INFINITE REGRESSION Argument for Creation - REFUTED

If there is no Infinite Regress, then HOW can God possibly be INFINITE?? Can the THEIST answer that?
If there is no Infinite Regress, then HOW can God possibly be INFINITE?? Can the THEIST answer that?
Does the Universe have borders that enclose you like a box? Ever wonder what is outside the box? Don't you think it's about time for you to THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX??
Does the Universe have borders that enclose you like a box? Ever wonder what is outside the box? Don't you think it's about time for you to THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX??

INTRODUCTION


The proponents of Creationism (theists and atheists) posit the following irrational and fallacious argument in order to brainwash the masses into believing that the Universe was “created”:

“If the past was ‘infinite’, then you cannot traverse an infinite set of events from the past in order to reach NOW. There couldn’t have been an infinite amount of time in the past because the present could not have been reached in order to realize our current existence. Since infinity cannot be realized and is not real, we must conclude that the Universe is not eternal, but instead, created!”


Such lamebrains fool no one! We will explain why such a fallacious argument is absolutely no different than saying:

“If there are an ‘infinite’ amount of numbers, then you cannot traverse that infinite set and expect to reach the numbers that we are using today, like 1, 2, 3,...etc. Thus it would be impossible for us to say that “1+1=2”. Since it is impossible to have an infinite set of numbers, we must logically conclude that numbers had a beginning. The Big Bang atheist will conclude that the biggest number is 13.7 billion, while the Genesis theist will conclude that the biggest number is 6000!”


....and here is the antidote, which, when used within the same context, INSTANTLY DEBUNKS the fallacious Infinite Regress Argument:

“Since we cannot describe the past or the future using a finite number of causal events going backwards or forwards in time from the PRESENT, then the past and future must be eternal. You cannot traverse the past in a finite number of cause/effects to show Existence as VANISHING into nothingness. You cannot traverse the past and ever hope to find a point of Creation. Nope! No freakin’ way! Therefore the Universe is eternal - it had no beginning and will have no end. There was NEVER any Creation or any God.....QED!”


So the lamebrains who use the Infinite Regress Argument will have to cherry-pick the exact VERSION of the argument that suits their agenda:

a) They can either pick the version which demonstrates an Uncaused First Cause (see First Cause Argument DEBUNKED).

or

b) They can pick the ANTIDOTE which demonstrates that the Universe is indeed eternal (see Creation is IMPOSSIBLE).


Q: Which will it be? Do we flip a coin?

A: It doesn’t matter.....they BOTH lead to the conclusion that the Universe is eternal. There is no other option.


This article will expose the irrationalities and contradictions associated with the clause: “infinite regress”. You will see why such petty arguments belong only within the realm of the worst kind of Religions imaginable. These Religions do not preach belief and faith-based dogma, but instead preach the doctrine of worshipping the CONTRADICTION! Such Religions are often found in the traditional fundamentalist realm, as well as the contemporary fundamentalist realm of Mathematical Physics, which embodies Religions such as: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory.





PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE MEANINGS OF ‘INFINITE’ AND ‘ETERNAL’


.....and after reading this section, the proponents of the Infinite Regress Argument will STILL REFUSE to understand these terms....nor do they care to understand them. It’s much easier for these fools to continue parroting their nonsense which violates grammar, reason, and reality.

These feeble-minded folks often attempt to show a contradiction for an eternal Universe by using the word ‘infinite’ in their arguments. But what they end up doing instead, is unwittingly contradicting their OWN argument for “creation”.

It is just as much as irrational to say “Infinite Regress”, as it is to say “Eternal Regress”. Both clauses are complete gibberish – meaningless!

People’s confusion stems from the fact that ‘eternal’ refers to the metric of motion (forever; no temporal beginning and no end); while ‘infinity’ implicitly alludes to the sizes of objects (having a beginning of construction, but no end). One is an adverb while the other is an adjective. How they can confuse the two is beyond human comprehension!

Those who say “Eternal Regress” are oblivious to the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an object to change its direction, and suddenly regress backwards eternally. Remember, ‘eternal’ implies no beginning AND no end. You cannot begin walking backwards forever and irrationally claim that your regressing motion is eternal. The term ‘eternal’ is an adverb of the time metric of motion only; in that the motion is perpetual. It is irrational to use it in the context of “an implicit start” or “direction” (i.e. go backwards, go forwards, etc.). And it’s just as irrational to claim that your regressing motion is infinite (i.e. alluding to the size of an object).

How some people don’t understand these basic Kindergarten ideas is mind-boggling! And yet they showcase their arguments in public by professing to be experts in Logic, Physics and Cosmology. Priceless!


The word ‘infinite’ is the context-opposite of ‘finite’, and thus irrationally implies that an object is either incessantly growing in size, or its size is indeterminate. In common language (not scientific language) it is sometimes said that an ocean can be infinite, because the observer cannot readily determine its size. But it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for anything in the Universe to be infinite in size, otherwise it would actually BE ‘the’ Universe.

Eternal can only be applied in the context of time/motion. So if we want to scientifically describe the Universe from a temporal perspective, we can say: The Universe has no beginning and no end, or the Universe is eternal. Remember, the Universe is a concept (matter and space relation), not an object, that’s why we can qualify it with the adverb ‘eternal’.


From an objective approach to the problem, infinite is an adjective whereas eternal is an adverb.

An adverb is a qualifier of a ‘concept’ or a ‘verb’, specifically, for dynamic concepts like time and motion. So you can say “eternal motion” or “eternal time”, but you cannot say “eternal Sun”. It is irrational to qualify objects as eternal. It only makes sense to qualify the “motion” (verb) of objects as eternal.

An adjective is a qualifier of an ‘object’, like Sun, table, atom, etc. You can try to say that a table is finite or infinite, but you must realize that it is impossible for any object to be ‘infinite’, because all objects have ‘shape’, and thus are always finite. In common everyday speech, people always say that objects, concepts, and verbs are infinite, but this is not only irrational and violates grammar, but it is also impossible.


What has happened, as usually happens in any language; is that due to mindless casual ordinary speech, people have unwittingly converted (reified) the adjective ‘infinite’ into the noun ‘infinity’, and the adverb ‘eternal’ into the noun ‘eternity’. Whenever they use ‘infinity’ or ‘eternity’ in a sentence, they are irrationally alluding to an imaginary object that is impossible to exist. Many will also reify ‘infinite’ into the adverb ‘infinitely’, and use it to qualify motion, when they should instead be using the adverb ‘incessant’. Then everyone just mindlessly parrots this breathtaking knowledge without even understanding what they are talking about. And when many people parrot this nonsense, we call it: Religion!

Converting and using the adjective "infinite" as though it was the noun "infinity", is as irrational and inappropriate as converting the adjective "finite" into the noun "finity". And such concoctions are inapplicable to reality, the Universe, mathematics, or to any other conceivable context. Therefore, this inconsistent usage of the irrational word “infinite” is unscientific (unrealistic) and always leads to sillytalk and contradictions.

In physics, we don’t use common everyday parlance; we are “precise” with our use of terms. It is irrational to say something is infinite, especially with regards to reality. Adjectives like infinite, cannot describe verbs and concepts. Only adverbs can describe verbs and concepts. So you can say that, ‘running’ (verb) is incessant (adverb). But you cannot say, ‘running’ is infinite (adjective). And you definitely cannot say: infinite regress (verb). Such clauses are completely meaningless – total gibberish that is only meant for Religious usage!


Mathematicians claim that there are infinite numbers and infinite sets. The problem with infinity is simple. The mathematicians have morphed (reified) “incessant counting” into “infinite numbers”. Then they converted 'infinite numbers' into the noun 'infinity'. Mathematics has no use for nouns or adjectives. Mathematics is exclusively a language of adverbs because it is the study of dynamic concepts, like numbers, motion, equations, etc. So in their context, “infinity” means that you count incessantly. Counting incessantly, like not counting at all, does not qualify as a number. Therefore, whenever a mathematician uses the words ‘infinite’ or ‘infinity’, he is talking religion and not science. Similarly, the popular notion of ‘infinite set’ means that the number of elements in it is so great that we would count them incessantly. Such conceptual abstractions have nothing to do with reality. Not even Mathematics can make sense out of these delusional abstractions.

In the real world, in the Universe out there, everything is countable if we only had enough time to do it. Only the mindless geeks of Mathematics and the priests of Religion use the word infinity. There is no context in which to use the words infinite or infinity in physics or in nature. The term 'infinite object' is an ontological contradiction and the term 'infinite counting' is irrational. The correct term is 'incessant counting.' Therefore the word ‘infinite’ is restricted to Mathematical or abstract conceptual usage, and can never be used in physics! Physics deals exclusively with objects and space; none of which can be described as being infinite.


Whenever a so-called scientist uses the adjectives ‘finite’ or ‘infinite’ to qualify speed or space, you instantly know that he is a Religionist, and not a scientist. These Religionists are invoking ordinary speech rather than scientific terminology. They are confusing nouns with verbs in the same presentation. They should at least get their language straight before making fools of themselves in public.


Anybody who uses any of the following terms in a sentence, especially to talk about the Universe, space, matter, existence, or God....

a) ADJECTIVE: infinite

b) NOUN: infinity, finity, eternity

c) ADVERB: infinitely

....is an ignorant fool with absolutely no clue of what they are talking about. They have disconnected themselves from reality and are drowning in a sea of religious/mathematical delusion.


"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein


That’s right.....despite his irrational theories; even Einstein understood that the Universe was not infinite, but rather, eternal. That’s why he never bought into the Religion of the Big Bang.





THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH “INFINITE REGRESS”


The major problems arising whenever somebody uses “infinite regress” in their arguments are:


1) The ignorant presenter combines an adjective (infinite) with a verb (regress) and claims that the clause “infinite regress” makes sense to him. It’s like saying that the term “triangular laughing” makes sense. Time to take Grammar 101.

2) Since “infinite” is an adjective, in order for it to be used in a sentence it necessarily demands an object! But there are NO infinite objects in the Universe, under any context. So it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to use the word “infinite” in any context concerning reality.

3) The presenter should instead be using the adverb “incessant” to qualify “regress” (motion). But the funny thing is: since his foolish argument does NOT make reference to any objects, then “incessant regress” is not even applicable to his argument.

4) Instead, his foolish argument is relying on the reification of a concept like regress, event, cause, etc.....into an ‘object’, and then attempt to traverse this supposed object ‘infinitely’......and in the process.....confuse the hell out of the reader into accepting the argument as True Gospel. Talk about pulling the wool over your eyes!

5) Now that he has a fictitious (and irrational) scenario set up, he proceeds to attack & stab this straw puppet to death by claiming that there are NO actual infinites in the Universe. Well, duh! If there aren’t, then WHY did he bring up this strawman argument?

6) Now the presenter attempts to traverse “infinity” from the opposite direction (past) from a fictitious starting point, in order to reach the initially defined (present). Since he can’t do this, he now has another STRAWMAN to attack!

7) After the presenter has FORMULATED, IDENTIFIED, ATTACKED, STABBED, and KILLED all the strawmen in his foolish argument, he victoriously claims that it is impossible for the Universe to be eternal.

8) Thus he concludes that the Universe was created in a t=0 beginning, whether from a God or from a Singularity. And almost everyone and their brother falls victim to this scam.



Of course infinity is not real. There is no point of contention here. Only objects which have ‘shape’ and ‘location’ can be said to be real (i.e. exist).

Concepts cannot be traversed like you traverse a road from one town to another. Only physical objects can be traversed. But the Infinite Regress argument is talking about traversing concepts, like events, time, causes, etc. Concepts CANNOT be traversed because they have no physical structure to traverse; they do not exist, and they necessarily require a dynamic observer with memory to conceive them. So even if the proponent of the argument uses the adverb ‘incessant’ instead of the adjective ‘infinite’, his argument still fails because concepts cannot perform this incessant motion that he is alluding to. He instead needs to identify an object, like an atom, that regresses incessantly. But he will not do that because it will destroy his argument.


But even if, say, for arguments sake, we “pretend” that some invisible object called ‘time’ exists, and can supposedly be traversed,....the Infinite Regress argument still leads to contradictions!

Why?

Because “infinite” implies a start but no end; thus alluding to something which is not finite and indeterminate. So theists and atheists are actually setting up a STRAWMAN by alluding to an artificial starting point of time they call NOW or PRESENT, which is growing back in time into an infinite past. And this is not only irrational, but impossible! So they proceed to attack this strawman by claiming that an infinite past would not allow a traversal into the present to be reached. In their strawman attack, they try to pick some undefined starting point in the infinite past in order to traverse in the OPPOSITE direction into the present. But they claim they can’t do that because the past was infinitely growing and no starting point can be realized. All they’ve managed to do here is kill a strawman in order to proclaim that the Universe must have had a t=0 beginning of creation.

They should understand that the Universe is the only conceivable perpetual motion machine. The Universe is static because it has no stored states; is has no memory and no dynamisms. Every single object in the Universe is separated from all others by the nothingness of space. Hence each object only has LOCATION in the present, and in all presents; as there is no past and no future by which existence can be gauged. Hence objects CANNOT traverse a ‘past’ or a ‘future’. Objects only have a present location - always! Space has no boundaries and hence no t=0 moment of creation can be deduced, induced, or reasoned in any way possible. It is this boundlessness of space and the Universe’s static behaviour in the PRESENT which makes the Universe perpetual and eternal. It never had a beginning and it will have no end.

For those who disagree that the Universe is perpetual and eternal, I welcome their explanations which can justify their position of a t=0 beginning.

So really, the Infinite Regress argument is irrational and contradictory because it violates not only grammar, but reality. This argument is notoriously used as a strawman argument by setting up an initial REFERENCE point to the regression and calling it the PRESENT, which supposedly is flowing infinitely into the past. And then the strawman is attacked by irrationally attempting to traverse the regression in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION, by claiming that you cannot find a starting point in the infinite past which will lead to the present. Well, duh! Of course you can’t, because “infinite” is atemporal. So the proponents of this argument always attack the strawman of a fictitious starting point in the infinite atemporal past. They set up their own contradiction, and then they misrepresent this contradiction as being dependent upon an eternal Universe. Sorry, but they don’t fool the critical thinkers out there.

Anyway, their argument is pure bunk because you cannot traverse or regress concepts. In reality, only OBJECTS can be traversed or regressed.


Remember: ‘infinite’ is an adjective that only qualifies abstract mathematical objects, and NOT Universal events, causes, time, or motion. It can’t be used to qualify nouns, verbs, adverbs, objects, existence, or anything having to do with reality!





THEISTS AND ATHEISTS LIKE TO PLAY BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WITH “INFINITE REGRESS”


Just to showcase the extreme ignorance and lack of rational thought of the proponents of this Infinite Regress argument, let’s just “pretend” to play along with them under THEIR terms. Let’s have some fun with them.....shall we?


So even after the mindless theist and atheist flat-out tells you in your face that the Universe had a t=0 beginning point of CREATION, because Infinite Regress is impossible (duh!),.....they will proceed to tell you that Infinite Regress does NOT apply to their creation argument.

Q: Why not?

A: Because they said so, and you’d better BELIEVE them, and don’t even think about questioning them!! It is a FACT that their God & Singularity do not have a t=0 beginning (of course!!!), otherwise it would DESTROY THEIR FICTITIOUS RELIGION in an instant!


Now we expose how the “theist” and the “atheist” BOTH contradict themselves because they necessarily ALLOW for an Infinite Regress in their arguments in order to support the special pleading of their respective Religions. This is how they twist your arm and get you to believe their claim:


THEIST: The theist first claims that infinite regress is an impossibility, so it’s a DEAD issue, and the Universe cannot be eternal. But then RESURRECTS it by saying that it’s okay for God to exist in His own “bubble” of infinite regress in the past, and somehow traverses infinity into the future when He creates the Universe. So God waited an infinite amount of time until He decided: “Hey! I’d like to create a Universe!” So if God was thinking in His own infinite time bubble about creating the Universe, then WHY didn’t He create it instantaneously, at which point the Universe would be ETERNAL, instead of traversing an infinite amount of time (which is impossible) and claiming to have created it in the infinite future (13.7 billion years ago)? As it turns out, God is NOT eternal either!

ATHEIST: The atheist first claims that infinite regress is an impossibility, so it’s a DEAD issue, and the Universe cannot be eternal. But then RESURRECTS it by saying that it’s okay for the Singularity to exist in its own “bubble” of infinite regress in the past, and somehow traverses infinity into the future when it creates the Universe without a cause. So the Singularity waited an infinite amount of time until it decided: “Hey! I’d like to create a Universe acausally!” So if the Singularity was waiting in its own infinite time bubble before creating the Universe, then WHY didn’t it create it instantaneously, at which point the Universe would be ETERNAL, instead of traversing an infinite amount of time (which is impossible) and claiming to have created it in the infinite future (13.7 billion years ago)? As it turns out, the Singularity or any type of Big Bang “seed” is NOT eternal either!


Talk about playing Double-Dutch! Talk about having your own cake and eating it too! Talk about playing BOTH SIDES of the argument!!!!!

These are the typical irrational, childish, and brain-dead arguments made by theists, atheists, priests and mathematical physicists; and for the sole purpose of protecting their respective Religions from the voice of reason. They want to protect their Religions from critical thought, as any academic inquiry into their Dark Age dogma will surely unravel its ontological contradictions and send it to the garbage bin where it belongs.

Well guess what? Their arguments are easily refuted by merely using their OWN argumentative attack on Infinite Regress, and attacking their implied and necessitated Infinite Regress on God and the Singularity. It works both ways!


Q: Can their arguments get even stupider than what they already are?

A: Yes! Just listen to their circus show tactics as they try to protect their Religions from scientific inquiry and scrutiny:


Atheist: “It’s nonsense to claim that an invisible sky-daddy created the Universe. What was before God? Who created God?”

Theist: “This is a meaningless question. There was no time before God. Time began when God created the Universe. God is so great that we cannot possibly hope to understand Him and His ways. It’s like asking: what did God have for lunch last year?”

Theist: “What was before the Big Bang explosion and the Singularity? Who created the Singularity? Who set off the explosion?”

Atheist: “This is a meaningless question. There was no time before the Singularity created the Big Bang. Time began at the Big Bang. It is meaningless to ask who set off the explosion. We only know facts after the Plank Time of the explosion. Uh duh, it’s like asking: what’s north of the North Pole?”


Well, SPACE is north of the North Pole and south of the South Pole, and there are stars and planets out there! That's the stuff we encounter when we take a step radially outwards from the North Pole. Where is the North Star, also known as Polaris? Isn't it north of the North Pole? Or is it south of the North Pole?

Space is what “contours” the supposed “edge” of the Big Bang explosion. So space was already there, which contradicts the religion of the Big Bang.

Similarly, space is what “contours” God, and allows him to move and impart causal actions. So space was already there, which contradicts all creationist religions.

These mindless parrots need to get their heads out of their butts, stop parroting authority, and start using their brains for THINKING rather than for memorizing authoritative quotes. That’s the only way they can begin to conceptualize, rationalize, visualize, and understand the Universe.

The buffoons who answer with: “that’s a meaningless or invalid question”; don’t fool anyone. What the answer does is destroy their religion, so it must be avoided at all costs. It is these lame excuses that allow them to dodge the scientific questions and censor them, because they place their religion in the light of scientific scrutiny. They don’t have the balls to admit that they only BELIEVE in creation because some authoritative priest (William-Lane Craig, Billy Graham, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, etc.) told them to do so.


In summary, such arguments regarding Infinite Regress have absolutely nothing to do with the Universe, existence, or reality; nor do they contradict the eternal Universe (matter & space) in any way. They are irrationally used for formulating strawman arguments that deal with the abstract notion of the “infinite”, which only has Religious and Mathematical connotations attached to it. Remember: ‘infinite’ is NOT the same as ‘eternal’.





CREATION UNDER ANY CONTEXT IS AN IRRATIONAL & UNTENABLE CLAIM


No matter what idea the proponents of Creation use in an attempt to justify their position, whether it is infinite regress, first cause, singularities, God, etc., they always end up chasing their tails in circles. There is not a single Creationist argument which does not lead to ontological contradictions. This includes the proponents of the Big Bang religion, as this idea is even more surrealistic and more supernatural than positing a Creator God, because it irrationally proposes matterless motion and self-creation out of nothing. That is a BIGGER whopper to swallow than a magical God.


Bottom line: The claim of Creation is unfounded and unsupported by any conceptual analysis, whether from traditional religion, or from contemporary religions like the Big Bang. It is the case that we presently have matter that is separated by space. This is in fact the DEFAULT POSITION. Any claim wanting to depart from the default position MUST explain its case rationally!


But what we actually have from the Religionist and the Big Bang Apologist is the CLAIM and the BELIEF that there was no matter and no space at some instant in the past. This is the positive claim they are presenting which is akin to the claim that a square-circle can be realized.

1) The proponent of such a claim has to explain HOW it could be possible that there was NO matter and space at some instant in the past. How is that even a possibility?

2) WHY wouldn’t there be matter and space in the past? What is the reason?


Once they are able to rationally answer the questions above and give us the reasons for their claim, they will now have to justify their claim:

1) Now they will have to justify their CLAIM that there was no matter and space in the past by describing in detail the ontological situation of no matter and no space. How is that situation any different than just “omnipresent space” without any matter? What is the difference between space and non-space? Please explain in detail.

2) They will also have to explain the process by which matter and space can arise from the ontological situation described in 1).


Without justifying their CLAIM of Creation, all we have is just another irrational claim.....like God dunnit!.....or the Big Bang dunnit! Human beings make thousands of claims every day. And the claim of Creation is no exception. But what makes the claim of Creation very special, is the fact that it stemmed from the monotheistic Jews who wanted their own special existence that was created by their own special God. And this special existence ensured they were God’s “chosen” people with their own special culture and customs that were given to them by their God. It is incredible how Christianity, Islam, and Mathematical Physics (Big Bang) were able to capitalize on this Jewish idea of “creation”, and proceed to brainwash humanity in order to propagate their irrational ideologies to this day.





CONCLUSION


The fact that Infinite Regress is impossible does not give credence to Creation, and it has nothing to do with the reasons theists and atheists parrot mindlessly. Infinite Regress is impossible because the word INFINITE is an irrational abstract concept (adjective) that circumscribes Religion and Mathematics. It has nothing to do with reality and it certainly has nothing to do with the eternality of the Universe. So it actually DEBUNKS Creation because all forms of Creation (God, Big Bang) are necessarily dependent on the notion of Infinite Regress, as argued by their proponents.

It is in fact the Creationists (theists, atheists, and mathematicians) who have to grapple with the irrational and impossible notion of Infinite Regress, in order to remedy their contradictions and their own special pleading of God and the Singularity. After all, this is THEIR precious argument. It is obvious that they are BOTH peddling their own version of the worst kind of religion imaginable: religion without faith or belief, but instead, religion WITH CONTRADICTIONS!!

Does anybody out there have a rational explanation with a critical analysis of nature’s ontology which demonstrates the viability of creation?

No! Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers have been desperately busting their brains for over 2500 years to come up with an analytical explanation. The BEST that they have to date is William-Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is NOT analytical and NOT an explanation. It is nothing but a “cartoonish” assertive syllogism which fails on the very first premise.

Those who posit the claim of Creation have absolutely nothing but a baseless bald assertion that is contradictory under any context. Their claim is nothing but an assertion of a “square-circle”. Theists and atheists always fall back on TRADITION, RELIGION, SURREALISM, and AUTHORITY to make their arguments and self-validate their own irrational claims. Creation is just like a square-circle that smells happy.....it is IMPOSSIBLE!




More by this Author


Comments 93 comments

AKA Winston 6 years ago

(Those who posit the claim of Creation have absolutely nothing but a baseless bald assertion that is contradictory under any context.)

Fatfist,

Claims of creation - whether theistic or mathematical - seem to me to fall into the category of observer-dependent reality claims, meaning that it is impossible to explain, imagine, or conceptualize what was there PRIOR to creation.

For the theist, he posits a disembodied mind god; for the quantum buffs, the concept is some kind of inverse demension or something equally surreal.

In other words, what I am saying is you cannot posit creation in any form without positing an observer-driven necessity for reality, which gets back to the metaphysical voodoo that solves nothing but does make a good parlor game if you've smoked enough cannabis.

To posit creation, you must posit the possibility of some condition prior to reality - nothing that was something, a contradiction.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

Atheist: “It’s nonsense to claim that an invisible sky-daddy created the Universe. What was before God? Who created God?”

Theist: “This is a meaningless question. There was no time before God. Time began when God created the Universe. God is so great that we cannot possibly hope to understand Him and His ways. It’s like asking: what did God have for lunch last year?”

Theist: “What was before the Big Bang explosion and the Singularity? Who created the Singularity? Who set off the explosion?”

Atheist: “This is a meaningless question. There was no time before the Singularity created the Big Bang. Time began at the Big Bang. It is meaningless to ask who set off the explosion. We only know facts after the Plank Time of the explosion. Uh duh, it’s like asking: what’s north of the North Pole?”

Amen

I like how the people that believe in evolution believe everything came from a single cell. But they never explain why there was a single cell in the beginning. Maybe life has always existed.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(Maybe life has always existed)

Before we can talk about life, we had better be able to define it.

What is life?

life: the ability an object has naturally developed to move of its own volition against gravity.

Anybody have a better definition that is observer-independent?

If not, let's stick with this one.

Now.....Prometheus....can you give any reasons why such an object can always exist.

Personally, I can only conceive of atoms always existing, and not more complex objects than that.

Why?

Because a complex object (aggregate of atoms) can always be broken down into its atom constituents.

Even though an atom is gravitationally bound to all other atoms in the Universe via a physical connection, an atom cannot be regarded as "life" because it doesn't move of its "own" volition. It moves in response to all other atoms tugging at it. And thus tugs at all other atoms, and so on.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

As long as there Atoms there will be life, planets etc it's nature at is purest beauty.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Some people take "creation" waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.

So seriously, that they will do anything to MEET and SHAKE HANDS with this "Creator" who made all the atoms in their body out of nothing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100919/ap_on_re_us/us...

Little do they know that creation was only a Jewish monotheistic joke! Those Jews....they're quite the pranksters. I mean, they even confessed that the "Jesus thing" was just another one of their jokes.

If people are willing to die for Michael Jackson (12 committed suicide), then it goes without saying that people will die for anything,....whether it's real or not is irrelevant.


Gerry Hiles profile image

Gerry Hiles 6 years ago from Evanston, South Australia

Hi mate,

Couldn't have put it better myself, though I'm slowly working on a Hub possibility for arguing that Steady State is the most tenable hypothesis.

Here is roughly how it might go:

All sub-set theories in support of "Big Bang" (Creation by any other name) are irrational, e.g. "dark matter", or otherwise explicable, e.g. red shift - on acount of the fact that we are in the outer rim of a rotating spiral galaxy, thus (seemingly to us) other galaxies are "moving away".

We are conceptually as stuck as pre-Copernicus. We now imagine that our galaxy is "at the centre" and the datum for all else.

Why I like Steady State is this, using the forest analogy:

Overall a forest is unchanging. Any number of its 'parts' die, etc., but are replaced.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi Gerry,

Yeah, the notion of the “infinite” will bust people’s brains every single time. It did just that to Cantor, who invented many categories of abstract infinities. But when he tried applying them to reality, he hit a brick wall. He spent the rest of his life obsessing with an application of the “infinite” to God and the universe. It eventually drove him insane, he got locked up in the asylum, and later committed suicide. In fact, all the top mathematicians of the century went insane and committed suicide. Watch the youtube documentary “Dangerous Knowledge”.

That’s why Mathematics is a Religion, pure and simple! It is the study of abstract dynamic concepts which don’t exist. Mathematics absolutely imposes matterless motion, just like religion does. Here are direct examples stemming from Religion that made their way into math-physics by the religious fundamentalist zealots of mathematics:

Religion vs Mathematical Physics

----------------------------------------

1. Spirit in motion vs 0D singularities and 0D quantum particles in motion

2. God morphing into burning bush, man, etc. vs matter morphing into energy, and energy into matter

3. Heaven vs the mythical/mysterious lands they call “spacetime” and “higher dimensions”

4. Soul ascends into heaven vs we exist in higher dimensions and parallel universes

5. Hell vs black hole

6. God existed without space contouring him vs singularity existed without space contouring it

7. God is timeless vs singularity is timeless

8. God was in an “infinite regression” in the past vs singularity was in an “infinite regression” in the past

9. God created time vs singularity created time

10. God created universe vs singularity created universe

11. Physical-only death vs annihilation

12. Spiritual life after death (in heaven) vs vacuum state

13. Possible future reincarnation vs random virtual particle production

We no longer chant Bible verses like a mantra, pray to an eternal Intelligence, and kneel in front of a priest. We now parrot the catchy cliches spit out by authorities like Hawking, and worship their intellectual prowess, ask them for autographs and decorate them with medals and Nobel prizes.

........I can go on and on .....

The idiots of relativity and quantum routinely morph concepts into objects and then proceed to move them around like Christians move spirits. Indeed, the mathematicians inherited this bad habit from theologians who, for centuries, have converted verbs – love, soul, compassion, consciousness, spirit, grace.... into nouns (e.g., God, heaven, hell, angel, ghost). The religion of Mathematical Physics differs from Science in that it offers supernatural and irrational explanations for physical phenomena.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Gerry,

As for the idea of a STEADY STATE universe, people like this model because it avoids a t=0 beginning of creation, which is obviously impossible. So people like to use this model in order to avoid the Big Bang......but, it actually is dependent on Big Bang expansion.

The problem is that Steady State Theory still depends on post-Einsteinian Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the idea of “expansion” stemming from Big Bang observations. So in effect, it depends upon the same red-shift observations which are completely irrational because they ASSUME that space is an aether; a physical solid substance.

1. The basic tenet of the steady-state theory is that the universe on a large scale does not change (only objects change) – we are in agreement here!

2. It has always existed and will always continue to exist looking much as it does now, except for birth and death of stars, planets, galaxies, etc. – we are in agreement here!

3. The universe is, however, said to be expanding. To allow for this expansion in an unchanging universe, the authors of the steady-state theory postulated that hydrogen atoms appeared out of empty space. These newly created hydrogen atoms were just enough to fill in the gaps caused by the expansion – WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT HERE!

So the Steady State Theory wanted to avoid a t=0 beginning of Creation, but then it is a theory that posits creation because it creates matter on the fly as it needs it. Sorry.....this is pure nonsense.

We again run into the problems of:

a) How do you create something from nothing?

b) How can the universe expand when it is not an object? What is expanding, matter or space? What is it expanding into?

Remember: Only objects (with shape and structure) can expand. Space cannot expand.

If the universe is said to expand, then it MUST have a border. But space is omnipresent nothingness. Space is borderless, boundless, limitless, non-finite, non-infinite.

Space is absolutely required to contour ALL objects. Objects need a backdrop of nothingness in order to have the ability to move from one location to another. Objects cannot have shape and structure without the backdrop of space i.e. they cannot exist. And that’s the reason why God and the Singularity never existed.

What do you think Gerry? How can these ontological contradictions be addressed for Steady State, when in fact, they cannot be addressed for the Big Bang and end up debunking it?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

http://www.nsf.gov/

http://www.ssrc.org/

I wonder if this foundations influence scientifc opinion. I wonder why we had separaed ourselves from nature so much? Is it because we are stupid, or the foundations someone how separated us from nature to religion on purposed?

What do you think fatfist?

“I am not talking about the religion, not of the past, but of the future, and I tell you that as this medical research goes on you will…promulgate…new moral laws and new social laws, new definitions of what is right and wrong in our relations with each other.”

I Enslaved Prometheus


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(How can the universe expand when it is not an object? What is expanding, matter or space? What is it expanding into?)

Fatfist,

If you consider only the proposition, eliminating the Time Magazine hype, I think the actual position is not that the universe is expanding, rather that objects are moving further apart.

This would indicate to me a concept of a universe that is bounded by space (which then makes the universe an object)into which the most distant of its parts continuously move.

Whether or not it is fair to call a gathering of unconnected individual objects an object itself is not clear to me - imagine the shot from a shotgun - those idividual pellets comprise a group that moves and acts as a single object. It is in this sense I can at least grasp a concept of universe as an object, if it is encased by open space surrounding it.

Thoughts?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Prometheus,

(I wonder why we had separaed ourselves from nature so much?)

Let’s face it.....the Universe is boring.....EXTREMELY boring. Us humans, we get bored too easily. We need to put pizzazz into everything.

How exciting is mere unbounded space and a constant quantity of matter in an eternal Universe?

I mean, how many books can you write and sell about such a Universe? There would only be one book about the Universe....that’s it! All those clowns in Relativity, Quantum, and String Theory would lose their government grants and their jobs instantly.

Anybody watch silent movies like Charlie Chaplin anymore? Nope....TOO BORING.

Today, we need movies that are sexy, with nude scenes, erotica, passion, intrigue, adultery, murder, good guys, bad guys, etc.

Same goes for science. Humans have the insatiable NEED to travel in time, get swallowed by black holes, have duplicate copies of themselves in other multiverses and dimensions, dilate and slow down time and human aging, have a cat that is both dead and alive, etc.

Humans are a very weird species. They need expensive clothes, jewellery, cars, sexy blond wives, tall dark & handsome husbands,.....MORE than they need the basic necessities of life, like food. Reality is EXTREMELY BORING for humans. We NEED delusions for the entertainment of our SPIRIT.

Humans will forever be out of touch with nature and reality. So forget it, it’s game over for us. And after our extinction, we will be known by future alien races as Stupid Creationist Delusional Apes!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(I think the actual position is not that the universe is expanding, rather that objects are moving further apart.)

Winston, try telling that to the Big Bang apologists.....they will crucify you.

The issues are:

1) They have no rational argument for expansion, because space is impossible to expand. And matter is obviously not expanding like my pants, because if it did, then it would eventually reach a point of shearing, and no stars or planets, or even atoms would exist.

2) They have no rational argument that objects are moving further apart because SPACE CANNOT IMPART A DOPPLER EFFECT like air on Earth can. They already dropped the aether theory 100 years ago and they will not go that route even today. Remember, air is composed of atoms which vibrate/move with compressions & rarefactions in order to alter the pitch/frequency of vibrations we measure. What Doppler vibrations are we measuring with empty space? Atoms from distant galaxies are connected to us, our eyes, our telescopes. They send signals via that connecting medium (threads?) to us. We call those signals: “light phenomena”. Where does Doppler effect play a role here? It doesn’t.

(This would indicate to me a concept of a universe that is bounded by space)

But space is nothing. Space cannot bound anything. Space is omnipresent. It is everywhere. It has no bounds and no limits, for if it did, then something would necessarily be on the other side of the border: more space/matter. Space is the backdrop of every single bit of matter in the Universe, invisible or otherwise. If God exists, space necessarily contours Him no matter how much God protests.

(which then makes the universe an object)

Universe: a concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).

Even if you could imagine and visualize all the MATTER in the Universe from a “bird’s eye” perspective, and illustrate it as an object with some kind of shape.....you would still not be able to call that object “Universe”. Remember: the universe also embodies all of SPACE as well.

So you would have to call this hypothesized object by another name.....perhaps: Matterverse.

It is absolutely impossible for the Universe (matter + space) to be considered an “object” under any conceivable context.

Remember: all objects must necessarily be contoured by space. But the Universe is NOT contoured by space. The Universe is a concept that “includes” space!

(Whether or not it is fair to call a gathering of unconnected individual objects an object itself is not clear to me)

As long as it has shape from a “bird’s eye” perspective, you can! All you have to do is hypothesize it and illustrate it as an object (details are irrelevant).

The atmosphere is an object – it has shape and envelops the planet. Draw an image of the Earth, and draw an atmosphere enveloping it with a clear “border”. Now the atmosphere is an object. And we don't even need to go to outer space to SEE the atmosphere in order to determine whether it is an object or not. All we have to do is conceptualize it and rationalize it without contradiction. It is indeed physical; it has shape and location with respect to the planets in the solar system, and all other objects in the universe. Therefore it EXISTS.

(I can at least grasp a concept of universe as an object, if it is encased by open space surrounding it.)

Unfortunately, the best we can do is call that conglomerate of matter: Matterverse.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

Let’s face it.....the Universe is boring.....EXTREMELY boring. Us humans, we get bored too easily. We need to put pizzazz into everything.

Amen

Fatfist is a proud Atheist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(Fatfist is a proud Atheist)

Unfortunately, the God of the Big Bang, The Singularity, punishes very harshly those who use Pascal's Wager to justify their beliefs.

The Singularity "knows" when your worship is not genuine, but rather "asserted", for the sole purpose authoritatively parroting the Religion of Stephen Hawking.

And it punishes people by throwing them in a black hole for eternity, where even light cannot escape.

But if your worship of Hawking's God is genuine, then you will be sent along with Hawking to another dimension, in another multiverse, where your pets will be both alive and dead at the same time. And multiple copies of you will exist in multiple universes for eternity.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

WOW! You wrote that something cannot come from nothing. This is a point we all can agree on. You also assert that because matter exists, matter always existed. While I am not qualified to even be in the same discussion with a mind as brilliant as yours, I was very pleased with our last exchange and would like to ask a question or two. You ascertain that since you cannot imagine a point in the future where matter will cease to exist, going backward through time leads you to conclude the same, that matter always existed. Isn't that impossible? Since it is SOMETHING, wouldn't it have to have origin? Is it possible for matter to have always existed? On a side note, You were very clear in your presentation of what you BELIEVE are the FACTS. You made it understandable for those not as gifted as yourself. I look forward as always to your reply. I am grateful for your insight.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

fred allen

While I am not qualified to even be in the same discussion with a mind as brilliant as yours,

Yes you are your are free to seek Knowledge any time you desire. You are also free to seek ignorance if you desire. Most choose misery.

Fatfist is a Theist.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Hey, Fred,

I can't speak for Fatfist but you ask an intriguing question: (Is it possible for matter to have always existed?)

In my estimation, Fred, the two points of view are identical: 1) matter had to have been created and 2) matter has always existed.

What seperates the two is rationality. It must be shown to be rational to assume a creator or it must be rationally shown that matter cannot exist eternally.

As Fatfist has shown, it is irrational to assume a creator. Ergo, whether or not it is possible for matter to have always existed is not the relevant question but it must be asked: what is the alternative?

If matter wasn't created, yet it exists, then it must have always existed. Therefore, eternal existence of matter must be possible.

And the question is solved.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi Fred,

Nice of you to drop by. I really look forward to talking with you. I welcome all theists who want to have a rational discussion.

(WOW! You wrote that something cannot come from nothing.)

Of course! What did you think I was,..... some kind of atheist or somethin’?

In fact, Fred, you have a LOT MORE in common with the atheists who defend the Big Bang, than you do with me. As far as the universe and creation goes, the only difference between theists and atheists is these 2 words: God vs. The Singularity.

(While I am not qualified to even be in the same discussion with a mind as brilliant as yours)

Please Fred, when you or anybody else comes in my hubs, I’d like think of each other as equals. I thank you for the kind words, but I am just another human being. I have no superior brain or intellect, and in fact, there is nobody on this planet with a superior brain. You came here because you’d like to have a rational discussion, so that makes you just as qualified as me to discuss anything about the universe.

(You were very clear in your presentation of what you BELIEVE are the FACTS.)

Actually, no. Maybe you misread or misunderstood what I said. But I never posit any claims of belief or faith, wisdom or knowledge, truth or proof, fact or evidence, opinion or speculation. I hope you realize, Fred, that in order to have the utmost objectivity when it comes to matters of ontology/reality, we must ditch all of those “crutches” in the garbage because they are all subjective. Those irrational methods are purely dependent on the extremely limited human Sensory System for resolution, so there is no objectivity whatsoever!

In order to be objective, we must kill all observers and their sensory systems. We must instead use the unlimited potential of the human analytical brain. We all have this formidable tool in our head, but very few of us use it because most people prefer to use the readily accessible and extremely limited see/touch/hear/smell/taste tools. Our brain is capable of pure critical thought, which we can use to analyze any claim made by any human. If we can showcase contradictions in the claim, then of course, the claim is irrational and discarded.

I prefer to apply critical thinking and analysis to the Scientific Method, where the facts (objects, existence) are framed in the Hypothesis, and the Theory outlines a rational explanation stemming from the Hypothesis.

I hope you realize that I don’t post any BELIEFS in my hubs. I hope that I only post critically reasoned thought, and with an explanation where applicable.

So maybe, you can go thru my hub and try to find a contradiction, or you can reason why something I’ve said is irrational. If you can outline such “specific” points, I would appreciate it, so I can have an opportunity to correct myself.

(You also assert that because matter exists, matter always existed)

Actually, no. Both theists and atheists are quite confused about this issue because they subscribe to their respective worldview which teaches that creation is the default position.

I’m sure we can both agree that “existence exists”, matter exists, and matter falls under the category of ‘object’ because it has shape or spatial separation from the background. All objects are separated by the static gap of ‘space’ (nothingness). There is an absolute dichotomy between an object and its background, right?

So we need to understand that “existence” is the default position. Do you agree?

I mean, you can’t rationally explain that “all this” began to exist 1 minute ago, right?

And you can’t rationally explain that “all this” began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, right?

It is impossible to prove anything in the past or the future, as the past and the future are not available to deduce from.

So you see, Fred, existence is not a claim, it is the default position.

A CLAIM is any positive “assertion” which DEVIATES from the default position.

Here are examples of claims which DEVIATE from the default position:

a) Matter and space were created at some instant in the past.

b) Matter and space will vanish at some instant in the future.

The BEST we can do, is to conceive of some type of analytical argument, accompanied by an explanation which demonstrates that CREATION of matter & space, at some instant in the past, is a VIABLE option.

Creation cannot be proven. In fact nothing can be proven.

1) You can only provide me with a rational “explanation” of WHY matter & space did NOT exist at some instant in the past. Hence making past inexistence a VIABLE option i.e. a possibility!

2) You can only provide me with a rational “explanation” of the ontological process by which matter & space came to be. Hence making Creation in the past a VIABLE option i.e. a possibility!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Fred,

(going backward through time leads you to conclude the same, that matter always existed)

No, you misunderstood me, just like most atheists do.

There is no such thing as time. We cannot go “backward” through time. I use the qualitative context of past/before, present, future/after. We are always in the present. Absolutely all matter is in the cutting edge of Universal ontological existence, that being the PRESENT. There is no past and there is no future. Matter is never in the past and never in the future. Past & future are our conceptions because we have memory, a movie film in our brain. The Universe has no memory and no movie film of Universal Events.

From a qualitative point of view, I am asking for a reason, ANY reason, why matter & space were not around before the present. Or why they won’t be around after the present. Exactly when, time-wise, is irrelevant and I don’t care about that. I am only looking for qualitative answers.

All I want is a reason WHY.

And I am certainly entitled to ask this question because we have the ontological situation of matter and space in the present......existence exists.....this is the DEFAULT position.

1) The CLAIM of Creation needs to be reasoned. What are the reasons why there was no space and no matter before? What was before? Was it nothingness? If so, then please explain how ‘nothingness’ is different than ‘space’? How can matter arise from nothingness?

2) The CLAIM of Armageddon/Annihilation needs to be reasoned. How can matter and space vanish at some point after the present? How can an atom turn into nothing, by what process? How can SPACE disappear? Isn't space already nothing?

(Since it is SOMETHING, wouldn't it have to have origin?)

Here is the issue encompassing your question: Humans, in their limited life span, are used to realizing everything in their life as having a ‘beginning’ and an ‘end’.

You buy a car, whose “service life” had a beginning. The car wears out, it gets destroyed/recycled and its “service life” came to an end. Everything we experience is similar to begin/end.

And when it comes to the question of matter (atoms) and space (nothing).....people ASSUME they had a beginning.

But it is fallacious to think this way.

WHY?

Because it commits the fallacy of division. Just because all OBJECTS, including stars, planets, cars, houses, books, people, animals, have a beginning and an end to their SERVICE LIFE, it does not necessarily imply that the sum of their parts (ie. atoms) have a begin end to their service life.

We can disassemble all objects in the universe right down to their atoms, right? You must concede, that at some point we reach the fundamental building block of all matter. Democritus said that this fundamental building block is the ‘atom’. Let’s just “assume” for arguments sake that it is. Now the interesting question arises:

Q: If the atom is the fundamental building block of matter, then how do we establish a service life for the atom? How can the atom possibly have a beginning or an end?

A: If the atom is the fundamental building block of matter (assume it is), then the atom does NOT have a beginning and ending “service life”, right?

I mean, what could have the atom come from? And what could the atom get reduced to? The atom IS the irreducible fundamental building block of matter. It cannot come from space (nothing), right?

So you see, Fred, is should be VERY clear to you now that Creation is an ASSERTED CLAIM. In fact, it is hypothesized that at some instant in the past, atoms and space were not around. And it is theorized that atoms and space were created.

Hypothesis: Atoms and space were not around at some instant in the past.

Theory: Atoms and space were created as follows..........blah blah.

I hope that the idea of Creation is much clearer to you now. It is actually a CLAIM, not fact, and definitely not a default position!

And as a CLAIM, the best you can do is fill in the Theory above in order rationally demonstrate that Creation is indeed a VIABLE option; that it is a possibility. It will NEVER be a fact or proven or 100% true knowledge. Such ideas are subjective and impossible.

(Is it possible for matter to have always existed?)

Well.......if nobody can demonstrate the viability of the Creation claim, what is the default position?

The default position is that the universe is eternal, indeed!

Existence exists! There is no other way about it. People can authoritatively assert whatever they want. It is completely irrelevant to the issue of the POSITIVE CLAIM of Creation which must be reasoned, and shown to be viable by those who assert it.

But here is a very simple explanation demonstrating why creation is impossible and the universe is eternal:

Assume an ontological situation of no matter and no space.

1) Before something can be CREATED (verb), there had better be MATTER present.

2) Why?? Because MATTER ALWAYS PRECEDES MOTION (create verb). Motion necessarily requires a MEDIATOR to mediate it. There are no verbs without matter.

3) Creation is an event that requires the motion of the mediator which mediates the event.

4) What is it exactly that MOVED in order to facilitate the CREATION OF MATTER? What is this mediator that moved? Only MATTER can move. Nothingness cannot move!

5) So the mediator without a doubt, must be MATTER, and not ‘nothing’. And space necessarily contours all matter.

6) Therefore, Creation from no matter and no space is an ontological contradiction as matter always precedes motion.

7) Therefore the creation of matter is IMPOSSIBLE! Matter and space were always there. The universe is indeed eternal.

The Universe is the ONLY conceivable closed system and the only conceivable perpetual machine. It is so because space has no boundaries. Therefore it is impossible to have a t=0 moment of creation, regardless of mechanism!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Prometheus,

(Fatfist is a Theist)

You are very bored again, aren't you?

When are you going to write some hubs for ME to read for a change?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

Maybe I should write a hub about Albert Pike and how he is a Devil Worshipper. lol

http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm

"All hypothesis scientifically probable are the last gleams of the twilight of knowledge, or its last shadows. Faith begins where Reason sinks exhausted."

Freemason

What do you think Heretic Fatfist?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

To: Apostle Troy Brooks @ biblocality.com

Hi Troy,

I know you are reading this message because I am replying to your PM to me.

You did a really good job on Sep. 19, 2010 in defending your INFINITE REGRESS Argument against the idiotic hosts of the Atheist Experience show. They could not refute your argument so they went off in tangents in order to protect their Religion. I must admit that you did in fact hand their asses to them, which is not really hard to do to these clowns.

Anyway, I was hoping that you could do the SAME to me. This hub has a refutation of your INFINITE REGRESS Argument.

If you can explain either:

a) That my refutation to your infinite regress argument is irrational,

or

b) That your claim for the CREATION of existence is viable/possible,

or

c) That existence is not eternal,

Then I will be very happy to donate $10,000 US to your Biblocality Christian organization so that you can use the funds to do the work of Jesus and help the needy.

If you are unable to demonstrate either of a, b, or c, then no problem. I would be more than happy if your organization invites William-Lane Craig RIGHT HERE to demonstrate either of these points.

I hope that you are very serious about your organization, Troy. I am very serious about my offer to you. I would be very happy in knowing that my gracious hard-earned funds can be used to help the needy just as Jesus would have done. I know that William-Lane Craig is an upstanding Christian Apologist who would love to distribute these funds to a good Christian cause, and thus would have no objection in helping you out!

Thanks, and I look forward to your reply.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

Time to have some fun.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

It seems that Apostle Troy Brooks has decided to take the vow of SILENCE!

Too bad.....I thought he was the genuine article. I thought that like Jesus, he actually cares for the helpless children of this world. For if he did, he would come here and refute my hub so I can PayPal him $10,000.

Too bad...

Anybody else wanna take the challenge?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

I am sad now.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Winston- Fatfist- I knew I was putting faith on the line when I first responded to this hub. As far as the compliments go, you are both more than worthy of them. In my 47 years of existence, I have never met any who could articulate their (I have to use the word for lack of a better one) view on creation vs eternal existence as you have. When you said eternal existence is the default position and why, I had no response to refute with. Still don't. While everything you shared makes perfect sense to a rational thinking mind, there still is not enough information to state it as an absolute fact. Your reasoning is sound, but not irrefutable because it stems from only the information we do have. If a piece of the puzzle is missing it throws the entire hypothesis spiraling. You can reason that there is no creator based on what is now called the default position, but when new information is added, (something that I don't have) a new default position would arise. Your reasoning had me reeling once again. Just what I was looking for. Never disappointed with you two. But in the end, I have seen things that are too miraculous to be coincidental. While they may be reasoned away by someone armed with the proper intellect, I cling to them as fact.

You guys are amazing! Thank you so much for taking the time to be so informative.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi Fred,

Thanks for responding. I was gonna say.... if you feel that by responding, you are putting your faith on the line, then it’s probably not a good idea to get involved in such discussions, until you are comfortable in doing so.

(there still is not enough information to state it as an absolute fact)

What is this information you are talking about? Information only originates from humans.

And what is an absolute fact? Can you give me just one absolute fact about nature and the universe?

You see, Fred, we need to move ahead from the Dark Ages, when facts, truths, proofs, evidence, knowledge, wisdom, and authority ruled the land with an iron fist.

All these notions are nothing but OPINIONS.

Why?

Because they necessarily depend on the opinions and biases of an observer who declares what is fact and what isn’t.

Someone will tell me that Jesus is fact. Yet another person will tell me what Jesus is false and Allah is fact. Yet another will tell me the Big Bang and the eternal Singularity is fact.

Whom shall I believe? What objective process can I use to reach a rational conclusion? Should I get somebody else’s opinion, perhaps the opinion of William-Lane Craig, or the opinion of Stephen Hawking on what is fact?

Fred, I hope you can appreciate that the only objective, unbiased, and observer-independent way to resolve such issues objectively is with a rational explanation. We need to put our thinking caps on.

(Your reasoning is sound, but not irrefutable because it stems from only the information we do have)

Fred, you are using ancient terms like “sound reasoning”, which stem from “sound” philosophical arguments from 2500 years ago. Who decides what is sound or not sound? Should I ask my neighbour, the Pope, or a bank teller?

It is only possible to have rational or irrational explanations.

What is rational? An explanation which:

1) Has no contradictions

2) Doesn’t reify objects into concepts

3) Does not perform verbs on concepts

4) Does not use concepts to perform verbs

5) Uses unambiguous and consistent terms, thus being grammatically correct and understandable

6) Can be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen as a movie without any missing frames. If it cannot be visualized, then it cannot be understood because it contradicts reality.

A rational explanation is unbiased, observer-independent, and understandable. This is pretty standard stuff, which unfortunately, eluded philosophers and logicians during the Dark Ages, and even to this very day!

(If a piece of the puzzle is missing it throws the entire hypothesis spiraling.)

What piece of what puzzle? Everything can be rationally reasoned right here and now. We have brains with unlimited reasoning capabilities. Our brains are able to reason from the reality of objects, to conceptual relations between objects, and right out to left field with pure abstract concepts in fantasy land. The brain is quite powerful and unlimited in reasoning power, indeed. There will NEVER be a computer with the reasoning capabilities of the human brain. Why? Because computers are deterministic, artificial, and programmed. Brains are not!

And what hypothesis are you referring to?

Here is the Hypothesis stemming from the claim of creation:

Hypothesis: Assume that there were no atoms and no space at some instant in the past. Assume that only God (an entity/object) existed.

And here is the theory (explanation) which needs to be filled in.

Theory: God created atoms and space as follows..........blah blah.

(You can reason that there is no creator based on what is now called the default position)

Actually, no, I do not reason there is no creator based on a default position of current existence.

Remember:

1) That there was no space and no matter is a “claim”. This claim is “hypothesized” by people.

2) That there was a creator is a “claim”. This claim is “hypothesized” by people.

3) That space and matter were created is a “claim”. This claim is “theorized” by people.

We can easily reason that there is no creator because the positing of a creator with the 3 conditions above, leads to ontological contradictions. Therefore, any hypothesized situation involving a creator or a Big Bang singularity is impossible. I already explained this with a complete analysis in my hub on the Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument:

http://hubpages.com/education/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmol...

(but when new information is added, (something that I don't have) a new default position would arise.)

There is no new information, Fred. We can reason everything right here and now. And we need to understand, that the default position of “existence existing”, will always be the default one, no matter what new information we are given by a biased observer or authority.

The only new information that can possibly be added, is to posit that God exists, but was not the creator, but instead, the author of the Bible, the author of morals, the definer of good/evil, the definer of love, etc.

Or you can even argue that God was the SEEDER of life on planet Earth. That is not contradictory in any way!!!

But “creation” is a contradiction. And that’s what makes creation impossible.

It’s like arguing......”well, we don’t have enough information to show that we can make a square-circle, but sometime in the future we may have it.”

We need to understand, that contradictions are always impossibilities. We will never have any information on making square-circles in the future. This means that theologians need to go back on the drawing board and redefine the concept of God so it is non-contradictory......perhaps make God the SEEDER of life on this planet.

(I cling to them as fact)

Thank you for being honest, Fred.

Thank you for not coming in here with irrationalities and causing a circus show.

I really enjoy talking to you because of your opposing viewpoint, willingness to ask the tough questions, and the honesty to tell me how you really feel.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fred,

I don't want to intrude on Fatfist's hub, but the whole idea of infinite regression has throttled some of the best minds at times - even Aristotle posited a Prime Mover that set motion in place, although this Prime Mover was not necessarily god or even "a" god.

One of the problems I personally have with the infinite regression argument is the premise that everything that exists must have a cause.

I simply ask, why is cause necesssary?

The answer is: it cannot be necessary. Why? Because to posit god, a creator, or a Prime Mover is to simply add another layer to the regression, i.e., what caused this god, this creator, or this Prime Mover to exist, and what caused the cause of each of them to exist, ad infinitum.

See, there are only two possibilities: 1) we either invent an exception to the infinite regression, i.e., we assert there is a god, a creator, or a Prime Mover who did not have to have a cause, which then contradicts the argument of regression itself, because if any of those can be an exception there can be all sorts of earlier exceptions, as well, or 2) we realize that infinite regression is simply a parlor game based on an assertion that is only "believed" to be true, i.e., all things must have a cause.

If the asserted premise is not true, then the argument is not sound and the conclusion is false.

There is simply no reason to assume that all things require a cause. How could an endless and eternal expanse of nothing (space) need a cause? It is highly irrational (and also illogical) to assert that nothing must be caused. If god changed his mind, could he convert nothing into non-nothing? This is like multiplying by zero - the answer is always the same. Nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing.

So, if nothing (space) does not need a cause, and matter cannot come from nothing (ex nihilo), what is the basis for the assertion of necessary creative cause?

The only reasonable answer is that matter and space are causeless and have always been, and the asserted premise is false. This is the only rational or logical conclusion to be drawn from the idea of an infinite regression.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston & Fred,

(I don't want to intrude on Fatfist's hub)

There are no intruders here.....there are only people who read but are afraid or too shy to comment and strike up an intelligent conversation.

(Aristotle posited a Prime Mover that set motion in place, although this Prime Mover was not necessarily god or even "a" god.)

Yes, but Aristotle was very vague on this issue. Even though he demonstrated that the Universe was eternal, he did posit an underlying essence of which the Universe was composed, and it was this essence that a Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but was instead a thought that constantly thought about thinking itself, and which organized the Cosmos by being itself the object of "aspiration or desire". The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking", an eternal process of pure thought. Like I said, very vague, metaphoric and poetic.

(I simply ask, why is cause necesssary?)

The very act of “creation” is an action involving motion, right?

Therefore the action of creation necessarily requires the EXISTENCE of at least one object which “creates”, as it is impossible to have motion (action) without at least one object present, right?

Therefore, this leads to 3 possibilities for this pre-existence of at least one object:

1) It is God.

2) It is the Singularity.

3) It is eternal matter (atoms).

But, an object CANNOT impart motion, and thus have the capability to perform an action (create), without necessarily being surrounded by space. Space gives spatial separation to objects from their background and allows them the privilege of MOTION. Without a background of nothingness, no object, including God, can move!

Therefore, without the background of space, no object can exist.....not even God or the Singularity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So automatically, option 1) and 2) are contradicted and are impossible. It is absolutely impossible for either God or the Singularity to have created space. Space is NON-CREATABLE!!

There is no other rationally consistent ontological option than the Universe (matter & space) being eternal.

(How could an endless and eternal expanse of nothing (space) need a cause?)

This is ETREMELY EASY to demonstrate. There is no evidence, observations or authority necessary to reach a decision in this particular case.

SPACE IS NOTHING. SPACE IS CAUSELESS OR ACAUSAL.

SPACE HAS NO BORDER.

SPACE IS UNBOUNDED, NON-FINITE, NON-INFINITE, LIMITLESS, BORDERLESS, SHAPELESS, STRUCTURELESS, NON-TEMPORAL, NON-ENTROPIC, AND OMNIPRESENT!!

SPACE CANNOT HAVE A CAUSE BECAUSE IT IS UNABLE TO IMPART CAUSES.

Therefore.....IT IS IMPOPOSSIBLE FOR SPACE TO HAVE A MOMENT OF CREATION, FOR IF IT DID, IT WOULD HAVE A BORDER, AN EDGE. And the million dollar question arises: What is outside the border??

Since space has no border, then obviously space is ETERNAL!!!!

It is impossible for space to be created.

And since the action of creation requires at least one pre-existing object to perform (mediate) this action, then matter is necessarily ETERNAL!!!!

There is no other way about this. I welcome any rational objections.

(we either invent an exception to the infinite regression, i.e., we assert there is a god, a creator, or a Prime Mover who did not have to have a cause)

It is IRRELEVANT whether God needed a cause to exist or not. GOD NECESSARILY TAKES PART IN AN INFINITE REGRESSION OF EVENTS BEFORE HE CREATES THE UNIVERSE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE PROPONENTS OF INFINITE REGRESSION, GOD WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE AS WE WOULD NOT REACH THE PRESENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

INFINITE REGRESSION IS A DOUBLE-EDGE SWORD: IT WORKS BOTH WAYS!!

(The only reasonable answer is that matter and space are causeless and have always been)

Unfortunately, there is NO other option.

I mean, it’s not like ME and Winston are Devil worshippers or something. We do not have a vendetta against the God hypothesis or the claim of creation. I don’t want to speak for Winston, but as for myself.....I want to be in touch with nature, in touch with the Universe, in touch with reality, in touch with what’s rational, reasonable, and conceptually explainable.

If the claim of creation was rational and didn’t contradict itself, don’t you think I would give a rational argument for it? Even if I didn’t “believe” in a God.....don’t you think I would at least give a rational argument supporting Big Bang creation?

Nature does not contradict itself. If we come across a contradiction, it means that we haven’t put any critical thought into our claims.....but instead...we have chosen to parrot the opinions of others.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

My previous comment emphasized in CAPS and exclamation points (I always get scorned for this) the major ontological contradictions that make the claim of creation an impossibility.

The proponents of creation (both theists & atheists) may wish to rationally address these issues if they like. I don't want opinions.....I'd like to see a rational argument explaining WHY the "claim" of Creation is a VIABLE one.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Fatfist- Winston- You have covered all bases with logic and reason more powerfully than I could have anticipated and I had very high expectations. Side note, I knew the caps were just for emphasis.

Causation for space should never be a claim made by any rational thinking person. Since space by definition is nothing. Eternal matter is a questionable conclusion. I understand how you arrive at this conclusion. This has been most enlightening for me. It has opened the door for a different (what I would call) possibility. For me, it's hard to imagine matter without cause. How could anything other than nothing have no cause? That to me sounds like something that would have to be taken on faith. The argument that infinite regression into eternity past would never allow us to arrive at the present kind of sounds silly. The fact that we are in the present is proof. I don't think that that alone proves or disproves the existence of God. What is clear to me is that no one can PROVE either the existence of God or matter with out cause with any rational bulletproof argument. There are not enough facts. We certainly can't go back in time to prove there was such when matter didn't exist, but does that mean there were no such time? Either take it on faith that matter was causeless, or take it on faith that it was caused. Neither way can be proven indesputeably. This is a fascinating discussion for me and I am willing to put faith on the line. I said before that I would rather believe a lie that brought a smile, than the truth that brings a tear. What I really want is for the truth to bring a smile. I'm willing to risk a tear for that. Again I want to thank you both for your willingness to share in such great detail. As well as for the respectful way you present yourselves.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(I said before that I would rather believe a lie that brought a smile, than the truth that brings a tear. What I really want is for the truth to bring a smile.)

Fred,

I think I told you before that as humans we should live every day to the fullest. Get the most enjoyment and pleasure out of life for you and your family. The fact that you're alive and well is enough to smile about and break open a bottle of champagne every Saturday. Don't ever get bent out of shape about what loudmouths like ME have to say ;-)

Life is simple. It is us humans who make it complicated.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fred and Fatfist,

I'm going to quote myself in order to make a point if nobody minds?

(So, if nothing (space) does not need a cause, and matter cannot come from nothing (ex nihilo), what is the basis for the assertion of necessary creative cause? The only reasonable answer is that matter and space are causeless and have always been....)

My point is this. In order for God to fit into the above rational and logical scenario, what must be changed is not the scenario but the definition of God. There is only one way to fit God in, and that is to say that if God is eternal then by definition God must be all of matter.

In this sense you could posit that all existing matter at one time was centralized in a body called God and that every single bit of matter came from this - and is still connected by EM strings, i.e., God was simply transformed from the shape of centralized matter to what it is today, much like a tree can be hewn and recreated into tables, chairs, paper, etc. In this way creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing) is avoided and the eternal nature of God is maintained.

Conclusion: if you had dropped enough acid in 1969 to watch your skin melt from your own hands, you would have known this without me having to explain it. :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(There is only one way to fit God in, and that is to say that if God is eternal then by definition God must be all of matter.)

You got it!

There is no other way about it.

Some people will call that God, others will call it matter, and yet others will call it nature. And it actually is inline with Pantheism which posits that Nature is God.

Not only that, but theologians posit that God is an entity. They posit that God is SOMETHING rather than nothing. This means that the God entity must have structure or shape, otherwise it is nothing. And I couldn't agree more, because that is indeed their God Hypothesis:

"Let us assume that God is an object that exists"

So if we were to conceptualize all the matter in the universe as viewable from a “bird’s eye” perspective, we could indeed illustrate it as an object with shape.

And there is no question that all atoms in the Universe are interconnected via some type of physical medium, let's call it EM threads. This is the only way that a star 10 billion light years away can be gravitationally bound to every single human on this planet. We cannot explain this behaviour with the irrational 0D quantum particle which is limited to speed of light travel, as the particles would never reach us, and they have no way of generating attraction by pelting us.

Gravity is instantaneous. It is a tension on the EM threads interconnecting all atoms that instantly allows a star to tug at us from 10 billion light years away. It is impossible for the Universe or space to expand, or for all matter to be drifting apart because interconnected matter is always attracted to each other. It is this attraction which brings matter together, causes collisions, causes new galaxies and stars to form, and recycles everything incessantly.

Whoever wants to use the word GOD to refer to this eternal interconnected network of atoms, please be my guest!


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

winston- Fatfist I had to laugh at your conclusion. I am pretty sure that's what you were going for. You are not only brilliant, but quite witty. That being said, You must admit that your premise is faith based. To say with certainty that matter always existed is conjecture. There is no proof of this. You can refer to the default position, but even this takes faith. I have given much credibility to your (for lack of a better word) view.The Default position is valid as a view, it just (in my opinion) doesn't make sense. To say that something ALWAYS existed without cause flies in the face of reason. To say that NOTHING always existed makes perfect sense. I can't argue with that premise. The problem with that is obvious, existense exists. So we are faced with the obvious dilemna, Either matter is without cause, or God is without cause, you know what my money is on. How could matter be without cause? You can ask how could God be without cause, the problem with that is you are putting your money on an inantimate object that has no power to create, whereas I put mine on a living, creative force that does. I am again thankful that you are so congenial in your dealing with my so called ignorance. Most people who "believe" as you do woud lose patience and it would be evident in their tone. You guys are great!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

"That being said, You must admit that your premise is faith based."

fred allen

I guess you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink it.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(You must admit that your premise is faith based. To say with certainty that matter always existed is conjecture. There is no proof of this.)

Hi Fred,

Faith based? No. Conjecture? In a sense, but a better term is explanation. Unproven? Yes.

See, the dilemma is not about whether matter or God does not have a cause, as matter is known to exist and God is an assertion. The question is whether or not the infinite regression can be rationally posited to stop with an asserted God. In other words, can it be shown to be rational to reason a God stopping point.

If we stop the infinite regression with an assertion of God, what is to prevent us from stopping the infinite regression just before the God point simply by claiming no cause was needed at that point, or just before that, or the next, right up until the start of recorded history? In other words, we can easily assert at any point that any event in this regression did not need its own cause - that will not prove anything but it does show that simply claiming a stop of infinite regression at God is no different than stopping it 100,000 years ago with an equally spurious claim that somehow at that point it simply did not need a cause.

You can claim God at that point, while I can posit Universal Mystical Physics.

The point is that to say that the infinite regression was stopped by a causeless agent or occurrence is irrational in and of itself, whether positing a God or a "natural" break in causation.

Therefore, the only rational explanation (not based on a believed assertion) is that matter and space have always been.

See, Fred, the only difference between you, and me and Fatfist is that we rule out magical thinking as a potential cause. Whereas you want proof so you can believe, we only want explanations so we can understand.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(To say with certainty that matter always existed is conjecture. There is no proof of this......it just (in my opinion) doesn't make sense. To say that something ALWAYS existed without cause flies in the face of reason.....Either matter is without cause, or God is without cause)

Hi Fred,

So we have an understanding that the Infinite Regress argument is not only irrational, but impossible, because "infinite" is an adjective that refers to the SIZES of objects. And "regress" is a VERB that necessarily requires an object, like a ROAD or a PATHWAY to be regressed/traversed by that object. So both of the terms "infinite" and "regress" are irreconcilable and totally meaningless. Especially since there are NO infinite objects in the universe.

So now let's deal with your Causality Argument, where you posit that God is 'a' first cause, and 'an' uncaused cause in the causality of Creation.

Atheists posit the SAME: The Singularity is the first uncaused cause in the Big Bang creation.

Since there is soooooooooooooooooo much misunderstanding and convolution of terms in these Causality arguments, I will not deal with it in this hub. I am in the process of writing a new hub to address YOUR questions above and help you understand.

In the same hub I will address the claim from these pesky atheists, that the Singularity is the Creator. You will see that BOTH arguments are the same.

So please have a little patience, and I will publish this new hub either today or tomorrow. Check back here and I'll post a link.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Winston- fatfist- I certainly came to the right place to "test" whether or not faith in God is only wishful thinking. You have been able to rationally explain every reason for faith as being such with incredible adeptness. You are right to say that God's eternal existence is an assertion that cannot be proven to be accurate. I understand that there doesn't have be a default position for a causeless cause if matter is indeed eternal. To say that matter is eternal is the only rational explaination based on what we see as fact, existence exists. I admit that what I believe, that God is eternal, is an assertion based on either teaching or revelation. If it is based on teaching alone than it is worthless. If however it is based on revelation from the eternal being we call God, than it's value exceeds that of purest gold. I came here to you to test that gold in the fire to discern it's purity. Your wealth of logic and reason is the fire by which it is being tested. There have been moments in which I was close to saying "checkmate" to faith. In the end what has continued my searh for purest gold is the idea that a causeless cause had to be why matter exists. The idea that matter is eternal is very hard to swallow. I can believe in an eternal God, eternal matter on the other hand,... I look forward to fatfist promised hub. Even at the risk of a tear.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Fatfist- I have been anxiously awaiting a response from you. I have nearly 100 followers on this site and I follow a few more than that, but not one of them is as intriguing to me as you and winston. It may sound contradictory but I feel more of a kindred spirit between us than I do with all those who believe as I do. I feel as though most of them believe because they parrot the faith of those closest to them as I did, instead of conducting a critical analysis of the facts, and other viewpoints. I feel that you are more honest about your analysis concerning the origin of existence than all of them. One thing you have converted me on is the necessity of a rational thinking person to put reason into the equation instead of parroting the assertions of others. I consider this excursion into the world of opposing views one of the greatest blessings in my life. If God is real, He can certainly prevail in the face of all opposing views. Again, I look forward to your hub and I consider you and winston friends.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

Were is Apostle Troy Brooks I am bored. I would like somebody like Troy to come here and argue.I also wonder if he actually believes what he preaches? Or he just likes taking advantage of the fools to make a profit.


Kirrui 5 years ago

I like your argument on 'imposibility' of actual infinite. Even before we proceed, yesterday, being another day is like today. Someone like crane should have imagined; at what instance in the past does it become now imposible for there to have there been its 'yesterday' and why so? That day will just be a day like today. For those who say 'before time,' the term 'before' already referrs to a certain time like 'before a football match' riferrs to a certain time. Also 'beggining' referrs to a certain time and cannot be used on time itself but on events like running. We can even define it as: t is the beggining of event e if at time before t there was no such event. So 'beggining of time' turns out to be an oxymoron. I like the challenge you offer them to differentiate space and 'spacellesness' the onus is clearly theirs. But ithink Fred has some point; at least matterlesness is not oxymoron and can be imagined. But 'spacellessness' is completely idiotic. Unless however they are referring to unfathomable object filling the whole space!


poignant 5 years ago

Sheesh, another great read, your killing me here (softly).

You mentioned Ayn Rand in your comments and I was intrigued. I'd really love to hear you talk about her ideas more. I think (for a philosopher at least) she got a lot right (i.e. epistemology was pretty decent), but a lot wrong too (i.e. ethics, atheism).

They're making an Atlas Shrugged movie now, seems she's having quite the comeback!

Thanks again for your wonderful brain my friend :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

poignant,

Ayn Rand was a philosophical atheist who mixed in her "worldviews" and other subjectivities into her discipline.

My argument is: what does that have to do with reality?

Reality could care less about atheism, philosophy, decrees, and worldviews.

Reality can only be critically reasoned and explained(without ontological contradictions).

Whether there is a God or not is a CLEAR-CUT Yes or No issue. It is not an issue of maybe or perhaps or possibly or belief or faith or opinion. This is what Ayn Rand did not understand.


Pachomius 5 years ago

Of course the universe is eternal but matter is not eternal.

Outside, beyond, and before matter, time, space, etc., of the material universe there is the universe that exists which is God the necessary being.

Existence is the default status of the totality of existence which is the universe traditionally understood, which universe also encapsulates God the creator of the atheists' material universe, of which also science studies insofar as it is material.

But within as also without the material universe (outside and beyond and before matter and also its paraphernalia) there is the universe that part which is all God, maker of everything in the universe, the totality of existence that is not Himself.

Now, God is both immanent in the material universe and transcendent to the material universe.

So all your ranting is really vacuous, of course you will delete this comment.

Your objection that my idea makes of God a pantheistic God, not at all because God is distinct from matter, for God creates matter and matter depends upon God to stay in existence, wherefore God and matter are not identical.

How did God create matter? You will ask Him when you die and face Him and debate with Him, okay?

With what did God make matter, with nothing?

No, not with nothing, but with His thought.

With the thought which He can turn on and off, because His thought or attention on or off is subject to His will, in particular to create the material universe or not, to keep it in existence and how long in time which He also created.

So, you can say that the universe is eternal, but keep in mind that matter is not eternal, and scientists know that.

Ah, now you will bring in the multiverse, etc.

Tell you what, you go and live there and then you will not have any God to trouble you and your conscience.

In the meantime we will stay and live in the universe where we can see its part and parcel of which also we are part and parcel of -- as also God the maker of the material part.

So, go and reside in your multiverse, etc.

But you can't, so why bother except that you want now to evade the subject which is the universe that is the totality of existence where God is the maker of the part that is material while He alone is the part that is the necessary being.

Pachomius


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Pachomius,

“Of course the universe is eternal but matter is not eternal.”

You are contradicting yourself here. The universe is a concept which relates matter and space. Since the universe is eternal, then it goes without saying that matter and space are eternal as well. You need to THINK before you speak.

“God is.... transcendent to the material universe.”

Ummmm.... Pachomius......how can God possibly transcend that which has NO borders, NO boundaries, NO edge, NO shape/form, like SPACE??? Please explain with the luxury of detail.

As it turns out, it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to transcend the nothingness of space. God is nothing but a PRISONER in the biggest prison never built.....space! God is just one of us.....pick your choice....is God Tom Cruise, Lady Gaga, or is God Prince Poppycock?

God can transcend your house by coming over for a visit and then leaving the borders of your house. But nothing, not even God Almighty can transcend the nothingness of space...got it?

“God creates matter.... with His thought.”

Your Creation scheme is impossible. Why? Because THOUGHT is a VERB!!!! Thought is what something DOES, not what something IS. When your God moves the atoms comprising His brain (i.e. performs a thought), He is just performing an action of atomic motion.... absolutely NOTHING is created. Thought, in and of itself, is not anything at all....it is nothing!

God CANNOT create from ‘nothing’, just as you agreed here:

Pachomius : “With what did God make matter, with nothing? No, not with nothing”

So you contradict yourself yet again! Like I said, don’t parrot your Pastor.....THINK before you speak.

“So, go and reside in your multiverse”

Ummmmmm.... Pachomius.....The universe encompasses ALL of matter and space. There is only ONE universe.....by definition!!! Do you understand this much???

So stop reading your sci-fi star trek novels and Bible fables, and wake up.

If you cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, no wonder you are soooooooo confused about reality. You are running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

“So all your ranting is really vacuous”

Absolutely! I am glad we are in 100% agreement here. I mean, since all you’ve said makes NO sense whatsoever, and is contradictory, then you cannot possibly understand the nonsense which your Pastor whispered into your ear while you were kneeling before him in the confession box.....right?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Pachomius,

"of course you will delete this comment"

Of course NOT!

You see, I already know that you are too f***ing embarrassed of your religion to come back here and defend your position. Potato heads like you run with their tail between their legs because they cannot peddle their debunked arguments to a human who can think.

Good luck peddling your nonsense to the zombies of your church. I hear that they already pay their Pastor $10,000/yr in order to have a guaranteed seat in Heaven.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

hahahahaha I love this hub.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

Love it!We need more..the Atheists are some of the toughest nuts to crack in my opinion. There is none so religious..as those who don't know they are in a religion..All their "holy relics" are in the form of technology which they believe is derived from "scientific understanding."


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

"Austinstar,

(The phrase, "existence exists" pretty much sums it up.)

Yep. That’s the famous Ayn Rand phrase.

I don't subscribe to her worldviews and sub-culture. But that phrase, though purely tautological/rhetorical, is probably the only statement of certainty that we can make." This comment was posted some time before, and I have a query about it. "Existence" is a concept concerning objects which exist..so is it not contradictory to claim that a concept exists? Objects we define as existing by definition..but the definition itself does not exist. Great article non-the less! ;-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jake,

Austinstar subscribes to the Religion of Mathematical Physics. She is an atheist who "believes" that energy, 0D gravitons, waves, etc. exist.


Monkeyminds 4 years ago

I'm a bit brain dead from arguing with an atheist, a philosopher, a theist and a deist the last couple of days. I went to the dentist today and had a root canal. That was a more enjoyable experience!

I'll have to read this all again tomorrow and then after I finish all your hubs, I'll be able to move on to WGDE.

Meanwhile, I have a ?

"Gravity is instantaneous. It is a tension on the EM threads interconnecting all atoms that instantly allows a star to tug at us from 10 billion light years away. It is impossible for the Universe or space to expand, or for all matter to be drifting apart because interconnected matter is always attracted to each other. It is this attraction which brings matter together, causes collisions, causes new galaxies and stars to form, and recycles everything incessantly."

Is motion eternal because it is a property of matter? Should I get this from another of your hubs, or just read the WGDE book?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Monkeyminds,

“I'm a bit brain dead from arguing with an atheist, a philosopher, a theist and a deist”

You mean you were arguing in circles with Religionists. Lol, that’s what happens when you get caught up in their circular nonsense. Don’t worry, you will learn to identify and deal with those responses, and put an end to their Religion in a hurry. This is the reason why none of them will ever come here to my hubs....except to troll of course.

“Is motion eternal because it is a property of matter?”

No, motion is not a property of matter. Motion is dynamic. Matter only has static properties. Motion necessarily requires a sentient observer with memory to memorize a MOVIE of events (i.e. locations of an object). Only then can the observer say that “motion has taken place”.

From the point of view of objects (i.e. no observers), objects have no motion.

I know you are doing a double-take right now, rubbing your eyes, thinking you are read this wrong.....so I will say it again: Objects have NO motion.

Objects only have the static property of LOCATION. Atoms do not have memory banks to remember their previous location. Hence, from their perspective, they have no motion. The universe has no memory.....there is no God making a movie of all atomic locations and preserving it for posterity. The Moon is either here or there. It cannot be at both locations at the same time. The Moon has no memory. Assuming the Moon could look at itself with respect to other objects around it....it can only say that it has LOCATION,...not motion. The Moon cannot remember its previous location....only sentient beings can.

Motion: two or more locations of an object

So motion is our conception of a series of locations. We put the locations together in a movie (dynamic) and call it “motion”. We can say that motion is eternal because motion is a conception of the perpetual attraction of atoms and all objects in the universe. It is impossible for matter to begin motion just as it is impossible for matter to stop moving.

The Moon exists because it satisfies the definition of exist = object + location.

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects.

The Moon has shape regardless if some stupid human ape observed it or spoke about it. The Moon does not blend with space. It has a definite finite border/boundary, as all objects do. Additionally, the Moon has location whether a stupid human ape likes it or not. The Moon exists BY DEFINITION, irrespective of the opinions of brain-dead human apes.

The Moon does not exist because somebody spoke about it, much less because somebody saw it or landed on it or ....ahem...punched it! Only stupid brain-dead human apes (atheists, theists, deists, agnostics, philosophers, mathematicians) will introduce themselves as a CRITERION for the existence of other objects. And of course you understand why they do this....because these brain-dead apes (especially atheists) think that the universe was made for them for some mysterious divine purpose just a few years ago (6000 or 15 billion or whatever nonsense). They are all Young Universe Creationists. Atheists worship the 0D Singularity....theists worship God....and agnostics don’t know who or what to worship as of yet (they are still waiting for evidence before making a decision which way to go).


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"You mean you were arguing in circles with Religionists. Lol, that’s what happens when you get caught up in their circular nonsense."

Well, I learn quicker when trying ideas out in the forum. Like on the job training.

The atheist is the worst. He accused ME of going around in circles and he will not define exist or prove. Says he doesn't have to.

The deist just started being totally stupid like this:

Me: Define exists

Him: that which is

Me:Sorry no cigar. is = be = exist....circular synonym

Him: You just defined 'circular synonyms' as that which is, therefore circular synonyms exist.

Then Him: (referring to you saying "I wonder if the sun punched him (the atheist) in the face.") Note, he also acknowledges this "I". Therefore, he has just acknowledged that which is, therefore claimed existence. If existence cannot be proven, then this "I" can't be claimed to exist. Fatfist is then denying his own existence. But to deny anything, one must exist, therefore, Fatfist exists. I will be waiting for my check in the mail...

I have repeatedly explained the difference between defining KEY terms for the hypothesis and having a chat.

The philosopher just stated that you (Fatfist) were "barking mad." And when I started explaining stuff to the atheist, she said, "Ah, the Schadenfreude I feel in watching this role reversal. Usually it is we who try to make HE see reason. Wonder how he likes standing in our shoes?" She uses only hit and run attacks. I killed her in the Kalam Cosmo thread.

The theist is the most reasonable. He had some questions, then said "that makes sense" and he "has to think about it for a while."

"Motion = object + 2 or more locations"

OK, I get that motion is static. I should have realized this from a similar discussion you had with someone else (perhaps in another hub). What confused me is that "motion is eternal" is part of a title of another of your hubs (I'll read it today), and the use of the term gravity. Some people call gravity a force, I think Einstein says it is not. It gravity the rope (E thread and M thread). Should I wait to read WGDE?

So it takes a sentient being to run a movie (put all the static "photos" together)to "realize" motion. Since only objects can interact with (move?) objects, the "tug" is gravity, the objects are the atoms connected to the thread connecting all atoms?

"The Moon exists BY DEFINITION, irrespective of the opinions of brain-dead human apes."

The atheist I'm talking to, is the most resistant to this of all of them I think. I am wondering if like theists, atheists are more likely, or less likely to get it? They (I can't believe said they)seem to cling to authority as tightly as anyone else. Is it because they don't understand it is religion?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

I just thot of something (yes, it hurt!).

E+MC^2 makes no sense.

Energy is the capacity to do work.

Mass is a measurement of and objects resistance to change of speed and the speed of light is a number.

None of these are objects! Therefore e+mc squared is not rational. I need to read the book don't I? As soon as I am finished with your hubs. Please don't write another for a week or so! ;)


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Sorry about using the + sign instead of = sign.

Why does my wife (and even myself) think it is crazy for me to challenge Einstein (or math)?

Granted I posted here this morning BC (before Coffee) not a wise thing to do in the first place. But challenge math? Challenge Einstein? My wife says I am OVER analyzing even tho I thot I reduced it to its simplest form:

concept = concept x concept ...makes no sense.

I could get institutionalized if I am not careful!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Monkeyminds,

“The atheist is the worst.”

Indeed. Atheists are actually the most brain-dead of the human ape species. They believe in creation, ghosts and spirits like 0D singularities, energy, time, forces, mass, fields, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, white holes, photons, quarks, spacetime, etc.....all of which are concepts that come to LIFE in the delusionary world they live in.

Atheists.....

1. have the worst grammar skills,

2. they don’t understand the diff between and object and a concept

3. they don’t know the diff between Ordinary Speech vs Scientific Language,

4. they think the Scientific Method is no different than a Religious Ceremony of observers who respect authority (i.e. a Church Congregation),

5. they cannot define any word they parrot,

6. they think the Universe consists of spirits (ie. concepts) instead of objects,

7. they think that INFINITE objects exist, they think that INFINITE is both an adverb and an adjective (LOL).

....I can keep going on and on.....

The theist on the other hand is more rational than an atheist. At least the theist believes in a God who is an object with shape as specified in their Bible. God made matter for the theist....and matter is a 3D object, just like their God who has a 3D penis. The atheist on the other hand....oh boy....believes that matter is 0D....has no dimensions....created itself out of nothing, and magically comes in and out of existence on its own. WOW....scary stuff.....I mean scary!!!!

“The theist is the most reasonable. He had some questions, then said "that makes sense" and he "has to think about it for a while."

You will always find that in the comment sections of my hubs, the theists are almost always the most reasonable and the most INTELLIGENT people to talk to. They are more educated than the atheists and they are for the most part, willing to acknowledge that they can learn something new, even though they prefer to keep their religious belief.

Atheists are the most gullible of our species. They have no arguments for their beliefs which were forced down their throats by their Priests (Dawkins, Hawking, Einstein, etc.), and they choose to troll and spam the comment section instead of having an intellectual discussion which will inevitably expose their ignorance in matters concerning Physics, the universe and existence.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Monkeyminds,

“Some people call gravity a force”

Gravity is not an ‘it’. Gravity is not an object. Gravity is an EFFECT (i.e. dynamic process/action) or a phenomenon. All phenomena are performed by objects.

Hence, gravity requires a MEDIATOR (object) to mediate this action. Only objects can perform actions. But in the deluded spiritual world which atheists reside in....they will tell you that concepts (i.e. actions) can perform actions. Do you see their CIRCULAR nonsensical reasoning??

Gravity is NOT ‘a’ force. Force is what something (object) does, not what something IS.

We can say that I FORCED an atheist over a cliff (thank God!!) by coming into surface-to-surface contact with him and pushing (i.e. forcing) him over the cliff. Gravity is not an object that forces (pushes or pulls). Gravity is the EFFECT of an object which pulls. We call this object the EM Rope in Thread Theory.

“I think Einstein says it is not. “

In 1919, in reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, Einstein remarked that his theory was correct. However, he wasn’t as cocky by the time he died. The punchline is that Einstein died an atheist in his own Religion, writing to his friend Besso in 1954 that:

“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” -- Albert Einstein (p. 467) [1]

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." -- Albert Einstein

Anyone who half read Einstein's struggle to find the Holy Grail in his last few years, will know that Einstein lost his faith in his own theories, indeed, in all of Mathematical Physics. He was at least aware that he and all the mathematicians were 'wrong' (i.e., that their theories didn't make any sense and contradicted themselves). Maybe that qualifies him as the most intelligent mathematician ever... but that's not a whole lot.

Einstein never made it past warped space, and he certainly cleaned his ass with Quantum. Einstein tried at one point to claim that space is an object....an aether ocean which can bend and warp. The Scientific Community told him to go f*** himself and go climb a mountain at the time, because any notion of aether was a big no-no after the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein has no place in the history of Science. He's just another of those Hollywood celebrities like Hawking, Sagan, Mr. Spock, and a couple of lesser names.

Einstein died as an atheist of his OWN RELIGION. Poor old geyser....he left this life without so much as believing in any of the nonsense which he left behind for his disciples. And to this day....his disciples are holding the candle for him and marching forward in FAITH. They want to merge Relativity with Quantum in the hopes of resurrecting this Religion as something authoritative and legitimate....LOL!

“the objects are the atoms connected to the thread connecting all atoms?”

Yes, this is the Hypothesis, that all atoms are interconnected by an EM Rope. Matter cannot possibly be discrete (disconnected) because it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to attract each other under such a ridiculous hypothesis as asserted by the mathematicians. Gravity cannot be mediated by disconnected entities. We’re done!

“I am wondering if like theists, atheists are more likely, or less likely to get it?”

Ohhhhh the atheists GET it alright....boy do they ever! But it destroys their whole religion. Their whole system of belief is destroyed by rationality and critical thought. They spent all those years in university warming up a seat for what? FOR NOTHING!! And all those autographed posters of their favorite celebrities (Einstein, Hawking,etc) they have hanging on their walls....how can they look at those faces with respect again? What a shame.

Even their Priests/Professors dare not come here to put forth an intellectual argument in an attempt to salvage their Religion. They have nothing, and they know it. The best we can do is feel pity for atheists.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

I used to say to myself, "It just is difficult for ME to understand. These brainiacs know what they are talking about, so it must be right."

Now, I'm saying to myself "This is so simple and rational" it must not be er...uh...correct...right...er...uh...true?

Oh well, yours are the best explanation for these things I've found to date.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"It just is difficult for ME to understand. These brainiacs know what they are talking about, so it must be right."

This is the Religion of Atheism in a nutshell....keep your mouth shut, obey the Priest when he tells you to kneel before him, and wait for him to tell you "when" to open your mouth.

If they can't explain in detail what they are asserting, then they don't understand it. All they have is dogma/faith.

Atheism is no different than theism. Nobody can even begin to argue otherwise!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Sorry to take so long to respond, but I am still trying to unravel the other thread which is only getting more and more tangled.

"Atheism is no different than theism. Nobody can even begin to argue otherwise!"

Yes, I am seeing this very clearly. Now, I wonder who I'll be able to hang out with. Guess I'll be asking you a lot of questions as I work thru your hubs and then as I read WDGE, unless I can find a way to contact BG.


monkeypythagoras 4 years ago

(Eternal can only be applied in the context of time/motion. So if we want to scientifically describe the Universe from a temporal perspective, we can say: The Universe has no beginning and no end, or the Universe is eternal. Remember, the Universe is a concept (matter and space relation), not an object, that’s why we can qualify it with the adverb ‘eternal’.)

Could you clarify something for me?

The Universe is a concept denoting the embodyment of space and matter. As a concept it requires a living human mind to conceive it. In what sense is it eternal?

Thanks


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@mp,

Eternal refers to the time metric of motion (forever; no temporal beginning and no end).

No concept is eternal. To say that the universe is eternal is shorthand way of saying that matter and space have no temporal beginning or end. It's similar to saying that motion (a concept) is eternal. There was never a start to motion, nor will there ever be an end to an object's motion.

Matter cannot pop out of the void in zero-time. And matter cannot disappear into the void. Same for space. Space is actually THE void.


monkeypythagoras 4 years ago

Thanks FF

Another question:

If matter has been and always will be in motion does this mean that the atoms of the universe have always been configuring themselves into various objects and will always be reconfiguring themselves into various objects?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

mp,

Yes it does mean just that. All atoms in the universe are perpetually attracted to each other. We call this process "gravitation". Just when you think that motion has ceased for 2 atoms that combined together as one unit, another conglomerate of atoms will pull them apart eventually.

The universe is neither an open, closed or isolated system because it has NO boundaries. The universe cannot even be rationally considered as a “system”. Motion is necessarily conserved in such an unbounded universe.

You can think of the universe as the only conceivable perpetual motion and matter-recycling machine. All atoms are eternally recycled. Atoms have no ability to rub their elbows against space and grind to a stop. Atoms have no ability to be smashed into nothing and become space. Matter was never created and can never be disintegrated and converted into 'nothing' (no shape, space, void, vacuum). The Universe was not created, never had inputs, had no kickoff, and will have no end. It is eternal.


monkeypythagoras 4 years ago

ff,

When you conceive an unbounded universe does this refer to the spatial aspect alone (unbounded space) or does it include the material aspect as well? Put another way, is there a countable amount of matter in unbounded space?

Thanks for the succinct and direct replies, BTW.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

mp,

“When you conceive an unbounded universe”

For the majority of people it is incomprehensible to conceive of the unboundedness of space. Our lives revolve around beginnings and ends. All objects have a beginning and an end (with respect to their boundary). All the verbs in our lives have conceptual beginnings and ends. We go to work and come home.....we eat, shop, jog, talk, etc....all have beginnings and ends.

Such notions do not apply to the reality of the universe. If we critically analyze the claim of creation, we begin to wake up and see that such notions of begin & end are inapplicable to the universe. Space (void/nothing) is the only term in human language that must be predicated in negative terms, because space is not an entity or thing. Space is nothing. Space is unbounded, borderless, limitless, colorless, shapeless, massless, etc. Once you get past that hurdle, understanding the universe is simple.

“is there a countable amount of matter”

Yes, it necessarily has to be the case. Any attempt to rationalize that there is an indeterminate amount of matter will instantly contradict itself. If the amount of matter was indeterminate or uncountable (some say “infinite”, although this word is irrational) then the universe would be one single SOLID BLOCK of unbounded matter with no space. This does not make sense, because it is impossible for an object (matter) to be unbounded. Anything claimed to be unbounded necessarily has no shape. Objects necessarily have shape, otherwise they are concepts. And guess what? Space is a concept. Space is unbounded. Space is the antithesis of matter because the universe is like a binary system....matter and no-matter....on and off......1 and 0.


monkeypythagoras 4 years ago

Thanks again ff.

If I'm not trying your patience I have further questions.

What prevents the matter of the universe from dissipating into unbounded space, or coalescing into a single object?

Would the eternal cycling of atoms into objects result in the repetition of objects and particular relationships among those objects? For example, is the particular arrangement of atoms that I conceive of as myself repeated by other atoms in other locations at other times? Is that necessarily the case? What about the same atoms in the same locations at different times?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

mp,

“What prevents the matter of the universe from dissipating into unbounded space”

If space had a boundary, then ultimately I can get a crew of Egghead Mathematicians together and....after spending months (no kidding) teaching them how to properly use a DeWalt hammerdrill with high-strength bits.....we can enter a wormhole or a dimension or something....and go to the edge of space and drill right through its border. Now, matter can leak outside of space, right? But what is beyond that boundary....more space perhaps? You see, just as matter cannot exit space, matter cannot lose its shape from 3D and magically turn into space (0D). How would it do it? One dimension at a time perhaps?

“What prevents the matter of the universe from .... coalescing into a single object?”

Gravitational attraction. Since atoms are perpetually attracted to each other and are dispersed in random chunk-sized pieces of matter....you can never get a full symmetrical cooperation of atoms coming together in synchronicity. If God created the universe with just 4 atoms, each equally distant from each other, like the 4 corners of a square....then God must vanish in order for those 4 atoms to come together synchronously at the right angles to form one single object. And even in such a hypothetical ordered scenario, the atoms may not stay together. Atoms are in perpetual motion, they spin, expand/contract, shake/vibrate, etc. So it is possible for their bonds to break and either rearrange themselves or change location and stray away from their group via various motions/collisions/rebounds etc.

“Would the eternal cycling of atoms into objects result in the repetition of objects and particular relationships among those objects?”

Could we be reincarnated again? Can we have the same parents, spouses, pets, teachers, etc? I doubt it. Too much synchronicity going on there. The universe is eternal and all matter is recycled randomly. But some can argue that there is no time limit....we have forever. An interesting thought experiment though.

“What about the same atoms in the same locations at different times?”

Location is defined as the set of static distances to all other objects. All it takes is for one atom to move, to change the location of all the other atoms in the universe. Think about the ramifications of this. There is no cyclical order for atoms in the universe.


El Dude 4 years ago

Indeed, did the one atom move, or did its entire entourage of enemy atoms dance about with it?

Relativity is very confused on this! One might say it has a very confused "position" on things, arf.


Monkeyminds 4 years ago

"I guess you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink it."

Sure you can. All you need is a mathematical physicist and a priest. The mathematical physicist holds the horses head under water and the priest sucks on the horses ass.

“Would the eternal cycling of atoms into objects result in the repetition of objects and particular relationships among those objects?”

On earth, say on a mountain peak, or in a tundra, there are only a limited number of shapes wildlife will assemble into. Emerging complexity tends to be limited within the context of the environment. So it seems reasonable that under specific conditions atoms will assemble into a limited number of shapes.


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Hey Fat, I’m really interested in this grammar confusion that afflicts so many people and it occurs to me that “eternal” is actually an adjective. “Eternally” is an adverb in that it addresses the manner in which something is done or occurs, but according to the investigating that I’ve been doing “eternal” is an adjective used to describe time or motion.

It is nevertheless rational to describe time and motion as eternal; describing time or motion as humungous, large, or infinite makes no sense at all. The underlying point that infinite is an absurdity, and time is not an amount of something that can be scaled or climbed upon, remains unaffected.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

“but according to the investigating that I’ve been doing “eternal” is an adjective used to describe time or motion.”

Don’t get caught up on any authoritative dictionaries. Time & motion are verbs, so they cannot be qualified by adjectives. For the purposes of physics a word can only have one context. Science is predicated on consistency. What you are talking about is Syntactical Grammar. For the purposes of sentential syntax, a word can be treated as a verb or a noun or an adjective or an adverb. This is only to make the syntax of the statement correct for parsing. In Contextual Grammar, specifically when we ascribe meaning in the context of reality, adjectives can only be applied to nouns.....and adverbs can only be applied to verbs. We need to be rational in this context.

What this means, is that ETERNAL is an adverb for the purposes of physics. This is the only context.

Eternal refers to the time metric of motion (forever; no temporal beginning and no end) while infinite implicitly alludes to the sizes of objects. Eternal can only be applied in the context of time/motion. So if we want to scientifically describe the Universe from a temporal perspective (context of time), we can say: the universe is eternal.

Again, remember that Universe is a concept, so it cannot be qualified by an adjective. Concepts can only be qualified by adverbs.

Infinite is an adjective whereas eternal is an adverb. An adverb is a qualifier of a ‘concept’ or a ‘verb’, specifically, a dynamic concept like time. So you can say “eternal motion” or “eternal time” or “eternal Universe”.


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

"Time & motion are verbs, so they cannot be qualified by adjectives. ...parsing. In Contextual Grammar..."

Gotcha. Thanks Fat, much appreciated. Looks like I need to brush up on basic grammar.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Actually, we need to remember that since all languages are context-sensitive, then our grammars have 2 phases of resolution:

1) Syntactical phase

2) Contextual phase

I explain both in detail in my hub on concepts.

The dictionary will only list nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc. for SYNTAX purposes only. Makes sense actually, because the English grad kids who wrote the entries in the dictionary didn't really know in what context you will use those terms.


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

"Makes sense actually, because the English grad kids who wrote the entries in the dictionary didn't really know in what context you will use those terms."

Yes, I was getting that impression. Thanks for the direction to the concept hub, I'll put it on my "study list"!


Jake Archer 4 years ago

When I got the diff between eternal and infinite..I clicked on to one of the tricks those pesky religionist use with language. BTW an "infinte" object has NO SIZE minimum or maximum. I had a convo with a guy who claimed his version of the atom had NO size but then went onto claim that it made up the rest of the U, which did have a size and shape. If the object has no shape- size it just makes no sense, it does not exist. ..Thanks FF!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Every object is static. You only need one frame of the Universal Movie to visualize it. There are no dynamic objects where you require 2 frames (i.e. a movie) in order for the noun in question to be an object.

People who propose INFINITE OBJECTS are fanatical Religious Creationist psychopaths.....but we typically call them Atheists or Mathematicians. These clowns are telling you that the object is growing forever and ever amen. This object self-converts the void/nothing into matter and magically attaches it to the surface of itself in real-time to make itself grow incessantly. And all this without the presence of a God to mediate or supervise this magical activity.

Typical Creatio ex Nihilo crap....and you don't necessarily need a God for Creatio ex Nihilo. You just need a human who is a stupid deranged lunatic with an incredible imagination. These clowns go by the name of "nerd", "browner", "geek", "atheist", "secularist", "bright”, “freethinker”. They live in isolation in their mother’s basements all their lives.....their mother cooks & cleans for them......they have no girlfriend....and, oh...they are addicted to Internet porn!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

God cannot be proven or disprove fatfist I choose not to believe in god bro. This video is the best video ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG4Hnm-B0WM&feature...

His logic is amazing.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

"Existence exists." "Existence", isn't that synonymous with "Universe"..? Universe is the concept we hold in our heads concerning objects and space- which does not exist in reality. So I must press you, dear Fatfist, for clarification upon this ..ahem..matter!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

“"Existence", isn't that synonymous with "Universe"..? “

In ordinary speech, sure!

“Universe is the concept we hold in our heads concerning objects and space- which does not exist in reality.”

The Universe doesn’t exist for the SAME reason that society doesn’t exist. Only objects exist.....like stars, planets, people, buildings, etc.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

Then, rather than the Randian axiom, "existence exists"..the rational statement that can be justified is; "objects exist"..?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

“Randian axiom, "existence exists"”

All axioms are invented (i.e. conceived) by humans for the purposes of being applied in some specific context or domain; typically, within a tautological system of inference.

There are no axioms, laws, commandments, scriptures, scrolls or bibles in nature. Cutting atoms open will not reveal any hidden dogmatic messages put there by a higher authority. Humans invent axioms to covertly assert their authority and control upon the gullible pushovers out there who will swallow these axioms....tattoo them in their heart & soul.... and parrot them like a mantra until the day they die. We call this: RELIGION.

The word “existence” is a noun for the purposes of grammatical syntax only. It does not resolve to a noun of reality. All the nouns of reality are real objects. The adjective “exist” is often reified into an alleged noun of reality (i.e. existence) by those who unwittingly use Ordinary Speech in an attempt to make a Scientific presentation. These clowns don’t understand what Science or Scientific Language is all about. No wonder they assert rhetorical statements as absolute truth; i.e. eternal axioms which allegedly “exist” in some incorporeal dimension between time and space, and govern nature and our very existence! Can you believe these morons?

“"objects exist"”

Yes, in any Scientific presentation only objects can exist as long as they have location. It is irrational to say that “existence exists” because it is nothing more than a rhetorical statement..... ♪♫♪♫ "A horse is a horse of course, of course ♪♫♪♫ and no one can talk to a horse a horse, of course of course"... ♫♪♫


Luis 3 years ago

Hi fatfist,

I'm a bit mytified as to why you feel compelled to use phrases like 'How they can confuse the two is beyond human comprehension!', as though most humans didn't routinely fall for these confusions ('the masses', who are apparently readily 'brainwashed', as you imply in the very same article, thus placing them outside the domain of humanity by your definition).

What gives?

Also, your admittedly demented rants and ad hominems against atheists are quite odd (some are clearly pulled straight out of your ass for comic effect. I won't deny the truth of them in their entirety, but to say that theists are the most lame-brained members of our unfortunate species doesn't even rise to the level of a joke), given that you are yourself an atheist (unless you're a God believer - in which case, let me know. For someone who is as passionate about the precise use of words as you claim to be, you need to at least look the word up in a dictionary and link it to your usage more precisely). It seems that you're using 'atheist' to mean atheists-of-the-universe-had-a-beginning sort, which you apparently take be to be ALL atheists, for some strange reason. Failure to qualify your usage of 'atheist' and 'atheism' can only lead to confusion, which is something you should be keenly aware of if you're serious about conveying ideas. But yeah, I agree that a lot of atheists are given to wank-headed notions of an 'origin' of the universe. I find such ideas to be religious ideas. Don't even get me started on mathematicians who think that numbers are real things.

Anyway, cool website.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"What gives?"

I give up.....what gives?

"your admittedly demented rants and ad hominems against atheists"

Ummmm....isn't THAT an admittedly demented 'rant' and an 'ad hominem' against me, according to your usage? The Ad-Hom Police are out in full force. Resistance is futile.

" theists are the most lame-brained members of our unfortunate species"

You are strawmaning me now. It is ATHEISTS who are lame-brained. The theist is always infinitely more intelligent than the atheist. C'mon, everybody knows that. Get jiggy with it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JcmQONgXJM

“ ALL atheists, for some strange reason”

Of course the reason is strange for one who doesn’t understand the arguments. All atheists are religious creationists because:

1) Atheists necessarily believe that a creator God may possibly exist. They can’t prove He doesn’t.

2) It is impossible for an Atheist to explain why creation is impossible or the universe is eternal.

3) Atheism is predicated on belief, not science.

This is basic Philosophy 101 stuff.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

You might try justifying your 'no' answers...just an fyi.


Mohd 2 years ago

Aren't "infinite" and "space" is actually the same? Both words resolve to nothing if I think deeply.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Infinite is an adjective, the context opposite of finite, an adjective as well. Is space an adjective in your religion, Mohammad? They don't teach you terrorist suicide bombers any English grammar?

I guess your training camp went to shambles after Osama Bin Laden died of kidney disease, right?


Mohd 2 years ago

You're still following the dictionary, fatfist. Although the term "infinite" is an adjective in dictionary, if you try to think deeply, then you will know what I mean.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"the term "infinite" is an adjective"

Exactly! Now you got it right. See, it just took a little hammering from The Fist :)


wayne92587 2 years ago

Does not Infinite resolve to Nothingness, there being only Darkness upon the Deep.


Eric Breaux profile image

Eric Breaux 2 years ago from Seabrook, Texas

Very misleading title, since all your "refutation's" are nothing more than unconfirmed IDEAS. This is such a simple concept to understand that children instinctively comprehend it, but as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss" http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Eric, before you go any further, please explain to the audience how nothing can acquire shape and morph into an object. If you can't do that, then yes...your ignorance is bliss.

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working