, a Singularity, or by any other asserted means, resolves to nothing but ontological contradictions. This means that it is IMPOSSIBLE. There hasn’t been a single person in the history of this planet that was able to provide just ONE reason explaining why the claim of Creation is tenable, viable, or possible. And there never will be anyone who will. There is nothing that human brains can “conceive” of in the future, or that scientists can “discover” in the future, which can ever make the claim of Creation a remote possibility - ever!! Can scientists ever hope to discover a way to make parallel lines be intersecting? Can scientists ever hope to discover how to convert the nothingness of space into a suitcase full of $100 bills? Whoever doesn’t understand this needs to take a course in Critical Thinking 101, and review the basics of the terms: ‘Creation’, ‘cause’, ‘effect’, ‘event’, ‘object’ and ‘concept’.


It is obvious that CREATION is an illusion of the human mind, because everything in our life has beginning and ending cycles – except for matter and space!

Theists claim that since object A can be “created”, this must mean that its irreducible constituent atoms must be “created”. This argument doesn’t fly in the face of reason. It instantly commits at minimum 8 fallacies/contradictions….. and that’s before we even explain why the “claim” of creation is impossible:


1) Argument from Ignorance – Absolutely NO objects can be created! All objects are assembled! People need to understand the difference.

2) Non-Sequitur – Just because object A can be “assembled” from its parts, it doesn’t follow that its parts were created from nothing.

3) Bare Assertion Fallacy – Creation: God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!

4) Denying the Correlative – The theist attempts to introduce “creation of object A” as an alternative to “assembly of A from matter”, where the “creation alternative” is contradictory and hence impossible.

5) Is-Ought Fallacy – The theist is saying that just because matter is here, it ought to have come from somewhere, just like a car came from somewhere. Therefore matter must have been magically created from nothing.

6) Fallacy of Equivocation – The atheist is misusing the term ‘creation’ to mean “from nothing” and “from matter” in an attempt to cover all the bases of his argument and confuse the audience into accepting his claim.

7) Regression Fallacy – The theists ascribes cause where none can be explained. A First Uncaused Cause is easily shown to be impossible. It outright violates the Law of Causality!

8) Special Pleading – The theists starts off by claiming to “believe” in God, but he can NEVER provide any rational explanation to support the existence of God. But the theist concludes that God must have created “existence”, even though he has no explanation, and even though he cannot tell us what it means “to exist”.





PEOPLE ARE STILL EXTREMELY CONFUSED ABOUT THE “CLAIM” OF CREATION


That space and matter were Created at some instant in the past is NOT a fact or a truth. It is impossible to prove anything regarding reality in the past or future, much less the present. If you disagree, let’s see if you can objectively prove to me that your right arm exists. If you can’t do that, then what makes you think that anybody can prove Creation?

“That matter & space was created”, is not a fact, it is a “claimed event” which needs to be supported by a Theory (rational explanation). The assumption implicit on this claimed event, is that there was once an ontological situation of no space and no matter. This is the “initial scene” that is part of the Hypothesis for Creationism.


Q: Why does the “claim” of Creation belong to the Theory stage of the Scientific Method?

A: First and foremost, because the CLAIM is associated with a CONSUMMATED EVENT (“Universe was created”). The proponent PROPOSES a scenario of what COULD have happened in the past. It is a positively claimed event that “matter and space were once created”. Second, since it is THEORIZED that “matter and space were created”, the claimed event is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS unless it is rationally EXPLAINED TO BE A VIABLE event. All Theories are accompanied by rational explanations of the process by which the event occurred. If there is no rational explanation, then it is no better than the claim that somebody vomited that brand new car on their driveway - we disregard it and throw it in the trash.

Theories only deal with consummated events (verbs). So theories deal with positive claims (i.e. some phenomenon that allegedly happened). The claimed event belongs to the THEORY stage of the Scientific Method because it needs to be explained. We don’t just accept any old claim without an accompanying explanation.


The theory takes the initial scenes and assumptions directly from the hypothesis, and proceeds to rationally explain how matter and space were created. And remember: you DON’T KNOW, nor can you demonstrate, or prove, or provide a single shred of evidence that the universe was created. Why? Because the past is NOT available for anyone to provide a proof, a demonstration, an observation, or even any sort of objective evidence. Only Religion embarks on such subjective irrationalities. In science we objectively do it as follows:


Hypothesis: Assume the ontological situation of no space and no matter at some point in the past.

Theory: I can now rationally explain how space and matter were created as follows..........


So.......AFTER 2500 YEARS, WHAT HAVE THE MONOTHEISTIC THEOLOGIANS AND MATHEMATICIANS MANAGED TO FILL IN FOR THE THEORY ABOVE?

1) The only answer that we have from Theologians is that: God did it! With absolutely NO explanation.....nada!

2) The only answer that we have from Mathematical Physics is that: The 0D (inexistent) singularity did it with a BANG! With absolutely NO explanation.....nada!



The Devil’s advocate for Creationism will surely object to this entire Scientific Methodology in order to protect his Religion:


“Oh yeah? Well it is YOU who must demonstrate that matter and space were not created. I already KNOW that God created the Universe because the Bible tells me so.”


It’s hard to believe that there are still people out there who make such breathtaking arguments. Consider the scenario where you are wrongly accused of murder, but it is up to YOU to demonstrate and convince the jury that you did NOT commit the crime. What sense could this possibly make? There is an alleged consummated event involving you. How can you possibly demonstrate that you didn’t do it? The court system obviously doesn’t work this way; and for good reason.

In science it is simple....... The onus is on the proponent of a positive claim of a consummated event to produce a rational explanation (theory) which explains WHY their claim is viable/possible. If they can’t, then THEIR CLAIM GOES IN THE TRASH; along with the millions of other bogus contradictory claims people assert on a daily basis.



And even still, the Devil’s advocate thinks he is smart. He will do anything to avoid answering a single question regarding his claim of Creation. He will rephrase his above statement as follows:


“Well, you got it all backwards...This is YOUR THEORY! It is your POSITIVE CLAIM that matter and space are eternal. It is your job to demonstrate this funny Theory of yours.”


This type of reasoning is even MORE breathtaking. Such beautiful poetry surely needs to be nominated for a Nobel Prize in Literature.

That “space and matter are eternal” is a claim? It is a Theory? How is that so?

A positive claim is associated with a CONSUMMATED EVENT. A claim posits something that happened in the past; an event with a beginning and an end. How is “eternal space and matter” an event having an ‘initiation’ and a ‘termination’?

Did the Universe ‘initiate’ itself to become eternal at some instant in the past? What could this nonsense possibly mean? Do people just parrot what they hear from others without even understanding the basics? These people really need to review the terms: event, cause, effect, and object.

It is Church Logic such as this which prevents people from understanding the reality of existence. People are obsessed with parroting what their Pastor taught them last Sunday. They don’t care to think about it, question it, reason it through....they just swallow it without so much as blinking. But it’s not totally their fault. Both Religion and Mathematical Physics have been incessantly brainwashing people with the notion that “Existence is Created from Nothing”. And this irrational idea exploded ever since Georges Lemaitre conceived of a way to reconcile God’s creation with mathematics in 1927.

So it’s no wonder that most people will parrot: “Evolution is JUST a Theory!”....without even understanding what the word “Theory” means. They are under the confusion that Theory means SPECULATION (ordinary speech), when it actually means EXPLANATION (scientific context).


Let’s ask all the bright members of the audience out there to consider these 2 statements:

1) ”The Universe is ETERNAL.”

2) “Space and matter were not created.”


Do any of these statements posit a POSITIVE CLAIM; a THEORY? Do they posit a consummated event in the past? What is it that we are THEORIZING exactly,....that space and matter were NOT created? How is a negative statement a Theory? Does that even make sense?

Does the prosecutor “theorize” (explain) that the defendant DID commit the murder? Yes!

Does the defence attorney “theorize” that his defendant did NOT commit the murder? No! He only showcases the contradictions in the prosecutor’s Theory. It is impossible to explain a negative as it cannot be a claimed event. At best, you can only explain the contradictions in the positive claimed event (prosecutor’s case).


The term ETERNAL is an implicitly negated adverb that refers to the temporal qualification of motion (verb) for an object. When it’s used to qualify the motion of an object, it implies that there is no temporal beginning and no temporal end to the object’s motion. Matterless motion is impossible, so in Physics, it is irrational to say that the “nothingness” of space is eternal. Nothingness cannot move!! You can say nothingness is uncreated. The term ‘eternal’ is scientifically used in the context of verbs or concepts, not objects or “nothing”. And this is the reason why God absolutely must be an object (entity) with shape, before He can qualify as having any sort of motion, much less eternal.

In scientific language it is irrational to say that God or matter or space is eternal because you are referencing nouns and nothingness, not verbs. You can only say that they were always around or were not created.

You can say the Universe is eternal because ‘Universe’ is a concept that embodies matter and space. You can say that “matter and space” are eternal because again, you are referencing a concept (an “and” relation).

But colloquially, we often DO use the term ‘eternal’ within the context of objects and space to “imply” that they were not created. But when our language is under scrutiny, we always clarify our position.


So obviously, the above statements do NOT posit a positive claim. They only NEGATE the positive claim of Creation. And they have every right to do so because the claim of Creation is easily explained to be impossible!

The Theory stage of the Scientific Method only deals with positively claimed consummated events – never negated claims (colloquially speaking, we don’t prove negatives). It is the job of the Creationist to rationally explain all the details of how matter and space were created. This is a very important issue to understand because people make these errors on a daily basis, and even the media is parroting these errors now.


Remember: Nature is already composed of matter with the background of space wrapping every single atom. Existence already exists. What is it that we are trying to establish? That it was not created? That existence didn’t exist in the past? What sense could that possibly make? Anybody who deviates from the DEFAULT position of existence is necessarily asserting a CLAIMED EVENT which must be accompanied by a rational explanation to show its viability. Otherwise their claim is pure doggie poop....we’re done!


Examples of Theories (positively asserted claims which posit consummated events):

1) “Jesus walked on water.”

2) “Hurricane Katrina caused the following damage......”

3) “The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 was only 5000 gallons.”

4) “The 9/11 attacks were caused by God because He had enough of pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians – Rev. Jerry Falwell”

5) “A 0D singularity exploded in a Big Bang, and created space, time, matter, sin, morals, love, absolute truth, the laws of physics, and free will. “



And when you showcase the contradictions of their Creation claim, the Devil’s advocates will instantly brush them off:


“So? That’s just your opinion. You can call whatever you don’t like a contradiction, but Evolution doesn’t explain where we came from. Just where do you think you get your morals from? Does inanimate matter have spirit and consciousness?”


That “matter & space is impossible to create”, follows directly from the ONTOLOGICAL CONTRADICITONS inherent in the positive claim of Creation. An ontological contradiction demonstrates WHAT IS NOT THE CASE. Its conclusion is that it NEGATES the positive claim. i.e. the positive claim is BUNK, BS, caca, garbage…..there is nothing else to discuss….there is NO debate!

There is no way to brush under the carpet even a single contradiction. Reality has no contradictions. In the Universe, there are no miracles, no magic, and definitely no contradictions. If you have to invoke any of these 3 irrational methods to justify your assumptions, then you are elucidating that you haven’t thought of the problem critically, and that you haven’t understood the ramifications of your assumptions. You are conceding that you’ve missed all the critical details and haphazardly jumped to the most popular and emotionally-pleasing conclusions which everyone else parrots. A contradiction always indicates that we, as humans, have taken the easy way out by forming an irrational Hypothesis & Theory.

Remember: The primary criterion for a scientific theory is consistency, which demands non-contradiction. If it has contradictions then it’s not scientific, but rather, Religious.


So after the Devil’s advocate tells you that contradictions are .....”um....well.....nudge nudge, wink wink....not even an issue”, he instantly sweeps them under the carpet and tries to sway the conversation to a completely different direction by introducing Evolution and morals into the mix. MOST THEISTS DO THIS! By doing so, he hopes that you FORGET about the explanation for creation which he MUST provide to you. He instead wants to pull you into a wild goose chase of irrelevant issues so that he can protect the dead claim of creation. Nice try.


Enough of this BS!


THE BOTTOM LINE IS: A claimed event is a POSITIVE ASSERTION, like “space and matter were created from nothing in the past”.

And this is how we instantly put this issue to rest once and for all:


CLAIMED EVENT: Space and matter were “created” from nothing. This posits a CLAIMED EVENT with an INITIATION and a TERMINATION of Creation.


REMEMBER: That space and matter are ETERNAL does NOT posit a claimed event! It is NOT a claim!! There is NO “initiation” or “termination” of an event to make the Universe eternal. ETERNAL UNIVERSE IS THE DEFAULT POSITION.


Since a CLAIMED EVENT is subject to the Scientific Method, it necessarily encompasses a Hypothesis and a Theory as follows:

Creation Hypothesis = {initial condition of God existing with no space and no matter}.

Creation Theory = {God created space and matter out of NOTHING as follows.....blah blah}.


Therefore, if the Hypothesis and Theory of Creation are shown to be valid with no contradictions, and the Theory has a RATIONAL EXPLANATION, then we can only conclude:

a) That Creation, as outlined by the Hypothesis & Theory is RATIONAL.

b) That the Universe “COULD HAVE” been Created in the past as outlined in the detailed explanation provided by the Theory. We conclude that the “Claim of Creation” is viable/possible as prescribed by the Theory.


But, if either the Hypothesis or Theory is shown to have just ONE contradiction, then obviously, the “Claim of Creation” is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE....and it is thrown in the TRASH!!


1) But as explained in this hub and in the First Cause Argument, Space precedes God! Matter in motion precedes God! A God or a Singularity (primeval atom) cannot exist without Space & Matter being present. Creation posits an invalid, contradictory, and irrational Hypothesis.

2) This hub has demonstrated MANY contradictions for the Creation Theory. And my hub on the First Cause Argument has analyzed absolutely ALL the possible cases for the claim of Creation and demonstrated MANY of their respective contradictions.


The only rational conclusion is that CREATION is IMPOSSIBLE!

The Universe is ETERNAL. There is no possible claim of Creation that can ever change that!



What? You disagree? Ohhhhhhh….I was hoping you would!

Here’s how we settle it:

a) Please fill in the blanks of YOUR Creation Hypothesis & Theory above to ensure it is non-contradictory and thus, rational.

or,

b) Please rationally explain a SINGLE contradiction in my analysis for Creation.


Doing (a) or (b) will instantly debunk this entire article and throw it in the trash! Pretty simple task, huh? I mean, it should be simple; just ask who atheists call “The brightest mind in the world, Stephen Hawking”, or any Theologian/Apologist for that matter. These bright folks should be able to refute this article in the blink of an eye or perhaps with some fancy Mathematics, right?

You would be dead WRONG! Regardless, you are welcome to explain your case. I DOUBLE-DOG-DARE-YA!!


Not a single proponent for creation in the history of the human race has been able to pull off that magic trick! Why? Because creation is an issue that was already dead the very second it was conceived by the first group of ignorant humans. In science, Creation dies even before a person can utter the word C-R-E-A-T-I-O-N.


This is not an issue you can sweep under the carpet. This is not an issue of believing “me” or believing “Stephen Hawking” or believing “the claims of Religion”. Belief, faith, knowledge, wisdom, proof, truth, evidence, mathematics, and authority play absolutely NO role here.

This is an issue of utmost objectivity. This is an issue of critical analysis and rational explanations. This is an issue that is easily resolved right here and now. There is no debate about this issue. The debate is only “in the heads” of Religionists and Big Bang Apologists. Rational humans laugh at the circus-show antics from fools who debate each other as to whether the Big Bang created the Universe or God did it. So it’s not surprising that these clowns cannot objectively tell you whether Creationism is Scientific, or whether Evolution is “JUST A THEORY”. Of course they can’t; they don’t even understand what the terms ‘scientific’, ‘theory’, ‘event’, ‘cause’, ‘effect’ and ‘object’ mean.





SOME COMMON QUESTIONS



Q: “But couldn’t we just as well say that God always existed, instead of matter?”


Sure you can!

But then God did NOT create space and matter, and God did NOT set matter in motion. It is impossible for Him to do so. So if “space & matter” are eternal, and motion is eternal, then why invoke a God? Why do you need to give the name “God” to eternal matter? If it makes you feel better and sleep more soundly at night, knock yourself out!



Q: “But if space necessarily precedes matter, then why wasn’t there only space? Where did the matter come from? God must have created it, right?”


The word ‘matter’ (or ‘object’) ontologically necessitates the invocation of 2 things: The matter itself and the space that surrounds it and gives it shape (spatial separation), and allows for its motion in the background.

Our existence necessitates that there cannot be matter without space, and that there cannot be space without matter. Existence exists! We are here! Matter is here! It is ontologically impossible for matter to disappear. Matter cannot come from the nothingness of space. And matter cannot be destroyed or converted into space. So clearly, space and “matter in motion” are eternal. That’s what all of existence is about. There is NO other Universe. The Universe comprises all of space and matter.

That space precedes matter is not a notion of space being present without matter. It is a necessity that matter MUST be surrounded by space in order for it to have shape (spatial separation) and the ability to move. But if we travel between the Earth and the Moon, the space between these two objects does not have to be surrounded by matter. Space is that which lacks shape. But the Earth and Moon must necessarily be surrounded by space. Space is not something. Space does not continue where matter stops. There is no such thing as space; space doesn’t exist. It is matter that exists.


But to ask where matter came from is a fallacy of “begging the question”. The question has already decided for all of us that matter had an origin. Any asserted origin is contradictory as explained in this hub. Clearly, people who ask such questions are clueless of the fallacies they are committing, and have not understood nor do they care to understand, exactly WHY space, and matter in motion, are indeed eternal. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot…..



Q: “If matter necessarily precedes motion, then how did matter start moving? God must have done it!”


In similar fashion, matter preceding motion does not dictate that matter must have been initially motionless. Remember, there is no “initially” or “origin” when it comes to the Universe. People have been brainwashed by Religion to think in these irrational “origin” terms, and it’s a very hard habit to break. It is rational that you cannot have any sort of motion without matter.

Motionless matter is impossible. Matter is eternally in motion.

Why?

Because matter was always there. There was no event that initiated matter to move. There was NO First Cause (see First Cause Argument). There is just no other way about it.

Why?

Because an initial event that would set matter in motion would have required motion (remember, event=verb). And since “matterless motion” is impossible, a supposed initial event would have necessitated matter that moved to initiate the event. Therefore it is contradictory to claim that matter was motionless. An initiation of an event requiring motion is only possible when matter is ALREADY there AND in motion!

Also, since all atoms are gravitationally bound to each other, they perpetually attract each other. It is impossible for matter or any atom in the Universe to be at rest. Even when your cup on the table appears motionless to you, it is moving throughout the Universe due to the change of location of other objects, and due to the effect of gravity at the atomic level. Not even God can stop the motion of a single atom anywhere in the Universe.





CONCLUSION


Cause and effect necessitates that there is no First Cause or Last Effect; we live in what we could call a perpetual matter recycling machine. All atoms in the Universe are perpetually attracted to each other by gravity. When the service life of objects comes to an end, their atoms always go back to the atom pool where they are reused to assemble new objects. And this process repeats itself forever.


As explained in detail previously: “matterless motion” is impossible. Creation is an event (verb) that necessitates motion. But in order to have motion, matter must be ALREADY present. And there cannot be matter without motion. Creation is a contradiction of Biblical Proportions. Therefore, there was NEVER a “creation event”. The Universe is ETERNAL.


It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be a Prime Mover or Creator of anything.

He cannot make space.

He cannot make matter.

He cannot make motion.

He allegedly tried to do these magic tricks one fine day 6000 years ago, but eternal space and matter beat Him to it. Atheists tried to resurrect Him 13.7 billion years ago with a recipe of fancy Mathematics and inexistent singularities coupled with surrealism and supernaturalism, but when they lit the fuse, there was NO Bang!


Space is eternal.

Matter is eternal.

Motion is eternal.

Whoever tells you otherwise is either an ignorant fool or a liar.


If God exists, He is neither invisible Creator nor ethereal Judge nor spiritual Jailer nor ghostly Executioner. He is just another detectable prisoner in the largest of prisons, the Universe. Boundless space humbles the most arrogant of gods and, nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it. We are free to do as we please because God is not, as matter in eternal motion gives us the power to turn God into our personal hand-puppet with a mere wave of our hand.




More by this Author


Comments 232 comments

AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

I saw God over by Pluto trying to blow enough air back into it to make it a planet again. Oh, by the way, he also said you were right.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hey Winston....I'm still waiting for God to come here and explain why I am NOT right...LOL...thanks!


tlpoague profile image

tlpoague 6 years ago from USA

This is an interesting perspective. I like the part about thinking outside of the box. However I disagree. I would list all the ways I would disagree, but that would create a hub of its own. I would like to say that it is an interesting brain teaser for some. I am going to have to set aside some time to read your other hubs.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

tlpoague,

Thanks for your comment, but I welcome all disagreements.

Don't worry about listing them all. If you like, just list your most important one which you think explains why space and matter are created.

We can have a rational discussion if you like.

thanks


Gerry Hiles profile image

Gerry Hiles 6 years ago from Evanston, South Australia

Steady State.

The only tenable theory, as I hope to write a Hub about one day ... meanwhile Big Bang is 'secular' Creationism.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi Gerry,

The Bang that went BIG is most certainly homage to all the Popes of yesteryear who died and went to Heaven without getting the satisfaction of seeing their “Creation from Nothing” PROVEN by petty mathematical gobbledygook by Father Lemaitre.

And it will be a very long time before they are told this information because there is a HUGE line-up at the gates to greet the Virgin Mary and kneel before her. As we speak, she is still greeting people who died in 312 AD, so it’s going to be a long wait for sure.

Poor Jesus is stuck in Heaven with all the Fundamentalist loonies who are speaking in “tongues” to him - a foreign language he doesn’t even understand, while his mother gets all the deserved attention.

For those who think that “life sucks”, just wait till you go to Heaven!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

It's game over.

Creation is impossible.

God is nothing but a mere HAND-PUPPET for entertaining your lovely dogs and cats. God's strings are pulled & tugged every time your move your insignificant little pinkie.

I don't see anybody complaining.

I don't see anybody objecting.

I don't see anybody showcasing a SINGLE refutation.

Game Over!


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

My hub was God, Creator or Other Forces.

While I don't believe in creation or God, the only conclusion that can be made is we don't know.

Time can't exist without motion, and matter is filled with atomic motion. But even if the matter doesn't move from location A to location B there is still atomic motion.

No one really knows about gravity and dark energy, has anyone seen them together. Gravity is what makes things go round, but yet we don't really know how.

Interesting hub.

Thanks


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi OD,

I am VERY surprised by your previous post. It does not sound like you were coherent when you posted it. Did you recently join a Christian Fundamentalist cult, or even an Atheist Fundamentalist cult? Maybe it was late at night when you posted it, and that’s understandable.

I think you read this hub, but you certainly didn’t understand what this hub is about. My response below will explain why your post is extremely alarming..... I'm not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to explain the irrationalities that most people out there possess.

(I don't believe in creation or God)

What sense does it make to say “I don’t believe in creation?”

What sense could it possibly make to proclaim that one doesn’t believe in VERBS (ie. actions)?

The Fundamentalist-posited action/verb of CREATION, is either POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE.....right? There is no middle ground, right? It’s a YES or NO issue, right?

All it takes is ONE contradiction to explain exactly why Creation is IMPOSSIBLE!

What is it that you don’t understand about this basic reasoning?

Similarly, what sense could it possible make to say “I don’t believe in God?”

God is an OBJECT (that which has shape/form) that is HYPOTHESIZED by theologians, theists, and their Divine Scriptures.

Here.....let me show you....

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?”

God is indeed a HYPOTHESIZED entity, an object with form, with structure, with being.....whether invisible or not is irrelevant!

So I ask again.....what sense does it make to say that we don’t believe in the existence of objects?

Existence has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with one’s opinionated BELIEF, FAITH, TRUTH, PROOF, KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, OBSERVATION, EVIDENCE, SENSORY SYSTEM, or what an AUTHORITY has to say about this issue.

Existence is ALWAYS OBJECTIVE. Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT. Didn’t the Sun exist prior to God creating the idiotic apes of this planet, who still insist on worshipping Him? If you are in a coma and cannot see your right arm, does our right arm stop existing? When you come out of the coma, does your right arm suddenly START existing?

Clearly, existence is ONLY defined, and only objectively, without opinions from observers....

Exist = physical presence = object having a location


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(the only conclusion that can be made is we don't know.)

Huh????

What does KNOWING, a SUBJECTIVE opinionated activity performed by Religionists, have to do with existence?

Please explain in DETAIL why the Sun would NOT exist for a new-born baby who is stolen by an underground cult, and raised in an underground society, and never hears the word “Sun” for his whole life. This person didn’t KNOW about the Sun. Does this mean that the Sun DOES NOT EXIST????

Clearly, KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, FAITH, TRUTH, PROOF, WISDOM, OBSERVATION, EVIDENCE, SENSORY SYSTEM, or what an AUTHORITY has to say has absolutely nothing to do with this issue!!

1) The Sun exists or not, irrespective of who comes here to proclaim their OPINION of Divine Knowledge on this matter.

2) God exists or not, irrespective of who comes here to proclaim their OPINION of Divine Knowledge on this matter.

3) Creation is an event that occurred or not, irrespective of who comes here to proclaim their OPINION of Divine Knowledge on this matter.

Understand now????

This is why in Physics (the study of existence) there is NO provision for KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, FAITH, TRUTH, PROOF, WISDOM, OBSERVATION, EVIDENCE, SENSORY SYSTEM, or AUTHORITIES.

We leave such ridiculous and irrational notions for the Religionists to argue about with their FOOLISH atheist buddies.

In science, we are proactive. We don’t act like CLOWNS and go into the Religion Forums to have pissing contents. Beliefs in PEE parties are only for a SPECIAL BREED of people anyway, who need to be institutionalized, tied down with restraints, and electro-shocked back into rationality. Rational people don’t partake in the Religious practices of such clowns.

In science, we make sure we put our brain in our head, where it belongs (not in our butt), and we grab the bull by the horns and UNAMBIGUOUSLY solve and finalize these CREATION & GOD issues RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW!! These are conceptual issues (THEY WERE CONCEIVED BY HUMANS), and as such, they are critically reasoned, critically analyzed, and rationally explained to be IMPOSSIBLE with NO hope of possible revival.....EVER!!

We use the Scientific Method to form a Hypothesis: “THERE WAS NO SPACE, NO MATTER, AND ONLY GOD, AN ENTITY”

We use the Scientific Method to rationally explain the Theory: “GOD CREATED (verb, motion, action) SPACE AND MATTER AS FOLLOWS.......blah blah”

IF THERE IS A SINGLE CONTRADICTION IN EITHER THE HYPOTHESIS OR THE THEORY, THEN CREATION AND GOD ARE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.......THERE IS NO OTHER DEBATE OR ISSUE TO DISCUSS!!!!!!

GAME OVER FOR GOD & CREATION......FOREVER AND EVER AMEN!

Please read this hub again, because you CLEARLY did NOT understand it. Then tell me what it is that you don’t understand about the Scientific Method.

(Time can't exist without motion)

Time does NOT exist PERIOD!!!!!!!!

Whoever wants ‘time’ to exist, they must illustrate this entity called ‘time’. A simple drawing on a bar napkin after they’ve had a few drinks in the favourite bar, will suffice!

Otherwise, when a drunk claims.....”time exists”....he has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

OD,

(we don't know .......No one really knows about .......but yet we don't really know)

Only in RELIGION can somebody ever hope to make any claim of KNOWLEDGE.

What is it that WE KNOW?

Do WE KNOW that the Earth is a sphere? I guess you haven’t talked to a Flat Earther who has 100% IRREFUTABLE PROOF the Earth is flat. Can you DISPROVE that Flat-Earth proof? Not a single person to this day has been able to do that.

OD, do WE know that your right arm exists? Really? You think so?......Hold on.....let me go ask my neighbour and mailman, as they’re talking outside right now......one sec, I’ll be right back........................

OD, I just finished talking with them. They BOTH told me that they DON’T KNOW that you have a right arm!!!!!!!

So really.......NOW WE MUST 100% CONCLUDE, THAT BASED ON MY NEIGHBOR’S & MAILMAN’S KNOWLEDGE & EVIDENCE, THAT OD 100% ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT ARM!!!!

There you go, OD.....isn’t knowledge wonderful? Absolutely EVERYONE has it. We can’t go wrong with Knowledge, now can we???


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

If the earth were flat, and you walked to the edge, like this, and then kept on walking you would fall

o

f

f.

Ouch. Knowledge hurts, too.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Yes Winston, one would reason this to be the case.

But unfortunately for us, the Flat Earthists have already dealt with this popular scenario in their proof. You should check out their website. It personifies the idea of PROOF=OPINION, just like all the proofs for God.

If say, you or me came up with a proof to dis-prove the Flat Earthists.....guess what? They would come up with a proof to dis-prove us!!!

I give up! I will let people KNOW & BELIEVE whatever they want.....but when they come here to debate with me....we will just stick to rational explanations. There just isn't any other way to have a rational discourse.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Don't worry, Fatfist. God will come back with a Bang - a Big Bang. :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

I don't know Winston......it's just.....well....I mean.....life now seems hopeless without a God. There is no hope that anybody will ever come here to resurrect Him.

I hope I'm wrong. Life is too boring without the entertainment of the Christian Circus Show.


Tim_511 profile image

Tim_511 6 years ago from Huntington, WV

Sir, with all due respect, a good part of the reason that people haven't presented scientific objections to your hub is that this hub is full of meaningless pseudo-philosophic and -scientific mumbo jumbo like this quote "Space precedes God! Matter in motion precedes God! A God or a Singularity (primeval atom) cannot exist without Space & Matter being present". Absolutely unwarranted statements like this present a large obstacle to taking you seriously.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent man. Bring out a hub with some real science and maybe some of us will take a shot at it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Tim,

(this hub is full of meaningless pseudo-philosophic and -scientific mumbo jumbo)

I will bet anything that you don’t understand what Science is, Tim. Let’s see if I’m right again.....please tell us what science is the study of, Tim? Mindless online definitions won’t save your soul here.

(like this quote "Space precedes God! Matter in motion precedes God! A God or a Singularity (primeval atom) cannot exist without Space & Matter being present". Absolutely unwarranted statements like this present a large obstacle to taking you seriously.)

You’ve said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, Tim!!!

What is the contradiction or your point of contention with that statement? Please explain with the luxury of detail. If you cannot explain, then you will have proven that you are a disgruntled trolling clown whose Religion I have DESTROYED!

All you’ve managed to say is:

“Fatfist, I HATE YOU!! I don’t like it that it is impossible for space & matter to be created because it destroys my Religion! How dare you do that to me? I am going to dismiss your hub as absolutely unwarranted statements.”

( Bring out a hub with some real science and maybe some of us will take a shot at it.)

Tim, you don’t understand the difference between Science and Religion.

You take great pride in parroting the nonsense of others without understanding anything.

The offer is available to you as well......

1) If you can, explain one, JUST ONE contradiction in this hub.

OR

2) Explain why the creation of space & matter is even an extremely remote possibility.

Do either 1 or 2, and I will paypal you $10k so you can donate to your favourite charity, like feeding children. Do you care about the suffering children, Tim? Let’s see if you do.....

I am willing to bet that you will RUN, Tim......you will run with your tail between you legs...LOL!


Tim_511 profile image

Tim_511 6 years ago from Huntington, WV

Again, meaningless mumbo jumbo, but even so, so I'll give you a response.

Science is the study of the natural world. Period. That is the definition. You don't get to make up your own definition, and then claim that everyone else is wrong. You cannot back up scientifically (ie. observationally, repeatedly, and falsifiably) your claim that matter, motion, and space are eternal. Sorry, but appealing to philosophy doesn't cut it scientifically.

God, by definition, is an omniscient and omnipresent being. Therefore, a lack of time and space mean nothing. He does not take up space and does not exist within the dimension of time. His characteristic of omnipotence means that He can create space and time at His word because of who He is. Therefore, space and time are meaningless when compared to God, which means that you are wrong when you claim that "Space precedes God! Matter in motion precedes God! A God or a Singularity (primeval atom) cannot exist without Space & Matter being present".

If you just respond that I am depending upon my religion, I'll know that you respond with an attack only because you cannot respond logically and scientifically. If you can respond with science, I'd be interested.

You can keep your money - if you can't defend your claims, you'd only make up some new definition of science to avoid paying.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Tim,

(Again, meaningless mumbo jumbo)

You keep repeating yourself in all your posts. Is THIS your refutation of this hub?

(Science is the study of the natural world.)

You are no scientist, Tim. What does “natural world” mean in your religion, Tim?

Is Science the study of concepts, Tim?

Is “natural world” an OBJECT or a CONCEPT, Tim?

Can you illustrate an image of this “natural world” thingy so I can see it for myself? Or can you reference an image of it on the Internet? Please?

Here, let Fatfist teach you what you never learned while warming up a seat in that church of yours all your life.....

Science is the study of OBJECTS and the phenomena (events) that is mediated by them! In other words, it is the study of EXISTENCE! Science only studies that which exists.

And it does so by:

1) Formulating Hypotheses which hypothesize the existence of OBJECTS.

2) Formulating Theories to rationally explain claims for consummated events using the objects of the hypothesis, and any other objects which may be applicable to the theory.

It is only Religionists, like you, who study irrational concepts and ideas, which don’t exist.

(You don't get to make up your own definition, and then claim that everyone else is wrong)

Exactly!!! So why did you make up your OWN definition that science studies concepts (ie. natural world)?

(You cannot back up scientifically (ie. observationally, repeatedly, and falsifiably) your claim that matter, motion, and space are eternal.)

LOL!!

You don’t know what science is, nor what a CLAIM is, nor what a hypothesis is, nor what a THEORY is.

Here, read the heading within this hub: PEOPLE ARE STILL EXTREMELY CONFUSED ABOUT THE “CLAIM” OF CREATION

.....so you can understand WHY eternal space & matter IS NOT A CLAIM.....and hence....NOT A THEORY!

LOL! You didn’t read this hub at all......and yet you come here to make a fool out of yourself....too funny!

Tim, I am very surprised that you don’t get paid for your CLOWN ACT. Why don’t you take up my offer to be my personal clown??

(Sorry, but appealing to philosophy doesn't cut it scientifically.)

You don’t even understand what philosophy studies, do you? Philosophy is the study of concepts, my dear Tim......not objects. Religion is the study of irrational & contradictory concepts. Go learn the basics.

(God, by definition, is an omniscient and omnipresent being.)

Exactly! Your hypothesis assumes that God is an object that exists.

Object: that which has shape. Synonym: entity, being, substance, etc.

(He does not take up space)

Exactly! No object TAKES UP space!!!

Space is nothing! Space does not exist. Space cannot be acquired or taken. Only objects exist.......only objects can be TAKEN UP or ACQUIRED by other objects!

(God does not exist within the dimension of time.)

Time is a dynamic concept.

Dimension is a static concept.

How you managed to CONFUSE the two is beyond human comprehension. The length people go to in order to protect their religion!

A dimension is a CONCEPT that relates to an architectural property of a physical object. It is an indispensable ingredient of the adjective three-dimensional (3D), which we can only use in the context of architecture.

Dimension is an ADJECTIVE, used in the context of physical objects, not concepts.

Time is a VERB, and a DYNAMIC CONCEPT that is solely used to quantify motion. Thus time is used in the context of adverbs, and not with objects, as time is not an adjective nor an object.

In physics, adjectives are used with objects, and adverbs are used with verbs.

dimension --> object

adverb --> time

In fact, time is simply the scalar metric of motion. A dimension has nothing to do with motion or verbs in any context. Except of course, in Religion, where God is known to 'hide' (verb) in a magical dimension (adjective) where we can't grab him by the neck and strangle him! Only in Religion can verbs physically interact with adjectives. You are too funny, Tim!

A dimension is a STATIC concept. Motion is a DYNAMIC concept. Time does not exist. Time is a metric humans invented in order quantify motion at predetermined intervals of interest. Time NECESSARILY requires an observer to conceive it, define it, quantify it, set the interval, and measure it.

In Physics, we do not use dimensions to 'span' (motion, dynamic) anything. We define a dimension as:

dimension: one of three mutually orthogonal directions in which an object points or faces.

The 3 dims are: length, width, and height. They have only 2 properties: direction and orthogonality. Width does not stand alone and is nothing without length and height. The 3 dims are inseparable.

Got it????


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Tim,

(His characteristic of omnipotence means that He can create space)

You can define whatever you want God to be, Tim. But since you already stated in your God Hypothesis that God is a being (object) that you assume to exist, then God must necessarily have shape/form, as rationally stated in the Bible!!

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?”

God is an entity that has internal structure and shape/form. Whether He is invisible or not is irrelevant. Light is an invisible object that has structure and form.

This means, that in order for God to exist, and have the capability of motion to mediate the VERB Create, He must first and foremost be wrapped by SPACE!! Without the background of nothingness, God cannot exist nor move! Without space, God has lost his primary superpower: FORM!

Without form, God does not exist because He would be inseparable from space – God would be NOTHING!! All entities are capable of motion because they are necessarily wrapped by space......and so does God!!!

THEREFORE SPACE PRECEDES GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God did NOT create space. Space is nothingness. Space was already present!!!!!!!!!!!

God cannot create the nothingness which is ALREADY there!

SPACE IS OMNIPRESENT.....SPACE IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!

This makes space MORE powerful than God. God cannot escape space! Space has no boundaries or borders for God to cross. Space cannot be transcended!!!

You see where your very own analysis leads, Tim?

There goes God’s omnipotence DOWN THE TOILET!!!!

You like to come here and run your mouth, don’t you?

(His characteristic of omnipotence means that He can create ....time)

Time is a dynamic concept....it is a VERB as I explained earlier. Verbs CANNOT be created. Verbs can only be MEDIATED. Go learn the difference. I am sick and tired of being your primary school teacher. We learn that time is a VERB in Kindergarten, Tim.

You really need to go school instead of the church, Tim. Go learn the basics before coming here to get slaughtered. You are quite the circus show!

(You can keep your money)

Of course, Tim!

You knew I’d skin you alive.....that’s why you made that statement. You are a mind-reader.

(you'd only make up some new definition of science to avoid paying.)

Go read my post about scientific definitions in Mark Knowles hub again. Science is about consistency. A word doesn’t have a billion meanings like your girlfriend Cathy tried assigning to ‘exist’. Your irrational definition of science makes it the study of concepts & miracles......i.e. what doesn’t exist!!!

I know......you’re quite shocked at how I SLAUGHTERED you on the definition of Science, right? That’s what happens when you mindlessly copy stuff online without understanding anything. EXISTENCE is a synonym for REALITY. That’s what science is about. And that’s why God is not REAL i.e. does not exist!!

NOW YOU UNDERSTAND FULL WELL WHY:

1) GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

2) SPACE & MATTER IS ETERNAL.

Don’t run away on us now Tim.......please amuse the audience some more. We need more laughs!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hey Cathy,

Would you like to help out poor Tim?

He didn't pass Kindergarten and went straight to Bible School where he only studied the cherry-picked verses.

Cathy, don't forget to rip apart my refutations on the Religion of Relativity.

But please, be gentle on me.....I am a young and tender boy.....I am a little timid when I'm around people with 3-digit IQ scores. I guess that's why I always confuse Bibles and PhD certificates with toilet paper


Tim_511 profile image

Tim_511 6 years ago from Huntington, WV

If you don't know what the natural world is, you might want to go back to kindergarten or maybe your Mommy might tell you.

I know what science is - I studied it and do it for a living. It is extremely obvious that you do not, yet you still like to spread your ignorance around for the rest of us to see.

You have no basis for your ideas other than your own philosophy. Science depends on experiments, observation, and data analysis, not whatever drug you have been on recently. I regret that I cannot debate with you as I could a reasonable person.

And, frankly, you are lying about the $10,000. You have no intention of ever paying out, because you can simply ignore logic and spout some nonsense about eternal motion. Goodbye, sir.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Tim oh Tim oh Tim......

You got skinned alive, didn't you?

You didn't expect that from somebody on a silly site like hubpages, did you?

You came here all fast & loose, running your mouth all over the place.

Then I teach you exactly the basics of science, existence, time, dimension, object, concept, verb, adjective, shape/form, God Hypothesis, etc.

So what is your response?

tim: "I regret that I cannot debate with you"

Of course you can't! You came here to LEARN! You came here to get EDUCATED by Fatfist!

I already replied to you and you are SHOCKED!!!!!

Your jaw dropped to the floor and have absolutely nothing to say.

BTW.....you are welcome here any time. My offer of $10k will be here waiting for you to show a SINGLE contradiction in my Scientific reasoning.

I already told you that you'd run with you tail between your legs...LOL


oceansnsunsets profile image

oceansnsunsets 5 years ago from The Midwest, USA

Thanks for sharing your materialistic/physicalistic worldview. Its very interesting to note how that way of thinking and/or philosophy colors the way you define what must be true or not true in the world (and universe).

Setting the parameters in such a way really sets the stage for your own arguments to do rather well. Its always good to hear about others beliefs and why.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi oceansnsunsets,

“your materialistic/physicalistic worldview”

Materialistic?

Physicalistic?

Worldview?

Sorry, ocean.....I am not familiar with these terms and what point you are trying to convey. Could you please explain in detail?

I also cannot fathom how you can possibly attribute these terms/actions to me, especially when you cannot read my mind. Are you perhaps parroting the ideas of others?

A “world” is a concept. Humans cannot “view” ‘the’ world. Humans can only view objects. If you disagree, then I’m sure you could easily illustrate a pic of this “world” thingy so we can all see what this little critter looks like. Otherwise, I’m sorry to say: you are just parroting what others have forced you to memorize by rote.

“that way of thinking and/or philosophy”

Ok, so now we are getting to the bottom of your statements. I was right.....you are indeed talking about “concepts” and abstract ideas which have no bearing on reality. You see, my dear ocean....Philosophy is the study of concepts, like love, justice, virtue, piety, worldviews, free will, morals, good, evil, etc. These are all abstractions conceived by human apes. None of these concoctions exist in reality.

“Setting the parameters in such a way really sets the stage for your own arguments to do rather well.”

You must have me confused with a Religionist. I don’t set “parameters” nor assert them. I only provide rational explanations for what “I” say, or I critically analyze the “claims” of others.

Is that so bad and so evil? If it is, then that’s news to me, and I would like to express my sincere apologies.

“Its always good to hear about others beliefs and why.”

The activities that others perform, like the activity of “belief”, have no concern to reality and are completely irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

If so, then why haven’t I seen you be “sensitive”, “caring”, “loving” and “supportive” to the BELIEFS of:

a) Religious fundamentalist terrorists

b) Child rapists/murderers

c) And the beliefs of every other human being on this planet.

I may be mistaken....but I don’t remember seeing you at all the rallies in support of this cornucopia of varied beliefs. I also don’t remember seeing banners posted on your car and on the lawn of your house in support of these varied human “beliefs”.

If I am mistaken about you, then I’d like to apologize in advance, cause I cannot read people’s minds.....I can only “see” what they do.

“you define what must be true”

Are you sure?

Can you please cut & paste any statement from any of my hubs where I have stated that something is “true”?

You think you can do that?

And before you begin searching......can you please objectively define this formidable term “TRUTH” which you like to use in your arguments?

What is truth? What does it mean?

Is it any different than an OPINION?

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you


defacto 5 years ago

Hey fatfist...

Been busy for a bit, so I haven't been around to check. I don't see the comments I left you or anything, and it looks like everything is gone... Not sure what happened, maybe or server error? Or was it deleted somehow/for some reason?

Regards,


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

defacto,

Some of my hubs were removed and comments were blown away by the moderators.

Anyway, what was your argument? Are you hypothesizing the existence of a "creator" entity you call God?


jomine 5 years ago

great hub. now can you explain or start a hub on light and magnetism. also about radioactivity-the process of change of one atom to other(say uranium decay).


Hugh Davis 5 years ago

time and space and order and a fourth demension is of God

GOD is and was and ever will be. Time and space and order and deminsions are relative. GOD divides each as he will. We are either seeking and embracing him or we are repelling from him, after death in time if we love him we unite in fellowship with him. Jesus is the form of God's plan for humans. To know the timeless JESUS just seek him and you will find him. After that you have the answers. JESUS IS LORD


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hugh,

You said ---> "time and space and order and a fourth demension is of God"

Thank you for being honest and telling us that God is NOTHING!!

There is no such thing as 'time', 'space', 'order', or "4th dimension". They are concepts which do not exist.

Therefore, according to YOU, God does NOT exist!!!

I wish more Fundamentalist Christians were as brilliant as YOU are. Then America wouldn't be known as a The Nation of Idiots, like it is today!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Black holes are the area surrounding a point of infinite density called a singularity. If enough mass is packed into one place eventually gravity will force it to basically implode and continue to shrink to infinitely small size. At this point, since the strength of gravity increases as you get closer, you will reach a point where gravity is so strong that nothing can escape no matter how fast it moves, even light. This is what causes black holes to be black. While originally thought to be purely theoretical, there is very strong evidence that black holes exist and that they are common, especially at the center of galaxies.

Source(s):

Physics Major

I was reading this very intelligent argument for Black holes but then i thougt about this part..............gravity is so strong that nothing can escape no matter how fast it moves, even light. This is what causes black holes to be black.

My shoes are black and my shorts are also black does that make them black holes?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

"My shoes are black and my shorts are also black does that make them black holes?"

I had a hot date with a MILF last night, when all of a sudden, her husband's car pulls up on the driveway. At that moment I WISHED there was black hole I can escape to.

Needless to say....I managed to get out of the bedroom window, and in my rush, I left my shoes and shorts behind....


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

lol

Today I am an Atheist and Black Holes exist because of singularity. A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Tell me prometheus.....is a MILF an object or a concept??


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Does she had leght heith with? If yes then yes sir.

http://www.techbreak.net/images/cute-girl-with-ipo... object


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Ummmm....prometheus....that's not a MILF in that pic. That's a MILF's daughter.

You don't get out much do you?

Or perhaps you've been married too long and your wife has brainwashed you to BELIEVE that she is the most important woman on the planet. Which is it?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Im not much into milf sorry fatfist.

http://www.funnycraigslistads.com/wp-content/uploa... Is all yours.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Yeah! That's what I'm talking about!!!

Ok, prometheus, please tell your wife that you need to work late one night. I will pick you up from work and take you to a bar where I will introduce you to some nice MILFs which will take reeeeeeealy good care of you...ok?

Just make sure you have a nice Armani suit to wear. First appearances are everything with these hungry gals.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

After we turn you into a man, prometheus, then we can introduce you to COUGARS...

http://www.2cougars.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10...

You need to get out of the house!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

You really don't know what you're missing, prometheus...

http://eharmonydating.biz/wp-content/uploads/2010/...


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah

I must admit I didn't read all your hub. My time is extremely limited. Still, I wish to comment, and by so doing maybe get inside your head:

First of all, I linked my own hub to this one, using the phrase "matter is intelligence" under the "suggest links" system. This is how I found you.

My religion (the LDS, or Mormon) believes as you, that matter is eternal and that it cannot be created or destroyed. My article may suggest I'm rebelling from that idea, but I profess to be able to think outside the box of any given dogma. In doing so, I often rationalize through certain things. My rationale for this article is the thought that maybe matter is eternal, **if matter is intelligence.**

I would be interested in hearing your reaction to this idea. The hub that has your link follows: http://hubpages.com/education/Ex-Nihilo-Creation-B...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Sambo,

“My religion (the LDS, or Mormon) believes as you, that matter is eternal and that it cannot be created or destroyed.”

You are the first Mormon I’ve had here.....welcome! And I must admit that I had no clue Mormons “believe” matter to be eternal. I will make a note of this one so I can show the creationists what a “real” religion is about.

But I would like to correct your statement about myself.....

I do not “believe” matter to be eternal. I can, in no uncertain terms, EXPLAIN exactly WHY the posited claim of CREATION is an ontological contradiction, and hence, an impossibility. Thus, matter and space are eternal by default.....and not “claimed” or “believed” or “opined” to be eternal.......but eternal according to the impossibility of claimed creation. Belief and opinion have no bearing on reality.

Did you understand that? I hope you did, otherwise you would be misrepresenting me and my articles. I never ever make any statements which are of “belief”.

“My rationale for this article is the thought that maybe matter is eternal, **if matter is intelligence.**”

I have rationally EXPLAINED EXACTLY WHY THE CLAIM OF CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE.......this means that matter & space are ETERNAL. If you’d like to link my hub, please represent me in a just manner, ok?

Perhaps you didn’t understand my article, for if you did, you’d realize why creation is impossible, and not based on belief or opinion. Most people who post here, come here with pre-conceived notions and beliefs about the universe, and haven’t a clue what my articles are about.....nor do they care to understand.....it’s just SAD!

“maybe matter is eternal, **if matter is intelligence.**”

Maybe??

This is not an issue of MAYBE.

That matter is eternal is an OBJECTIVE issue....not a subjective one, like you propose.

And to posit that matter is intelligence......is to redefine the term “intelligence” as a SYNONYM for matter, or vice versa. This is irrational. You cannot just assert synonyms with ambiguous definitions for the purposes of making your arguments. That is not an argument. These 2 terms are completely unrelated.

1) Matter is a STATIC CONCEPT and a noun. It is a term which pertains to all of the existing objects; the total aggregate of atoms.

2) Intelligence is a DYNAMIC CONCEPT and a verb. Intelligence is simply the ability a sentient being has to understand concepts.

To assert that “matter is intelligence” is to assert that matter (noun) is a VERB. Obviously this is NOT the case. Makes no sense at all. Matter is a noun. Only in religion do nouns become verbs and vice versa.....never in reality!

And if you’d like to link to my hub, please do NOT quote my link as:

“I propose that matter is intelligence, pieces of the Master himself.”

If that’s what you propose, then please quote yourself, not me, ok? You can quote my link as “matter is eternal”, or something to that effect.

Sorry, Sambo, I don’t mean to yell at you....I emphasized key terms with CAPS so that you can evaluate more closely the key issues, and ultimately understand exactly what my article is about.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah

Alright; since my church believes that matter is eternal, I decided to scrutinize your hub -- even if a little each day -- in order to understand it completely. I decided to assume you are right, and search for something that can support at least one of my religious beliefs. It would do me good to find physical proof of some or all of my beliefs, as there does not, to date, exist any scientific proof that any religion-based belief system represents what is actually out there. Note that I used "belief system." Religious bodies can declare something that is self-evident, like the fact that Jesus existed, but I'm referring to "beliefs" such as the reality of the "atonement" as outlined in the Christian Bible, or, as is the subject here, that matter is eternal.

In case you want a reference, here is the LDS scripture that talks of matter: Doctrine & Covenants 93:33-34: "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy."

When people link to other hubs, I didn't think it was because the link necessarily provides supporting evidences, but perhaps another view or other facts about the concept being treated. If you wish for me to remove that link, I will.

While reading more closely your hub, I came to a couple of points that I feel need clarifying. I agree with everything you said up to that point. But before I can continue on, I need to address those points, as I can't follow very well until they're resolved: I agree that there must needs be space. But I don't see how it gives contour to matter. I imagine space as simply a nothingness, and the existence of matter being within that nothingness. I see matter as being first, and space as being a given. Actually I see one other thing as being first, which is in answer to my second question: your challenge to define something that doesn't have shape and structure. I think "intelligence" does not

have a shape or structure. I'm not sure how to describe it with positive aspects, but I arrive at that conclusion because of the experience of other people who have had near-death experiences. People seem to have seen things in an emergency room while out cold. This tells me their "intelligences" or "spirits" left their body. In other words, they were able to have sentience without the aid of a physical body. I know someone who was clinically dead, and woke up on the morgue table. If you say his visions of a next life were synaptic activities in his dying brain, this would

sound incredible, given the long period of time he was dead.

Actually, I don't know what your beliefs are (I know I shouldn't use that word, but I know of no other way to say it). Do you believe that the only existence is the physical around us? and that we think only through the aid of our brain? Do you believe in a god? Before continuing on, I would appreciate knowing where you stand on that.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Sambo,

“I decided to scrutinize your hub”

Please do so. I welcome anyone, including those who are decorated with Ph.D’s and Nobel’s to come here and explain to me if the claim of “creation” is even a remote possibility.

“I decided to assume you are right”

We should never assume anyone to be right. Right & wrong are strictly opinions stemming from humans. The best a human can ever do is to “rationally explain” the words coming out of their mouth.....like WHY creation is impossible.

“does not, to date, exist any scientific proof”

Sambo, I am happy to see you here......but you really need to understand the Scientific Method. Science never ever proves anything. Science only hypothesizes objects as mediators (actors), and uses these objects to rationally explain natural phenomena or alleged events of the past (like creation).

I’m sorry to tell you this, and no offence intended.......but “proof” is the hallmark of Religion. It is absolutely impossible to prove anything in reality. Only the Religions of the world have each “proven” that their respective God exists.

REMEMBER: What you consider as “proof”, is always considered a LIE by somebody else. So how do we resolve this issue? Should we vote on it? Should we get the opinion of a High Priest or of a Nobel-decorated Ph.D Mathematician?

Reality can only be explained.....and explained rationally. Science never proves. Science only explains.

“But I don't see how it gives contour to matter. I imagine space as simply a nothingness, and the existence of matter being within that nothingness.”

This issue can be critically analyzed and absolutely resolved in a rational manner. This is not an issue of evidence or proof, which are both based on opinion/belief. This is strictly a conceptual issue of objective analysis.

The Universe, Mother Nature, reality, what is out there......whatever you wish to call it......is either composed of SOMETHING (objects) or NOTHING (space).

But how we objectively define ‘object’ and ‘space’ without introducing human opinion??

Object: that which has shape; synonym: something, thing, being, body, entity, structure, etc.

Space: that which doesn’t have shape; synonym: nothing

The Sun had shape all on its own before a human was around to give an opinion on the issue.

The Universe is strictly a binary system......there is either something or nothing.....on or off.......yes or no......white or black......there is NO other option, ever!!

This means, that it is impossible for objects to exist without being wrapped by space. I mean, if you claim an object exists without space, then WHAT is the background which gives ‘shape’ to the object? What gives the object spatial separation?

Objects without space is an ontological contradiction and an IMPOSSIBILITY......there is no other way about it. Please sit down and seriously think about it.....I am kindly asking you to do so.

“your challenge to define something that doesn't have shape and structure. I think "intelligence" does not have a shape or structure. I'm not sure how to describe it with positive aspects”

I already explained to you in my previous post that “intelligence” is a concept. It is a VERB. An object is necessarily required to exist BEFORE intelligence can be realized. Intelligence is NOT something......intelligence is what something DOES! It is an action.

*********************************

If a human claims that “intelligence” is something rather than nothing.....then the onus is on HIM to either illustrate a picture of intelligence, OR rationally define the terms “something” and “nothing”. Then we will understand for sure!

Which would you like to do?

*********************************


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Sambo,

“but I arrive at that conclusion because of the experience of other people who have had near-death experiences.”

Opinions of humans have nothing to do with reality. Reality is eternal and is not dictated by the observations of humans. It is impossible to objectively conclude anything based on the extremely limited sensory system of humans.

Matters of reality are only resolved objectively and rationally......just like I resolved for you what the Universe consists of.....without opinion or belief.

“This tells me their "intelligences" or "spirits" left their body”

I hope you realize that VERBS (concepts) cannot leave a human body, which is an object with shape. Only other objects with shape, can ever leave a body.

“I know someone who was clinically dead, and woke up on the morgue table.”

The term “clinically dead” is a highly subjective term. It could mean when you stop breathing or your heart stopped momentarily or both. This does not necessarily have anything to do with actually being dead. The atoms in your brain still have atomic activity, and electro-magnetic interactions occurring at the instant of clinical death. Atoms are in eternal motion. Hence electro-magnetic activity could conceivably trigger the heart to start pumping again and the person could come to life. Magnets are not alive, but yet they can pick up a car in mid-air. The magnetic and electrical activity in your brain can trigger your heart to inadvertently pump again. This is one possibility of what is happening to those people who seemingly rise from the dead.

“given the long period of time he was dead”

I hope you realize by now that human observation and testimony has absolutely nothing to do with what actually occurs in reality. Reality has been functioning just fine for eternity without humans.....and will continue to chug along forever when humans go extinct, like all species do.

“Actually, I don't know what your beliefs are”

I have no beliefs, sambo.......not a single one.......sorry, I lied.....I believe that I am very desirable to women.....especially married ones ;-)

I mean, should I believe that my arm exists? What will happen to my poor arm if I’m ever in a coma from a car accident? Will my poor arm disappear because I temporarily lost belief in it? Will my arm reappear when I recover from the coma?

Belief has nothing to do with reality. Belief is only human opinion.....nothing else.

A rational human uses critical thinking to rationally explain whatever statements come out of their mouth.....they never say: “I know it is true....I can’t prove it....but I believe it”.

“Do you believe that the only existence is the physical around us?”

This is not an issue of belief. This is an issue of UNDERSTANDING!!!

This is an issue of what this formidable word ‘exist’ means. What do human beings MEAN whenever they use this elusive term.

Do you know??

I will offer you a rational definition which is unambiguous, and can consistently be used in any context.

Exist: physical presence; object with a location

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

Only objects i.e. SOMETHING, can be rationally claimed to exist.....nothing else.

Let’s test this word “intelligence”. Does “intelligence” exist?

a) Is “intelligence an object? No. If you disagree, please illustrate it or please define ‘exist’ for us.

b) Does “intelligence” have location? i.e. is there a static distance between “intelligence” and your nose? No!

Therefore, it is impossible for “intelligence” to exist. What actually exists, is the object or person who performs the action (verb) we call intelligence.

Similarly, does “running” exist? No, running is what a person does, an action, a verb....not something!

Get it now?

“and that we think only through the aid of our brain?”

It takes an object composed of atoms, like a brain, to mediate this activity we call “intelligence”. Atoms are interconnected with each other and torque each other perpetually. That’s why atomic motion is eternal. Atoms are eternal. They cannot be created or destroyed.

“Do you believe in a god?”

Sambo, I am probably one of the last people on Earth, that you, as a theist, would ever consider having a conversation about God. Not because I am immoral or have hatred. But because I can rationally explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a being to have created space & matter. Therefore, from a rational and objective standpoint.....a creator-God is an impossibility.

But maybe this would not offend you, because you claim space & matter are eternal and not created by God.

So my question to you then is......what does this object, you call God, do or perform, if not create space and matter??


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah

My answer to your question:

God used existing matter to create this world. Genesis 1:2 said that God "...moved upon the face of the waters" before it mentions the steps of the creation. This tells me that "the waters" existed before the creation of this world and its surrounding heavens. God's plan is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man, and to create a rich, rewarding happy environment for him. I got an atheist to agree with me on that:

I served in Vietnam as a foot soldier for 8.5 months, then as a Chaplain's assistant for 3.5 months. One day, while painting the chapel, a soldier walked up and offered to help me paint. As we got to talking, I soon found out he was an atheist.

So I asked him, "Man has all power, then?" He answered yes. I asked, "Will man some day be able to create life?" to that, he also answered yes.

I asked if mankind will ever create a successful utopia. He said yes.

I then reminded him about the conditions here in Vietnam, and asked, "Do you appreciate what you had at home more now, than before you came to Vietnam?" He responded in the affirmative.

Then I asked: "When mankind creates life, and his children from that life, how will he help his children to appreciate that utopia?"

He said we'd have to put them in a place that was miserable, first. Through the next few minutes of questions and answers, we arrived at this conclusion: The children would have to learn how to live with others, would have to learn obedience, and should not have proximity or access to their creators, or to the utopia, as they would probably try to get there, and think only of that, instead of the issues that could strengthen them and give them experience and knowledge.

I'm sure you can see what this picture resembles in our situation.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

After James Randi busted the claim as an illusion, Uri Geller "left the building." Is that anything like leaving your body?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Sambo,

“God used existing matter to create this world. Genesis 1:2 said that God "...moved upon the face of the waters" before it mentions the steps of the creation.”

Your assessment here does have merit. In fact, the Torah was a book of God and Culture for the Jews. The Jews were not obsessed with “creation”. They were obsessed with culture and rules. The Jewish scholars subscribed to Greek thought which explained exactly why the universe is eternal and never had a moment of creation.

Creation from nothing stemmed from the Christians who wanted to distance themselves from Greek physics for political reasons (i.e. for control).

“As we got to talking, I soon found out he was an atheist.”

I hope you are not confusing me with him.....I am not an atheist, nor theist, nor agnostic.

“"Will man some day be able to create life?"

We make humans every day, sambo.....it’s called reproduction.

“I'm sure you can see what this picture resembles in our situation.”

Sure, but the bottom line is......when you give the reins of control to a select few human apes, they will use their authority to do as they please. What is the solution? There is NO solution......NO utopia......ever!!

Nature is very cruel and unfair. Sentient beings are out for themselves.....not for the betterment of their species.

Once you fully comprehend that, sambo, you will be more at ease with reality.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah

I'm sure you know why I posed that question to the atheist: He believed humans had all the power, meaning we could create anything, even life. If he were to deny that, he would have to admit that there existed a power greater than our own in the universe. You will probably come back on that and say "procreation has always existed," for which I have no rebuttal. But even if that's true, my point is still valid: Some day we may see the need to do the same thing as outlined in my scenario.

You say human apes will do as they please, and it often is not good. You know, you'd make a good Mormon ( ;-) ). You've just hit on another LDS doctrine: We're told that the natural man is an enemy to God (Book of Mormon/Mosiah 3:19).

Sorry, I must ask who your avatar is: he looks familiar, and I can't remember it. I enjoyed him on TV "back in the day." Would you mind telling me who he is?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Sambo,

"Some day we may see the need to do the same thing as outlined in my scenario."

We won't even get there. Just try to comprehend the concept of eternity: no beginning and no end.

We are but temporary travelers through space. Our species won't even make a third of the rotation around the Milky Way.

Species of beings similar to humans (with legs and arms) have evolved and gone extinct for ETERNITY.....and will continue to do so forever. They are all gone and forgotten....actually....not even remembered, because there is no memory in static reality (existence). We are not special by any stretch of the imagination. Nature is very cruel and erases us without any concern. To sum it up....we are essentially nothing.

The avatar is Robert Shaw as Quint, from Jaws. When I first saw that movie as a child, I was scared to enter the ocean for a week during my summer vacation. Now I am more aware of my surroundings whenever I snorkel and free dive.

"You know, you'd make a good Mormon ( ;-) )."

Ha ha! I just love some of the comments people leave me here. But this one is a first.

Thanks for posting some interesting tidbits about Mormonism. It's good to know how it contrasts mainstream Christianity.


agentmarmite 5 years ago

Just saw QUITE the humorous exchange with (1) a skeptical philosopher (I sent him your articles) and (2) a so-called "physicist" (mathematician) on a philosophy board, here:

board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/29706.aspx

Amazing, the pure crap mathematicians come up with to justify a creationist universe or a big bang.

Thanks so much for your articles anyway, they've really helped me to think more clearly, deeply, and rationally.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi agent,

You are very welcome. I am very happy to help out people like yourself. At least there are a handful of people on this planet, like you, who truly understand reality. The rest will either rot in Hell, or die of boredom with Jesus in Heaven.....including the yet-to-be-evolved apes whom we call Mathematicians.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Fatfist- In reading your fascinating commentary, I stumbled across a statement that needs more analysis. You stated that "only objects with shape can ever leave a body". I am curious to hear you explain how a body can express their thoughts into audible sounds and then allow them to leave their body through their voice. Are you saying that our voice has a shape???? Also, as we draw breath and release it, does this breath have a shape??? I am sure you have an answer and I eagerly await your response.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Braudboy,

"Are you saying that our voice has a shape???? "

No. Voice is a concept, it lacks shape. It takes at least one object (mouth, air, tongue, vocal chords, etc.) to mediate the verb we call 'voice'. We learn this basic stuff when we utter our first word.

“I am curious to hear you explain how a body can express their thoughts into audible sounds”

Easy! Take a breath of air (which is an object) and vibrate it via the movement of your vocal chords. This in turn vibrates the air molecules (objects) which are physically connected from your mouth to another person’s ear (eardrum). We learn this on the first day of science class. It's like playing drums....you need objects to come in physical contact to vibrate the air molecules.

“and then allow them to leave their body through their voice”

No, the air molecules do not need to leave your body. Each air molecule comes into contact with and vibrates the next one beside it.....and so on.....

“does this breath have a shape???”

No. Breath is a VERB. Breath is what something DOES.....not what it is.

Air molecules are objects and have shape......not breath.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

FATFIST- Breath is not a verb, it is most definitely a noun. You learn this on the first day of English class. You mistake this for breathe which IS a verb and is the act of drawing in breath into our bodies. So, back to your statement that only things with shape can leave the body, breath leaves the body and has no shape, at least not any shape that man can recognize. Oh, and voice is not a concept, it is very real. A concept is more of theory or and idea. Voice is very real and unique to each human. It is very identifiable and can be manipulated and changed by each human to make different sounds. We can expel these sounds from our body to communicate. So, does a person's voice exist??? I mean a voice does not have shape and is not an object?? However, I do know that my daughter will turn if she hears my voice, as she knows that her daddy is near. If she hears my voice on the phone, she knows who she is talking with. Your science seems to fail you at times. There is most certainly a realm that goes beyond objects and shapes, and this is where one gets to know God.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

braudboy,

"Breath is not a verb, it is most definitely a noun."

Oh, then please be my guest and illustrate this object noun which you call "breath"...or simply reference a pic of one online.

Let's see if you have the faintest clue of what you are talking about...

If you cannot do this by your next post, then you are obviously trolling again (what else is new??) and your posts will be promptly deleted.....got it?

So let's see if you can exhibit any honesty in a public forum without getting your ass banned....


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(getting your ass banned....)

Fatfist,

On the other hand, ass is an object and is subject to being kicked. I have yet to have my breath or voice kicked, though.

(There is most certainly a realm that goes beyond objects and shapes, and this is where one gets to know God.)

Beyond objects and shapes, beyond dimensions, the sign post up ahead...oh, no, Rod, it's the Twilight Zone!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston,

It looks like Brauboy's ISP has just recently re-instated his Internet priveleges, because, just like a good Christian....he promised he wouldn't troll again. And just like a good Christian...he can never keep any of his promises!


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

FATFIST- You can choose to deny that "breath" is a noun and not a verb, but the fact remains that I am correct and you are wrong. Would you like me to use it in a sentence for you??? OK, here goes. "The breath of life comes from God" Here, breath is a noun. OK, now as a verb..." I breathe in the fresh air of summer" Here, it is a verb. YOu see, nouns are more than objects and shapes, but are also subjects. In your limited view, you want to see or touch your nouns. I can no more post a picture of breath on this site than I can post a picture of the wind or my voice for that matter. It does not mean they do not exist. They most definitely do exist. I am just trying to have a meaninful debate with you. If you dont want to be challenged, that is fine also.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

braudboy,

"I can no more post a picture of breath on this site than I can post a picture of the wind or my voice for that matter."

You cannot illustrate 'wind' and 'breath' because they are dynamic concepts. When air atoms are in motion, humans call that process or dynamic concept: 'breath'.

The object that we can illustrate is air (the collection of atoms):

http://sponeil.net/EarthBumpScatter1.jpg

Wind does not knock down trees during a hurricane.....only air atoms do because they come into surface contact with the tree. When you breathe (verb), breath (concept) does not come out of your mouth...only air atoms do.

Wind and breath are not objects with a location....that is why they do not exist.

exist: object having a location

object: that which has shape

location: the set of static distances to all other objects

If you disagree, then please provide your OWN non-contradictory definition of EXIST which reasons how 'breath' and 'wind' could possibly exist.

You are arguing with yourself on these issues because you don't understand the basics of reality. You do not understand the key words of your argument: exist, wind, breath


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Braudboy,

In hopes of helping you to grasp what is being said, the issue is to separate concrete objects from non-concrete objects, in other words, to separate objects and concepts.

Breath can be used in common language as a noun - but breath is not a thing. Breath is a description of an event. We draw in air molecules into our lungs and this consumated action we call taking "a breath". But there is no real thing called "breath" that you can tie a leash to and take for a walk. Breath is a description of a consumated event.

The same thing with voice. It is the action of air molecules vibrating the vocal chords. We call this action voice, but voice is not a thing. Voice is a shortcut used to describe the process that occurs.

The difference being discussed is the separation between real concrete substances (objects) and those ideas that describe an event or idea (concepts).

The best way to think about this is that if you can demonstrate what you mean by simply pointing a finger at it and grunting it is an object; if you have to explain what the word means it is a concept.

Objects are necessarily real - they exist - they exist regardless of whether we see them or not, whether we define the word for them or not.

On the other hand, concepts cannot exist in the same fashion as objects, so it is silly to use the same word "exists" for both.

Thus, the separation. The purpose is to provide specific language so there is no confusion. Physical objects are real and thus exist. Concepts are descriptions of imagined things and events and thus cannot be said to exist - at least not in the same manner that a rock exists - so the word exist should not be used for both rock and the mass of a rock.

If this explanation doesn't help, I can only appeal to the authority of your pastor, as reason and clear speech will be out of your realm of understanding.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(You can not touch your voice, but it is very real and it is unique and identifiable to you. The breath you inhale and exhale is very real and is not just some concept.)

Braudboy,

I took the time to give you the benefit of the doubt and carefully explain how these terms differ and why there is a specific difference in meaning when using a word like exist, breath, or voice.

You did not listen. You simply keep repeating the same inane unwarranted claims.

I am sorry to say that your comment above indicates that this discussion is either above your intellectual ability to comprehend or you simply refuse to acknowledge anything other than your own biased method of viewing the world. Either way, there is no purpose in anyone trying to discuss these issues further with you.

You do not understand the groundrules, thus you have no business trying to play the game.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@braudboy,

Listen to Winston.....


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

A rock has better analytical skills.....sheesh.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Yes braudboy, you were already warned that your trolling comments will be erased....especially since you refused to define your crucial terms: exist, object, voice.

Maybe your wife and your pastor like to play your games....but I am neither your wife, nor your pastor.


ymca 5 years ago

You say that God is inseperable from matter, but why would you think that that was an argument against the existence of God? There are Christians who challenge the big bang as ardently as anything else and I'll tell you why.

The first premise is that life is endowed with the characteristics of God. This characteristic is consciousness and is a universal attribute. There are also planes of life. Roughly, there is/are:

-the universe

-microbes

-fish

-mankind

This is just roughly speaking bt as you go from the universe upwards to mankind past mankind, you get progressively higher in consciousness. This is fundamental to understand and has some interesting implications. You see, in philosophy, there is an eternal aspect of man called the soul. Though it was created, it has no beginning and no end, it is eternal. What creation signifies is self awareness being endowed to an eternal portion of God where it becomes individualized with an ego. It then moves across God, in and through God like a renegade cell in your body that just realized, "hey, I am". It's important that you understand this as it will help for continuation.

However, mankind is not the only plane in possession of an eternal portion. The fishes are too, and yes, the universe. It can be said that the universe is eternal, no beginning and no end, but there was a separation, a self awareness of sorts. The eternal portion of matter however, is not in this state. According to ancient philosophy, Prakriti or "unmanifest matter" (you can google "prakriti primordial matter") is eternalThey do not hold that the present state of the universe was always present even if thry hold that the universe is eternal. It is said to have "evolved" from substances subtler to which they designate the terms "fire, water, air, earth (present state *be careful when you see the word "earth". It is expansive). The universe is not apart from God but is a portion of God.

To summarize,

1) Creation is a molding into being (self awareness in this case). This is the conundrum: *YOU* were created, you have a definite time when you came into existence, when you became self aware as a separate portion of your mother. But you are also made from energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. So you are both eternal and finite. But how can that be? This leads us to number two.

2) Though self aware, its substance has no beginning and no end. We may never find a time when matter was created or destroyed because it may be seen as eternal. But it is also finite. Hopefully you are with me so far. Your title says that Creation is impossible. Through my previous points, I contend that this is not entirely true, though not entirely false.

3) You must view God, not as a man in the corner of eternity taking stuff from somewhere else, but as the somewhere else. It is everything and everywhere. It is the substance from which all thins are made. Picture it this way: I have a block of wood and I scratch a house into it with a knife. I give that house self awareness and call it matter. That house paints itself in numerous shades. (where did the paint come from? Let's say that the wood is the basic substance from which paint is made. Through combining different 'elements' you get different 'reactions') It comes in yellow, then green over yellow, then red over green and yellow etc. This simulates matter as encrusted in 'a heavy coat of paint'. This we call the "physicist's matter". But when that paint starts to scratch off, eventually you get back to "the house" or prakriti or eternal matter.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@ymca,

If you came here to be brauboy's parroting puppet then you will be banned too.

The drivel you just posted is completely IRRELEVANT unless you can answer this one question which makes or breaks everything that you say:

Q: What does this word "God" even mean? What does this word RESOLVE to... an object or a concept?

Do you even know?

Cause if you don't know what the letters which you put together to form the word "God" even mean....then you haven't got the slightest clue of what you are talking about and you are trolling...got it???

So do not post anything else cause it will NOT be read and will be DELETED instantly. In your next post you only need to answer the question posed to you!

Can you handle the heat, or are you just parroting the Religious Party Line without understanding anything?


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

Have you noticed how stalkers are never satisfied with hiding in the bushes and staring in through the window but must leave some marker to make sure the target knows they were being watched - it must be like some kind of twisted, sick, psychological Viagra.

But don't worry, there is probably one room in an Arizona condo that is dedicated as a shrine to the evil, where the walls are covered in still pictures from Jaws and copies of Fatfist's hubs, the room smells of incense, and a thousand candles flicker their light over empty tuna cans and the remnants of dozens of Hamm beer bottles scattered across the floor.

And a cross - there is always a cross in rooms like that...


Xavier 5 years ago

Please help me out with all this dark energy lunacy! >> board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/30543.aspx


Robotix 5 years ago

Ha! I checked out that site — the madness! One guy tried to rebut a creationist cosmological argument only to replace it with an even worse creationist argument called "Big Bang".

board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/31097.aspx

Fatfist pleeeeease go there and show 'em how it's done! I'll make a donation & join up and support you... :)


sean 5 years ago

this is pure stipulation.. let me guess... you think we came from monkeys too? ha


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

sean,

"this is pure stipulation"

Please clarify exactly what the stipulation is.

Is it that a verb, like "create" can be mediated without an object acting as a mediator?? Please explain how with the luxury of detail.

"you think we came from monkeys too?"

It is irrelevant what anyone "thinks". The only thing that is relevant is what someone can EXPLAIN. Otherwise they are blowing smoke out of their ass...got it?

It is brainwashed apes such as yourself who bow down to authority because your whole life is predicated upon what some high priest tells you to BELIEVE. Then you blindly bring your children over to them for some supposed Sunday Bible study, so the devious priest can molest your children's orifices.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

The Return of the Fatfist finally. My prayers have been answer this proves that God exist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

You ain't seen nothing yet, Prometheus. Just stick around and see how fattie embarrasses all the religious evolved apes in front of their God, as he catches them with their pants down and exposes their pasty white cheeks to their Lord.

They can't answer ANY question posed to them. They make extremely poor Christians who can't even spread the word of their faith. There is a Hell created for those who fail their Lord's mission....Satan is making preparations for them as we speak.


Robotix 5 years ago

Did you check out the link I posted before, Fattiepants?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Robotix,

Sorry, but I don't have much time for extra-curricular activities these days. You know, busy with work, and of course the summer is here and I am enjoying it. But I am sure that you are very well-equipped to tear those contemporary religionists to pieces. Don't hesitate to engage a discussion with them....the voice of reason always prevails in the end.


Robotix 5 years ago

Thank you for the encouragment. I do feel nervous/hesitant to engage, especially on a philosophy board where most are empiricists or worshippers of the Authorities of Science. I'll see how it goes!

Have a splendid summer. Thank you so much again for your superb articles. I can't express enough how they've helped me relearn how to think and communicate clearly.

If you or Bill or other rational folks are ever in W.Europe for conferences or holidays, give me a shout. Or even if you do occassional Skype calls about science/epistemology/philosophy/physics — I want in!

:)


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

You might actually find him if you give me a chance.

braudboy

His Name is DNA and you dont have to find it your made of it.

I guess God really is with everyone.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Robotix,

Philosophy is the study of concepts. Science is the study of objects which exist. You should have no trouble cleaning the clock of any philosopher on this planet, no matter what their credentials are. They won't know what hit them....but they will run....oh boy, will they ever!

I don't do conferences on these subjects...this is just a hobby and reality check for me. But Bill does do presentations in Europe several times a year. I will be in the Mediterranean at the end of the month for holidays. Can't wait!


 5 years ago

Prometheus- God is with everyone....everyone who accepts him that is. He does give us an option to bow out like fatfist and others did. It is your choice. God is not pushy. But he is real and he is the ultimate authority. You know this as does fatfist in your deepest thoughts (or nightmares).


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

God, in the view of Pythagoras, was ONE, a single substance, whose continuous parts extended throught all the Universe, without separation, difference, or inequality, like the soul in the human body. He denied the doctrine of the spiritualists, who had severed the Divinity from the Universe, making Him exist apart from the Universal, which thus became no more than a material work, on which acted the Abstract Cause, a God, isolated from it. The Ancient Theology did not so separate God from the Universe. This Eusebus attests, In saying that but a small number of wise men, like Moses, had sought for God or the Cause of all, outside of that all; while the Philosophers of Egypt and Phoenicia, real authors of all the old Cosmogonies, had placed the Supreme Cause in the Universe itselt, and in its parts, so that, in their view, the world and all its parts are in God.

Amen

GOD=MATTER=DNA

But the stupid Atheist and Theist claim otherwise.


American View profile image

American View 5 years ago from Plano, Texas

Not all people who do not believe in God claim anything. I do not belive in God and there is nothing wrong with me. My belief comes from life experinces, just as those who have very strong faiths that come from their life experiences. My only problem is Why dont people respect my wish, my view as I respect theirs. I do not say remove under God from the pledge, I do not say take it from the courts. Our founding fathers based their beliefs whil creating this country. So if one is as patriotic as me, you must allow those sayings to exist.


Josh 5 years ago

All you who don't believe there is a God , the creator of heaven and earth just go read the book of exekiel and just pray.. say God i want to see you period ! lemme know how it goes :) cheers


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Josh

“All you who don't believe there is a God”

What does this word “God” allude to? Is God an object or a concept?

Does it make sense to believe in objects or concepts?

If you believe in your arm, will it make it exist? What if you lose your faith in your arm, will it cease to exist?

If you believe in a concept such as motion, will it allow your body to move? What if you lose your faith in motion, will your body cease to move?


Lawrence Falzitto 5 years ago

After reading these and other comments elsewhere, it is no wonder God states in His word, the Bible, that we are to believe and have faith in Him! Since the religionists, mathematicians, and so-called scientists can seem to explain how an Eternal God can exist, let alone,create anything, both physical or abstract in His Universe!

The Bible so states that, " In Him (God) we(all of creation, especially humans) move(travel through the Universe at varying rates of speed) and have our being(exist both physically, and spiritually)!

Can it be that the Universe itself is indeed a part of God Himself?! That our existence and all of creation is indeed like the Scriptures so state, existing inside an Eternal God!! Think about it.

The fellow above asks the simply question, "Does it make sense to believe in objects or concepts?"

Indeed I must believe that this chair indeed exists, so I can sit down to type, and that this computer in front of me is indeed present, or I am waisting my time.

I might as well be fishin with a pole I believe exists to catch imaginary fish that may or may not exist!! Stupid huh?

The 'fool' hath said in his heart, "There is No God." I stand by that statement. I haven't been to every corner of the Universe to see if He exists of not, and to every past or future eon in time, so I can say He doesn't!!! Indeed the Bible, if truly guided by the hand of God, in its writing, proves there is a God, and that He is a personal one who wants to know in a personal way, His creation, Mankind! Read the Gospels for the Life and Times of Jesus!

Does calling on the name of Jesus Save you? Think aboutit . .


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Lawrence,

"After reading these and other comments..."

You may have read, but you haven't comprehended anything! Let's see if I'm right, or if I'm just blowing air out of my ass......

"God can exist"

Aha! I was right!!!!!

I've already asked previous posters similar to you, who parrot the party line, to tell the audience whether the term "God" refers to an object or a concept. And I've also asked them to define the word "exist". Until you do so, let's both agree that you haven't said anything, ok?

"Bible.... proves there is a God"

Proof is nothing except YOUR OPINION. What is PROOF to you is a LIE to everyone else. Maybe your priest proved God to you. He hasn't yet proven God to me.

In reality, we neither prove nor disprove. Proof means that the priest mounted and raped you. He had his way with you and "converted" you to his religion. That's all that "proof" means. What is proof and truth and evidence to one is a lie and blasphemy and obscurity to another....got it?

"Think aboutit . ."

Yes, please do!


mangofett 5 years ago

All scientific evidence points to the universe expanding from a single point.

If you trust in reason, this shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. (The laws of thought: excluded middle: either a or non-a, non-contradiction, and identity: a = a)

1. If nothing is eternal, then all is temporal.

2. If all is temporal, all came into being.

3. If all came into being, all came into being from non-being.

4. Being from non-being is a contradiction.

5. Therefore something must be eternal.

So what is eternal? Is it matter/motion?

1. If the universe was eternal, it would be self maintaining.

2. The universe is not self-maintaining.

3. Therefore the universe is not eternal.

Matter and energy act together over the course of time until a state of sameness is achieved. If matter has been around forever, then the state of sameness would've been achieved already. Therefore, matter is not eternal.

If matter were eternal, the space between the galaxies should be infinite by now since the space inbetween them gets greater every moment.

If you want to go ahead and say the 2nd law of thermodynamics is bullshit, be my guest.

What is eternal brought into existence what is not eternal (matter). What could this be? God?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Mango,

“the universe expanding from a single point.”

Let’s analyze your proposal objectively i.e. Scientifically...

A ‘point’ is a 2D figure, like this ( . )

A point doesn’t exist; it’s the ink and the paper which exist. A ‘point’ is an abstract object i.e. a CONCEPT!

So you were either bluffing all along (and hoping I wouldn’t notice)...or you don’t understand the difference between objects and concepts....which is it?

“1. If nothing is eternal, then all is temporal.”

Yeah.....IF....IF.....a big IF!!!!

The default position is that matter and space are eternal. Creation, BY DEFINITION is a CLAIM of an alleged consummated event. Eternal space and matter is NOT an alleged event, hence NOT a claim by any stretch of the imagination. The onus is on the CLAIMANT to rationally EXPLAIN their argument. Do you even have an explanation for your wild claim??

“2. If all is temporal, all came into being.”

Now, that you understand the issue, the onus is on YOU or on the Priests of YOUR Religion to explain in detail the process by which the ‘void’ acquires L, W and H in ZERO-TIME i.e. in one frame of the universal movie.

Existence is NOT a verb. Existence is STATIC, and NOT dynamic, as you claim. You see my dear mango, if existence was dynamic, as you allege, then it would be impossible to take a picture of you or your car....we would instead need to take a MOVIE (dynamic) in order to see you or your car ‘exist’ by performing the action of ‘existence’....got it? Your finely-contrived logical argument failed. Sorry....it is YOU who just contradicted yourself!

“So what is eternal? Is it matter/motion?”

Matter is eternal and so is space. Motion is perpetual. Matter and space cannot be created. I already asked you above to explain in detail how they could be....but I am willing to bet my life that you will elude this question.....see, you just did.....you cannot even explain your claim!!

“1. If the universe was eternal, it would be self maintaining.”

My friend, have you ever taken a basic course in Science 101? You are extremely confused. You confuse the universe with commercial and residential buildings which need a janitor to maintain them. The universe has no janitors or Gods, so your Pastor was wrong about that too. Next time, just go to a regular Government-sponsored school, instead of Sunday School, ok? Even the kids growing up in the ghettos of Harlem know more Science than you.

“2. The universe is not self-maintaining.”

Finally! You got 1 out of 10 right. The universe is not a building that is in need of maintenance....by “self” or by YOUR God! The Universe just IS.

I mean really....is this the best that you can do?


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 4 years ago

Hello Fatfist.

I must be missing something. Correct me if I misrepresent you, but you say space is nothing, not an object, yes? But then you say space 'wraps' (verb) objects? How does nothing perform a verb?

Thanks.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Spastic,

“space is nothing, not an object, yes?”

Is space a ‘something’? Does space have borders, boundaries, perimeter, color, dimensions, taste, mass, speed, etc? Is space black?

Something: that which has shape (synonym: object, particle, body, entity, structure, architecture, thing, stuff....)

The proponents who assert that space is ‘something’ or that ‘it’ has attributes.....must certainly be able to illustrate this alleged entity for the audience as part of their Hypothesis. They would be HYPOTHESIZING that space is an entity.....as such....the onus is on them to draw the fruits of their imagined entity. A basic drawing on a bar napkin would do. The point here is that the audience wants to determine if the term ‘space’ RESOLVES to ‘something’ (with shape).....that is, whether space falls in the category of objects rather than in the category of concepts.

If the Nobel-decorated scientist with Ph.D’s coming out of his ass cannot answer this simple question.....if all that his infinite mathematical prowess can compel him to say is:

““Well,....we can never know what ‘space’ is. The universe is very complex and mysterious. Humans have limited intuition and understanding. Perhaps one day we will answer this perplexing question.””

.....then this Nobel-decorated idiot is no smarter than a cabbage roll. He has NO clue what the Scientific Method is about. All this Priest has said is:

““Well,....we can never know God. God is very complex and mysterious. Humans have limited intuition and understanding compared to the Almighty. Perhaps one day we will know God....when we go to Heaven!””

The arguments -- that space-time, black holes, 0D particles, warped space, 4-th dimension, time, etc...all exist but unfortunately we cannot imagine them -- is no different than the Emperor’s Clothes story. If the emperor had seen the robe they were making for him, it would not be so extraordinary, now would it? It brings back memories of that pastor I once cornered. Unable to answer the question, he finally quipped that if he knew what the Almighty looked like, God wouldn’t be so great!

They are just making wishy-washy excuses because they don’t have the balls to admit that they don’t understand the difference between an object and a concept, and the difference between Physics and Mathematics.

This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a long time. St. Augustine was famous for using such tactics to win his religious arguments and prove that his God exists.

St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we cannot ever hope to 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)

St. Augustine was honest and confessed his ignorance:

“Alas for me, that I do not at least know the extent of my own ignorance! Behold, O my God, before Thee I lie not.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 25)

Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can win BOTH sides of the argument. He claimed that if you don’t KNOW God by now, then you are an idiot, of course:

“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)

It's traditional religionists and mathematicians who have spread the nonsense that there is 'something' humans can't understand. Bring the smartest ETs in the Universe or God Almighty Himself. Whatever either explains to us, we WILL understand! Humans have the highest level of intelligence available in the Universe. Mother Nature has run out of wishes to concede. We can understand ANYTHING that is explained to us in a rational manner. It is idiocy, irrational stuff what we can't understand. Fortunately, Mother Nature's Universe functions rationally. It is the great majority of humans who are irrational.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Spastic,

“But then you say space 'wraps' (verb) objects? How does nothing perform a verb?”

This ordinary speech is often used by me to get people to understand that objects are stand-alone....and do not blend with the background. Hence the background must be ‘nothing’. When you tell people that space is ‘nothing’, they are confused as hell.

This is an issue of natural language and CONTEXT. Try to follow the argument below....

Indeed, ‘wraps’ is a VERB. Nothing (space, matterless, concepts, non-object) cannot perform events/actions/verbs. This makes sense and nobody can argue otherwise!!

But....since “space” is a NEGATIVE term (that which lacks shape), and we must use it in a sentence in order to talk about it.....the sentence will never be textbook-grammatically correct. This is what most people don’t understand. People confuse Ordinary Speech (syntactical grammar) with Scientific Language, where all nouns are actors (objects) performing actions.

Ex. “I have nothing in my pocket”

Q: Does that mean I have ‘something’??......No!

Q: How can “nothing” be in my pocket?......’It’ cant!

Anybody who pursues such childish arguments (like emrldphx did in the past) is just trolling with strawmans because their Religion has no leg to stand on....and they know it!!

Anybody who studied grammar should know very well that a negative term causes textbook-grammar problems in every single sentence. This stand-alone negative term (space/nothing) must be used with verbs, nouns, and other constructs to build a sentence for the purposes of natural communication. But, we must explain the MEANING of this negative term.....and once we do....we can plug it into a sentence and understand full well the CONTEXT of the sentence based on the DEFINITION of this term. Hence we can understand full well its implications and usage.

Definitions precede all usage of terms. And this is the ONLY stand-alone term (there are prefixes too, like ‘a-‘, ‘im-‘, etc. but they are context-opposites of root words) that causes grammatical problems, but yet it still IS a component of all languages.

Space (i.e., nothingness) is just another concept invented by Man. Nature does not “recognize” (euphemism) space...objects do NOT collide with space. Space does NOT literally ‘wrap’ objects. Nature only recognizes objects.

Nature deals with what is there (object with location) and not with what ain't there (space has no location).

Since space is a “place” (conceptual separation of objects), as opposed to an object, then an object cannot “displace” or “occupy” space, like a fish displaces water. Consequently, space cannot physically or literally ‘wrap’ an object or perform any verbs.....regardless of the nonsense claimed by Quantum Mathematicians with their quantum fluctuations.

And this is why it is IMPOSSIBLE for space to be created ....by Big Bang or by God. If God exists, He is imprisoned in space...He cannot escape space, like He can escape a prison cell, which has borders. Space has no borders. Space cannot disappear or appear. Space was always “there” (again, remember context).

The only reason this NEGATIVE term “space” can be treated differently than other terms is because we have to designate the “nothingness” that envelopes (ordinary speech) an object, that gives it contrast (ie. spatial separation). It's artificial. It can be used that way as long as we don't lose track of the CONTEXT OF ITS MEANING, and that it is NOT meant in the LITERAL sense.


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 4 years ago

Ok, great, thanks for your reply, Fatfist.

So in physics the words 'space' and 'nothing' are still nouns - but negative nouns? Does that mean that words such as 'odourless' and 'colourless' could be called negative adjectives?

Regards.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Spastic,

“So in physics the words 'space' and 'nothing' are still nouns”

No. They are only nouns for the purposes of linguistic grammar (ordinary speech) because we have no choice but to use them as SUBJECTS in a sentence for the purposes of communication. But they are obviously NOT subjects/actors of reality; i.e. scientific use.

Here is some history on this issue....

The word noun comes from the Latin meaning name. The English language (and other European languages) opted to call a noun anything you could name or reference, which includes just about every word in the dictionary. This usage of nouns resulted in the reification problems we have inherited today.

The Spanish use the word sustantivo, which comes from the Latin meaning substantive. Initially, a substantive was meant to be more restrictive than the noun and designate only those things that are corporeal. Later this word evolved so that today it plays exactly the same role as the word noun of English: it encompasses any word that may serve as the subject of a sentence. However, the original name-substance dichotomy continued and today is at the root of disagreements in objecthood debates because people are ignorant of its historical roots and reification problems.

Language and all its words are concepts. The words of any language are considered to be the ‘articles’ of the language, and are usually called ‘terms’. Since terms can be used as a subject of a sentence, they are irrationally treated as nouns in ordinary speech. This is called ‘reification’. Physics will have none of that. The only nouns of physics are objects; i.e. the nouns of REALITY!

The problem in science today and more specifically in Mathematical Physics is that theorists self-servingly mistake object for noun, thing with term. The mathematicians and philosophers take as a matter of fact that an object is anything that we can think of, talk about, or serve as the subject of a sentence. They don’t understand the difference between Ordinary Speech (linguistic grammar) and Scientific Language (the grammar of reality).

Take for instance the words motion and incessant. In ordinary language the word motion is a noun and its modifier incessant, an adjective (e.g., 'The incessant motion of the Earth'). However, in Science, words such as incessant, constant, rectilinear, and perpetual may only be used in the context of an activity. They may never be used to qualify a physical object. It makes no sense in Science to say ‘incessant cube’ if we are alluding to architecture. For the purposes of Science, the word motion is a verb and its qualifier incessant is an adverb. In Science, the fundamental categories of ordinary grammar -- noun, verb, adjective, and adverb -- are either more restrictive or altogether different.

“but negative nouns?”

No such thing....not in science.

“Does that mean that words such as 'odourless' and 'colourless' could be called negative adjectives?”

This is negative predication. They only rational use of negative predication is for the word ‘space’ and all of its derivatives/synonyms.

To say that God is incorporeal is a big SIN.....a huge no-no! Such reference to God (or to any object) amounts to none other than ignorance or deception. You are trying to get away with murder whenever you use negative predication to describe objects in physics.


El Dude 4 years ago

Fatfist, if you wrote a book on language, logic, philosophy or science, I would pay Big Bucks for it! Seriously, what a fantastic lesson in the history and development (and wily manipulation) of language. In fact, language is really the foundation of philosophy and science. So a book about language would be amazing. Hell, you could sell it on Apple's new iBook Store! :D


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Matter is eternal."

Can you help me flesh this out a little. How is eternal different than infinite? Maybe, I've been too brainwashed by the definitions I have learned which use words like forever, for all time and having infinite duration.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"What has happened is that due to mindless casual ordinary speech, we have converted (reified) the adjective 'infinite' into the noun 'infinity', irrationally alluding to ‘something’ that can exist i.e. an ‘object’. "

I should have seen that. You did say that the problem is confusing objects and concepts.

I learned this for the words EXIST and PROOF well enough to destroy all the arguments in that thread I mentioned B4, and even stopped cutting and pasting your stuff!

Some one (lurking) finally gave me Positive Karma points, so I might be making some headway at least with the less vocal(more timid) folk.

Thanx!


Brandon 4 years ago

Why do you presupose that matter is required for motion. You are presuposing that everything is matter at that point.


Brandon 4 years ago

The law of entropy does not allow for eternal matter. The level of usable energy in the universe is in a continual decline. Eternity would require an infinite amount of passing before we reach our current point. This means that at any given time, we are past the point of nullification of all usable energy. This would remove the possibility of eternal matter because matter requires entergy go exist, eg. the electron cannot circle the nucleus without energy. You may find other eternal things, but matter and energy are not among them unless our scientific laws are wrong. Prove them wrong first. Then take on the more complex.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Brandon,

"Why do you presupose that matter is required for motion."

Presuppose? What do you mean by that?

Motion BY DEFINITION is predicated on matter. There is no presupposition or claim or assertion or belief or wisdom or observation involved here.

motion: two or more locations for an object.

object: that which has shape

All matter has shape. Matter is necessarily an object. In order for “something” to move, it MUST have shape. The void or nothing cannot move. There is either matter (shape) or space (no-shape). There is no other option.

Perhaps it is you who is "presupposing" that motion does not require an object. And this is contradictory to boot....unless of course, you can explain your claim. But I am willing to listen to your argument. Got any??

"everything is matter"

Not quite.

object: that which has shape. Synonym: thing, everything.

A square is a thing (object) because it has shape. A square is not matter. A square does not exist. What is made up of matter exists. There is the distinction.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Brandon,

“The law of entropy does not allow for eternal matter.”

That’s an old debunked argument. You need to get with the times. Here, educate yourself on entropy:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Entropy-an...

“Eternity would require an infinite amount of passing before we reach our current point.”

That’s an old debunked argument. You need to get with the times. Here, educate yourself on “eternity”:

http://hubpages.com/education/INFINITE-REGRESS-Arg...

“Prove them wrong first.”

They are neither wrong nor right. They are CONTRADICTORY by the definition of “entropy” and “eternal”. Do some more reading.


Kamina 4 years ago

I enjoyed your hub very much. Well thought out and well reasoned.

The only issue i had with it was the venom and barbs aimed directly at about anyone. It makes me wonder what the purpose of this hub was.

Your hub would not have annoyed me if it was just stating your case but it was too combative.

I would like to posit a question to you as well. If i could find one thing to contradict your argument would i invalidate your entire argument?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Kamina,

“The only issue i had with it was the venom and barbs aimed directly at about anyone.”

Huh? Can you please copy & paste an example of this? I’d like to address this obviously bothersome issue you have and remedy it asap.

“Your hub would not have annoyed me if...”

I’m sorry my hub annoyed you. In the future, so I won’t annoy anybody else....I would like all the people who use the Internet on Planet Earth to create a Global Internet Annoyance Registry and list all of their annoyances in that database.

Before I write anymore hubs, I promise to:

1) Spend 57 years perusing that database, memorizing and taking to heart all of the annoyances our primate species have, even if they are irrelevant to the content of my hubs.

2) Ensure that my hubs do not contain any words or sentences that are listed in the Global Internet Annoyance Registry.

3) Hire a Peer-Review Team to proofread and certify that my hubs fully comply with the Global Internet Annoyance Registry.

I am a man of my word. I will fully uphold MY end of the Annoyance bargain to the fullest extent possible. Now, if the rest of the primates on this planet don’t care to register their annoyances on that Global Registry so we can all “walk on eggshells” and not “annoy” them.....then they have absolutely NO reason to complain....right? I mean.....let’s be fair about this....

“if it was just stating your case but it was too combative.”

Case?

Well, here is the case:

1) Space is nothing; a void. It is impossible to create nothing.

2) Matter is impossible to create because objects cannot pop out of the void. You cannot get shape from no-shape.

3) Matter is in perpetual motion because there is no start to motion. You need an object in motion to start an object in motion. Hence a “start” to motion is ontologically impossible.

How could you have missed these 3 cases after reading the hub? I hope you didn’t begin to read this hub in a BIASED way, and with the pre-conceived notion of just being ANNOYED by its content which doesn't conform to you BELIEFS. Because that would EXPLAIN why you missed 100% of its content.

And who/whom was I “combating”? Showing the contradictions of others is not combative....now is it?

“If i could find one thing to contradict your argument would i invalidate your entire argument?”

YES it would!!!!

So please, do me a HUGE favor and contradict this hub so I can remove it and throw it in the trash. I am sick and tired of dealing with the very ignorant and slow-witted bunch of the human primate species that come here to CONTRADICT themselves.

Please and thank you.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Fatfist: "I would like all the people who use the Internet on Planet Earth to create a Global Internet Annoyance Registry and list all of their annoyances in that database."

Here ya' go!

http://monkeyminds.hubpages.com/hub/Global-Interne...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

monkeyminds,

Thanks for the registry.

But Kamina has something else on her mind. She is disgruntled because this hub destroyed her Religion. She covertly uses her bellyaching as an EXCUSE or COVER to distract the audience away from the fact that her Religion has no leg to stand on.

But I will give her the benefit of the doubt. Let's see if she really has a contradiction to post on this hub....


The Duke 4 years ago

Interesting article. Quick query though: I have sympathy about the empiricists because it seems that, in one sense, they're right about logic. For example, they'd say a thing cannot exist if it contradicts itself (like god and his impossibly heavy rock), but they place logic as primary along with empiricism/validation.

.

So I had a thought: visualize a circle. OK, now a square. Can you visualize a circle that is also a square at the same time? No: I cannot visualize the odd shape; only a square morphine into a circle.

.

So is visualization primary? Or is it because of logic (the words circle/square and the images they then invoke later)? Which is first? Is there reason before logic? Is a contradiction to do with how we visualize, and is visualization some kind of direct connection to reality (perhaps becaue we are too made of atoms and shapes etc)? Or, does language shape the way we visualize (doesn't seem like it), and thus logic is primary?

.

Thanks.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

In FF's absence I would like to answer. Any resemblance to what Fatfist would say is purely accidental. Logic and reason are separate tools in the toolbox. Sometimes one needs a hammer for the job other times only the screw driver will do!

If your hypothesis involves an irrational object like a square circle, we throw it out and start over. There is no right or wrong or logic in the hypothesis, because we accept the assumptions that are given. However, objects are not defined in the hypothesis, they are pointed to, photographed, or illustrated. If you can visualize a square circle than draw it and it is fine for purposes of the hypothesis.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Duke,

“So is visualization primary?”

No, it has to do with us petty humans. The proper question to ask in this context is: What is physics (physical world, reality, etc) all about?

The answer to that question will tell you what is “primary”.

Reality (i.e. what is real) is NOT something we “agree” on.....or go to the ballot box to vote on. Reality is not politics. Reality just is. And reality already was before God placed Adam and Eve with their opinions on this planet.

Physics is the study of reality....that study of what is REAL.....and NOT the study of what is fake, artificial, metaphorical, figurative, spiritual, opinionated, decreed, or voted on by an authority, like they do in Religion & Mathematics. Reality is literally the “real deal”. Hence Physics is LITERAL and doesn’t use metaphors or figures of speech.

Reality is a synonym for existence. What exists is real, and what is real, exists. Reality (existence) circumscribes only OBJECTIVE presence, and NOT spiritual, meta-physical, supernatural or magical presence.

‘Real’ is an adjective which refers to that which has objective presence – independent of the opinion of any human or sentient observer. The Moon was real (i.e. existed, had objective presence) before life forms evolved on Earth to give their opinions on the issue.

Since Physics is the study of what is REAL, the subject matter of Physics must, absolutely must be a NOUN of REALITY. A “real noun” is what is PHYSICALLY PRESENT. Whether the human sensory system can sense it or SEE it is irrelevant.

Physics comes from the word PHYSICAL. Only objects can be said to be physical. Physics studies ‘that’ which is REAL....’that’ which has OBJECTIVE presence....ie. object!

Object: that which has shape

This is what the subject matter of physics is all about: objects.

Shape is not only objective and precedes visualization and touch, but it is the ONLY intrinsic property that all objects have.

Visualization has to do with HOW we humans conceptualize and explain natural phenomena. Visualization is actually the LANGUAGE of physics. Scientific theories can only be explained with visualization.....never with math or other gibberish.

So the language of Physics is NOT math. The language of Physics is VISUALIZATION. We have to make nature’s invisible mediators visible in order to understand how she does her magic (light, gravity, atoms, electricity, magnetism, etc). The jury should be able to understand the explanation just by watching the presenter's movie.....i.e. visualizing objects in motion.

“is visualization some kind of direct connection to reality (perhaps becaue we are too made of atoms and shapes etc)?”

You got it. What is real is what exists. Only objects can possibly exist.

“Or, does language shape the way we visualize (doesn't seem like it), and thus logic is primary?”

No, the cat sees the mouse (object) before she can speak about and ask if it’s ok to eat it. Every sentient entity can visualize objects, even if it evolves without eyes. A blind man’s brain can visualize objects by other sensory stimuli input to the brain. Remember, the eyes do not see. They just relay sensory stimuli signals to the brains. It is the brain which actually sees i.e. takes the signals and draws the images.


The Duke 4 years ago

Very interesting, thanks for the feedback.

Query: "Shape is not only objective and precedes visualization and touch, but it is the ONLY intrinsic property that all objects have."

So, is location not an intrinsic property then? It seems odd to think that. I mean, surely if a thing has shape, before humans were around, it had a location as well, relative to other shapes?


The Duke 4 years ago

I also like what you say about visualization being the language of physics and how you explained the sense of seeing versus internal visualization,


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Duke,

“is location not an intrinsic property then?”

It is an extrinsic property as it does not belong to the object itself. Same with mass. An object A needs another agreed-upon standardized reference object (namely, the kg located under lock & key in France) to compare it to in order to determine how many units of that object are in object A.

Even color is not an intrinsic property of objects, as most everyone thinks it is. Shape is the only intrinsic property that any object can possibly have.

“if a thing has shape, before humans were around, it had a location as well”

Yes, relative to other objects. The object obviously had presence. This is what we mean by PRESENCE.....the set of static distance to all other objects. Without other objects around, the lonely object has no presence. Who is it “present” to? In such a hypothetical scenario, the object only has “itself” i.e. only has shape.

“visualization being the language of physics”

Yes, and this is the dilemma which humans face....i.e. how to explain why a natural phenomenon occurs. Natural phenomena don’t occur because some mathematical formula decrees it to be the case. Math deals exclusively in dynamic concepts, not objects. So math cannot possibly be the language of physics.

A phenomenon is an ACTION....a verb of nature.

Well then.....what is IT that performed this action? This “IT” is a noun of reality. Only nouns (things) can perform actions. Nothing cannot perform actions....perhaps in religion/math/fairyland they can....but not in reality.

IT = THING = OBJECT.

So the language of physics deals with objects which we can visualize, even if they are invisible. Even if God is invisible, we can still visualize a cranky old man with a beard who is angry all the time and kills everyone who is not Jewish. Just like Michael Angelo illustrated God, we should be able to illustrate the atom and how it performs the phenomena of light, gravity, magnetism, etc.

Just as God is a hypothesis, so is the atom. Both are invisible and impossible to see. But both can be illustrated.....not with math equations.....but with simple pictures.


The Duke 4 years ago

Thank you once again.

So, location (syn: presence?) is extrinsic (unlike shape, which is intrinsic), but not required by human observation. So it's what follows axiomatically, then, from architecture (shape)?

Because, I'm thinking, shape an object can have on its own. Add a second object, and by definition they have presence. Am I right? This is tricky, but fun!

Then, when humans come along, we add things like mass and colour and whatnot. But we CAN (are able to) add such things (properties) as colour, size, etc precisely BECAUSE there's shape, and location (e.g. we [humans] relative to it [forest]).

Just to help me clarify further:

1) Shape [1+ object]

2) Location [2+ objects]

3) All else

Am I on track?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Duke,

“So, location (syn: presence?) is extrinsic (unlike shape, which is intrinsic), but not required by human observation.”

Of course. To say that “something” exists, is to say that it has “physical presence”.

The word physical necessarily invokes an object. Physical means that it has shape....that it is differentiated from nothing, which lacks shape. There is either something (shape) or nothing (no shape). There is no other option possible, right?

What does it mean for something to have presence? How can it be present....either here or there? Well, it must have some type of location. But location is relative to all other existing objects. Location means that there is a set of static distances from the test object, to all other objects in the universe.

Neither of these concepts of “physical” or “presence” require human observation. They just require a human to rationally define them so they can make sense within reality.....and to make sense when analysing & explaining reality in a discipline such as Physics.

“shape an object can have on its own. Add a second object, and by definition they have presence. “

Yes, a lonely object in the universe just has shape. It cannot lose its shape and blend into the nothingness of space. It has absolutely no other property....no color, mass, weight, motion, speed, etc. Hence, shape is the ONLY intrinsic property that any object can have. I know it’s hard to wrap your head around this because we have been brainwashed in school to think that all things have properties. They do, but these are all extrinsic properties....except for shape, which is the inability for an object to blend into nothing.

Try this scenario: Think of a ball as the only object in the universe. What other property can it have? Think as hard as you want. You will never come up with anything.


genelanzl 4 years ago

Is it really accurate to say that "nothingness" exists in a form other than "conceptual"? And without some mind capable of conceptualizing, would nothingness have any form of existence?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Is it really accurate to say that "nothingness" exists"

No, where did you get that? Please re-read FF's last post.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

genelanzl,

"would nothingness have any form of existence?"

This is an extremely easy question to answer. You can easily answer it yourself with your eyes closed. All you have to do is explain to the audience what the word "exist" means. No synonyms, like "to be or not to be, real, being, etc. You need to understand for yourself what this formidable and most-abused word in language, actually means.

Then just follow the definition (i.e. plug in the word "nothing" into your definition recipe) and it will instantly tell you if "nothing" exists.

We don't need to consult the expert & professional services of a High Priest or any alleged authority to decree and force down our throats a contradictory defn for exist.....now do we?

See.....that wasn't difficult at all.


genelanzl 4 years ago

You misunderstand my ?. I didn't use the word 'form' as you understand it. I meant is there any way to talk about "nothingness"? Does "nothing" have a "form", not a physical form, which of course is nonsense. But what about a conceptual form. Why do you limit the idea of form to physical? If you can talk intelligently about nothing then nothing has some form because you distinguish nothing from something and we understand the limits or bounds of each. Now am I making my question more clear? thanks for your response. Gene


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Genelanzl,

“Does "nothing" have a "form", not a physical form, which of course is nonsense. But what about a conceptual form. “

Shape/form are synonymous adjectives which can only possibly describe objects. And we are not talking about WHAT is the shape of an object....is it circular, triangular?

No, the issue is more fundamental and is rooted to reality. Shape is fundamental to an object’s inability to blend with the background of nothingness.

So to answer your question, let us first “assume” that the background (i.e. nothingness) of a hypothetical object A can possibly have shape/form.

a) If that is the case, then obviously object A cannot possibly be a standalone object in reality since it has no border/boundary.

b) Furthermore, if nothingness has shape/form, then it must necessarily have a border/boundary. So then, WHAT is outside of this alleged border with nothingness? Is it more nothingness? If so, then nothingness does NOT have shape/form.

Moral of the story: Whenever you attribute shape/form to nothingness, you necessarily inject a contradiction into your Hypothesis (i.e. nothing has form). A contradiction will always tell you what is impossible......actually....it is the only way to tell what is impossible.

“Why do you limit the idea of form to physical?”

Nobody is imposing such a limit. Humans cannot possibly impose limits on reality. The BEST that any human can do is to rationally describe reality WITHOUT contradiction, right?

Shape/Form is an ADJECTIVE. And all the adjectives of reality are necessarily predicated upon objects. Adjectives describe objects. Adverbs describe concepts. There is only one use of the word “shape/form” in reality. And this use must be unambiguous and consistent. And if it isn’t, then it doesn’t describe reality...only fantasy (and that’s when you inject contradictions into your reasoning). Understand?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Genelanzl,

“If you can talk intelligently about nothing then nothing has some form because you distinguish nothing from something and we understand the limits or bounds of each.”

No. Your reasoning commits a fatal error.

You are attempting to do a Physics presentation using “slang” language from Poetry and Religion. These euphemisms, metaphors and figures of speech have nothing to do with reality and must be dealt with LITERALY in a non-contradictory manner. Remember: Reality is LITERAL.

Case in point: You’ve taken the GRAMMATICAL NOUNS “nothing” and “love”, and REIFIED them into alleged NOUNS OF REALITY. You’ve reified both “nothing” and “love” into objects (which necessarily must have a border/boundary) by simply writing these 2 sentences:

1. I have “nothing” in my hand.

2. She gave me “love”.

.....and without any further reasoning/analysis, you come to a HASTY sweeping conclusion that both “nothing” and “love” are actually SOMETHING (i.e. objects).

How can you have “nothing” in your hand? How can somebody give you “love”? What do you actually have? What did she actually give you? Can you even begin to conceptualize it or illustrate these alleged nouns? Such language is slang and has no bearing on reality.

“Nothing” and “love” do not have shape/form. For if they did, they would necessarily have a border. Hence they are NOT nouns of reality. They do not exist.

Do you see the error in your reasoning?

We have already concluded why it is impossible for “nothing” to have shape/form because this assumption has a built-in ontological contradiction (explained above).

Here is a TIP for you, and you need to understand this so you can understand the difference between NOUNS OF GRAMMAR and NOUNS OF REALITY: most of the nouns of grammar are NOT nouns of reality.....they are not out there floating in space and colliding with stars. They are only (reified) nouns for the purposes of syntactical correctness in grammar, as outlined by its axiomatic rules of syntax. In contextual analysis & reasoning, all those nouns get resolved to concepts i.e. they are REIFIED! Fallacy of Reification!

Please understand the difference between SYNTACTICAL and CONTEXTUAL grammar. Otherwise you will be making these fatal errors in reasoning for the rest of your life.

In reality, it is impossible to convert/reify grammatical nouns like “beauty” and “justice”, into alleged nouns of reality (objects). Even God’s magic wand cannot perform such a feat. There are only objects floating out there and colliding with planets....not spirits or other concepts.


genelanzl 4 years ago

It seems that you are limiting the 'language of truth' to the physical only. If that is true, I think most human thoughts aren't about reality but only what is a figment of their weak minds. Do you know what 'spiting into the wind' means? I believe that the world will never stop believing those things you define as stupid and wrong. I still think it is proper to speak of 'sentence structure', 'language form', and any other "thing" (that which is not nothingness)as real. Anything, physical or not, must have definition of some sort. The physical has physical definition and concepts/ideas have conceptual definitions. How else could one tell one nonphysical idea/concept from another? Is it alright to 'see with the mins eye'? p.s. When I am talking to the public at large, I try to understand what they mean even when their choice of words are not properly chosen. What I want is understanding, I'm not trying to correct everyone's English or Texas lingo. But that's me, this is American, so I know better than to correct you. Thanks again for your words. Gene Lanzl


genelanzl 4 years ago

Seeing with the minds eye is what we do when we understand this or that idea/concept. This process of the mind is not subject wholly to physical science. Science can study the physical body but the "idea" of nothingness as to how it is opposed to things, is beyond physical science to study, it seems to me. As to the idea that nouns can have two different classifications, one real the other pretend, is hard for me to understand why that would be so. I have no trouble understanding the thing 'justice' is of a very different nature of thing than is a rock, but why would I want to deny either one their 'thingness'? (made up word, people do it all the time)I started to say something unkind, but why, we could become friends. Think about this, the idea of silence as it relates to sound and silence of a different sort that relates to thoughts. This conversation has been interesting and helpful for me, thanks. Gene Lanzl


Allen 4 years ago

"So neither science nor anybody else in the universe can study nothing. I mean.....there is nothing to study."

This doesn't mean, of course, that the tax-funded parasites within the university system have a problem obfuscating this very fact. That's why I'm so hard on Friar Krauss and his followers. While making fun of Religionists, he and his colleagues have no qualms using the confiscated wealth of others (taxes, including those of the religious), in order to fund their Sermon on the Wave (or whatever other dynamic concept). Hey, at least Jesus is purported to have preached on a "mount(ain)" rather than on a "wave," "energy," "charge," "force," or "expansion," right?

This so-called crowd of "skeptics" seemingly never heeded, or at least tried to refute, the ancient memo from Sextus Empiricus: our verbiage is either of things or concepts. Instead, these hypocrites make themselves open targets of ridicule in being so (self-)deceived and gullible to obfuscation all the while condescending and smug toward those who simply believe a different expression of Religion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Allen,

"This doesn't mean, of course, that the tax-funded parasites within the university system have a problem obfuscating this very fact."

Yeah, these clowns call themselves "atheists" but they cannot explain to you WHY it is possible or impossible for a God to exist. Their response is either:

1) “I have a LACK of BELIEF in God. I don’t even consider the issue. I have no argument to bring to the table, so just don’t talk about God around me!”

or

2) “There MAY be a God, but the probability (i.e. Math Bullsh*t) that He exists is so small, that you shouldn’t spend your life worrying about Him”.....ala Richard Dawkins.

What morons! These clowns cannot settle the God issue, so they invent their own religion which reifies concepts (i.e. nothing) into objects and claim that they have the keys to unlocking the “truth” of the universe. And the uneducated masses have no problem funding the search for black holes., the big bang, dark matter and Quantum’s BS particles. When you keep the masses dumbed down, they will not object to any form of taxation.


genelanzl 4 years ago

I will try to make my belief clear. There are only two sides to this 'coin'. I understand that there are only two 'realms'. (1) The realm of something and (2) the realm of nothing. If one looks with either the eyes of the mind or the eyes of the head, into the realm of 'nothing' nothing can be seen (it's empty) but when one looks into the realm of 'something' every single thing of what ever sort/nature it is, can be seen. This includes all nouns in any language. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. It is impossible to believe that there is a type or class of noun that is nothing. Let me say some 'thing' about the single ball that exists totally alone, how could it be called a 'ball' without some mind also existing? How could this singular object have any shape, since shape is a concept? Gene Lanzl


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"It is impossible to believe that there is a type or class of noun that is nothing."

This is precisely why belief has nothing to do with the scientific method. Reality does not care weather or not we believe.

One can only conclude weather or not the hypothesis and theory are possible or not possible based upon a rational presentation.

Physics only relates to whatever has physical presence. Therefore it is necessary to determine the difference between objects and concepts and weather or not something exists.

Definitions are narrowly defined so that they can be used rationally throughout the presentation. If one mixes up nouns and verbs, or objects and concepts, no rational explanation is possible.

Which is why the mind does not have eyes in science.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Genelanzl,

“I will try to make my belief clear.”

I appreciate your comments, but beliefs have nothing to do with reality. What you or I believe is irrelevant. This is why we must be objective. This is why we must use critical thinking to reason a rational argument which is not contradictory.

“I understand that there are only two 'realms'. (1) The realm of something and (2) the realm of nothing.”

No, there is only one realm: reality! What is real is what exists. Objects (i.e. something) can exist (if they have location). Nothing does not exist.

Exist: object + location

The moon exists because it is an object (has shape) and because it has location. Love is not an object and has no location. Love does not exist. Love is a noun of GRAMMAR only. Love is NOT a noun of REALITY. Love is a verb (concept) which is a relation between 2 or more objects, understand?

“That's my story and I'm sticking to it. It is impossible to believe that there is a type or class of noun that is nothing.”

Believe? This is not an issue of belief or faith. Subjectivity/opinion plays no role in reality. This is an issue of objectivity. You need to go back and re-read what I wrote and understand the DIFFERENCE between NOUNS OF GRAMMAR (concepts) and NOUNS OF REALITY (objects). This is where you are hung up.

“the single ball that exists totally alone, how could it be called a 'ball' without some mind also existing? How could this singular object have any shape, since shape is a concept?”

You are making a statement about the past when there weren’t any sentient observers being there to give their testimony. A dinosaur in the past was NOT called a “dinosaur”....obviously. A sentient observer needs to be present to point to the object and utter a word: dinosaur! Now that object has a label or name. In that past, the dinosaur was simply a sentient being composed of atoms (an object). But now.....we can illustrate this object and name it a “dinosaur”...understand? Physics is about illustration. If you cannot bring energy, dark matter, time, spacetime, photons, quarks, gravitons, etc into the Physics Conference,....fine, no problem! But you had better be able to illustrate these alleged entities, otherwise you are committing fraud!

A lonely ball in the universe has shape because it doesn’t blend with its background of nothing, which differentiates it from nothing. We call this property: shape/form. The ball cannot lose its boundary and blend into nothing. It cannot lose its L, W and H and become the void. This is what the concept of shape refers to. Shape is the only intrinsically static property that this lonely ball has. It has no color, no mass/weight, no speed, no motion, etc.


Roman 4 years ago

Hey, fatfist! I really enjoy your hubs. But are you familiar with Frank Kepple of Astral Pulse forums? Maybe he is you, even! You sound just like this guy, same, or nearly so, speech patterns and phrases. Frank calls the process of conversion of ideas into objects objectification. You may want to check the compilation of his posts at http://astralpulse.com/frankkepple.html


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Roman,

Never heard of Frank. From what I see he talks about energy, dimensions, psychic powers and all that New Age nonsense. So it’s quite obvious that he doesn’t understand the difference between objects and concepts. This explains why he is divorced from reality. Just check out some of his nonsense:

“I have tried to find out where this Pure Subjective Energy comes from but no one appears to know. We obviously all evolved from it. Somehow this subjective energy became focused and developed into a kind of primary energetic personality essence and this is, I believe, what all the old mystical works are objectifying and calling 'god'.”

This guy sounds no different than, and makes the same claims as Hawking, Sagan, Einstein, Feynman and the whole motley crew of brain-dead clowns we call “Mathematical Fizzicysts”.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

The Big Bang does not claim everything exploded from nothing. It claims that a dense singularity of matter expanded. Matter cannot be eternal everything has a cause fatfist.

Adonai


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Really?

The staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories are all described accessibly in A Universe from Nothing, and they suggest that not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing. "

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Somet...


Roman 4 years ago

I can clearly picture entire worlds arising in my mind in dreams from apparently nothing, but even in this case, the stuff of my dream world is a consequence of the workings of my mind.


PrestonDeath 4 years ago

Concepts always require two or more objects in a relationship." The notion concepts require two objects or more is shown to be illogical, irrational and falsified by this - The Universe is a concept. But the concept of Universe is made up of only one thing. Matter. Space is no thing, so it cannot be said to be the second object needed to make up the concept Universe according to your own criteria. Two or more objects do not make up the concept Universe! The concept universe would still be a concept if there were only one object surrounded by space! Universe = Space+ Object or matter.


PrestonDeath 4 years ago

"Realistically, the term “God” (like any other term in human language) resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category. God either has ‘shape’ or He doesn’t....it’s a Yes or No issue....there is no other option! Those who claim that God is a concept like love, truth or intelligence, will summarily have excluded God from existence. These people need to learn the difference between an ‘object’ and a ‘concept’ before attempting to formulate arguments founded on ignorance" So here you assert a definition of concept that means absolutely, unambiguously - ACTION or EVENT. And then here - "Space is a concept invented by man." You go far off from that definition as you’ll see - Bill Gaede, who I hope will be an impartial arbiter here and help me get that $10,000, I’ll split it! says - "For the purposes of Science, Space is not a concept. All concepts were invented by man. Like Concepts, space doesn't have shape. But unlike concepts Space was there before any of US came along. WE discovered Space, we invented concepts."


PrestonDeath 4 years ago

We can imagine a Universe where the ONE object in space is an observer! And so so this solitary observer could still conceptualize "Universe", not needing two objects. Self and Space make up the concept. Not two objects.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Preston,

“But the concept of Universe is made up of only one thing. Matter.”

Concepts are not “made up” of things. Concepts only relate....they are relations, not compositions/structures. Please try to understand the difference.

“Space is no thing”

Yes, space is nothing (not a thing/object). Space lacks shape. Space is a concept that is related between an object and its environment. Without a minimum of 2 entities, one being a test object and the other being its environment (which must be treated as a conceptual medium), it is impossible to conceive of space. To conceive of space...you must relate ‘IT’ to some-thing!

“so it cannot be said to be the second object needed to make up the concept Universe according to your own criteria.”

According to MY criteria?? Concepts have NOTHING to do with anyone’s criteria, including God’s! This is not a subjective issue of opinion. Concepts are objectively nothing more but pure relations. A relation necessarily needs A MINIMUM OF 2 SOMETHINGS in order to be a relation by definition. You need to understand the basics here. Of course, space is NOT an object. Space is a term that we treat as a noun of SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR, only....not as a noun of CONTEXTUAL GRAMMAR. Do you understand the difference? If not, please read this article where it is explained in detail here...thanks!

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

So space is a syntactical term; a noun of syntax that we treat as a “conceptual medium” for the purposes of syntactical grammar, only! Ergo, as a noun of syntax, space is treated as a “conceptual” object only for the purposes of defining and understanding the contrasting RELATION of something vs nothing. It is NOT treated as a real object because we are dealing with SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR and not resolving its context to reality when we relate it CONCEPTUALLY, understand?

Read the above article where I explain this stuff in laborious detail. This is Language & Grammar 101 stuff. In Europe they teach this stuff in Grade 10. Only North Americans have problems understanding linguistics & grammar for some reason.

Universe: a concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).

As you can see, the concept Universe relates two nouns....matter and space.....both treated as CONCEPTUAL mediums, only! Understand?

“Two or more objects do not make up the concept Universe!”

Actually, you didn’t notice that MATTER is also a concept in the above definition of Universe. Universe is actually an ABSTRACT concept (see above article to understand what abstract concepts are).

matter: A concept that designates the set or a subset of the objects that exist; the total aggregate of atoms.

As you can see, when you understand the difference between syntax and context, everything falls into place without problems. Again, I urge you to read the above article. I don’t think you learned the difference between syntactical & contextual grammars in school. You also don’t understand what an abstract concept is. They also teach this stuff in computer science language & compiler development courses.

"For the purposes of Science, Space is not a concept. All concepts were invented by man. Like Concepts, space doesn't have shape. But unlike concepts Space was there before any of US came along. WE discovered Space, we invented concepts." -- Bill G

Actually, this is an error in the video which Bill has identified but hasn’t edited/fixed yet. This issue has been raised by many people before, and there's been much confusion, so I understand your frustration. I don’t know when Bill will fix this to say that space is a concept.


PrestonDeath 4 years ago

"Concepts always require two or more objects in a relationship." The concept Universe can be reduced to one atom and space (no object). So we would have to use the word Object inconsistently if what you said is correct, right? The concept "no thing" refers to an actual quality of the Universe that we can discover as Bill put it, doesn't it? Here's an important question no one has answered for me, you're a smart guy (because there is truth to gather) Water is a dynamic concept. But water becomes ice! Which has location and form/shape. Making it according to your definition, an object. Since only objects can do things, what object mediates the creation of ice, it can't be H2o, right?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Preston,

“The concept Universe can be reduced to one atom and space (no object). “

Sure, we can conceptualize any hypothetical scenario. So let’s assume there is only one atom in the Universe. This lonely atom is an object with shape. Furthermore, this atom is necessarily surrounded by nothingness (space). Its border differentiates one medium (i.e. the inside of the atom) with the other conceptual medium (i.e. space), for the purposes of conceiving the concept of space. We treat space as a noun for purposes of syntax only. When we resolve the word space into the context of reality, space actually resolves to nothing because ‘it’ lacks shape.

“The concept "no thing" refers to an actual quality of the Universe that we can discover”

No. No-thing is not a quality. A quality is an attribute of an object. The universe is not an object...it is an abstract concept that we use to understand the relation of matter and space. Concepts don’t have qualities; only objects do.

“Water is a dynamic concept.”

Let’s backtrack here. You can throw water at me and knock me down. You can use water to cut concrete. Water is indeed an object. Water has a surface and shape and can come into surface-to-surface contract with other objects. We can illustrate an H2O water molecule. Hence it has shape.

“But water becomes ice! Which has location and form/shape. Making it according to your definition, an object.”

One step at a time, otherwise it is easy to jumble these ideas and get confused in the process. Water had shape before it changed configuration and became ice. Ice is an object because it has shape. Shape is the only criterion of objects. Location is the criteria of existence, only....not of objecthood.

Object: that which has shape

Exist: object having location

Location is the criterion that gives presence or locality to objects. Objects exist because they are located “somewhere”, right? And WHERE they are located is irrelevant to the issue of existence. Our knowledge of WHERE God is located has nothing to do with whether God exits or not. God exists or doesn’t, irrespective of anyone’s opinion on the issue.

Again....objecthood is a separate concept from existence. Superman is an object that doesn’t exist.....so is the 2015 Corvette. These words refer to objects. We can make a mock-up statue or prototype of these objects....so the statue exists....but that doesn’t mean the genuine object exists.

“what object mediates the creation of ice”

None. Ice is not “created”, like a carpenter creates a house frame from wood parts. Ice is a change of state of matter. The atoms comprising the water (H and O) are vibrating much slower at lower temperature and the molecules are reconfigured. That’s why ice doesn’t “flow” like water.


john 3 3 years ago

Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.


john 3 years ago

well what do you think


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science”

Laws are made by humans for the purposes of controlling the masses via concepts, like mind control.....or via objects, like guns!

There are no laws in Science. Apparently, you confuse Science with the legal profession. Law is a discipline that is full of liars... I mean lawyers. In Science, we have explanations, not laws. 'Laws' means that YOU adopted someone’s asserted dogma as YOUR personal truth. That doesn't concern Science in the least.

There are no laws of nature. In the context of Science, the term ‘laws’ is concept we invented to describe what we as humans do well: pattern recognition. Laws are rule-based descriptions conceived by the petty primates we call humans. It is presumptuous to expect nature to follow human-made rules. Quite funny to expect nature to behave as Adam & Eve dictate.

Only human apes claim that what they see is impossible. Reality is comprised of objects which are comprised of atoms.

“Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible”

Scientifically impossible? Wow! How so?

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Matter cannot lose Length, Width and Height and morph into space. Space cannot acquire Length, Width and Height and morph into matter. Matter is eternal. Furthermore, space is nothing. You cannot create nothing as space is not a “thing” that one can assemble from other things.


andy 3 years ago

disrespectful


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"you must be beyond prideful and disrespectful"

Wow! You got me there!

I don't think I can disprove this irrefutable proof of Creation you just posted.

My God....is your Pastor aware that you are so well-versed in Physics?


andy 3 years ago

so the point in what you are saying is?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"so the point in what you are saying is?"

....that someone who wants to critique an article must have minimum intelligence to read it and understand it before coming in to make a fool out of himself. No "higher" education is required....just primary school.

So hopefully, about 20% (perhaps only 10%) of Americans should fall within this basic requirement....and hopefully you are one of them (crossing my fingers).

Now....Andy.....without further ado.....please tell the audience what you understood after reading this article and why it is contradictory or doesn't make sense to you. Quoting text would really help your case.

If you only came here to troll, then goodbye!


maj 3 years ago

WOW fatfist,

.

Modern cosmology says:---The universe/multiverse BEGAN to exist

Modern cosmology says:---The Big Bang is the origin of ALL energy-matter-time

Modern cosmology says:---In t=0 there was nothing, not even time

Logic and Math says:---an infinite number of things can't actually exist, absurd

Logic and Math says:---so an infinite number of past events is impossible

Logic and Math says:---you're either ignorant or biased

thanks for confirming angry atheists aren't worth talking to


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

If there is a universe, there can't be a multiverse. If there is a multiverse there can't be a universe.

Time (and you forgot space) are concepts, and were created by man.

You can't explain how zero dimensions can become three (H, L & W).

Logic & math are tautologies and science has no part of them.

Angry, or not, Atheists are less reasonable than other religious persons.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Maj,

“you're either ignorant or biased”

Acutally, Maj…..you are BOTH!

Why?

Because a brain-dead clown like you can’t even read this article which explains why creation is impossible. I know the literacy rate of Americans is about 1%, but c’mon, this article is so basic. If your attention span is less than a few seconds, then yeah….it explains why you can’t read it.

As for your cosmology and Big Bunk arguments, educate yourself:

http://hubpages.com/education/OLBERS-PARADOX-A-Phy...

http://hubpages.com/education/Big-Bang-The-Univers...

http://hubpages.com/education/Big-Bang-The-BIG-LIE...

As for your Infinity argument, educate yourself:

http://hubpages.com/education/INFINITE-REGRESS-Arg...

As for your Logic & Math argument, educate yourself:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-LO...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/LOGIC-Its-...

“angry atheists aren't worth talking to”

Exactly!!!!!

Finally, you got 1 out of 10 correct!!!!

An Atheist is a deranged lunatic who thinks that the nothingness of space can be created. Furthermore, this nutcase thinks a 0D singularity (i.e. nothing) can magically morph into matter.

Atheism is a Fanatical Religion of Platonist Mathematicians who are divorced from reality. All Atheists are actually AGNOSTICS…..they hate the good Lord’s written word and thus choose to ignore Him!


maj 3 years ago

'a brain dead clown like yourself' this is coming from someone who has faith(trust,hope,and belief) in science.you know that everything in science is not true still Believe these people. science and atheist keep talking about manipulation but he is what science thinks if you disagree with them you are an idiot now that sounds like manipulation. thankyou you inherited the respect of your mother Lucy ape girl


maj 3 years ago

i do agree though atheist are deranded they say that they don't believe in god's existence but then they can't shut up about god they say that god sucks god is evil and then talk about christians say they are idiots say that they are crazy lol then they talk about not believing in his existence but ridicules god deranged.they talk about christians saying that they are immoral then talk about us thats crazy.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

I will pray for you, maj.

Perhaps God can help place you within that 1% American literacy rate one day. And maybe in some other lifetime in another Big Banged Universe, the presiding God there can bestow upon you some basic comprehension skills.

Here’s a tip for a fine Texan like yourself: Next time you’re offered God, America and apple pie…..just eat the apple pie for Christ’s sake! Don’t let the former eat your brain, alright? Otherwise you'll end up like those fanatical Atheists out there.

And oh, before I forget….you really should refrain from kneeling in front of your Pastors with your drooling mouth wide open, ok? I hear those swindlers have extra ‘dimensions’!


maj 3 years ago

what the heck 'apple pie. kneeling in front of my pastors and drooling' dude you will really are not worth talking to after this man i don't know where you even got any this man but you obviously have the brain cells of a brick i let you win whatever you was talking about that was so lame man your lame go had have you last comeback like you always do im not going to reply after this one.fatfistlol


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

@Maj,

Aha! Just as I figured.....your Pastor's 'dimensions' left you speechless, huh? Was it the Length or the Width that did you in? It's ok, don't answer....you need to recover.

Take an extra-strength Tylenol and gargle with salt-water....you should get the sensation back in your throat in a few days. By that time, God could perhaps give you a brain so you can talk coherently.


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 3 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

"...aren't worth talking to"

The amusing thing here is that MAJ has contradicted 'itself' five times now! So much for not being worth talking too!


maj 3 years ago

jonas james were did you even come from man i wasn't even talking to you i was talking to fatfist mind your own business.fatfist is a still little coward though he wouldn't be talking all big and stuff in front of anybody you and him are internet lames.Without science backing him up he says the most retarded things i ever read.IF you people want respect show it.


maj 3 years ago

im not commenting back to anyone else either. Man this sad.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Maj,

“fatfist is a still little coward”

Indeed I am!

I mean, why would anyone want to believe in a Pastor who is raping them senseless….and many a time…. tying them up with rope (not EM rope!) in the basement of their Church, beating them bloody, into unconsciousness and raping them until climax.

You may have been raised in this sort of lifestyle, Maj….it may be your so-called “American Dream”…..Mom, America, Jesus, my Pastor and apple pie! But please….do not force it on others, ok?

I admit that I am a COWARD! I would never ever ever want to be in the presence of this type of garbage that American society creates by placing them on top of a pedestal, giving them 15% of their hard-earned income, get brainwashed by them and even raped senseless.

You are a very BRAVE little Princess, Maj!

BTW….Stephen Hawking claims to have proof of massive Black Holes…..now I believe him!


Phil 3 years ago

"No person can ever hope to provide ONE reason explaining why this claim could even be a remote possibility."

The Idea that anything physical DIDN'T have a beginning... is irrational. Therefore creation is the only conclusion. Everything comes from something in our 3 dimensional space. GOD is outside of 3 dimensional space and created what we know as our universe from there, not from nothing. The idea that everything we know and are yet to discover has Always been there is the most inconclusive conclusion that one could come to.

Now in my defense before I get blasted, I don't follow any particular religion because I refuse to believe that whatever whomever tells me is true...as fact. So I'm not bible thumping here. Every religion I have studied has been tainted with its own forms of corruption and self promoting agendas. However, that doesn't mean GOD isn't real. People have twisted and distorted the truth to benefit their own short worthless lives. I resent the idea that if there was a message for us that they have destroyed any possibility of us knowing the truth or having anything solid to base it on. I am on a personal mission of observance and understanding through intelligent conversation about factual knowledge and ideas., to find the truth. This isn't meant to be a aggressive post and sorry its so long winded.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Phil,

“3 dimensional space”

Sorry, Phil….space has no dimensions. Space is a concept, not an object. You cannot cut a chunk of space out there, between the Earth and Moon. You can’t package a chunk of space and mail it to me.

Space: that which lacks shape; synonym: nothing, void, vacuum.

The term dimension is only applicable in the context of objects.

dimension: one of three mutually orthogonal directions in which an object points or faces.

The 3 dims are: length, width, and height. They have only 2 properties: direction and orthogonality. Width does not stand alone and is nothing without length and height. The 3 dims are inseparable.

“GOD is outside of 3 dimensional space”

Impossible…..think about it: Space has no border or edges for God to cross, like a prisoner escapes the border of the prison. God is trapped in here with the rest of us forever. Space is the largest prison never built. Space cannot be escaped.

“Every religion I have studied has been tainted with its own forms of corruption and self promoting agendas. However, that doesn't mean GOD isn't real.”

Indeed, your reasoning is rational. Human emotion and subjectivity has nothing to do with reality. God is something which concerns Physics and will be studied in this discipline. The subjectivity of Religion will not influence the Scientific Method. But….we will take their claims seriously and analyze them with the rigors of the sci method. Simply disregarding people’s claims based on bias, hatred, emotion, etc. is not what science is about.

This is all this article is about, Phil….the study of God using the Scientific Method. No biases, emotions or subjectivity are used in the analysis. Atheism is about biases and subjectivity….Science is about OBJECTIVITY. Atheism is a Religion and divorced from Science and from reality.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Phil,

My articles are not about countering Theism. Since they take the issue of God and Creation on faith, very few theists take offence with my articles. And the ones that do are nothing more than boneheads who are looking for a fight and nothing else. This world has all kinds.

On the contrary, my articles are about Science and exposing the Religion of Atheism. Most who come here to fight with these articles are fanatic fundamentalist Atheists. If the rigors of the Scientific Method can show that God is impossible, then the Atheist will be enraged! POOF goes their Religion. Now the fanatic Atheist can’t spew his hate agenda on the Theist and his Religion. He has no more punching bags. The Atheist is out of a job and his whole organization collapses right before his very eyes. He has nothing to do with his time. He will fall into depression. This is why all the hosts of the Atheist Experience Show have a HUGE problem with my articles.

You see, Atheism is actually a synonym for AGNOSTICISM because it leaves open the possibility of a God existing. I get more Atheists than Theists coming here arguing that God may exist. Go figure. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Lawrence Krauss and all the clowns of Mathematical Fizzics believe in a God who doesn’t hand out Bibles….a Deistic God!

“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Pastor Lawrence Krauss

“There may be no evidence for purpose in the Universe, but that doesn’t imply that there is no purpose in the Universe. If tonight the stars spelled out ‘I AM HERE!’, then I think most scientists will say: you know, there’s something there.” -- Pastor Lawrence Krauss

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Pastor Richard Dawkins

“Maybe we are all in somebody’s computer simulation, maybe the entire Universe that we’re in is the product of a purposeful design of an alien intelligence that has put us into a simulation…that’s equivalent to saying that it’s a grand God of some sort, and I don’t have an objection to that.” – Pastor Richard Dawkins

And here are some Professional Atheists arguing for the existence of a God:

“It is possible for a God to exist. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang…nothing! Do you understand that? To say that there was not a God BEFORE the Big Bang is to claim something that you cannot KNOW!” -- Tim Brooks, Professional Atheist

See video @ 1:00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrdzyK6-5MA


Luis 3 years ago

''Aha! Just as I figured.....your Pastor's 'dimensions' left you speechless, huh? Was it the Length or the Width that did you in? It's ok, don't answer....you need to recover.''

Haha! Love it!

''did you in'' :)

Kudos to you, my friend. Kudos.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

On a trolling rampage today, Luis? Did your medication run out?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

When you get your mental faculties in order, Luis, and have something other than spam to contribute here, feel free to post, ok sunshine? At Fist America, we hold all our children to a higher standard.


Luis 3 years ago

Mental faculties are nicely in order, thanks. Hence, I can note that you didn't address any of my counter-claims and went straight to the option that's been in vogue in Afghanistan for a good long while. Anyway, I see that this matters to you (goodness knows why. Maybe I hit a nerve with my Taliban jab), but whatever. You can continue being someone who lacks belief in God and isn't an atheist, and I'll continue to...be the the same, but wrong for some reason. Meh. This is apparently the world we live in.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"Maybe I hit a nerve with my Taliban jab"

Hey, just be a little more sensitive next time, ok? My brother was a member of the Taliban and he died from a NATO attack. We never did recover his body.

Anyway....if you have an argument, just post it. If you are responding to my argument....please....justify a counter-argument, ok? Replying with "no" just doesn't cut it in this Information Superhighway we have in this era.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Here was his 'argument' Fatfist:

"The Idea that anything physical DIDN'T have a beginning... is irrational. Therefore creation is the only conclusion. Everything comes from something in our 3 dimensional space. "

That and something about looking for the "truth."

Guess he didn't read anything here. If he did, it went wooooosh right over his head. SO his argument is:

I can't understand reality, therefore I choose creation, even if no one religion seems to have the 'truth' I am looking for.


Luis 3 years ago

Well, my argument, which I already provided, is that you were untowardly trying to confuse the hell out of the meaning of 'atheist', when you know perfectly well it simply means 'lack of belief in deities'. Agreed that a lot of atheists have religious shit-gobblins haunting their brains ('The universe came from nothing', 'A black hole is infinitely dense'), but atheism only addresses ONE category of such shit gobblins, namely the one they don't have: 'beings who created the universe'. Atheists are still free, with the right arguments, to reject all the others. Many don't, but whatever, I'm not looking to be like them.

Simple, isn't it? I was also clearing up some untoward claims emanating from you (hopefully due to a confusion on your part) that atheists 'necessarily' believe in the possibility of God, when in fact Strong Atheists (like you and me) don't.

Lest you construe that as trolling on my part, let me say categorically that I'm genuinely in the dark about why you reject the label of 'atheist' for yourself. I would like you to explain it to me for my own enlightenment. For example, why do you think that I'm bound to Dawkins' shortcomings if I nevertheless accept that the universe is eternal?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“ I was also clearing up some untoward claims emanating from you (hopefully due to a confusion on your part) that atheists 'necessarily' believe in the possibility of God, when in fact Strong Atheists (like you and me) don't.”

Ok, let’s handle one issue at a time.

I am neither a strong/weak or any other kind of flavor of Atheist. To understand why, we need to test out the reasoning of some of yours claims about Atheism. It will be clear in the end, so all I ask of you is to be honest with me, that's all.

Now….just answer one question for me: Does a creator God exist, Yes or No?


Luis 3 years ago

''Now….just answer one question for me: Does a creator God exist, Yes or No?''

No.


Luis 3 years ago

''Does a creator God exist, Yes or No?''

No.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

But Luis, can you prove or justify this simple "no" answer? If you can't, then that's simply your belief.


Luis 3 years ago

''can you prove or justify this simple "no" answer?''

Yes, with arguments largely similar to yours. For example, I've often argued that for someone to talk about 'something' which has no spacial extent (or shape, for that matter) is the same as talking about either an abstract figment of one's imagination or of nothing at all. What's wrong with that?

I'm just not getting what the distinction is with your brand of non-belief-in-a-creator-God and 'atheism' per se. I don't admit of the possibiltiy of God because I see God as an inherently and irresovably incoherent and linguistically disingenous concept.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“I don't admit of the possibiltiy of God because I see God as an inherently and irresovably incoherent and linguistically disingenous concept.”

Well, then what we have here is your opinion about the term God. But this is an objective issue where people’s opinions about God are divorced from the underlying issue that this term refers to a Creator…the Creator of space and matter. God necessarily refers to an entity which performs this Create action. So it is impossible for God to be a concept, like love, morality or virtue. God is a proposed entity that created space and matter.

So there you have it. You and your movement of Atheism are off the mark when it comes reasoning the basics. You said God doesn’t exist….but yet you admitted that you have no clue what God is nor how to justify God doesn’t exist. You only told me what you believe, without any rational justification whatsoever.

You cannot justify that a God is impossible….for if you could….you would not be an Atheist. Atheists necessarily believe that a God may possibly exist….they just don’t know it and cannot justify it either way. That’s why they are no different than theists or agnostics who cannot know it or justify God either way.


Luis 3 years ago

Hmmm...I sort of get it. If I was off the mark with how I used the term ''concept'', then my next question is, ''How are concepts distinct from proposed entities?'' (I was, or I thought I was, referring to the latter category when I said ''concept'').

So God is a proposed entity (agreed) that is necessarily supposed to have created space and matter (also agreed). When I said ''I think that God is an incoherent concept'', should I have said ''God is an incoherent proposed entity, because it does not have the attributes of an object, and if it's not an object, it's just a proposed entity, and therefore doesn't exist''?

p.s. any book recommendations as I try to grapple with this?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

''How are concepts distinct from proposed entities?''

An entity, whether proposed (i.e. conceived by man) or real (i.e. out there somewhere) has the fundamental property of OBJECTHOOD. An entity is an object because it has shape. You can illustrate for us your proposed entity on paper…you can make a mock-up statue prototype of it in order to show the audience what you are talking about. We do this all the time…not just in Science, but in all fields of discipline. Auto makers will illustrate a 2018 Corvette….a proposed model of the car. If the proposal makes sense, they will further develop a clay model of it….and so on.

Object: that which has shape (Synonyms: exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, material, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

A real object, in addition to having shape, also has location because it exists.

Exist: something somewhere (i.e. object with a location)

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

A concept on the other hand is a relation we form between objects.

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

The concept of love relates one person with possibly many others (where allowed by your government).

The Moon is an object and it has location, irrespective of any observers. The Moon is real (i.e. exists). The 2018 Corvette is a proposed object as it is illustrated before us. It has shape, but no location. A 2018 Corvette may POSSIBLY exist somewhere right this very second and we don’t know it (it’s a secret prototype). All we know is how it looks like.

Same with God…He is a proposed object that created space & matter. The Theist and Atheist think God *may* exist, but have no evidence of Him….just like they have no evidence of the 2018 Corvette. In Physics we use the Scientific Method to critically reason whether God or the 2018 Corvette are possible or impossible to exist. It turns out that God is IMPOSSIBLE to exist. Ergo, Atheism is an irrational position….a Religion of sorts.

''God is an incoherent proposed entity, because it does not have the attributes of an object,”

Lots of Atheists make this claim….but as you can see, God’s alleged attributes are irrelevant as to whether He is an object or not. We only care if the proposed entity is a genuine object. Can we illustrate it and make a mock-up? If so, then it’s a genuine object.


Luis 3 years ago

Inching closer and closer now...

You say: ''God’s alleged attributes are irrelevant as to whether He is an object or not. We only care if the proposed entity is a genuine object.''

Okay, I understand the second point. But why can't that be the basis for (rational) atheism (lack of belief in God. I repeat: we - you and me - don't, after all, believe in God)?

As for the first point: aren't a proposed entity's alleged attributes the very features we use to reason whether it is a geuine object? For example, isn't the claim that ''God isn't a genuine object because the things that are ascribed to him necessarily preclude him from being a genuine object (namely, he doesn't have shape/spatial extent in the theological formulation), and hence cannot be an actual object that exists''?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“ But why can't that be the basis for (rational) atheism (lack of belief in God”

Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism, Secularism, Brightism, Free-Thinkingism, Objectivism, etc. are unscientific and divorced from reality. In reality, we neither believe in existence nor in non-existence. Only an ignoramus would say that he doesn't BELIEVE or have LACK of BELIEF that God exists!

In reality, if God exists, lack of belief will not make the Him disappear. And if God doesn't exist, belief will not make Him appear. Belief has NOTHING to do with existence. Whether you believe or not that your hand exists has no bearing on its independent existence. I can’t fathom why people don’t get this.

It is impossible for a human to perform a NEGATIVE action like “lack of belief” or “lack of running” or “lack of eating”. You can only perform THE action, not its conceptual negative.

Hence, the onus is on the dumbest individual on the planet, THE ATHEIST, to tell the audience the exact steps we need to perform in order to accomplish this Religious Ritual the Atheist calls: LACK OF BELIEF.

Here you go, don’t keep us in suspense:

Step 1: __________

Step 2: __________

Etc…

Should we perform these steps while we’re down on our knees while hanging garlic cloves from our ears? Those of us who wish to convert into this wonderful Bonehead Religion called Atheism, wish to know how to do it. Please do tell.

“I repeat: we - you and me - don't, after all, believe in God)?”

Speak for yourself. I never use the word ‘belief’ in either positive or negative terms when it comes to existence. The term BELIEF isn’t even within the definition of existence. So please continue with the rituals that make you happy. Don’t drag me into your world.

“As for the first point: aren't a proposed entity's alleged attributes the very features we use to reason whether it is a geuine object?”

Nope! The only intrinsic property an object has is shape. All other properties are extrinsic and up for debate. You may argue your God has green eyes that can see everyone naked in the shower…..but your neighbor will argue that His green eyes are used for checking if you’re naughty or nice. Irrelevant human garbage!

In science we only ask: is God an object or not?

“he doesn't have shape/spatial extent in the theological formulation”

Theists and Atheists should both read their Bibles before they continue arguing morals and nonsense for the next 5000 years.

God certainly has shape/form. God is an object.

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?”


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 3 years ago from Heaven

Here was his 'argument' Fatfist:

"The Idea that anything physical DIDN'T have a beginning... is irrational. Therefore creation is the only conclusion. Everything comes from something in our 3 dimensional space. "

That and something about looking for the "truth."

Guess he didn't read anything here. If he did, it went wooooosh right over his head. SO his argument is:

I can't understand reality, therefore I choose creation, even if no one religion seems to have the 'truth' I am looking for.

The Great MonkeyMinds

That would also explain Darwin Religion.


Luis 3 years ago

''Theists and Atheists should both read their Bibles before they continue arguing morals and nonsense for the next 5000 years.

God certainly has shape/form. God is an object.''

True, in the Bible, he's an object, but I was actually focusing on the more recent formulations that believers often retreat to when the object-God is criticised (which are even more wank-headed. To

listen to William Lane Craig and others, one gets the impression that he's talking about a God that has no spatial extent. God is supposed to have 'created' space, time and of course matter, after all).

''Only an ignoramus would say that he doesn't BELIEVE or have LACK of BELIEF that God exists!''

Not really. My point is simply that the absence of having a belief in something can form the entirety of 'lack of belief', rather than what you're implying, which is to see my lack of belief as 'belief in the lack' - emphatically not the same things. I think what you're saying is that this lack of belief of mine is what motivates my atheism. But nothing 'motivates' my atheism as such. My atheism is simply a description of my cognitive state of not having a belief in God. My atheism doesn't have content of its own. It's actually the absence of content. Specifically, the absence of beliefs consistent with 'I think God exists out in the universe'. To repeat: my atheism isn't defined by a BELIEF in a lack of God. My absence of belief is simply a description of my cognitive state of not having a belief in God present. Nor, by the way, was I implying that my lack of belief, however I construe it, has any

efficacy as to whether the object or entity in question exists. Clearly, it has none whatsoever.

''Should we perform these steps while we’re down on our knees while hanging garlic cloves from our ears?''

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about, but I think I can see a glimmer of 'unbecoming' lurking in there.

But actually, on that note, I have to ask why you even made this website if you're just going to call everyone else an 'idiot' and then

complaining that humanity is 'doomed'. Observe: it's supremely ironic that you lament the mathematical physicists and their religious constructs, and yet, when someone comes to you for clarification and is at least half way towards seeing things your way, your reaction is to refer to that person as 'the world's biggest bonehead'. That has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong, of course, but since the other person doesn't YET fully understand your points, they might be

forgiven for thinking that you're compensating for an inadequacy in your arguments (after all, aren't hectoring exposes of the other person's supposed idiocy a stock-standard feature of religious

apologetics? So why are doing it?). If you think this is an EFFECTIVE way to get your message across, let me know. I'm not saying this for my sake, by the way. I'll return to this website and read all your stuff. Just some friendly advice from an ally (sincerely meant). If you're genuinely concerned about humanity's impending doom, you might as well do something that's going to be effective , or you should just take this site down and not bother. Again, if there are options other than those that seem rational to you, let me know. Possibly, you understand that jolting people out of stupor by denigrating language is, on occasion, effective, but is this what you're actually going for? Perhaps you can explain it to me.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“To listen to William Lane Craig and others, one gets the impression that he's talking about a God that has no spatial extent.”

It is irrelevant as to what tricks people use to protect their Religion. Creation is a verb….”to create” is a process. All actions are necessarily mediated by objects. If this term “God” will have the process of Creation attributed to it….then it goes without saying that God is necessarily an object. Otherwise, God is a concept and summarily excluded from existence and the debate is over. The Theologian and the Atheist can’t have it both ways. Opinions & bellyaching are divorced from reality.

“My point is simply that the absence of having a belief in something can form the entirety of 'lack of belief', rather than what you're implying, which is to see my lack of belief as 'belief in the lack' - emphatically not the same things.”

You are going off in tangents and didn’t answer the question which makes or breaks your argument about a person “lacking belief”. So here you go again….

It is impossible for a human to perform a NEGATIVE action like “lack of belief” or “lack of running” or “lack of eating”. You can only perform THE action, not its conceptual negative.

Hence, the onus is on the claimant to justify otherwise. Please tell the audience the exact steps we need to perform in order to accomplish this act the Atheist calls: LACK OF BELIEF.

Here you go, don’t keep us in suspense:

Step 1: __________

Step 2: __________

Etc…

SECOND TIME I ASKED. If you can’t do it by your next response, then you concede that it’s impossible for anyone to perform a negated or non-action…..which obviously is anyway, ….but I just want YOU to be honest and admit it. These articles here are about Intellectual Honesty.

“My absence of belief is simply a description of my cognitive state of not having a belief in God present.”

You just contradicted yourself.

I asked you previously to prove or justify that God is IMPOSSIBLE. You can’t do it. Ergo….you necessarily believe God is POSSIBLE in your worldview. Indeed, the Religion of Atheism necessarily makes provision for the POSSIBILITY that a God exists. Atheists are claiming to be WAITING FOR EVIDENCE OF GOD SO THEY CAN ACCEPT HIM. They believe a God may be possible. Atheism 101.

Please don’t repeat the same debunked arguments. It does't justify them.

“seeing things your way, …. right or wrong…..etc.”

Irrelevant! Nobody cares about my or your opinions/emotions….take them up with a shrink. I don’t deal with mental patients.

Objectivity is the key in any rational discussion. If you cannot rationally justify your position on the issue of God and Atheism….without contradictions…..then you have no valid argument. So please….don’t launch irrelevant complaints to me about your intellectual inadequacies, ok?

I mean….at the end of the day….this is what makes or breaks arguments, right? This is fair.


Luis 3 years ago

Okay, I understand your point now about God (a creative agent) necessarily being an object, since actions are necessarily mediated by objects. Duly acknowledged.

But here's the part I don't get: when you say that 'lack of belief' amounts to a negative action (an impossibility), this means that belief is an action, right? If you would agree that there are actions that one doesn't do (if not, what does 'doesn't' mean?), then would the following statements be nonsensical: 'I'm not a stockbroker' and 'I don't dabble on the stock exchange for a living'? Or is belief a special type of action that precludes the consistent use of this descriptor (thus preventing 'I'm not a believer in God')? That's what's confusing.

'If you can’t do it by your next response, then you concede that it’s impossible for anyone to perform a negated or non-action…..which obviously is anyway, ….but I just want YOU to be honest and admit it.'

Alright, if you say so. My question is still the same: how does one label someone in relation to the thing they're not doing? Should 'not', 'isn't' or other negative descriptors EVER be used with respect to actions?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“But here's the part I don't get: when you say that 'lack of belief' amounts to a negative action (an impossibility), this means that belief is an action, right?”

The term “belief” is a huge problem word in Philosophy and Religion. Nobody has been able to provide a rational definition for this term in the past 10,000 years…. despite all those claims that people “believe” in gods or this or that….

Believe it or not (ha!), many claim that belief has something to do with truth. How ironic is that?

“Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

But truth should be certainty. When you declare a proposition as “true”, there is no turning back. For if you turn back (like they did when the Earth was declared a sphere as truth, and not flat), then it wasn’t a truth to begin with. And this is the case with humans. They all have truths about this and that….but their truth is always tentative and subject to change in the future. Ergo, truth is an opinion.

Clearly, truth and belief are subjective anthropocentric concepts which are predicated on human opinion. As such, they are divorced from reality. How can anyone understand what you mean by “belief” or “lack of belief”? Just what is it that they are supposed to do in order to perform these tasks? But the answer is irrelevant because such subjective concepts are used in religion, not in science.

“would the following statements be nonsensical: 'I'm not a stockbroker' and 'I don't dabble on the stock exchange for a living'?”

It’s saying what you are not, and not what you actually are. You should say: “I am an auto mechanic”. Telling me what you aren’t, isn’t really saying anything. It becomes nonsense when you create of a movement like Atheism, claiming it’s a lack of belief, then you turn around and attempt to Philosophize and give Scientific arguments against God. Either God exists or doesn’t. It is irrational to have a movement against the existence of X. We instead use the sci method to explain why X is possible or impossible. The rest is just opinion with theatrics…..all irrelevant.

“My question is still the same: how does one label someone in relation to the thing they're not doing?”

What does that have to do with anything? I am not an astronaut. Why should I go out of my way to create a worldview, books, youtube videos, conference, debates, etc. about a non-astronaut movement? Negated movements don’t even make sense. Just explain why it is impossible for God to exist and call it a day. Those who want to continue to support the God claim can knock themselves out….nobody cares.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Hey, of all the things to NOT believe in, I suppose God(s) are just as good as any.

I'm different than Atheists, because I choose something different to NOT believe in every day. That keeps me on my toes.

I'm NOT believing in fairies in my garden today. Tomorrow, I'll NOT believe in Unicorns. I've got the whole year lined up, ending in NOT believing in Santa.


Luis 3 years ago

Alright, I think I got that. But tell me what's wrong with this picture:

''Jimmy, why aren't you doing your homework?''

''NOT doing my homework? What sort of nonsense is this, woman? I can't 'not be' doing something. I can only be doing something. Now go and make me a sandwich.''

Is Jimmy right?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Well Luis....any language has figures of speech. We are all guilty of committing these crimes; myself included. But one who understands the issue should be able to correct his offense. It is these metaphors that we try to avoid in order to give an unambiguous meaning to our Scientific presentations.

In the proper context, Jimmy should have been told in no ambiguous terms: Jimmy, please do your homework!

Negative predication is always ambiguous. I mean, just look at all the rules predicate calculus uses to prevent such ambiguities....but still can't eliminate them. I remember pointing out to my logic professor about an ambiguity in one of his exam questions. He marked it wrong. But after I explained his ambiguity and the other equally-weighted interpretation, he gave me the marks. Ambiguity is a sin in Science.


fatfuck 3 years ago

If A=A is a contradiction, then saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction. (The only thing eternal is the universe, A=A, contradiction.)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“If A=A is a contradiction, then saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction.”

How so? Don’t just give us your OPINION. You need to justify your argument. Where’s the beef?

That the Universe is eternal is contradiction because_______

Fill in the blanks, entende?


fatfuck 3 years ago

REMEMBER: That space and matter are ETERNAL does NOT posit a claimed event! It is NOT a claim!! There is NO “initiation” or “termination” of an event to make the Universe eternal. ETERNAL UNIVERSE IS THE DEFAULT POSITION.

Absolute Truth: An ETERNAL truth which is alleged to be “true forever and ever, Amen!” Absolute truth necessarily needs to be validated for every possible circumstance because it has no restrictions. If at this point you refuse to understand why absolute truth is the Hallmark of Religion, then you obviously have your own Religion to protect....sorry!

ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!

'Absolute', 'truth', ‘universe’, ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘concept’, etc. are just words in language. We must define them objectively (without synonyms or negative predication) to ensure they are unambiguous and non-contradictory.

How so? Don’t just give us your OPINION.

- Define eternal objectively.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Pasting paragraphs from my articles is not argument. You made a claim....and now you fold under questioning. So now that I have your number, I will continue to torment you until you either answer the question or retract the claim. Let's see if you have some honesty in you.

"saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction.”

So answer the question to the claim which YOU initially raised on your first comment:

That the Universe is eternal is a contradiction because_______

Fill in the blanks, entende?

Do you even have a clue or do you just pull claims out of your fat arse?

Entende?


fatfuck 3 years ago

An object cannot be compared with itself. A concept cannot be defined by synonyms or negative predication.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"An object cannot be compared with itself. A concept cannot be defined by synonyms or negative predication."

Cut the crap with the obvious, burro do caralho! You don't fool anybody with your diversion tactics.

"saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction.”

So answer the question to the claim which YOU initially raised on your first comment:

That the Universe is eternal is a contradiction because_______

Fill in the blanks, filho da puta!


fatfuck 3 years ago

The only eternal object is the universe. A concept is a relation between two or more objects.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"A concept is a relation between two or more objects."

Exactly, all words are concepts, and thus relations. Not a single word you can utter doesn't embody a relation....even the word object...hint-hint...wink-wink ;-)

"The only eternal object is the universe."

Oh, what do YOU mean by object?

object: ________

After you define object, .....please illustrate this alleged object you call Universe. The audience wants a pic of it....you know....to make sure it's an object and not a concept.

What? Getting a little hot behind your ears? I bet it is....but that still doesn't excuse you from answering my 2 questions. Don't post anything else but those responses or else you will be BANNED....got it?


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 3 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

"The only eternal object is the universe."

For some reason this comment reminds me of Sherwood Forest.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“For some reason this comment reminds me of Sherwood Forest.”

It reminds me of the hundreds of times it has been refuted in the last few years. But some folks like to turn the other cheek and continue to push their Religion on others. It gives them a sense of comfort when others blindly agree with them; i.e. the making of a Religion. This is why our mentally-challenged friend has to deliver the 2 goods requested of him…..or he gets BANNED for good.

Oh, this will be good…..it will be real good. Stay tuned, you don't wanna miss this!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Twitter just called me. They’re trying to locate the one-liner bandit who thinks he lives inside an ABSOLUTE ONE-OBJECT UNIVERSE. They want to give him the Twitter idiot of the year award.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

The loud-mouth from Sherwood Forest is just a spammer and a troll after all…..like I’ve been saying all along. His sock-puppet posts and behavior here proves it. When the skinny little runt with the feminine voice is cornered with a Fat FIST staring him square in the face and asked to justify his impossible assertions:

1) That anything can be related to itself.

2) That the term Universe alludes to an object (even though he can’t illustrate ‘it’).

3) That there is absolute truth.

….he runs under mummy dear’s dress for protection. LOL…..my God does this troll run!

He still hasn’t taken his mental illness medication, so his destructive behavior is understandable.


eric fatfist gaede 2 years ago

"so in Physics, it is irrational to say that the “nothingness” of space is eternal. Nothingness cannot move!! You can say nothingness is uncreated."

Then you say,

"Space is eternal"

Huh?


Advocate 2 years ago

That was taken out of context., er...eric.

First he said this:

"In scientific language it is irrational to say that God or matter or space is eternal because you are referencing nouns and nothingness, not verbs. You can only say that they were always around or were not created."

"You can say the Universe is eternal because ‘Universe’ is a concept that embodies matter and space. You can say that “matter and space” are eternal because again, you are referencing a concept (an “and” relation).

"But colloquially, we often DO use the term ‘eternal’ within the context of objects and space to “imply” that they were not created. But when our language is under scrutiny, we always clarify our position."


eric fatfist gaede 2 years ago

If "eternal" is an adverb, then it can only describe a verb which is an action. "Universe" is not an action.


Advocate 2 years ago

An adverb can also be used to qualify an adjective or another adverb. But once again you are taking that out of context. Fatfist is referring to Aritstotle's use of eternal universe:

"We will explore Aristotle’s eternal Universe with an Unmoved Mover, which was claimed to be the ultimate source or cause of motion in the Universe."

The problem is in Aristole's reifying universe and making it a noun.

Universe is NOT a scientific term, but is being used for the purpose of illustrating the ridiculousness of creation. Fatfist is forced to relate using colloquial terms.

"The universe” is not an actor in any phenomena and has no location with respect to anything else. Universe: a concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).


Advocate 2 years ago

BTW, I meant to say that eternal is not an adverb it is an adjective. Sorry to have left that out, but the comment section is not letting me edit my comments.


Gary 2 years ago

It seems to me you are right about creation can not exist, because space and motion had to exist first. This is valid and all you need to say. However your assertions that space is nothing has got a big flaw. And that at least two objects are needed to define movement are also flawed. Two objects in a nothing space can not move either because the distance between them can not be measured. If space is nothing it can not have dimensions. How can you measure nothing. Also we have motion without matter. What about electromagnetic waves. You need to do some more thinking about matter and space and their relationship.

Here is the answer:

Matter and space are the same thing. Space is the basic stuff. It is invisible and assumed to be nothing because we can not see it. We can not see it because it is the medium of light waves. Without a space substance we would see nothing. Matter is made of space substance it is a standing wave or vortex of space substance. Energy is actually any movement of the space substance. With e=mc2 it means when space is moving in a vortex it has energy and is matter. All movement of space substance is a form of energy and matter. A space vortex becomes visible as matter. The smallest stable space vortex is the Quark. All the forces inertia, gravity, week and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism are a result of interaction between the space vortex and space substance.

We don't need a god, god is an excuse to explain the unknown. At present we still do not have a good theory to explain the existence of matter. This is due to the belief space is nothing. When we define the space properties and understand how they work we will define what matter is. And understand where the fundamental forces come from.

The big bang may be valid it's cause still unknown. But the basic space substance must have been here first. It is space substance it's self that is eternal. Of course we can always ask where did space substance come from. Something we may never know. But a simple thing like space substance being eternal is more likely than a complex god creator who also need a more complex creator of himself.

The real question is why there is something instead of nothing. This would even apply to a god.


Advocate 2 years ago

You really should read the Hub again and then read all the comments. You completely are missing the boat.

"It seems to me you are right about creation can not exist, because space and motion had to exist first."

Fattie never says creation, space or motion exist. Existence pertains to objects.

object: that which has shape

Something exists if it is an object with location.

" Two objects in a nothing space can not move either because the distance between them can not be measured."

Before there were rulers, and before there were men who measured there were objects with location...and there was motion- two or more locations of an object.

You really need to re-think this.


Gary 2 years ago

Advocate

My point is space is not nothing. We can measure a single object. The frame of reference is space it's self. We use the speed of light to measure. In a true nothing space even light could not exist.

Until the Michelson Morley experiment failed to detect the space aether and Einstein came up with a theory that says space is empty. All scientist believed in the space aether. Lately there has been a lot of rethinking about the space aether. Call it space time, dark mater, Zero point energy, Higgs field, etc. They all have to admit space is not nothing.

My other point is what you call objects is in actuality just another form of the space substance. Space and matter are one in the same. When space forms a vortex of standing waves it becomes visible as what you call an object. But this object is not separate from space. It is space and is connected to space.

It is not surprising to me you fail to grasp this idea. Scientist have been struggling with it for decades. It seems to me all you want to do is argue about wording. But if you want to prove or disprove god on a scientific basis, You need to know some real science.

A god does not make much sense. And science does not need a god. As to whether a god exist has not been proven. My personal opinion is god is a fantasy like Santa Claws, or the Tooth Fairy.


Advocate 2 years ago

"My point is space is not nothing."

Space is nothing; void; nada; zip. Now what? More appeals to authority, or are you going to explain how if space is matter what is 'it' in? More space?

" We can measure a single object."

If there is no one to measure, does the object still exist?

"In a true nothing space even light could not exist."

Space is not a what it is a where. Light does not 'exist', it is what something does, not what something is.

"All scientist believed in the space aether."

Who cares what anyone believed? Science is about explaining not believing. Brian Greene can not explain his Fabric of Space. Nor can Krauss, or Hawking, or Kaku, or any one of the Rock Stars of Physics. And neither can you. BUT you are the one bringing these nonsensical ideas up so the onus is on you to back up what YOU are saying.

"My other point is what you call objects is in actuality just another form of the space substance. Space and matter are one in the same. "

Do you even understand how ridiculous this sounds? If space and matter are the same, then motion would be impossible because matter could not be displaced.

"When space forms a vortex of standing waves it becomes visible as what you call an object. But this object is not separate from space. It is space and is connected to space."

A solid block of matter? You have been reading too much electric universe and quantum magic nonsense. A vortex is what something does not what something is. Standing waves is what something does not what something is.

"It is not surprising to me you fail to grasp this idea. Scientist have been struggling with it for decades. "

I understand full well the ridiculousness of any such proposal as space is a vortex, aether, field, waves, energy, etc. Doesn't matter what scientists have been grappling with. You state that space is matter. Now you need to explain what you are talking about instead of just polly parroting something you heard some one say.

"But if you want to prove or disprove god on a scientific basis, You need to know some real science."

First of all "real" science never proves anything. Never has. Science 101. Take a course. Read a book. At least learn the basics before telling others what they need to 'know'.

Whether God exists or not is a matter of physics. When one uses the word exist, they have crossed into physics territory. Exist; object with location.

But also, all gods are considered creators. You yourself said that there is no creation, therefore there can be no creators. End of discussion. No opinions required or accepted.


Gary 2 years ago

As far as missing the boat. The introduction to this hub says. "This hub is a continuation of the topic of Creation and why it is impossible." Creation implies a god. If we disprove Creation we disprove god.

Unfortunately we can not prove a negative. To say Creation or god is impossible is to prove a negative. We can only say it is unlikely. After all god is supposed to be able to violate any physical laws and make his own physical laws. However, we could prove he did exist if he would show himself, and I mean show himself physically not the religious claims that he shows himself by his actions. This has never happened and religion has made up a well tuned story why it has not.

A god or creation implies cause and effect. This always breaks down at the first cause. So at some point there must have been a no cause event. So something must have already been here with no cause to get everything going. You can say god, the big bang or space it's self was the no cause event. Here the simplest (space it's self) is the most likely. A god the least likely, a god being complex needs a creator more than the others, and so a creator needs a creator. Anything you apply to a god is equally valid for the other. If god was eternal so could space be eternal. If space needs a creator so does god need a creator. You just can't pick and chose what does and does not need a creator. If we just say space substance is eternal the god problem goes away.


Advocate 2 years ago

"Creation implies a god."

Actually, as I already stated, God implies creation. Since creation is impossible, as you agreed with your first post, then creators are impossible. End of discussion. Game over.

"Unfortunately we can not prove a negative."

Once again, science never proves. You invoked science in your response to me, so I assumed you really wanted to discuss science. I see now that instead you want to discuss religion and philosophy.

As for as logic goes one CAN prove a negative. Just Google, "Can you prove a negative?" and all kinds of examples that counter this pseudologic will appear before your very eyes. This is what happens when you accept authority and parrot others instead of thinking for your self.

"You can say god, the big bang or space it's self was the no cause event."

and

"You just can't pick and chose what does and does not need a creator."

You may say that but you can not substantiate such a irrational proposal, Big Bang creationism is just as irrational as God creationism- not possible! You would have to explain how zero dimensions become the three dimensions of reality in an instant. The point of this Hub is to explain to you that CREATION is impossible because space, matter and motion are eternal.

"If we just say space substance is eternal the god problem goes away."

Matter is eternal, but would be impossible if not for the void. No need to invoke god at all. The whole point of this Hub was to point that out to the religious minded, not to the scientific minded folks.


Gary 2 years ago

Advocate

It does sound crazy that space and matter are the same. This is my conclusion not something I heard. We have all excepted e=mc2 (maybe not you). This means energy and matter are related by the speed of light. The speed of light is determined by the density and compressibility of it's medium space substance. Therefor it is not too much of a stretch to say not only are they related there are in fact the same.

So how is it space appears empty and matter is all we see as substance. It is the properties of space substance that allows this. Space is very very dense and under tremendous tension like a rubber band. Yet at the same time it is frictionless and like a fluid. So dense it is more solid than any ordinary matter. Yet still fluid and frictionless. We are like fish in water they do not see the water. And matter is like steam bubbles in the water. The fish see the bubbles but not the water. As they move through the water the water flows around them unnoticed by the fish.

We do not see the space substance and it flows around us as we move through it. What we do see is the bubbles in the space substance (matter). Like steam bubbles the steam is made of water. Like wise matter is made of space substance.

We know the space substance is there because we can feel the effects. Inertia is the effect of the space getting out of the way as we try to move through it. However it is a little more complex than that. Since matter is actually a vortex in space the space substance actually forms another vortex around the matter vortex. This is where the energy of momentum is stored. When your car hit something a 60 mph you know a lot of energy is released, it is not stored in the car, it is the vortex flow around the car that has the energy. Ok you want to feel this space, put two magnets close to each other. What you are feeling is the effects of the matter vortex in the space substance. In matter all the spins are randomly aligned and a large scale magnetic force is not visible, only the very small magnetic moments inside the matter attract. When matter is magnetized many of the spins are alined in the same direction giving rise to the large scale external magnetic (space) vortex.

I could go on and on and explain how the gravity, nuclear forces, and electromagnetism are created by the space substance. But you seem to think you already know everything, so what is the point.


Gary 2 years ago

Advocate

You must be a teenager. I think you are more interested in impressing you friends with smart ass remarks than having an intelligent conversation.


Gary 2 years ago

I actually agree with this hub. Creation is impossible. Science does not have all the answers. I don't just believe because some physics rock star says so. I use logic and my own judgement to come to a conclusion. You say you use science to prove creation is impossible, yet you quote things like objects and space like you know the true science.

When you say space is nothing how can you be so sure. When you say an object (matter) is what is in empty space who are YOU parroting.

If the universe has no creator then how do you explain all the things we find there and how they came to be. You say evolution does not explain it either. So what is your point. You want to use science to disprove creation, but want to use basic knowledge of space and matter to explain it. Forget it you have already said science can not explain the universe. And I agree science is wrong.

I just offer you a real science how the universe can come to be on it's own. Space is not nothing or empty and matter is also space. Now all we need is the correct properties of space substance and how they work to form matter and everything else we find in the universe. No creation needed. No god needed. We just say space substance is eternal, which follows that energy and matter are also eternal. So I agree with you, except space is not nothing.

For those who do believe god CREATED everything. The argument that god could not create everything because something had to be here first is trumped by the logic that god does not have to follow any physical laws, he makes the law. God can use miracles, and magic. There is no logic to religion this is why they need faith.

So arguing about English wording and what is a place, a thing or what something does or is, is meaningless . It is the basic concept that is important, not how someone says it.

At one time saying the world was round or the earth was not the center of the universe would have been considered absolutely absurd, so the theory of space and matter being the same thing has company, but I believe we will discover it to be true.


Gary 2 years ago

Advocate

"Light does not 'exist', it is what something does, not what something is." Sorry I disagree light does exist, it IS something a photon. It also does something. This is just stupid arguing about wording, meaningless.


Advocate 2 years ago

Wow! Contradict much?

"Creation is impossible"

and then

"I just offer you a real science how the universe can come to be on it's own."

If creation is impossible, how can 'the universe' come to be?

I can see why you don't want to define terms and why say definitions are meaningless. If you did defined exist, object and space, everything you have written here would be meaningless to YOU. It already is to me. Thanx for a waste of my time and a huge waste of internet bandwidth!

Continue rambling on to yourself with your word magic. I'm opting out of this mess.


reko 2 years ago

First, pardon my English as I'm not from an English spoken country - and I never even go to a College or University only finish my Senior High school.

I came across your page because I've been wondering that space and time is nothing without matter, and matter is eternal.

But surprisingly, I don't know why I believe in God (though I'm not a kind of religious person). It is something that difficult to be described and of course I can't describe it :).

To me, faith is two kinds.

One based on something I know, and the other based on something I don't know.

I've to admit that I at first actually believe matter is created. But then my mind questioning like this : "I know that whatever the object (matter) is, it can not be destroyed so it's poof gone without a trace, null, empty. Then why I combined and push my believe that matter has a beginning (created) but has no end rather than matter has no beginning and no end ?" I search the internet and found your page.

Thanks for your article, your hub is the answer of my "wondering" about matter is eternal. But another "wondering" follow : why I hold that matter is eternal and at the same time can not "get-out" to believe in God ?

Why I can not be just like you, matter is eternal and there is no God ? It seems that you never have a question on your mind or at least you have all the answers to your own questions ?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“why I hold that matter is eternal and at the same time can not "get-out" to believe in God ?”

Because you need to differentiate between Science (explanation of events in reality) and BELIEF (The degree of reliability you place in a past event)

It doesn’t make sense to belief in objects. Do you believe in my car? My car exists if it is an object with location....regardless of your belief.

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of distances to all other objects

Exist: object with location

My car or God exist or don’t, by definition. Are they objects? Do they have location? If so, they exist irrespective of whether you know it, believe it or have proof of it. This is what Science is about.

“Why I can not be just like you, matter is eternal and there is no God ?”

Ohhhhh….trust me…..you don’t wanna be like me. I am a heretic and a sinner….and I sleep with my neighbor’s blonde wife! Furthermore, everybody hates me because I won’t convert to their Religion.

“It seems that you never have a question on your mind or at least you have all the answers “

The only answers we can possibly have are rational explanations to justify what we say without contradiction. A belief is not an answer....it's an opinion. Reality can only be critically reasoned Scientifically with a valid Hypothesis and a rational Theory. This is how we can explain events in reality (like Creation) without contradictions.

We Hypothesize that God is an object that exists, just as we are told in the Holy Bible.

Then we try to rationally explain how God can create space & matter. If this process leads to contradictions, then creation is impossible. So….IF creation is impossible, there is NO creator God. But between you and me……I believe my neighbor’s blonde wife is a GODDESS! Please don’t mention this to anyone as I don’t want her husband to find out.

You can learn more about the Scientific analysis of God here:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-N...

“Thanks for your article, your hub is the answer of my "wondering" about matter is eternal.”

You are very welcome, reko.


Mackwho 2 years ago

After reading some of your links now read some of mine, and prove to me that God does not exist! For this was not caused by anything else but Him!

http://freebrownscapular.com/brown_scapular_miracl...

http://www.michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com

Because when it comes down to it these were not random occurrences God intervened in them!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mackwho my friend, please pay close attention to what I am about to say cuz trolling will not work here. I hope you can respect that. I hope you can also respect the fact that in Science we don't compare each other's notes and ask the audience to raise their hands for the most convincing argument. This works in atheist/theist debates and in Politics/Religion....not in Science.

A Scientific argument is one which has no contradictions and stands on its own regardless who agrees or disagrees with it. A planet in the Andromeda galaxy exists regardless whether humans invented telescopes powerful enough to see it…..or even a spaceship to fly there and witness it live. Existence has no provision for eyewitnesses, testimony, observations, belief, knowledge, faith, experimentation, wisdom, authority, credentials or democracy. That planet exists before even a human came into the scene to give their opinion on the issue.

1) Existence is OBJECTIVE, where the object (i.e. planet, God, Big Foot, etc) is the entity that exists; i.e. irrespective of human observers and their opinions.

2) Belief is SUBJECTIVE, where the subject is the human using his senses and emotions to draw a conclusion about his BELIEF on the existence of an entity. This has nothing to do with reality. People see visions all the time and believe in all sorts of stuff. Nobody cares about beliefs and opinions.

Now it is OBVIOUS that either God exists or doesn’t……not because you or I say so…..but because existence is objective without a gawking audience, their opinions or dictatorship!

1) God is claimed to be the creator of SPACE & MATTER by Theologians. This is their HYPOTHESIS or proposal they put forth on the table.

2) A hypothesis requires a THEORY that explains WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS how the God entity can POSSIBLY (not exactly how, but one possibility) create space and then create matter. And this explanation had better be rational; i.e. WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS.

Scientific Method = Hypothesis + Theory

Once you can provide this explanation for #2, you will have JUSTIFIED why God can POSSIBLY exist.

But I already got that started for you in my article below where it is Scientifically justified that it is impossible for space and matter to be created. Therefore, it is impossible for such a God entity to perform this process. Ergo….a CREATOR God is IMPOSSIBLE.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-N...

Now having said that…..some folks believe in non-creator Gods. For example, I believe my neighbor’s blonde wife is a GODESS! But hey….beliefs vary.

Now, my friend….I don’t want to discount your work, so I took the liberty to look through it. But nowhere did I find a THEORY (i.e. rational explanation) that explains how space and the very first bit of matter (i.e. atom) were created. Hence…..your articles have nothing to do with Science. They have to do with Religion and belief. This is the domain of ATHEISM & THEISM. Your articles are actually targeted towards ATHEISTS who “believe” there is no God. Your articles are specifically written for the purposes of twisting their arm and CONVINCING them to believe in God. Science & Reality will have none of that. God either exists or not regardless of how many arms you can twist….understand???

The existence of God has nothing to do with man’s ignorance of where beautiful clouds and flowers came from…..or where the Earth, the sky and the stars came from……or where life came from. Just because an individual doesn’t have the intellect to propose a rational theory (again, Science!) for these pressing questions, doesn’t imply that a hypothesized God did it. I hope you can look at yourself in the mirror and admit that you understand this.

The existence of God or the existence of ANY entity falls directly in the realm of PHYSICS. Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics studies via the Scientific Method only entities which are HYPOTHESIZED to exist…..like God!


Mackwho 2 years ago

You seem to believe that God has restrictions but you must understand this, God lives in a different world then we do where no time affects him, same with space! Also these bible quotes are from a human author so they are going from Gods respective so thus, time and space do not affect him, also the miracles in which all of these took place were the Catholic Church thus you would assume that the Catholic Church is the church God chose and if that is correct that means that it's teachings are correct thus, what I have said is correct, and I must apologized for the spam, although one last thing you never seemed to answer this one question, you stated earlier space is nothing, although if something is nothing how does it continue to exist, for space is something that is able to be filled thus is has to be something...?


Mackwho 2 years ago

Okay while I still disagree with your statement of how space and time have been forever because nothing in this world is infinite and everything does so thus someday all will die, thus it requires a God that is of another world, and goes on forever! Also you seem to have no explanation from what I understand of where matter came from? Because space and time sure didn't create it! It had to come from somewhere, more so something.., God!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“You seem to believe”

Sorry, there are NO beliefs whatsoever in any of my articles. Everything is rationally explained without contradictions. Please learn the diff between beliefs and the Scientific Method.

“God…..no time affects him”

Exactly! Time doesn’t affect any entity, living or inert…..including non-existing entities like God, Superman, Cinderella and square-circles. Time is a concept, not an object. Only objects can perform the verb AFFECT to ascribe motion to another object. Learn the diff between objects and concepts and set yourself free from tyranny!

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

“same with space! “

Space: that which lacks shape.

Space is a concept too. Space is borderless, boundless, colorless, temperature-less, object-less….i.e. can only be described in the negative because space does not exist.

Ergo….space does not perform actions either. And God can’t create space…..nor matter! God is completely powerless to a nothing like space. Very embarrassing, isn’t it??

“Also these bible quotes are ….”

…from the Holy Bible, the faithful word of God Almighty. Those who don’t believe in them go straight to Hell. This is what your Religion proposes, idiot……live with it or just drop it all in the trash. But don’t come here like a demented loser complaining about how YOUR Bible destroys YOUR own Religion….got it?

“you stated earlier space is nothing, although if something is nothing how does it continue to exist, for space is something that is able to be filled”

Space doesn’t exist. Pay attention:

Exist: object with location

Space doesn’t even qualify as an object, much less have location.

Space: that which lacks shape

Space lacks shape, so it ain’t a Tupperware of sorts you can fill with marbles and stuff. Use your brain to think and reason for once.

“Also you seem to have no explanation from what I understand of where matter came from?”

You should read this article in its entirety and receive the education you’ve never received in your entire life. Maybe then you won’t ask such contradictory questions.

You will learn that matter is eternal……cannot be created nor destroyed. Creation is impossible. WTF have you been doing here for the past week…..just trolling and no reading. Shame!!


Mackwho 2 years ago

Let me ask you this do you believe in the bug bang?


Mackwho 2 years ago

Okay I am curious about this some of what you say is based on scientific theories , although some aren't for example show me the theory of how space in non existent, or the theory explaining how time is eternal? Phil have said I need theories when you yourself don't have any!


Mackwho 2 years ago

Also I don't think you still understand the word God it means all powerful so this he could create something from nothing! Why don't you believe this simple principle?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“show me the theory of how space in non existent”

Existence is NEVER a theory. You need to take an introductory course in Science instead of getting your contradictory “one liners” from Atheist-Theist debates.

Theory = rational explanation of the physical mechanism that mediated a past event; like continental drift, or evolution, or light, or gravity, or magnetism, etc.

Existence is a hypothesis (an assumption for the purposes of explaining YOUR theory)….NOT an event. So whatever YOU propose exists, it had better be non-contradictory.

Object: that which has shape

Space: that which lacks shape

Exists: an object with location

REPEATING FOR THE SECOND TIME TO YOU: Space/nothing is not an object and has no location. SPACE DOES NOT EXIST AND IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXIST BY DEFINITION. Asserting that space exists is an ontological contradiction....i.e. impossible. Please tell me you can read Engrish and understand this!!

“how time is eternal?”

ARE YOU BRAIN-DEAD OR WHAT? Which part of time being a CONCEPT didn’t you understand from my previous post to you? Of course time doesn’t exist and can’t be eternal!!!

Are you here to troll me?

“I don't think you still understand the word God it means all powerful so this he could create something from nothing!”

It is YOU who doesn’t understand YOUR HYPOTHESIS of God. You can propose in YOUR hypothesis that God is as powerful as you want. The fact remains that….

1) God is NOT an object because God cannot create space. Space is THE background that every object requires in order to have SHAPE/FORM as YOUR Bible wholeheartedly agrees….and very rationally might I add! No space = no shape/form = no God! Without space, God is nothing. Ergo…..God did NOT create space because space MUST surround God. You now have the chicken-or-the-egg problem which contradicts God.

2) Even if you discount #1 by BELIEF alone (not by any Scientific criterion)…..the fact remains that God cannot create something from nothing. From nothing….NO THING arises. Impossible for God to morph no shape into shape….irrespective of how powerful the Almighty is ascribed to be by his clan. Regardless.....nobody cares about BELIEFS, even tho I tried to entertain one for you here just to educate you.

Moral of the story: You need to stop watching Atheist-Theist debates. They mess up your brain with contradictions!!!!!!


Mackwho 2 years ago

Okay let me try to get at what I was saying earlier all those miracles happened in the Catholic Church thus, the Catholic Church is the legitimate Church, and as it goes the teachings of the Catholic Church go with it, God was the single event from which everything came.

Try reading this:

Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Most natural things lack knowledge.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Also you keep saying your bible well in the Catholic Church there are four interpretations of scripture, you are using the literal sense which we are not always supposed to use! For if you took the body literally you would have not limbs right now!

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Thus you need to use the other branch too which the Church address the traditatiom which maintains how the pope is inherent on the topics of Faith and Morals and it has been said that God is he start thus He is.

Also, if nothing exists also known as space, how does it have a name, everything that I know that exists, in a grown up world that is has a name. (Ex kids may create childish names for certain objects)

The Big Bang has happened, for everything has expanded out and keeps expanded out due to dark energy, thus explain to me how to Big Bang happened it has been described as a sudden move from energy to matter this seems a lot like God!

Lastly, for this comment God is existent no doubt about it, and as stated before the Church regards him as all powerful, and is not of this time and space, thus what affects us doesn't affect him because, he is in a different place, Heaven... And when your say He is here that is because he is interacting with this world, and is obvisoly notes clock maker God!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

It's all gibberish gobbledygook which you don't understand and can't defend,....especially since I have articles refuting the Big Bang, uncaused cause, and all the other Atheist-Theist nonsense you posted. Not a single definition....not a single rational explanation....and just contradictions (as I outlined previously and in all my other articles). The garbage you post here is no different than the Religious crap posted by Atheists. You two belong together in Holy Matrimony forever and ever Amen!

Your Religion and all Religions go in the trash once you Scientifically define OBJECT, SPACE and EXIST. You need to educate yourself rather than copy/pasting stuff you don't understand.

If you want to convince a bonehead by twisting his arm until he says "UNCLE".....go try an ATHEIST. Those clowns will believe anything!

These articles are about Physics with precise definitions and rational explanations without contradictions. Please keep the discussion to this level from now on if you wish to participate here.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mackwho.....Atheists believe that God POSSIBLY exists. So right off the bat you two are at the exact same level as far as beliefs and intelligence goes. No wonder you've been debating for over 2000 years.

Atheism is a Religion that opposes Theism for one and only ONE reason: they hate a specific PERSONIFICATION of God along with His accompanying dictatorship! Atheist believe in a Deistic God, the Creator of the Big Bang, space and time (i.e. spacetime). Here…..educate yourself:

“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! The question is, is there evidence for that? That’s what we tried to debate. So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. And it may, it may indeed, ultimately, we may find that it’s required. But the relation between that and the specific God that some people believe in here, and the specific God that other people believe in here, is obviously a problem, because not everyone can be right. And everyone believes this fervently, most people who are fundamentalists in their religion, believe this fervently, that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. And they can’t all be right. And the point is that they’re probably all wrong. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Lawrence Krauss

"I don’t think you can disprove the existence of God. That’s the problem. I think it’s absolutely impossible to disprove the existence of God." -Krauss Deistic Agnostic Cosmologist

“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible.” – Pastor Lawrence Krauss

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Richard Dawkins

“It is possible for a God to exist. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang…nothing! Do you understand that? To say that there was not a God BEFORE the Big Bang is to claim something that you cannot KNOW!” -- Tim Brooks, Professional Atheist

See video @ 1:00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrdzyK6-5MA

So Mackwho…..go and sell your contradictory wares to the Atheist community since both of you are at the SAME level of intelligence. It’s Sunday today, so they’re in Service (i.e. Atheist Experience). Try Monday – Saturday. Their Deistic God rests on Sundays.


Mackwho 2 years ago

You have just stated you have constricted yourself yet stae not contradiction, you have sayed God does not exist yet state no evidence that he doesn't exist, you have stated many therioes, yet have no proof behind them thus only making them a hypothesis, and also no math, you state that the Big Bang never happened but recent evidence has even showed that the Big Bang has happened: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/14...

Also you seem to keep attacking the organization and not the topic and again seem to be weak in your argument, and I understand what you are trying to say but have no evidence, and common science these days contradict what you are saying! Also you say atheist and theist are the same well you sir are the one that needs to learn English because atheists means against God, and theists wih God, quite opposite!

You still as stated above don't address the fact that the Carholic Church has had the only miracles, thus it must be the only True church thus God must be working with it! Thus what it teaches must be true! As far as faith and Morals!!!!! You are the one that seems not to face this, I am quite open I believe a lot of scientific therioes but yours seem to fall apartnatbthe seems!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“yet state no evidence that he doesn't exist”

Nutcase Whacko…..that which doesn’t exist has no evidence BY DEFINITION. Basic Reasoning 101.

Regardless…..what is evident to you is OBSCURITY and a LIE to your neighbor. Evidence is the result of an action from a human and dependent on his limited sensory system and always resolves to OPINION. Did you ever go to school or did your parents sell your body to a Catholic Priest to be his personal sex toy? I’ll assume the latter since you’ve never answered any question I posed to you.

“must be true!”

TRUTH = OPINION. Learn something for once in your life and stop using terms you don’t understand:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

Truth is the hallmark of Nutcase Religions like Atheism & Theism. Science only explains reality without contradictions. You confuse Science with Religion…..an honest mistake made by Atheists and Agnostics like you. If you wanna believe….go believe with the clowns that have your reasoning capacity….the Atheists.

If you have something to refute, you would have done it after 15 posts. You’re just here to bellyache, whine and cry forever because for the very FIRST time in your life, your head has been cut off and you're running around in circles headless……not to mention that you’ve been FISTED by the best the Good Lord’s Universe has to offer.

Your trolling time is up, Whacko!


Jethu262 profile image

Jethu262 2 years ago from Cincinatti

fatfist, I've enjoyed your conversation with Whackmole and I'd like to just chime in here for a moment with a question for he/she, or any prospective debators, and it is mostly a question relating to their "holy grail". Omnipotence. These folks always have to fall back on this magical word, "omnipotence" in every case where their "argument" fails. They'll say "well, God is omnipotent" or "all powerful", in order to explain how their sky-fairy shatters the behaviors of physics.

To these folks I present a single question. Any of them with half of a brain should see the contradiction inherent with the term "omnipotence", or "all powerful" immediately. Here is my question:

Is God so powerful, that he can create an absolutely unmovable object, that not even he himself can move?

An even simpler version would be:

Is God so powerful, that he could create an object so heavy, that not even he could lift it?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

I always tell them: Ok, I accept your word that God is omnipotent and ever-powerful to the fullest extend of the word. Now let's put your "omnipotence" to the test and see if it passes with flying colors....

Problem is: God still cannot create the Universe. God cannot create space as He needs space to have shape/form. And God cannot create matter, as formless space cannot convert into an object.

Therefore, omnipotence is contradictory. But I will confess....it's a very nice sneaky word that forces Atheists into submission and to admit that God COULD be possible. But those who take the time to analyze the word don't fall for this obvious trick.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Muffin Man.....emotional pleas, proselytizing, morality and other subjectivities are better served for the Atheist forums....the asylum of boneheads that believe in God/gods.

If you have a Scientific argument to post here, please do so. If you can contradict this article, please copy/paste where the contradiction is and explain why it is so. Trolling doesn't work here. Try the Atheist forums where you can find fools that care about your emotional pleas and psyche.


John 2 years ago

While I respect your point of view and found this article quite interesting. Please stop with the harsh attacks on others and their perspectives. Half of what you wrote is "religion this and religion that". It doesn't make you sound any smarter when you're raging and throwing insults out the door. Though you are a smart guy don't get me wrong. I just can't stomach all of this bitterness.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

John, Mackowhaco, and all the other hundreds of aliases you use to diguise yourself here.....please listen up as this is your LAST chance to participate in a rational discussion about the Physics of God: Stop crying, whimpering, bellyaching and bleeding ESTROGEN in my hood as you are staining and stinking up the place with your high cortisol and copper-toxic feminine juices.

If you cannot rationally justify your claims about this article, then go home and play the same EMOTIONAL games you lamebrains have been playing with those Atheists for the past 2500 years!

Much to the dismay of the Religions of Atheism & Theism....the God issue is SETTLED once and for all in this article. If you can contradict it and refute the article, there is a $10,000 USD PayPal reward for you or your favorite Church or Charity.

This article has NO point of view or opinion and nobody cares about yours either. This article rationally explains why God is impossible….OBJECTIVELY (i.e. without opinion) and WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS. If you disagree (and I hope you do)…just be a sweet darling and copy/paste any text that you say contradicts this article and explain why. And please…..don’t respect me….just whack me over my friggin’ head with your intellectual prowess and let me have it, ok?

This is your last warning before you get banned permanently from here. Either put up or STFU!

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working