God Does NOT Exist - It is IMPOSSIBLE for a God to Exist

INTRODUCTION

The Religions of “theism” and “atheism” are in total agreement with each other....they assert that it is not possible to “prove” that God does or doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, these proponents don’t understand that the term “proof” resolves to none other than OPINION because it is predicated upon the limited human sensory system. But most importantly, none of these fanatics can unambiguously define the crucial term which makes or breaks their argument: the formidable term ‘exist’. No wonder these two fundamentalist camps have been arguing with each other for over 2000 years.

This article makes NO “claims”. It only provides a rational explanation for why it is impossible for God to exist. So the casual reader (i.e. theist/agnostic/atheist) had better go to school and learn the difference between a “claim” and an “explanation” before chasing strawmen in the comments section.

So.....it’s time to cut through all the BS thrown around by both theists and atheists alike. It’s time to rationally explain not only why God does not exist; but more importantly; that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a God to exist...any creator God!



WHAT IS GOD?

The proponents of God hypothesize that the term “God” resolves to The “Creator”. They claim that God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’, who can move and perform activities, like “create”. This is their CLAIM, and they ask you to take it at face value and NOT ask any further questions!

Hey! Not so faaaaasssssssssst! I hope that nobody bellyaches if we critically analyze this claim before taking it at face value.

Realistically, the term “God” (like any other term in human language) resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category. God either has ‘shape’ or He doesn’t....it’s a Yes or No issue....there is no other option! Those who claim that God is a concept like love, truth or intelligence, will summarily have excluded God from existence. These people need to learn the difference between an ‘object’ and a ‘concept’ before attempting to formulate arguments founded on ignorance.

For the rest, like the proponents of the God of the Bible (Christians, Jews, Muslims), for example, God is indeed a hypothesized entity/object who created space and matter. And “creation” is an action (verb) which necessarily invokes motion i.e. the motion of God!! Objectless motion is impossible! Nothingness cannot move! Whatever God is made from, whether He is visible or invisible, is totally irrelevant in the instant context. The point is that God absolutely does have ‘shape’ to His being,....God is obviously an OBJECT, whether He or His fanatic followers like it or not. This is an objective issue that is reasoned, and not blindly asserted. It is impossible to argue otherwise!

So…what is an object? How do we define ‘object’ and ‘exist’ unambiguously?

Object: that which has shape.

Exist: an object having location.

Location: the set of distances to all other objects.

Theologians HYPOTHESIZE that God does indeed EXIST! That is, they HYPOTHESIZE that God is an object with shape. Furthermore, by virtue of His existence, theologians HYPOTHESIZE that there is a set of distances between God and all other objects in the Universe.

Whether God is....

· Invisible

· Untouchable

· Unknowable

· Undetectable

· Untestable

· Hidden

· Mysterious

· Almighty

· Complex

· Not able to be scientifically analyzed and evidenced

· Etc.....

..... is completely IRRELEVANT to the theologian’s hypothesis - that God is an object with LOCATION! Since God is allegedly located somewhere “out there”, it follows that there is a distance between God and YOUR nose.

Q: DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT GOD IS AN OBJECT?

A: OMG….YES INDEED, OF COURSE IT DOES!!!


Philippians 2:6 -- ”Who, being in the FORM of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

Numbers 12:8 -- With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

Job 4:15-17 -- “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”


See how simple that was? Just read your Bible....and not just the cherry-picked verses which your Pastor forced you to memorize by rote in Sunday school.

Even God cannot elude His objecthood and structure to His being, which gives Him shape. Those who disagree that all entities/objects have shape/form, whether invisible or not (including God Himself), have a LOT of explaining to do! God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘something’, God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being. Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!



WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST?

Because God cannot possibly be a “creator” of the Universe (space and matter).

1) Space is nothing; has no borders, boundaries or edges. Space is a concept invented by man. As such, space is impossible to create. Not even an all-powerful magical God can create space!

2) Matter has shape and is impossible to create from nothing. What sense does it make to say that “nothing”, which lacks shape, suddenly acquired shape in ZERO TIME; i.e. in one frame of the Universal Movie? Objects can only be ASSEMBLED from pre-existing matter. Matter is eternal….cannot be created or destroyed. Not even God can morph “nothing” into an object with shape.

Remember, points 1 and 2 are NOT claims….they are rational explanations which contradict the positive claim. It is the Theologian and the Big Bang Creationist who blindly asserts the positive claim that space and matter can be created. Their claim is irrational and contradictory. This is why they only “assert” it, and can never “explain” it.

Since God is a hypothesized object, space must necessarily enclose and contour God. This makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty. God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The God Hypothesis assumes God to be eternal, but space is what allows God to have form. There is no other way about it: God cannot be an entity without space. He would instead be nothing (i.e. space itself) and the God Hypothesis would be moot. Had it been possible for God to even attempt to escape this eternal prison we call space, He would have lost His most precious superpower:FORM; and be reduced to nothing. To assert that God created space is a blatant contradiction.

God can be as all-powerful as He wants, but since space doesn’t have a border, even He cannot cross that which has no boundaries. It is absurd to propose that God is outside of space (transcends it), looking in at space AND matter from a bird’s-eye perspective. Therefore, God cannot do without the background of space that grants Him form & being.



CONCLUSION

If there is a God, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here with all of us, as not even He can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of and NO cracks to slip through. So He'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Formless & borderless space humbles the most arrogant of gods, even the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – it’s impossible! We have “free will” because God does not, as even ‘He’ cannot escape this prison ‘He’ is credited for building. So if God exists, He is just another insignificant being that satisfies the human involuntary compulsion to worship....He may very well be Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, or some Hollywood Celebrity. Mindless beings are obsessed with worshipping conceptually-important (authoritative, celebrity, idol) characters.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any God to exist…..sorry!

More by this Author


Comments 273 comments

El Dudetta 4 years ago

Great new article!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Thanks Dudetta!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Hey, I'm not quite sure about this hub yet. On the one hand, you seemingly bring up some good points, but on the other, you make critical scientific errors which denounce the entire hub's points.

The tone of hub is also very aggressive and negative, and with my first hub (incidentally, a hub about disproving God) I made the same mistake.

For starters: "Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!" and "resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category." is very questionable. Energy. Where does it come into this? I imagine that you can conclude for yourself that you were wrong here, if not, ask.

This point throws great discredit at your conclusion wherein if God was energy, then he could produce mass. Just like the foundation of the Big Bang Theory wherein energy creates the mass for the universe. (Also as for God escaping space or needing a location to exist, most theists will tell you that he is omnipresent and exists everywhere all at once)

As a non-theist you would then ask about the origins for God's conscious effort to do such an action, by which I mean where did he acquire a personality. The answer you will be given is it was magic and just happened.

There are many ways of disproving the existence of God. This is particularly true if you mean the Abrahamic God (like previously mentioned, I wrote a hub on this) who has a personality. But this I'm afraid, is not one in itself but part of a longer explanation which I filled in above.

Follow me and I'll follow you, It was a good effort, well done :)

If you are worried about religious people and religions, then I urge you to read my hub on how and why Religion is declining and it's inevitable extinction. Not to worry FatFist,

Have a good evening,

Philanthropy.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Philanthropy,

“The tone of hub is also very aggressive and negative”

I hope that one’s opinions are not used to invalidate my hub. You see, last week a cop stopped me doing 90 in a 55 zone. When he approached my car to tell me that I was waaaaaay over the limit, I felt that his tone was very aggressive and negative. Does this mean that I wasn’t speeding? Does this mean that I can now use my personal feelings (i.e. subjectivity) to complain in court about the cop and forgo the ticket and demerit points?

I hope that one’s subjective interpretations of emotion have nothing to do with what is objectively explained in this hub.

“"Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!" and "resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category." is very questionable.”

Great, I am glad you are questioning it. So please tell us what the third category is.....please give it a name, and then define it. This is how we introduce new words into human language.

All words we can conceive of resolve to either an OBJECT (we point at objects and name them)....or a CONCEPT (a relation between objects or other concepts).

Since you have a THIRD category where words can resolve to, I would be very interested if you define it, and give us some examples of it.

“Energy. Where does it come into this?”

Is the concept of “energy” your third category? But energy is a concept....not a third category. And why are you asking me how energy relates to this discussion? You are the one who brought this up, not me.

“I imagine that you can conclude yourself that you were wrong here”

Wrong? Wrong about what?

What is “wrong” to one person may be “right” to another. So how do we resolve an assertive claim of right or wrong? Do we use a crystal ball or Ouija Board? Do we ask the Oracle at Delphi? Do we take the word of a Ph.D. or a so-called “expert”? Or do we use critical thought and rational scientific analysis?

“Wrong” means that someone already made up their mind. There is no provision for “right” or “wrong” in the Scientific Method which is comprised of a Hypothesis and Theory (rational explanation). In science we define all our key terms in no ambiguous terms so the audience understands exactly what we are talking about. The criteria for science is extreme “objectivity”...which means that we critically reason our explanations so there are no contradictions. Right and wrong belong in Religion (i.e. Jesus is right....Allah is wrong) – subjective.

“if God was energy”

Whoa...Hold on there...

If God was a concept? If God was nothing? How can this make any sense?

There is NO religionist or theologian who will put his neck on the line and claim that God is a concept....especially since the Bible states in NO uncertain terms that God is an OBJECT.....God is something rather than nothing....God has shape/form.

“the foundation of the Big Bang Theory where in energy creates the mass for the universe.”

How can a concept like energy perform actions (verbs) like “create”?? Please explain in detail.

Concepts are ideas conceived of living entities. Objects precede all concepts. Concepts have no shape....they are not things! They do not exist. Only objects exist.

“As a non-theist you would then ask about the origins for God's conscious effort to do such an action, by which I mean where did he acquire a personality.”

You are going off into irrelevant tangents. This is not an issue of God’s personality....it is a much simpler issue. This is an issue of existence! Personalities, subjectivities and opinions play no role in scientific discussions.

The theist’s job is to provide a Theory (rational explanation) of how space and matter were created.

As it turns out....it is IMPOSSIBLE to create space and matter as explained in this hub and many other hubs in my profile. Ergo...it is impossible for any God (creator) to exist. Perhaps you misunderstood my hub.

“There are many ways of disproving the existence of God.”

Actually, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of any entity. “Proof” means that we already made up our minds and chose to believe some statement without understanding it. It was already proven 2000 years ago that the Earth was flat....and recently proven again by the Flat Earth Society. Hopefully nobody will come along and shake the foundations of that infallible proof.

We don’t deal with proofs in science. Science is objective. Existence is observer-independent. There is no provision for proof/truth/evidence/wisdom/knowledge/observation/belief/faith/experimentation in the definition of ‘exist’.

Exist: physical presence (object + location)

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of the Moon. The Moon exists BY DEFINITION, only. The Moon is an object, and in addition, it has location. The Moon exists irrespective of any observer who makes an opinion of “proof” about it. Hopefully nobody will come along and disprove the Moon....I would really miss it if it disappeared.

You see, existence is always part of the Hypothesis stage of the sci method. Existence is never a Theory. As such, it is irrational to prove the existence of an entity. This is why God has been proven and disproven a million times over with no end result. Theists and atheists are still arguing over God’s existence despite of all those infallible proofs/disproofs.

This hub does not prove nor disprove. This hub uses scientific reasoning to rationally explain why God is impossible to exist.


Nexis19 profile image

Nexis19 4 years ago

Interesting hub. Really enjoyed it.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Okay well let me start with your speeding analogy. You seem to be under the impression that I said that an aggressive tone makes an argument less credible. That is not what I said, leave strawman out.

I was talking about my opinion of the hub.

As for your notion of objects and concepts and my argument of energy. Like I said, I assumed that you would be able to deduce for yourself where you went wrong, but alas:

ob·ject

anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

concept:

Something conceived in the mind

Since you are so very keen on definitions of words, you should realise that by their definitions, objects and concepts do not include every single thing in existence. By their definitions, oxygen is neither an object nor a concept (it is not tangible and is not conceived in the mind), yet it exists and we know it does. The same goes for smells, atoms and sound (all energy in fact).

I can see where you were trying to get at with the words "concept" and "object" but you were completely wrong in choosing those two words. "Physical matter" and "Forces" would be a closer, yet still imperfect way of trying to reach your point.

Therefore, and I do this not to mock you bust simply because you ask, other categories that exist outside of "Object" and "Concept" include "Smells" ""atoms" and "energy" as well as of course "natural laws" such as gravity, which are also by definition, said to exist.

As for your claims of "in science", I have read this hub, and your other hubs, and it is clear you are not learned in science. The definition of wrong is "not correct or true" and if you cannot prove how you are right (which you haven't) you will remain branded wrong.

The mere fact that you said energy is a concept throws great caution on everything you say, how could such a mistake even be conceived (the correct use of that word)? Energy is not conceived, it is perceived. There is a large difference good sir.

"God has shape/form" means he is not nothing?

You seem to think that only things with "Shape/Form" can exist. Please elaborate on how energy does not exist. It is not a concept, because energy is not conceived.

"Personalities, subjectivities and opinions play no role in scientific discussions." Actually if you were at all associated with the scientific community you would see that these are where most of the discussions are at. Disproving the existence of a God at this current moment has been futile. Disproving the abrahamic one hasn't.

"it is IMPOSSIBLE to create space and matter" the mere fact that it exists means that it is possible. Energy can be converted into mass. This is one of the most fundamental principles of science and from this I can tell that you know nothing of it.

“Proof” means that we already made up our minds and chose to believe some statement without understanding it.

Proof means : "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Not what you said.

"It was already proven 2000 years ago that the Earth was flat" HA! No it wasn't.

"We don’t deal with proofs in science." Yes you do.

Axioms are used as proof to form the foundation of all sciences.

"This hub uses scientific reasoning to rationally explain why God is impossible to exist." Scientific reasoning is founded on proof. The definition of proof includes "The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions". So by definition, whether you like it or not, you are attempting (unsuccessfully) to prove that God exists.

Please, find me a definition of proof that contradicts that you are attempting to prove something here.

To conclude, this Hub fails to include basic scientific principles (although claims to have some sort of pseudo authoritative stance), and is premised on incorrect definitions of the words "Object" "concept" and "proof".

In the end you have said "This hub uses scientific reasoning to rationally explain why God is impossible to exist" whilst also maintaing that your hub is not "proof" but axiomatic knowledge, where actually by definition it is in fact false-proof, and contains no axiomatic knowledge.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

does not exist* maintaining*


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Philanthropy,

“You seem to be under the impression that I said that an aggressive tone makes an argument less credible. That is not what I said, leave strawman out.”

No strawman...just curious what your POINT was....or do you enjoy babbling about your heart-felt emotions?

“ob•ject: anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.”

The moon was not visible before observers evolved on Earth to “visualize” it. According to YOUR defn, the Moon is NOT an object! Stunning! HILARIOUS!!!!!

“concept: Something conceived in the mind

Something is a synonym for object!!!! An object IS something rather than nothing...got it? Do you have a brain....do you understand what you post?

LOL....go back to Junior Kindergarten and learn the diff between object and concept. You are chasing your tail in circles because of your ignorance!

“you should realise that by their definitions, objects and concepts do not include every single thing in existence.”

Erm....philo.....did the Wizard of Oz give you a brain yet?

Concepts do not exist, only objects do.

So please illustrate (or reference a pic online) ‘something’ that you say exists, but is NOT an object. The audience wants to see this alleged critter of yours which is not an object....but yet exists.

And while you’re at it...DEFINE the key term which makes or breaks YOUR argument: EXIST.

“By their definitions, oxygen is neither an object nor a concept”

By their definitions??? OMG....do you have a brain?

Objects are impossible to define. Only concepts can be defined. We point to objects and name them.....just like your God to Adam to do with the animals. Do you even understand the basics of human language?

You disagree? Good! Please define COCONUT. Let’s see if you can defend your religion.

Oxygen and atoms are hypothesized objects with shape. They are within the Hypothesis stage of the Sci Method.....but of course, you have no clue!

Here, educate yourself.

http://www.rkm.com.au/oxygen/oxygen-images/OXYGEN....

“The same goes for smells, ... sound (all energy in fact).”

Smell is what someone DOES....not what something IS. Smell is a VERB....not a noun. Same for sound....air moves (verb). But since you are soooooooo ignorant, we forgive you for not knowing that.

And energy is a catch-all SYNONYM in your Religion??

Too funny.....ENERGY = GOD in your argument. It can be used as a wildcard for all your arguments....LOL! You are a Religionist.

“Please elaborate on how energy does not exist. “

Energy is a concept, you numbskull.....it has the units kg x m^2/s^2. Energy is a conceived RELATION of other concepts!! Concepts don’t exist. And it is NOT a synonym for smell and sound. Energy lacks shape...is not an object.

Exist = object + location

Go back to school and learn language.....leave science for people with a brain, ok?

“Energy is not conceived, it is perceived.”

OHHHHHHH MY GOD....HA HA HA HA HA!!!! This will be good.....

Please PERCEIVE this God which you call ENERGY for our audience, and please illustrate it, or reference a pic of it online. Let’s see your perception.

This is will funny....OMG will it ever!

LOL...Do you understand the diff between perception and conception?

“There is a large difference good sir.”

Yes, the difference is SHAPE!!

“You seem to think that only things with "Shape/Form" can exist. “

You cannot illustrate something which exists, but yet does not have shape.....YOU CAN’T.....IMPOSSIBLE! You only come here to post your BELIEF, FAITH and irrational assertions.

HOMEWORK: Define ‘exist’ in NO ambiguous terms...i.e. Scientifically!

“Energy can be converted into mass.”

Energy is a concept (already explained above). Mass is also a concept (a scalar quantity). The concept of energy does not convert into the concept of mass.....except after YOU had 15 beers!!

Philo: “Proof means : Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Proof requires an observer to use his limited sensory system to give an OPINION of what he THINKS is the case. Science is objective, not subjective like you claim.

Evidence & PROOF means YOUR opinion! Evidence is evidence to you and just an object or a theory to me. To a theist, like yourself, a flower is evidence that God exists and that creation is true. To the bee, it is just a flower, a place to get nectar.

Despite its complicated structure, Ptolemy produced a model so successful at reproducing the apparent motion of the planets that when, in the sixteenth century, Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, he could not match the accuracy of Ptolemy's Earth-centred system. Copernicus constructed a model where the Earth rotated and, together with the other planets, moved in a circular orbit about the Sun. But the observational evidence of the time supported the Ptolemaic system!

The only purpose of evidence is to persuade gullible parrots like you to believe in Christ or in Allah or in Big Bang. In Science, we only explain. In Science, we don't care what the jurors decide based on the evidence. That's extra-scientific. In Science, we just look for a rational explanation. Evidence for Theory A as opposed to Theory B is in the eye of the beholder, irrespective of whether the Theories are rational or not.

Go take an intro course in Science 101.

“Axioms are used as proof to form the foundation of all sciences.”

An axiom is a pre-DEFINED tautological RULE. Tautologies are not used in science. Science is the study of existence.....not the study of concepts! And we already established by YOUR definition that PROOF = OPINION....thanks!!

You cannot post here a single proof of anything having to do with Science. You can’t.

“Scientific reasoning is founded on proof.”

Sci reasoning is NOT founded on OPINION, like you allege. It is founded on critical thinking and rational analysis w.r.t. a Hypothesis and Theory. Learn the basics before arguing with your ignorance.

“you are attempting (unsuccessfully) to prove that God exists.”

This is your strawman. You have no other argument since your Religion is destroyed! You haven’t understood anything in here because you are Religionist.


El Dude 4 years ago

I think from now on whenever I hear the word ENERGY I'll just replace it with MAGIC as that's basically what it's a placeholder for: magical thinking; a blank movie clip full of a person's faery wishes.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

ENERGY is a catch-all term that is invoked only by RELIGIONISTS, much like the God term.

The fanatic proponents of such terms will use them as SYNONYMS for every single word in the dictionary...i.e energy=god=love=spirit=force=field=time=light=gravity=

magnetism=heat=ball=car=running=sock=sex=happy=

justice=dog=wave=sand=...

They are asking you swallow a WHOPPER!!

Their arguments hinge on the "HOPE" that you are uneducated, and can't think, and that you will WORSHIP the same authority as they do (God, priests, pastors, mullahs, einstein, hawking, bohr, penrose, sagan, etc.).

All they do is post bald assertions and expect you to become a BELIEVER. And if you don't, then you are a SINNER, an evil-doer without morals.

In a nutshell, that is the Religion of Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, Christianity, Islam, etc. They all operate the EXACT SAME WAY!

Not a single clown who uses the term 'energy', can ever objectively define it.

ENERGY = GOD!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"just curious what your POINT was" the point was that nobody is going to care to read your hub if you talk as aggressively as that, even if it contains good points, the tone will push people away. It was advice. Take it or leave it.

You seem to be arguing against the official definition of words now. "object" is as defined as how I quoted it from a dictionary. You are not using the correct definition of the word object in your hub. Infer what you will from the new definition.

"An object IS something rather than nothing" hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

Find me one source of information that states that. You are just making up definitions for words! Oh my God!! Ahahahahhahaha. ahaha.Hah. ahahha. hah. wow.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/object

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object

" Let’s see if you can defend your religion" considering I've already let you know that I'm an atheist, I can only imagine that you are mentally challenged?. PAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

"Smell is a VERB....not a noun" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahaHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD. What an awful SMELL you are. PAHAHAHAH

You don't even know that there is a NOUN called SMELL?!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/smell

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/air

http://www.yourdictionary.com/smell

Proof

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

Hahahah So you got every definition of the words you used completely wrong. AND THEN don't even have the common courtesy to REALISE that I am an ATHEIST.

That is some impressive work there.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Philanthropy,

“nobody is going to care to read your hub if you talk as aggressively “

What is aggressive is aggressive to YOU because it destroys YOUR Religion. All you do is bellyache in the hopes that you get sympathy from the audience so they can BELIEVE (based on sympathy) the crap that you post here. So why do you keep coming back?

“You seem to be arguing against the official definition of words now. "object" is as defined as how I quoted it from a dictionary. “

Argument from authority – fallacy!

In Science, we don't care what the source of your definitions or theories are. You could have run an experiment, observed something in nature, or had a bad dream. In Science, we look at what is before us OBJECTIVELY.

The definition of 'object' MUST be used consistently (i.e., SCIENTIFICALLY). The garbage that you have been brainwashed with cannot. So we have an OBJECTIVE criterion. Science cleans its ass with your opinions and authority and traditions.

In Science, we don't look up definitions like you do! In Science, the presenter takes responsibility for his definitions. He doesn't blame others for his ignorance when his definitions break down....like yours did!! Science doesn't care where you got the definition or who the authority is. Science merely demands that you use it consistently. Science is about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Superficial thinkers such as you gloss over the definitions and end up chasing their tails around.

Philo: “ob•ject: anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.”

It is self-refuting. The Moon is an object whether a human ape sees it and makes an opinion about it or not. Science is OBJECTIVE....all definitions must NOT invoke an observer within them. Nature does NOT depend on observers. Scientific defns are observer-independent!

“You are just making up definitions for words!”

In science we define all our terms OBJECTIVELY without contradiction, ambiguities,....and without observers!!!

Object: that which has shape. Synonym: something, thing, particle, body, being, structure, ...

Exist: object + location

The Moon exists, because in addition to being an object, it has location! Your defn contradicts itself!!

“I'm an atheist”

I'm sorry to hear that, Philo. Whew....for a moment there I thought that you were a scientist! Now we know that we are dealing with a Religionist Troll who is synonymous with the term “atheist”.

An atheist is an individual who does not believe in the existence of God. He is no different than a theist, who believes in the existence of God. In contrast, a scientist is an individual who invokes existence ONLY in a hypothesis. Never in a theory!

Both theists and atheists have it backwards! In Science, we don't prove or believe in the existence of X. In Science, we postulate the existence of X: "Let us ASSUME that X exists. With this hypothesis I will now explain..."

Atheism is UNSCIENTIFIC! People should learn the arguments against Atheism and abandon this pernicious religion! Atheists are no different than theists and agnostics. The only one that is different is the scientist.

Atheism IS a religion: the religion of Mathematics! In Science, we are not atheists! Only brain-dead clowns are theists, atheists and agnostics. Atheism goes against the grain reality. An atheist is an individual who is still stuck to the 17th C version of the Scientific Method. An atheist still does not understand what Science is about. The reason theists and atheists are still debating to this day is because atheists have not resolved their contradictions.....just like you!

“You don't even know that there is a NOUN called SMELL?”

Too funny!

Please draw an image of the noun object which your Pastor told you is called “smell”. Or just reference a pic online so the audience can see it.

Clowns like you don’t know the difference between Scientific Language and Ordinary Speech. You think that Scientific Grammar has to do with poetry and euphemisms and reifying the verb “smell” into a grammatical noun “smell” for syntactical correctness. You have NO clue you are committing the Fallacy of Reification!!!!!

“Proof”

Exactly, all you do is provide your OPINION.

PROOF = YOUR OPINION, as I explained to you before!

“REALISE that I am an ATHEIST.”

Atheism is an untenable position because it invokes the crucial terms 'belief' and/or 'knowledge'. If God actually exists out there, if there really is a Supreme Being out there, will the fact that I don't believe in 'Him' make God disappear? And conversely, if there is no such being, will the fact that I believe that there is make God appear?

Conclusion (for atheists as well as theists): there is no provision for belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom in the definition of the word 'exist'.

Theists and atheists alike have a distorted notion of the Scientific Method.

You can easily tell you are dealing with FANATICAL Religionists known as atheists & theists, when they get OFFENDED when you ask them a simple question...

Q: Is God an object or a concept?

Q: Is Energy an object or a concept?

Q: Is Time/Field/Force/Mass an object or a concept?

Q: Is Spacetime an object or a concept?

Only clueless Religionists like atheists & theists get offended and go into a trolling tirade, instead of coming here to provide their Scientific Definitions and have a rational discussion. All they do is assert IRRATIONALITY, and commit all the fallacies out there.

Philo, you are disgruntled Religionist (atheist) .....

1) You come here to bellyache because you ran out of arguments.....you have nothing scientific to offer.

2) You cannot define any word without invoking YOUR OPINION within it.

3) Your religion has been destroyed, so you come here to TROLL.

4) I have answered all your Q’s directly!

5) You have NOT answered any of my Q’s at all.

6) CONCLUSION: YOU ARE A TROLL!!!

Philo, no more trolling. Either post a scientific argument with Scientific Definitions....or get lost! We have better things to do than watch you CRY as you get slaughtered!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

" I believe you have the wrong definition of religion too!"

Believe???

You believe???

That quite the Religion you got there!

In science we don’t “believe”. Belief is the Hallmark of Religion. In science we objectively DEFINE all our terms in the Hypothesis, and rationally explain consummated events in the Theory.

If you want to talk Science, you should first stop going to Church every Sunday (i.e. Atheist Experience), and educate yourself in the basics.

Of course ATHEISTS ARE RELIGIONISTS who have nothing to offer but BELIEF!!! Atheists are absolutely NO different than the fanatic fundamentalist Christians & Islamics who spew nonsensical contradictions with every sentence....just like you have done here.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

“you think energy is a concept “

No, you clown! Pay attention!!!

I never said “I think”.

READ MY LIPS: Every single word in the dictionary either resolves to an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other option. If you think there is another category, please post it here, DEFINE it, and EXPLAIN it with the luxury of detail.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts

Philo.....THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING!!!

Either post another category and define it as I asked you to, AND define energy so we can understand that it is NOT a concept....OR get lost!!! We don’t need TROLLS here, ok?

This is your last chance.....DO NOT RAISE ANY FURTHER ARGUMENTS UNTIL YOU ADDRESSED THE ABOVE ISSUES.

No more dancing, no more crying like a girl who lost her panties, no more telling me what you had for lunch yesterday.....JUST DEFINE YOUR TERMS AND EXPLAIN!!


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

Hello Fatfist,

Just some questions for now.

"WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST?

Because God cannot possibly be a “creator” of the Universe (space and matter)."

I understand that god as defined (the creator of space and matter) is not possible (how does one create nothing?)

But you state that 'it is impossible for ANY god to exist'.

What about a god that did not create space and matter? Or is the creation of space and matter the defining quality of god in your article?

If so, then I agree. A god that created space and matter is impossible, based on the understanding that creating nothing is impossible and creating matter from nothing equally so.

But is it correct to define god as 'the creator of nothing and matter from nothing' and then assert the entity's non-existence because this creation is impossible?

What about a god that does the possible?

God does not need to have the impossible attributes that religion/philosophy assigns to it in order to exist.

Omnipotence, Omniscience, immortality, are qualities that humans have endowed the creator with in order to feel better about their futures. None of these features are necessary in order to create the universe.

I submit that what is impossible is the definition of god you are using.

I submit it is still possible that a purposed sentience is responsible for the creation of the current formation we call the universe, if not the matter itself.

Such an entity would indeed be an object. But need that object be distinct from the rest of matter? Is it not a fair hypothesis that the eternal matter is also sentient? Can we not point to observed effects (gravity, light and heat transmission in a vaacuum) to put forth the assertion that all matter is connected? (Does the e-m rope theory not do this?) Can we not then attempt to test the idea that this connection and observable effects point to intent?

I don't want to clutter the comment with an attempted explanation. I started along these lines of thought as a result of interactions with you and aka winston re: your 'first cause' hub. For now just asking the questions to get your thoughts.

Fire away! :)

I appreciate the article. Thanks for writing it

cheers


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"READ MY LIPS: Every single word in the dictionary either resolves to an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other option. If you think there is another category, please post it here, DEFINE it, and EXPLAIN it with the luxury of detail."

Read mine: YOU ARE WRONG.

FORCE is another category in which none of the things are concepts nor objects

(physics) LAW is yet another category.

Proof? Here is concept:

con·cept? ?[kon-sept] Show IPA

noun

1.

a general notion or idea; conception.

2.

an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

3.

a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

ENERGY then by definition IS NOT A CONCEPT. ENERGY CAN BE TURNED INTO MASS - AN OBJECT. BUT ENERGY ITSELF HAS NO SHAPE AND IS NOT

1.

a general notion or idea; conception.

NOT

2.

an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

AND NOT

3.

a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept) (- Look evidence! Now you try!

Even by your FALSE and UNBACKED definition of CONCEPT "Concept: a relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts" then ENERGY IS STILL NOT A CONCEPT as it is NOT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO OR MORE OBJECTS.

Furthermore, on top of the fact that you've given a wrong definition of concept, you've actually changed it from your Hub's one " a concept like love, truth or intelligence" what "relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts" does TRUTH have? NONE

I HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS.

NOW MOVE ON TO WHERE YOU ARE GETTING YOUR FALSE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS "OBJECT" "CONCEPT" AND "ENERGY" FROM.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Anton,

“But you state that 'it is impossible for ANY god to exist'. What about a god that did not create space and matter?”

Yes, you have to take this statement in context with what the article is about. This article is about the human conception of God-The-Creator....the creator of space & matter (universe).

If God is the “hot blonde” next door whom I can’t stop thinking about....then yes, God exists!!

If God is a concept, like love, energy, intelligence, morality, free-will, all good,...etc., then of course it is impossible for such a God to exist.

The bottom line is....God must be an object with location before God can be said to exist.

1) The Hot Blonde God is an object. She has location (next door). Hence God exists!

2) The Creator God is an object. But it is impossible for Him to have location (as explained in this hub). Hence God does not exist!

3) A God who is a synonym for a concept, like ENERGY, is not an object. He has no location. Hence God does not exist!

“But is it correct to define god as 'the creator of nothing and matter from nothing' and then assert the entity's non-existence because this creation is impossible?”

This is not an issue of “correctness”. This is an issue of definition and context, only. Any creator God is impossible to exist. If one defines their own “personal” conception of God as the “hot blonde” next door.....then let them knock themselves out. What they convince themselves of does not concern reality. Nobody cares.

“I submit that what is impossible is the definition of god you are using.”

Yes indeed. Theologians who assert a CREATOR God have really cornered themselves with an irrational and impossible object. This is the context of this hub. But the sad thing is that atheists are taking their bait and feeding them more bait to support the theistic arguments. Now we have that God created space & matter in a stupid idea fundamentalist atheists call “Big Bang”. The atheist arguments are really re-affirming the theistic arguments....they are of no other value. Atheists are brain-dead apes.....they have no clue!

“I submit it is still possible that a purposed sentience is responsible for the creation of the current formation we call the universe, if not the matter itself.”

But Anton, listen to what you just said: “I agree. A god that created space and matter is impossible, based on the understanding that creating nothing is impossible and creating matter from nothing equally so.”

You are saying that creation is impossible.....but then asserting that it is possible. You are contradicting yourself. What gives?

“Such an entity would indeed be an object.”

Sure; absolutely all entities are objects. These are the NOUNS of reality (i.e. existence). All nouns of reality have shape, they are spatially separated. That is why we can call them objects. This is what Physics studies.....objects that exist. If God is an object, then OF COURSE He is the subject (noun) matter of the Scientific Method. An atheist who disagrees with this statement, really has no clue.

“Is it not a fair hypothesis that the eternal matter is also sentient?”

Atoms themselves are not sentient. An atom is a hypothesis. We hypothesize that matter is made up from building blocks we call atoms. A collection of atoms can form into a being with the ability to be sentient, and think, etc. But since sentient beings are ASSEMBLED from atoms, and these atoms break their connections after death and go back to the eternal pool of atoms.....it cannot be reasoned that sentience is an eternal quality of matter.

“Can we not point to observed effects (gravity, light and heat transmission in a vaacuum) to put forth the assertion that all matter is connected?”

We invoke a rational argument to critically reason this.....like so:

Q: How do we explain attraction? How do we explain 2 discrete atoms 5000 Quadrillion light years away attracting each other?

A: It is impossible for discrete entities to attract each other. There is NO physical mechanism that can accomplish this. All atoms are necessarily physically connected with each other, whether a human ape likes it or not. What is this medium that connects all atoms? We form a Scientific Hypothesis to reason it. Then our Theory should explain without contradiction all the natural phenomena: light, magnetism, gravity, etc. Yes, the em-rope does explain all phenomena.

“Can we not then attempt to test the idea that this connection and observable effects point to intent?”

No you can’t. EM ropes connect every single atom to all others. They go right through all objects. This is why gravity CANNOT be blocked. It is impossible to invent an anti-gravity machine. The EM ropes cannot be seen or tested “directly”. Any test you attempt to do you will always end up INFERRING (extrapolating) a conclusion i.e. giving an opinion about it.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Fatfist? Just to be clear, are you saying that CONCEPTS CANNOT CREATE MATTER? only an OBJECT can?


Steve Orion profile image

Steve Orion 4 years ago from Tampa, Florida

Hey, nice Hub. I didn't read all the comments so I'm sorry if this was said before, but many religions are based on the notion that a "creator" exists that transcends space and time and other universal boundaries. Claims that are both out of the realms of what is provable and dis-provable. Seeing as how we don't understand the universe nor many of the things within it, it seems rather arrogant to claim that we know what created it, or how it came to be. I'm also curious to know the third thing, if it exists, after concepts and objects. Interesting Hub =)


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

@ Fatfist

"You are saying that creation is impossible.....but then asserting that it is possible. You are contradicting yourself. What gives?"

I'm not being clear on 'create'.

Something from nothing is impossible. However, I don't think creating something new from something existing is impossible. While I am willing to accept that matter has always existed, I am also willing to accept that this same existing matter can be manipulated, altered, changed by sentient intent. I do not mean creation out of nothing.

Put differently, the matter in the universe may be eternal. The arrangement of said matter is maleable, certainly by apparently non-sentient processes which we can observe. So if I'm an entity with enough knowledge and power to alter that arrangement of matter, I can be said to have 'created' the universe, or at least it's current configuration, the same as an artist can 'create' a painting with existing pigment, brushes and canvas. Though of course, I'm willing to accept an alternative to the word 'create'.

"But since sentient beings are ASSEMBLED from atoms, and these atoms break their connections after death and go back to the eternal pool of atoms...."

But isn't the 'e-m rope' theory (or equivalent concept) that all atoms are always connected? (If I have this wrong, apologies). When the brain dies, the atoms are still connected, yes? Still part of the 'eternal pool of atoms connected by e-m rope or equivalent. Is it unreasonable that sentience could develop in this condition? (of course, no way to actually test. What would we look for?)

cheers


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 4 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Natural systems create new matter all the time virtually out of nothing - in reality it's all part of the one fundamental process called CHANGE through constant reproduction, evolution, growth, decay, death, etc.

Biomass exists and is a lot more than just a physical object, it's a lot more than that.

Objective reality exists also and no scientist will ever know if nature is a part of it or the other way around!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Anton,

“While I am willing to accept that matter has always existed, I am also willing to accept that this same existing matter can be manipulated, altered, changed by sentient intent.”

I already addressed a similar scenario in my hub: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/CREATION-I...

There are 2 issues which I analyzed in that hub:

1) Causality on Something (Creatio ex Materia)

2) Self-Causality (Creatio ex Deo)

“Put differently, the matter in the universe may be eternal.”

It’s not that it *may* be eternal....matter is already there. As such, the proponent of creation is asking the audience to swallow a whopper of an assertion: “that matter and space can be created from nothing”. They are saying that space, which has no shape, will surreptitiously acquire L, W and H and magically morph into an object (atom) out of nothingness. This is clearly impossible as it is contradictory at all levels.

That matter is eternal is NOT a claim. A claim is a positive assertion, and is in the context of a Theory....i.e. theory of creation. Creation is a claim. As such, it necessarily needs a rational explanation (i.e. Theory) explaining in detail how nothing converted to something. Neither Theology nor Big Bang have any such Scientific Theory. And BB is actually a Religious claim asserted by the Vatican with Priest LeMaintre. This is how they proved God exists.

“Though of course, I'm willing to accept an alternative to the word 'create'.”

The word is ASSEMBLE...not create in this context. And this brings up the 3 rd issue, having to do with space and matter and God already there to begin with.

And my question is: So what? What are you trying to explain within this limited context?

Will you explain the conception of a baby as: God assembles all the food atoms in the mother’s tummy and uses them to build the baby inside her? Is this what God does for all creatures? At the end of our lives, does God disassemble the atoms from our body?

Does God do the same to assemble planets, stars, etc?

I mean, this type of argument has been pushed around for centuries because nobody can explain how 2 “allegedly discrete” atoms can attract each other. And nobody could explain because the clowns of the mathematical establishment were NOT following the Scientific Method. They formed no hypothesis. They had no actors (i.e. objects) which could be used to explain natural phenomena, like attraction (gravity).

Even the brilliant mathematician Newton is guilty of this (“hypothesis non fingo” – Newton). Newton believed that God made gravity happen. Newton could not even define motion or time....yet it’s quite amusing how idiots worship him today and his alleged Laws of Motion. I mean, is this what science is about? Not defining any critical scientific terms, not explaining any phenomena, ...and being regard as a genius? This is what they do in Religion.

Thread Theory uses the EM Rope to scientifically explain how 2 atoms attract each other. And if atoms can attract each other....then we don’t need God to assemble objects from atoms.

“But isn't the 'e-m rope' theory (or equivalent concept) that all atoms are always connected?”

Yes, sorry! Wrong choice of words. When I say atoms disconnect from objects, I mean that atoms break their atomic bonds and go back into the pool where they are reused to assemble other objects. The EM rope cannot be broken and the atoms are still connected with each other. All the atoms are eternally interconnected to each other. There is no other possible explanation for gravity (attraction).

“When the brain dies, the atoms are still connected, yes? Still part of the 'eternal pool of atoms connected by e-m rope or equivalent. Is it unreasonable that sentience could develop in this condition?”

Yes they are connected until the brain tissue rots and atoms are dispersed elsewhere, or the brain is eaten by insects/animals. And again, these atoms are eternally recycled into other objects, beings, planets, stars, comets, etc. The food that you eat is likely composed of atoms which once made up dinosaurs or other people.....and even some alien beings in another galaxy 8000 quadrillion years ago.

Sentience is the concept of a specific arrangement of atoms which fire signals to each other via the EM ropes. This causes the atoms to undergo quantum jumps and other motion. When there is a network of these atoms firing systematically in a brain, we call this concept “sentience”. Sentience is a verb, an action – the motion of atoms. It is the collection of atoms in the brain which mediate this action we call sentience.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi f_hruz,

“Natural systems create new matter all the time virtually out of nothing “

What do you mean by “virtually”? Do you mean maybe?

Either matter can be created from nothing, or it can’t... it is a YES or NO issue....there is no virtually.

As it turns out....nothing has no shape, no border, no boundary, no edges to rub against itself and give “birth” to matter. Creation from nothing is not only IMPOSSIBLE.....it is a vile fanatical religious assertion!

Those who CLAIM creation, need to rationally explain to the audience how nothing can surreptitiously acquire L, W and H in ZERO TIME (i.e. one frame in the Universal Movie), and magically morph into an object. If they can’t do that.....then they are fanatical zealots who base reality on contradictions, belief, and the worship of authority...that is, they are RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS! Such clowns have no business attacking theists.

“in reality it's all part of the one fundamental process called CHANGE through constant reproduction, evolution, growth, decay, death, etc.”

Yes, of course, ....and this is due to the fact that matter is eternal in existence and in motion. Motion cannot be started....just like matter cannot be created. There is no other option. And those who say otherwise, had better explain with the luxury of detail, or get a divorce from their pernicious Religious ideology.

“Biomass exists and is a lot more than just a physical object, it's a lot more than that.”

So biomass is an object....this is what you said! This is all we need to know, that the actor of your hypothesis is an object....it has shape.

If biomass means MORE to you, just like God means more to a Religionist, then this is of no concern to science.

“Objective reality exists”

Yes, objective...i.e. OBJECT!!!

Only objects exist.....nothing else!

Exist: physical presence (object + location). Synonym: real

“and no scientist will ever know if nature is a part of it or the other way around!”

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

My dear f_hruz......

This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a long time. St. Augustine was famous for using such tactics to win his religious arguments and prove that his God exists. The mathematicians have brainwashed everyone to repeat this SAME argument because these clowns have NO explanation for ANY natural phenomena. They are Religionists in disguise!!

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

“If you understood him, it would not be God.” (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663)

St. Augustine was honest and confessed his ignorance:

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

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

“Those who say these things do not as yet understand Thee, O Thou Wisdom of God, Thou light of souls; not as yet do they understand how these things be made which are made by and in Thee.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)

And by using this antidote, St. Augustine claimed to know EXACTLY what God was up to before the Creation of the world; even though it was to Augustine’s detriment. God was of course preparing Hell for those who wanted to KNOW God:

“Behold, I answer to him who asks, ‘What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?’ He was preparing hell, saith he, for those who pry into mysteries." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12)

Of course St. Augustine KNEW that God Created the Universe by speaking it into existence, rather than using any sort of materials:

“...nor didst Thou hold anything in Thy hand wherewith to make heaven and earth. For whence couldest Thou have what Thou hadst not made, whereof to make anything? For what is, save because Thou art? Therefore Thou didst speak and they were made, and in Thy Word Thou madest these things.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 5)

People can make up all the excuses they want in order to protect their ignorance or their emotional position on such matters. But one thing is a definite 100% certainty: All excuses have inherent contradictions which are easily unravelled, .....not by observation or evidence, .....but by simple analysis. Intellectual dishonesty never prevails.

In contemporary times, relativists and Big Bang Creationists have reinvented Augustine. They fall back on similar circular Augustinian arguments to make their cases.

So again, isn’t it fishy that, on the one hand, relativists claim that space-time cannot be imagined and can only be approached only through Mathematics and, on the other, they perennially insist on illustrating space-time with the bowling ball on a hammock analogy?


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

Hi Fatfist,

"What are you trying to explain within this limited context?"

I agree I'm pushing out of context here, since we have already established that the god that is impossible is defined in your article. This in response to the 'any god' statement.

I found the exchange useful. Thanks.

cheers


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Steve,

“many religions are based on the notion that a "creator" exists that transcends space and time and other universal boundaries.”

Yes, I already addressed this issue in my other hubs that begin with “Creation is impossible....”

In summary, only objects can be transcended. Your house is an object....so God can transcend your house, just like you do. Nothing miraculous about that!

Space is not an object. Space is a synonym for nothing, it lacks shape. It is impossible to transcend “nothing”, as it has no borders or boundaries to cross. Similarly with time. So as you can see, the universe has NO boundaries, except those offered by objects and objects alone!

And this is where atheism fails.

In a nutshell, atheism is no different than theism....they just believe in different Gods. Theists believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, ......while atheists believe in Energy, Force, Field, Time, Mass ....same God, different name. This is why they use the name of their God as a SYNONYM for every word in the dictionary.

“Claims that are both out of the realms of what is provable and dis-provable.”

Actually, proof/disproof are not part of the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory). What is proof to you....is a lie to your neighbor. Proof means that someone has BELIEVED an assertion.....that they have swallowed a whopper without understanding anything. PROOF = OPINION because proof depends on human observation using the very limited human sensory system to subjectively resolve a claim. This is inherently biased and fails.

Science is strictly OBJECTIVE...there is NO grey area....ever. We rationally define and scrutinize all definitions until we can find no holes, ambiguities or contradictions. This is what science is all about.

“Seeing as how we don't understand the universe nor many of the things within it...”

The universe is composed of matter and space. What else is there to understand? There’s no spirits, souls, ghosts, gods, energy, time, fields, forces, mass, etc....as these ideas are just concepts which we have invented to describe objects. Concepts don’t hit you over the head....objects do. Ergo, concepts do NOT perform actions!

“I'm also curious to know the third thing, if it exists, after concepts and objects.”

Stay tuned, hopefully Philo will have a rational discussion here and provide Scientific definitions for all the key terms of his claims. I will not put up with contradictions, irrationality and trolling.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Philanthropy,

“are you saying that CONCEPTS CANNOT CREATE MATTER? only an OBJECT can?”

No. Creation is impossible. “Nothing” cannot acquire L, W and H in one frame of the Universal Movie and magically morph into an object. This only happens in Religion and in Star Trek.

Objects affect other objects via surface-to-surface contact. Concepts are ideas in a being’s brain....they ultimately resolve to some systematic MOTION of atoms in the brain (ie. brain activity). Concepts do NOT perform actions or affect objects.

“FORCE is another category in which none of the things are concepts nor objects”

Really? Let’s see if you know what you are talking about. Please DEFINE ‘force’ for the audience. Then everyone will understand whether it’s an object, concept, or a new third category! Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!

“(physics) LAW is yet another category.”

Please DEFINE ‘LAW’ for the audience. Then everyone will understand whether it’s an object, concept, or a new fourth category! Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!

“con•cept? ?[kon-sept] Show IPA....noun”

Please illustrate for the audience this noun THING you call ‘concept’, or just reference a pic online. Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!

“concept - a general notion or idea; conception.”

A synonym is circular. Not a definition!!!

WARNING: IF YOU POST ANY MORE SYNONYMS FOR DEFINITIONS HERE, YOU WILL BE KICKED!

“concept - an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct...... a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.”

“something” is a synonym for object.

Indeed, exactly what I said: “A relation between 2 or more objects or concepts”

So quit your bellyaching about the word ‘concept’ or you will be kicked!

Philo.....enough of your childish antics, ok? You acting just like HP user ‘emrldphx’!!

“ENERGY then by definition IS NOT A CONCEPT. “

Whoa! Hold on there! How did you conclude that? Where is your definition of ENERGY???

You need to DEFINE energy before we can decide whether it is an object, concept, or a fifth category. Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!

“MASS - AN OBJECT.”

Mass is NOT an object! You cannot point to ‘mass’. Just what the heck will you point at and name ‘mass’? Can you even draw a picture of mass?

I can draw a picture of God, who is an object....here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b_i63mV_2Eg/TfvWrqewC5I/...

What are you going to draw for me?

Mass is a concept, only! It is a scalar quantity...a number line expressed in ‘kg’. Definitely a concept!

Whenever a mathematician uses the irrational word mass, the sane person supposes that he is referring to a physical body. The juror imagines an object, something that has shape. I clarify this because it is not necessarily true in the religion of Mathematical Physics. For example, a photon has a body, yet no mass, and a black hole singularity has mass, but no body. The idiots further hypothesize that there are particles of mass called Higgs Bosons. The Higgs is a particle of a concept, something like a particle of love. That's how irrational the stupid idiots of Mathematics are. Then, they tell you that their theories have been confirmed by experiment and that all celebrities of Mathematical Physics believe in them. You reach your own conclusions!

The definition of mass is resistance to motion. An object with mass resists motion. An object without mass does not resist motion. Mass is not an object i.e. does not have physical presence. You cannot draw mass and point to it. Mass is inherently conceptual because it requires two or more objects. We cannot conceive of mass in a universe with a single atom. Again, a concept is a relationship between two or more objects. A concept can only be described. I cannot point to love or justice. I can show you a movie of two people having sex or a judge in a courtroom. These are descriptions of love and justice. As long as my concept involves only concrete objects then it has a bearing on physics. Mass, energy, and time are all concepts. They are illustrated by description in terms of concrete objects, which are in turn defined as "that which has shape and location".

In Math it is not the elephant that moves. The idiot of Math converts the entire elephant into 'the center of mass', forgets about the object elephant for the rest of the presentation, and now MOVES THE CENTER OF MASS...a concept!!! He defines energy as 'the capacity..." and then purports to 'transfer energy'. ....a concept!! He tells you that a black hole is comprised of two abstract concepts -- a mathematical singularity and an even horizon -- and then tells you that these two concepts -- love and justice -- swallow an astronaut (object). This is the Hallmark of Religion. People who reify concepts into alleged objects are committing the Fallacy of Reification....and they need to be institutionalized!

“Look evidence!”

The only reason someone invokes buzz words such as evidence, proof, and truth is to bring authority to bear on the discussion.

The word 'evidence' already carries subjective connotations.

In Science, we don't prove or attempt to convince the jury (although it is natural for humans to do so). Therefore, a scientist has no use for evidence. It is the proselytizer, the door-to-door Bible seller who attempts to persuade (subjective). Science stops at explanation (objective).

In Science, we have no use for evidence. Philo confuses Science with Law. Science is NOT about persuading, convincing, swaying, or twisting arms. That’s what they do in the jury room AFTER the trial is over. That’s religion. In Science, the movie stops when the prosecutor and the defence make their closing arguments.

The word ‘evidence’ already embodies a theory. It is a subjective term. Evidence means that the juror has already made up his mind. The detective is already at the next step: giving HIS opinion about the bloody knife. “We have evidence that this is the murder weapon. The blood matches the victim’s DNA... etc., etc.” Now comes the coroner. “The victim died of an overdose. The victim was stabbed AFTER she died.” So now, what was fullproof ‘evidence’ of ‘the’ truth is exposed as a lie when confronted with a different EXPLANATION.

Evidence demands that what is truth today is demolished tomorrow, meaning that it was not TRUTH but just an opinion. Hopefully truth is truth forever. If God keeps changing His truths over the centuries – homosexualism was a sin in the past, now it’s just an alternative lifestyle; celibacy was what Levi demanded of his priests, but now the priest sleeps with his favorite choirboy; divorce was frowned upon by God; but now everyone is divorced – then God is a bit unreliable. Should I pray to the God of the Middle Ages or to the God being peddled today? Of course, you would expect the religion of Mathematics to oppose such heresy as questioning the ‘evidence’ in order to preserve the privileges of its members.

The best you can do is PERSUADE the jurors with evidence. What is EVIDENT to you.....is a LIE to your neighbor. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE and has nothing to do with the Scientific Method, which is OBJECTIVE!

“what "relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts" does TRUTH have”

Truth requires an OBSERVER (1 st object) to use his limited sensory system to subjectively validate and decide that a proposition about an object(s) (2 nd, 3 rd, ...N th object), resolves as ‘true’.

Grow up, no more strawman arguments, ok?

“I HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS”

No you have not. Please answer each and every single Q I asked you above, and don’t bring up any new arguments until we resolved these pending issues.....or you will be kicked!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo.....you were warned. Collect your thoughts very carefully and answer the Q's I asked you. The audience who reads this hub wants to see a rational discussion with all your KEY terms defined, as I asked.

NOTE: Only give a SINGLE and final definition for each term. Multiple definitions are ambiguous and will be deleted promptly!!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

No, those are by the links I have already sent you, all within the definition of the words. People will click on those links and see that what I have posted is the definition for the words, they'll see you're wrong, and they'll then laugh heartily.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"“Nothing” cannot acquire." So are you saying that "concepts" are nothing? Ooh the world isn't going to like that fatfist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Philanthropy,

“those are by the links I have already sent you, “

Do not send me links....I don’t care for links. You can filter thru all that stuff and form a coherent definition for your terms.

“People will click on those links and see that what I have posted is the definition for the words, they'll see you're wrong, and they'll then laugh heartily.”

Of course people will laugh when they see a million definitions for one term. You are too stupid to realize that those are not definitions. For the purposes of Science, each term only has ONE definition which allows the term to be used CONSISTENTLY. What you have provided is AMBIGUOUS at best!! Your nonsense does NOT concern science. Have you read anything I posted to you thus far? I already addressed this issue.

So....next time post only ONE definition.....THE definition!

“So are you saying that "concepts" are nothing?”

Yes, idiot!! A concept is NOTHING....it has no shape/form....no L, W and H....no border, no boundary, no edge. What did your Priest whisper in your ear while he was doing you in the confession box? That a concept is a THING?? Sheeesh!


Justme13 4 years ago

@ fatfist. Arrogant fuck aren't you? You make me want to believe in a god just so I could argue with you.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

I don't understand (unless simply to troll) why someone would believe that we are obligated to dictionary definitons.

Everyone knows what the word "pie" means. My pastor talked just the other day about the Great Pie waiting for us after death. This pissed off the diabetics who immediately became atheists.

If only the pastor had been precise. He told me later he specifically meant thin crust pepperoni pizza pie.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hey Justme13!

“You make me want to believe in a god just so I could argue with you.”

Naaaaw, Justme13, it’s the other way around......the reason why you would like to argue with me, but can’t, is because you are a fanatical Religionist who ALREADY believes in God.

But your God has another name, ....yep, a CATCH-ALL name with a million SYNONYMS attached to it.....a tell-tale sign of the fundamentalist Religion known as ATHEISM!

Q: What is your God’s name??

A: ENERGY!!

And we all know that every single word in the dictionary is a SYNONYM for your God’s first name. I mean, you consider these synonyms to be the given middle-names of your ENERGY God, right?

You’re a Religionist who is no different than a Born-Again Christian, Justme13......that’s why you are soooooo predictable and have absolutely NO rational argument to support any of your made-up imaginary characters in your Religion of Atheism:

- God (Energy)

- demi-gods (0D particles, 1D strings, singularities, photons, gravitons, Higgs, neutrinos, chronons, phonons, solitons, tachyons, muons, pions, dark matter, dark energy)

- ghosts (waves, forces, time, wavicle)

- spirits (fields, mass, charge, spacetime, radiation, warped space, quantum fluctuations)

- souls (dimensions)

- Virgin Birth (primeval atom)

- Genesis (Big Bang)

- Revelations (Big Crunch, oscillating universe)

- Purgatory (flatland)

- Heaven (white hole, multiverse)

- Hell (black hole)

- Acts of the Apostles (Einstein, Hawking, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Penrose, Feynman)

That’s some RELIGION you got there, Justme13. I can see your Pastor has done quite a number on you!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Winston,

“I don't understand (unless simply to troll) why someone would believe that we are obligated to dictionary definitons.”

Our dear friend Philo has been brainwashed by his Pastor to believe that the dictionary, which was written by English Literature students, contains SCIENTIFIC DEFINITIONS. I mean, Science is just all poetry, metaphors, synonyms, hyperboles, euphemisms, slangs and figures of speech to a Philanthropist like Philo.

And this fits in well with his Philanthropy Religion, to warm up his soul, lift his spirits, and hopefully go to Heaven one day by making sure that the English Literature students didn’t write the dictionary in vain.

A definition is always objective. In Science, observers and their opinions cannot be embodied in a definition. A definition is OBJECTIVELY scientific if it can be used consistently. Not one definition of Math can be used consistently. Try the word 'point' for instance! The mathematicians freely admit that the word point is undefined and should remain that way! The funny part is that all of GR is founded and contingent upon this undefined hypothesis!

Dictionaries list definitions as per POPULAR use (i.e., ordinary speech)....not Scientific use. Dictionaries do NOT unambiguously define words. Definitions are entered in dictionaries without consideration of their SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY, just that they are popularly used that way. That makes any dictionary written subject to the fallacies of "ARGUMENT BY POPULISM & AUTHORITY ", and those who refer to a dictionary to make an argument are committing these fallacies as well.

Why not look up a word like TRUTH in the dictionary and settle a 3000 year long standing debate in philosophy? What happens when you open a new dictionary that uses a different definition? That isn't thinking, that is doing exactly what theists do in blindly submitting to what the bible says. I can't reach someone who is that lost. There is no point in talking to those who can't hear or think.

The philosopher, mathematician, and theologian do not spend their valuable time defining petty words such as object and existence. That is either below their dignity or it would destroy all their arguments. What they do is move on to the theory stage and use these words without having any idea of what they are talking about.

Mathematicians erroneously believe that they have communicated their ideas effectively when in fact nothing of the sort has occurred. The mathematician cannot have any idea what he is talking about because he takes these words for granted. He extrapolates the definitions of ordinary speech into a scientific context without realizing that a rigorous definition of the same words destroys his entire argument. I promise to harp on such vital words as object, exist, and concept until it hurts. I will insist until you hate me. The mathematicians have no idea what these words mean or how important they are to scientific communication.

This is where the battle will begin. This is where the battle will end: Scientific Language!

If a clown who posts here cannot define his terms for the audience, then he obviously has NO CLUE of what he is talking about.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

def·i·ni·tion/?def??niSH?n/

Noun:

A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary

In order for you to come up with a correct definition of a word, you need an authoritative stance.

You are wrong. If you cannot provide any evidence for the reliability of your false definitions, you will remain so.

No one cares about what some Psycho ranting on about false definitions thinks.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

“DEFINITION...A statement of the exact meaning of a word”

Exactly! Post the exact scientific meanings of the words FORCE, ENERGY, MASS, LAW.....then we will see if YOUR CLAIM that they are not concepts has any merit.

“In order for you to come up with a correct definition of a word, you need an authoritative stance.”

FALLACY: Argument from Authority

There is NO correct or incorrect....these are subjective. What is correct to you.....is INCORRECT to your neighbor!! How do we decide who to believe? Do we look inside YOUR crystal ball?

Nonsense!

Science is OBJECTIVE. All definitions are critically scrutinized and reasoned to be unambiguous, rational, consistent, observer-independent and non-contradictory....just like ALL my definitions are!

“If you cannot provide any evidence for the reliability of your false definitions”

Evidence is subjective! What is evidence to you....is a LIE to your neighbor. How do we decide who to believe? Do we look inside YOUR crystal ball?

Nonsense!

Science is OBJECTIVE. If a definition is ambiguous, irrational, inconsistent, observer-dependent and contradictory, then it gets thrown in the TRASH. This is the objective criterion which we follow in Science.....not your subjective stance on LOOSE and AMBIGUOUS God-like synonyms which suit YOUR AGENDA to cover all your bases and unethically win every argument by deception. You can’t even understand your own terms you post here....too funny..LOL!!

Philo.....if you can find a SINGLE problem with any of MY Scientific Definitions.....I will PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice.....I am on the RECORD. And this is how you will shut your mouth forever because you can’t. Any fool would accept this challenge, but you won’t!

“No one cares about what some Psycho ranting on about false definitions thinks.”

Exactly! So why are you still ranting, bellyaching and crying like a Psycho that I DESTROYED your Religion when you can’t even define anything?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@ Philo,

Looks like you are just another disgruntled troll after all. You are the atheistic equivalent of HP user ‘emrldphx’. I told you there is NO difference between atheists and theists.

In order to protect YOUR Religion, you do exactly what a theist does....you refuse to post definitions of your KEY terms which make or break your argument. You cannot define ENERGY, FORCE, MASS, LAW.....even though you blatantly lie by claiming that these words are not concepts, but NEW categories.

Let’s see what the English Literature students wrote in Philo’s ever-loving dictionary on google......

ENERGY – “In physics, energy (from the Greek energeia, "activity, operation", from energos, "active, working" ) is a quantity that is often understood as the ability to perform work”

An activity is an action, a verb; it is what an object does. Matterless motion is impossible. Activity is a concept. ENERGY is a concept...NOT a third category. Activities (verbs) do not move. Only objects move!

A quantity (ergs, Joules, kg x m^2/s^2) is a concept.... NOT a third category. It is a set of measurements we take from an object. Quantities do not move, only objects do. Hence quantities cannot convert (motion) into mass (another concept).

FORCE – “In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo an acceleration.”

Again, an influence is an action, a verb; it is what an object does to another object. Influence is a concept. Force has the units of ‘N’. It represents a scalar quantity...a concept! A FORCE is a concept...NOT a third category.

MASS – “the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field”

Properties of objects are concepts. They describe the object. Mass has the units of ‘kg’. It represents a scalar quantity...a concept! MASS is a concept...NOT a third category.

LAW – “A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.”

Again, laws are concepts which we humans conceive, deduce and document. These ideas represent the results of repeated experiments. LAW is a concept...NOT a third category.

AND HERE IS THE KICKER WHICH KILLS PHILO’S ARGUMENT.......

If the universe was composed of a SINGLE LONE object, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to conceive of the words ENERGY, FORCE, MASS or LAW to describe this object in any way, shape or form.

Don’t think so? LOL....then please explain to the audience what RELATIONS you are going to establish with a lone object to conceive of ENERGY, FORCE, MASS or LAW?

Every single word in human language either resolves to an OBJECT (point to and name) or a CONCEPT (a relation)....there is NO other option....ever!

LOL...Your argument is DEAD!!!!

You have been trolling all along.


Steve Orion profile image

Steve Orion 4 years ago from Tampa, Florida

"Space is not an object. Space is a synonym for nothing, it lacks shape. It is impossible to transcend “nothing”, as it has no borders or boundaries to cross. Similarly with time."

No, space is not nothing,it is in existence. It has no form because it is needed for forms of anything to take place. So, in a sense, isn't its form endless? Also, for all we know there are unknown dimensions as well. Additionally, there is something called spacetime that not only shows the existence of space and time (how can you questions that to begin?) but it show that they are the same thing.

Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims? Do you have some sort of experience or degree in anything that enables you to state those things? I mean no disrespect, I'm just a student who's curious about the whole matter. (no pun intended)


El Dude 4 years ago

"Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims?"

----

By applying reason!

----

"No, space is not nothing,it is in existence."

----

This is a contradiction. It all follows from one's definitions. FF's definitions are not contradictory. Space = no thing. Space has no shape/form. Only objects have shape.

----

"Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims? Do you have some sort of experience or degree in anything that enables you to state those things?"

----

Irrelevant! Let's say FF did have some; would he suddenly become right?! What if he then lost his degree down the toilet one day or had his Master's Degree revoked for smoking pot, would his argument be less valid?!

No! Authorities and consensus have no place in science and reason.

----

"I mean no disrespect, I'm just a student who's curious about the whole matter."

----

We all are, my friend!


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

I am using a quote here as example only.

(No, space is not nothing,it is in existence)

I tend to think of this oft-repeated claim as Existence Shock, much like the book Future Shock, as it appears to be like someone shaking his head and saying, Hey, wait a minute, space has to exist because that is what I was taught.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@ Steve

“Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims?”

What claim? I have never made a single claim in this article. Can you please cut and paste one claim? Perhaps I am mistaken, but please show me anyway so I can correct it.

The problem is, that many don’t understand what a CLAIM is. A claim is a positive assertion about a consummated event i.e. creation of space and matter. A “claim” MUST always be followed by a Theory which rationally explains the “claimed” consummated event, otherwise it remains an irrational claim.

1) That creation is “impossible” is NOT a claim! It’s the negation of the positive Creation claim. There is only one way to show what is impossible, and that is via an ontological contradiction. A ball cannot be on the floor and on the table at the same time....that is impossible.

2) That space is NOTHING, is NOT a claim. That space is SOMETHING is NOT a claim. That space is something is a HYPOTHESIS. Do you understand the difference between a Hypothesis and Claim? That space is nothing is a negation of the positive Hypothesis which is followed by an explanation showing the positive hypothesis to be contradictory i.e. IMPOSSIBLE.

3) That “God does not exist, or is impossible to exist”....is NOT a claim. Again, this is similar to #2.

People need to understand the Scientific Method before posting irrational assertions. Sorry, I am not putting you on the spot, Steve...I am talking about my friend Philo!

“No, space is not nothing,it is in existence.”

Space exists? How so? Please show me a picture of space. Can you please bring a chunk of space to the Physics Conference for show & tell? What are you proposing to show the audience, nothing?

You hypothesize that space is ‘something’ (i.e. object) which exists. Let’s critically analyze your proposal....

Exist = object + location

Is space an object? Does space have shape, a border, a boundary, an edge? If so, what is OUTSIDE that edge....more space? Do you see the contradiction now?

Space doesn’t even pass the ‘object’ phase of existence, much less the ‘location’ phase.

If space was indeed ‘something’, as you propose, then ....

1) The whole universe would be one solid infinite block of matter!

2) There would be no objects, because there would be no spatial separation.

3) Motion would be impossible because there would be no void (nothingness) to facilitate objects to exist and have shape/form, and to move around from one ‘location’ to another.

Just think about that for a sec ..... If space was ‘something’ then you would NOT be able to move your arm. How do you propose that ‘something’ you call space will be DISPLACED in order facilitate motion? How do you displace ‘something’ when there is no void, when there are NO components in that ‘something’ wrapped by a void so they can be displaced? A fish in the ocean can displace water molecules because there is emptiness/void/nothing between the molecules which facilitates their displacement....i.e. facilitates their change of ‘location’.

Motion necessarily requires a void (nothingness) to facilitate objects to change location.

“space....It has no form because it is needed for forms of anything to take place.”

Exactly! Space lacks shape/form. It is impossible for space to have a boundary. Hence space is NOT a ‘thing’.....space is NO-THING!

Space is a concept. Space does not exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE for space to be anything other than a void/nothingness.

That space is NOTHING is NOT a “claim”, as you assert. That space is NOTHING is not an issue we resolve via belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, opinions or proof, testimony or evidence, democracy or authority.....these are all subjective. It is strictly an issue of utmost OBJECTIVITY....i.e. Scientific Method. It falls squarely on critical reasoning and rational explanation without contradictions....whether we like it or not! That’s what Science is about.

“So, in a sense, isn't its [space] form endless? “

Steve, but earlier you said: ““space....It has no form”. You contradict yourself.

What you mean to say, is that space (nothingness) is “everywhere”. Not everywhere like in the sense of an object’s location....but it has no limits or boundaries. If you were an eternal God who travelled from the Earth in a journey into the nothingness of space, you would eternally increase your distance between yourself and the Earth, but you would NEVER reach an alleged “end” of space. There is no wall to hit. You would continue to travel away from the Earth forever and ever amen!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@ Steve & Dude

"I mean no disrespect, I'm just a student who's curious about the whole matter."

There is no such thing as disrespect in Science. There are NO authorities to worship. There is no status-quo or democracy which OUTVOTES us. Science is predicated on OBJECTIVITY only and is free from BIASES, DISCRIMINATION and POLITICAL AGENDAS. The sole purpose of science is to rationally explain natural phenomena. The key here being “rationality”....not DICTATORSHIP & RELIGION, as our buddy Philo would have you “believe”.

You should question everyone and hold them accountable to rationally explain whatever they present. Belief & authority is anti-science!

@Winston,

“Hey, wait a minute, space has to exist because that is what I was taught.”

Of course, because the priests who taught this nonsense did not understand the difference between an OBJECT and a CONCEPT. These priests...err, I mean, teachers, think that “running” is an object which could “catch up” to us if we run too slow! This is why these clowns we call Einstein & Hawking chase ghosts like: spacetime, warped space, stretched time, black holes, white holes, dark matter, dark energy, waves......which is all crap they invented to plug all the contradictions in their assertions. These clowns have not developed a single Scientific Theory.


Steve Orion profile image

Steve Orion 4 years ago from Tampa, Florida

"There is no such thing as disrespect in Science. There are NO authorities to worship. There is no status-quo or democracy which OUTVOTES us. Science is predicated on OBJECTIVITY only and is free from BIASES, DISCRIMINATION and POLITICAL AGENDAS. The sole purpose of science is to rationally explain natural phenomena. The key here being “rationality”....not DICTATORSHIP & RELIGION, as our buddy Philo would have you “believe”."

Ok... just asking if you had any credentials and if so what? Nevermind, then. Just wanted some background on why you say what you say, I guess I was wrong to call those "claims."

Now, as for the space argument; I didn't mean any contradiction when I said that space could have endless form. I meant, if matter took on some form, wouldn't there be space to accompany that form? Also, isn't the word "nothing" accurate to describe a lack of space and matter? If not, what word would be fitting?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

The atheist and theist are in full attack mode I love it.

God is one.

Chaco Culture understood that god was one, then came the stupid Egyptians and messed things up, and then Moses show up and really screw things up. lol


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@ Steve

“just asking if you had any credentials”

What does credibility even mean? That somebody was blessed by a High Priest, or even by a God? If so, who blessed the High Priest and God.....and who blessed them....and so on..?

This is an argument akin to “who made God?”

There are no authorities anywhere in the universe. Anybody who claims they have credibility or is an “authority”, is just asking you believe all he says, never question him,....and that he has the TRUTH by which we judge everybody else. When you blindly follow him, you are part of a RELIGION!

Do you understand the fallacy here?

I can name all of my academic accomplishments, awards, certificates, degree, etc....but I’d be pushing authority in your face to shut you up. All I’d be showing you is a badge that says: “Hey! I’m more qualified than you, so no matter what I say, even if contradictory,... is the unquestionable absolute truth....so shut the hell up and don’t question me!”

What if I told you I shine shoes beside the subway line for a living? Would that make my hub “false”?

What about Stephen Hawking, who is confined to a wheelchair and can’t move a finger, and never ran a scientific experiment in his life, and never made an observation in his life, and never observed a black hole, and never observed warped space, and never observed a photon? Would that make Hawking more CREDIBLE than me? If so, please explain how, so we can get to the bottom of this. I would like to understand how Hawking, who is just another human here on this planet, is more qualified than me to discuss Physics. Can anybody explain how? Just think about this!

“if matter took on some form, wouldn't there be space to accompany that form?”

But matter already has form/shape, by definition, Steve. Matter is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. The universe is a binary system....there is either something (objects) or nothing (space). They are the antithesis of each other. There is no in-between or any other conceivable option....because if there was, ‘it’ would have shape, regardless of whether it is invisible or not.

Space is “eternal” and “omnipresent” in ordinary speech, but you get the idea of what I am saying. Space necessarily “wraps” all existing objects and gives them spatial separation, which is the pre-condition to motion. Since objects are separated by space, one object can move and collide with another.

“ isn't the word "nothing" accurate to describe a lack of space and matter? “

Remember....the universe is a binary system....there is either something or nothing. There is no other option. So any other option is contradictory.

Object: that which has shape. Synonym: something, thing, being, particle, structure, etc.

Space: that which lacks shape. Synonym: nothing, void.

The term nothing alludes to a lack of matter – no object. This makes sense. But there is no such concept as a “lack of space”....this is an oxymoron/contradiction. A lack of nothing is incoherent.

“If not, what word would be fitting?”

This is not an issue of trying to find a NEW word that would be “fitting”. This is strictly a conceptual issue which we must be able to critically reason in detail.

Here is the issue: Can you conceptualize a lack of ‘nothing’? I mean, if there is already nothing, is it possible to take ‘it’ away? If so, what are we left with?

Suppose we go out in deep outer space (8000 quadrillion light years away) where there are no particles, no galaxies to be found. We send an astronaut out to put ‘space’ in a hermetic box and take the box in the ship.

Q: WHAT will be left behind at the previous location (we call X)? If one says there will be NO space at X, then is X a back door to heaven? Will God peek thru X? Will this be similar to the scenario where we go to the bottom of the ocean and take a chunk of ocean water away in a hermetic box?

The ocean level will get lower. Will the “space level” get lower??? If so, then space MUST necessarily have a border or edge, just like the ocean does! Then, WHAT is outside that edge? More space? Contradiction! Our original hypothesis (“lack of nothing”) is contradicted.

A: space is nothing. You cannot take space away or displace it, like you can with the atmosphere or ocean.


El Dude 4 years ago

Steve's come here with an open mind and healthy scepticism it seems. A rare thing indeed! Asking questions is excellent, that's how I started off. Questioning everything. Most others here go on a rage or tangent.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Dude,

"Asking questions is excellent, that's how I started off. Questioning everything."

That's how everyone started off, including me.

But the majority of people think they "know" everything.

Q: Why do they think that way?

A: Because they memorized by rote all they know from an authoritative source.

So they come here, thinking they know everything,....but when their contradictions are explained to them, all they do is chant "AUTHORITY" & "POPULARITY" like a mantra. That's when you realize that these people are nothing but parrots. They know squat! They are just tape recorders who memorized what their Pastor shoved down their throat without even blinking.

And now that their Religion is shown to be bunk, they bellyache and troll in the hopes that others will feel sorry for them.

I am a very patient person. I give people PLENTY of opportunities to make their point and rationally explain their assertions. But when people start to act childish, troll, clutter the comments section with garbage, and not answer questions, they get their asses kicked!

All I ask is for people to define the key terms which make or break their arguments. When they copy/paste definitions from the English Literature Dictionary, it shows that they haven't a clue of what they are talking about. Yet they still complain when their definitions are shown to be contradictory.

Such fools think that Science is a personal & subjective discipline, where everyone must bow down to one's personal feelings and accept their contradictory garbage.

Wrong!

Science is OBJECTIVE! If a definition is contradictory or observer-dependent, it gets thrown in the trash. Reality is not based on contradictions, and is not dependent on observers. God did NOT create us....humans are not the rulers of the universe.....so scientific definitions had better not invoke any observers and their opinions!


janesix profile image

janesix 4 years ago

It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

(....the casual reader (i.e. theist/agnostic/atheist) had better go to school and learn the difference between a “claim” and an “explanation” before chasing strawmen in the comments section)

(janesix 4 hours ago - It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.)

It also may help to read the hub.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

janesix,

"It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist"

Actually, it doesn't end there. It is impossible to prove that anything (even YOUR hand) exists!

Why?

Because "prove" is a humorous human activity, not much different than binge-drinking or smoking crack-cocaine. Prove is a VERB. To "prove", we require a human ape to use his limited sensory system to give us a subjective biased OPINION of what they sensed.

"Opinions vary!" -- Patrick Swayze (Roadhouse, 1989)

"Prove" is the verb that the Pastors of Christianity, Relativity, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Big Bang perform on our brain, to get us to swallow the nonsense that space and matter were "created".

Exist = object + location

The scientific definition of ‘exist’ makes no provision for proof or opinions, belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, testimony or evidence, authority or popularity.....whether we like it or not!

God exists or doesn’t, BY DEFINITION, only....not because some human ape with a clown outfit decrees it as such!

Proof is in the eye of the beholder......PROOF = OPINION!

The alleged CERTAINTY of "proof" is impossible. Only rational explanations are possible.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

It's funny how you keep good company with theists. See....I told ya....atheists are NO different than theists.

Since our dear friend Philo has no more arguments to support his Religion of Atheism which is governed by a God he calls "Energy",... what does he do? He just keeps coming back in the hub to troll.

You have sawdust my friend....just sawdust!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Hahaha FatFist keeps deleting my comments refuting his arguments, keep this up and I might just make a hub to humiliate your hubs like Emphri did! hahahaha, that hub is more popular than yours by the way :D Mainly because his actually knows something about science and more importantly, words :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

Of course your trolling and spam will be deleted. Whaddiya think, the internet is a free-for-all for your childish antics?

You don't have a single argument to refute any of my hubs, otherwise you'd write a hub with your argument instead of coming here to act like a virgin who lost her panties to the Big Bad Wolf.

And yes, the Religious position is the most popular one. So please, go ahead and write all the hubs you want to flaunt your Religion! Atheists cannot live without theists, so it's best that you keep hanging around under emphridx's dress, ok?

But your next post here had better contain a scientific argument...got it?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

Oh, I forgot....since you and emrldphx have the SAME Religion, can you please copy/paste in here the EXACT comments emrldphx made which allegedly refute my hubs?

How about it....you think you can do this simple task?

emrldphx RAN AWAY from the argument with his tail between his legs after his Religion was destroyed. Can you carry the torch for him??


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

Run away, Run away

Run away and save your life

Run away, run away

Run away if you want to survive

.....

Oh oh oh oh, run away, oh oh oh oh

Keep the faith, you gotta keep the faith

You better keep the faith and run away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnM67j9So8w


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

hello FF and AKA -- good to see you working hard at keeping it rational;)

@fat-f how about this... "verbum L." neams "word" (as in Dei Verbum = Word of God) --- then, is it fair to say "my existence" leads to experiences which gives us language (concepts, whatever) which in turn defines everything for me, therefore word is the god of concepts (a virtual kind of god). But since I created a virtual god, I can also create a virtual correlation -- valid only in the virtual sense, nevertheless hopeful that the God of existence is imperceptible (if it exists). Do you watch Shakespeare and say "it's all bullshit"

Certainly, not having the "senses" to perceive the indescribable does not translate to "no probability" of the indescribable "cause" not existing -- Or are we as arrogant as to exclude a probability of having ignorant senses.

concept: If existence is indescribable (beyond the senses), then would we perceive the cause - if it indeed exists. This argument is futile, if not trivial -- it always results in the the deconstruction/proof of the argument syntax itself. It was said 5000 yrs ago -- "that which has no expression", rational or irrational.

Therefore your post (as is my comment) is no more than a rational (irrational would be equally valid) attempt to correlate a statistical event to an imperceptible occurrence ie existence of a concept -- by your own reason.

Please explain why rational is preferred over irrational (assuming you agree with my thesis above) -- let me remind you that there has been the occasional scientific discovery that were imperceptible but for faulty contemporary reasoning. whoa!!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus, welcome back....long time no post.

"my existence" leads to experiences which gives us language (concepts, whatever) which in turn defines everything for me,

Existence doesn’t define. Existence is a concept. It is humans who define for the purposes of giving meaning to KEY words so everyone can understand the words which make or break one’s argument. It’s that simple....but many seem to confuse it while they are drinking.

“But since I created a virtual god, “

No....you are missing the boat!

God is a PROPOSAL. I hope that us humans are free to PROPOSE ‘things’, right? Some propose gods and ghosts....others Superman and Phantom. These are all objects....they have SHAPE....just like YOUR triangles!

These objects are not created.....they are CONCEIVED.

“the God of existence is imperceptible “

Irrelevant!!!!!

Did you even READ this article???

It doesn’t matter to what extremes the theologian goes to in order to HIDE his God from the wrath of my hands, so I won’t strangle his neck and break his legs. His God is a PROPOSAL.....a proposed object with shape. This article already explains in detail why this proposed object is IMPOSSIBLE to exist. And this is not an issue of evidence, measuring, knowing, seeing, believing, prosthelytizing, or declaring. This is an OBJECTIVE issue of critical reasoning!!

“Certainly, not having the "senses" to perceive the indescribable does not translate to "no probability" of the indescribable "cause" not existing”

Obviously this hub went over your head. Please lay off the bottle.....collect yourself...get off the street as there is freezing rain tonight....go home and ask your wife to make you a few cups of coffee. Put your legs up on the ottoman and get sober. After you collect your thoughts, please read this article carefully. And if you don’t understand something....FOR GOD’S SAKE, please ask questions before plowing forward with irrationalities, ok?

Existence is NEVER an issue of probability or liability. Your Pastor doesn’t have a clue. Please don’t let him mentor you anymore, ok?

Existence just IS. Either a PROPOSED entity is possible to exist or is impossible to exist, by virtue of the proposed Theory. There is NO other option! Repeat this a few hundred times while you sip your coffee,...it should sink in eventually.

“Therefore your post (as is my comment) is no more than a rational (irrational would be equally valid) attempt to correlate a statistical event to an imperceptible occurrence”

What did I just say in my previous sentence.....did you even read it??

Existence has nothing to do with probability and statistics.....these are disciplines for mathematicians and actuaries. Existence just IS. The Sun existed BEFORE mathematicians and actuaries did. Ask your wife to make another pot of coffee, as you are still not sober.

“Please explain why rational is preferred over irrational “

So let me get this straight.....you want me to explain why us humans should communicate rationally (without contradictions) to each other, versus communicating irrationally (with contradictions)???

Are you sure you are asking coherent questions?

Are you sure you are sober enough to be surfing the Internet?

I’m sure there are Internet police out there just waiting to arrest people like you!


El Dude 4 years ago

I actually think pythagarus asked some OK questions. To fully clear up that last bit though, re: preferences.

It's irrelevant whether someone PREFERS rationality to irrationality. Either one can communicate (i.e. explain), or they cannot.

In order to explain something coherently (or even argue for God Almighty!) one has already attempted, at least to SOME degree, to communicate rationally. Even if the arguments don't make sense in the end.

It's a trick you see. Relativists, Atheists, Moralists and Religionists want to fool you into thinking they're making sense and scare you off examining their undefined terms. When they actually have no idea what they THEMSELVES are talking about — it's just an emotional vomiting to defend their faith.

So one might say that most people DISPLAY a preference for rational communication, yet are unable to acquire the fine art, unlike say Bill, Alton, or Fattie.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

You crack me up. I actually missed your irreverance;)

Ok, let's take it one step at a time then.

Are you the only human allowed to use concepts to describe verbs?

You have attributed similar relevance to logic/reason as faithers do to their gods and in that sense no different. Human beings have to fake being objective and you do it spectacularly.

"Existence just IS"

Since I am still outside, I looked for the sun, and not seeing it looked for the moon. Not seeing any reflected light, I concluded that the Sun had stopped existing at least for that moment. And you can not prove disprove it except by saying that it "is highly improbable" or that it is irrational -- i see you ignored my verbum reference.

The best we can do is "a credible correlation" between the senses and the concepts. So thanks for insisting that we at least get agreement on syntax.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

“It's irrelevant whether someone PREFERS rationality to irrationality. Either one can communicate (i.e. explain), or they cannot.”

Consider for example Quantum’s proposal of the graviton. They claim to explain gravity as follows: a 0D graviton particle which has no mass, which cannot even be imagined or illustrated on the blackboard, ...emanates from the Earth and hits the pen in your hand. When you let go of the pen, the action of the pelting gravitons will pull it to the floor.

This is an explanation. So these people can obviously explain. Just like the theist claims that angels come in contact with the pen and pull it to the floor. But....these are irrational explanations. So the scientific criterion here is rationality (non-contradiction). Throwing rocks at a soccer ball will not attract it towards you.

“Relativists, Atheists, Moralists and Religionists want to fool you into thinking they're making sense and scare you off examining their undefined terms.”

Not only their undefined terms....but the smoke and mirrors that accompany them, like measurements of non-existing entities, extrapolations, and irrelevant equations/math.

But as a human being, one must concede that only actors (i.e. objects) can perform events (actions). Only then can we use these actors in our theories to give rational explanations.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“Are you the only human allowed to use concepts to describe verbs?”

We describe verbs with adverbs. This makes sense.

For example.....in English it’s ok to say: the ball is continuously moving.

But in physics, you can’t!! In physics we say: the ball is incessantly moving.

Continuous is an adjective of reality. An adjective is an inherent, static, objective, property or attribute of an object (e.g., flat, continuous, straight, discrete, spherical). In Physics, adjectives are exclusively used in the context of structure. Adverbs apply only in the context of intangible concepts. In English grammar and poetry we can break these rules as long as the sentence is SYNTACTICALLY correct. Physics will have none of that. Reality doesn’t give a shit about syntax. Reality is objective. Physics is LITERAL and absolutely dependent on rigorous semantics/meanings. This is the only way we can communicate coherent explanations to our peers.

“You have attributed similar relevance to logic/reason as faithers do to their gods and in that sense no different.”

Example please. Where do I do this? I would like to correct my mistake.

“I looked for the sun, and not seeing it looked for the moon. Not seeing any reflected light, I concluded that the Sun had stopped existing at least for that moment.”

Exactly my point! Only a Religionist (i.e. theist, atheist, agnostic, mathematical physicist) would make such a ridiculous conclusion. People who belong to these Religious clubs are completely divorced from the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory). These folks chase their tails in circles while attempting to prove the existence of rocks and ghosts.

Existence is always a HYPOTHESIS...never a theory. Existence is a static concept, not a dynamic (action of proof) one which you irrationally assert. Existence is a snapshot....a photograph of an object....NOT a movie of an object, like you allege. Existence is not predicated on motion/activity (i.e. proof). Existence is not a verb. It is impossible to prove that anything exists. Don’t believe me? Ok, let’s see you prove that your right arm exists. Any attempt to do so will have you chasing your tail in subjectivities and biases which are personal to you.

“And you can not prove disprove it”

Proof & Dis-proof are Religious ceremonies performed by the CLUELESS! They are no different than exorcisms. Proof just means that your Pastor has brainwashed you to believe in “his” argument. What is “proof” to you, is a LIE to your neighbor.

Q: So how do we determine who is right or wrong? Is it you or your neighbor??? What is the OBJECTIVE criteria we use?

A: There is NO possible objective criteria with “proof”. Objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE when a human ape sets it upon himself to perform an activity he calls “proof”.

Why?

Because “proof” is an act of verification which necessarily invokes the extremely limited human sensory system to perform some type of validation. Humans cannot even see/touch/hear/smell/taste what mediates gravity, light or magnetism. So how can a human ape possibly be a reliable witness to “prove” something to do with reality....when such an ape cannot even prove in a court of law that OJ Simpson committed murder??

PROOF = YOUR OPINION!

Remember.....what is PROOF to you....is a LIE to your neighbor. Proof only belongs in a court setting, and is dependent on the personal feelings and biases of the jury. Reality has NO juries. Reality is objective.

Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained.

“except by saying that it "is highly improbable" or that it is irrational “

No! The argument is still over your head. Did your wife make you coffee yet??

What is rational can only be POSSIBLE...not probable or likely or statistical. Please learn the difference. It is qualitative rather than quantitative.

What is irrational is IMPOSSIBLE. There is only one way to show what is impossible; and that is via an ontological contradiction.

“The best we can do is "a credible correlation" between the senses and the concepts. “

I already explained to you that YOUR senses are IRRELEVANT and play no role in any explanation. What you sense when you are drunk is personal to YOU and only warms up YOUR heart.....not your neighbors. It was already proven that OJ Simpson did not commit murder. It was already proven (and still is by the Flat Earth Society) that the Earth is FLAT!!

Does proof change day by day in your Religion, Pythagarus?

Learn the difference between truth/proof (i.e. OPINION) and a rational explanation. I am surprised you cannot grasp this.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

Hmmm.... OMG! I tootaatly agree with ff. but there is a problem; either Jesus or a rock resolve into atoms and energy states and empty space ---- wait! empty space??!!!! That's a concept! It does not exist --- damn, more word tomfoolery. See word is God and it created you and the faither-fools. Your parents conceived you because you came from nothing -- oops.

Can you demonstrate or at least re phrase the statement "God does not exist" to exclude the negative? empty space does not exist because there is only "existence" which is indescribable. The senses are like words - they correlate (map) stuff and when it comes close to existence us fools call it power of god - and you do that with words -- same difference, my fistfury-friend. So your god is word, not "the" or "a" word but word that is also verbs as in "dei verbum". Have a great day.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“either Jesus or a rock resolve into atoms and energy states and empty space ---- wait! empty space??”

You are making a claim.

Just as space cannot acquire L, W and H and morph into a 3D object in zero-time (i.e. one frame of the Universal Movie),....then so objects cannot lose their shape and morph into space. Objects cannot be created or destroyed. Anybody who says they can....is making a positive CLAIM and the onus is on them to rationally explain how.

“space??!!!! That's a concept! “

Yes, space is a concept. Space cannot be created. Space is a synonym for nothing/void. Space does not exist. Only objects exist. Space and its synonyms are the only inherently negative words in any conceivable language. And of course we must use them in sentences after UNDERSTANDING what they mean. There are no others. All other words with prefixes a-, im-, ir- etc. are predicated on a context-opposite positive root word....not on negation. So what is your problem???

“damn, more word tomfoolery.”

How so? Please explain what is bothering you so we can resolve it, right here and right now. Or are you just bellyaching because you are bored?

“Can you demonstrate or at least re phrase the statement "God does not exist" to exclude the negative?”

Why? What are you trying to accomplish by this?

The statement is just negating the positive claim “God exists”. And we can only do this after we rationally explain why the God proposal is totally bunk. I am not making blind assertions, like you seem to imply.

“So your god is word, not "the" or "a" word but word that is also verbs as in "dei verbum".”

Huh? Are you feeling ok, Pythagarus? Or is it that the only way you can attack this article is by trying to pull “strawmen” out of thin air? You are still not talking coherently.

I welcome you to cut/paste statements in this article that refute themselves, or at least cause you tummy-aches. Until you do so, all you are offering is "hot air".


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“Have a great day.”

Oh please, Pythagarus...don’t run away on the good part of the discussion. It’s your turn on the microphone.

You still have the following unresolved issues....

Pytha: “You have attributed similar relevance to logic/reason as faithers do to their gods and in that sense no different.”

Fatfist: Example please. Where do I do this? Please copy/paste. I would like to correct my humble mistake, if any.

Pytha: ““space??!!!! That's a concept! “

Fatfist: So? What is the problem? Is space an object to you?

Pytha: “damn, more word tomfoolery.”

Fatfist: Where? Please cut & paste so the audience can see the specifics instead of throwing words around.

Pythagarus, I hope you didn’t come here to drop some STRAWMAN bombs and run for the hills when you are called out on your claims. I mean, this is what Religious trolls like Philanthropy & emrldphx do. How can that be an argument?


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 4 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Not all forms of reality exist! Only objective reality does. Fatfist has illustrated his personal idea of reality to be some what simplistic by looking past some obvious facts, such as:

1 - For objects to exist, they have to take up space.

2 - Objects are constituted of various forms of matter.

3 - Different forms of matter have their own specific

qualities which define their differences.

4 - Physics on its own is not sufficient to understand correctly how nature functions.

Natural processes take place when matter is forced to interact with the qualities of other forms of matter or by being involved in other natural processes.

It seams reasonable for objective reality to require a constant process of change to occur in and around all forms of matter for nature to continuously unfold within the realm of objective reality, for it to exist.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

awwwhhhh! that's so sweet, ff.... you gave me a nickname! Do i sense a tinge of borg-induced-feelings of abandonment? ;)))

"Why? What are you trying to accomplish by this?"

I am trying to show you that language is useful but flawed and everything resolves to verb.

"Rationality" lies within boundaries of "perfect rules and definitions" --- But you have invented an 11th commandment: NO-ONE SHALL CROSS TO THE IRRATIONAL BOUNDARY, EXCEPT FOR FATFIST".

I will conrinue to exagerate your irrationality.

Set aside the faither's delusion - BORING, it's a clear case of irrational/delusional brain activity. Not because I don't believe in using irrationality, but because faithers cross irrational-boundaries... into deep space of "Rational Rules". However, your brain-activity is equally delusional at times -- and you contradict yourself by crossing into "the irrational" -- you believe "rationality rules!" Then you say stuff like "existence just is" or "just negating". The language flaw works equally on you and the faithers and me.

If your rationality correlates 100% with anything then it is because "anything" was "setup/constructed" to correlate 100% with rationality. Disprove it! --- see, irrational request to make a point;) And to the extent that rationality or irrationality serves us, we can't see it.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

...cont/

"The statement is just negating the positive claim “God exists”. And we can only do this after we rationally explain why the God proposal is totally bunk. I am not making blind assertions, like you seem to imply."

That is my point... by your reational rules one can not "prove" anything. So you are being dishonest.... by assigning relevance to the word "explain" you circumvent the paradox and crusade-on with same intensity (it was explained that the earth was the centre of the universe, so what!).

If it was knowable - we would prove Not-God. Isn't this the reason why it's called irrational --- ie cannot be resolved? The best you can do is "God exists" is irrational.

Now...

Let your statement "God exists" be S. If S is constructed within an irrational lexicon, then not-S is equally irrational.

Similarly, If not-S is rational then you have constructed a closed boundary to support S as rational. By rational definition, irrational is everything that cannot be resolved -- isn't that convenient that "the rational Generals" get to choose what is valid, just like the faithers choosing a god that rewards them for good deeds!!! It's NONSENCE!

I AM ALIVE AND I DON'T NEED SOME BULSHIT-ARTIST TO TELL ME WHAT ALIVE IS -- however i experience it --- that is enough!!!

So I am going to ask you again before I get tootaaly bored with you and go listen to AKA, he's well behaved; Please demonstrate that you can invoke a concept of "thing" that does not results in "no thing". Observing you conceive the concept is why i am here.... The "thing and no-thing" is boring -- it's reason I would leave, not strawaaatever!!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“I am trying to show you that language is useful but flawed”

Without language, we cannot communicate and understand each other. Language will make us understand exactly what any person is trying to propose or explain to us. So yes, language is useful. The flaws of all languages have to do with SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR. In the syntactic construction of sentences, we are forced to treat certain words as concepts, even though they are objects,... and vice versa. Case in point....’reality’ is a concept, but ordinary speech has reified it into a noun; i.e. object! Similarly with the words: nothing, void, space.

The word noun comes from the Latin meaning name. The English (and other European languages) apparently opted to call a noun anything you could name, which includes just about every word in the dictionary.

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

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

The problem in Science today and more specifically in Mathematical Physics is that theorists self-servingly mistake object for noun, thing with term. The mathematicians and philosophers take as a matter of fact that an object is anything that we can think of, talk about, or serve as the subject of a sentence.

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

In any case, as long as we understand the issues, then we have NO PROBLEMS providing rational explanations for our proposals...got it? I mean, a rational human who understands these issues is not an idiot...like a mathematician or an atheist, right?

“and everything resolves to verb.”

Only for grammatical syntactical purposes...i.e. ordinary speech!!

In Scientific Language, ‘space’ is a concept, not a noun (object). Similarly, infinity is an adjective, not a noun. You need to learn the difference between POETRY and Scientific Language.

“"Rationality" lies within boundaries of "perfect rules and definitions" “

Wrong again! Rationality has no rules. Rules are made by man to be broken. What is rational is what is critically reasoned!

A rational theory is one that:

a. can be illustrated (i.e., can make a movie of)

b. uses definitions consistently

c. Is non-contradictory

What part did you not understand? What part was so difficult for you?

“NO-ONE SHALL CROSS TO THE IRRATIONAL BOUNDARY, EXCEPT FOR FATFIST”

Oh, please be my guest....copy/paste a part of this article which is irrational. Let’s see how fast you run with your tail between your legs this time!

“I will conrinue to exagerate your irrationality.”

Exactly! You are just exaggerating and posting strawmans here because YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. You are just TROLLING!!!

“and you contradict yourself “

Where? Please cut/paste my alleged contradictions, you Religionist fool.

“you believe "rationality rules!"

This is not an issue of belief. Read what I said about “rational” above, and memorize it, because it destroys your Religion!

“Then you say stuff like "existence just is"

Existence is what it is....object + location.

What are you having trouble understanding?

Here, you clown....you tell the audience what it means to exist......

define exist: ______________

But a predictable fool such as yourself will NEVER post a definition of any term, because I will instantly refute it!!

You cannot refute anything in this article....you are just a disgruntled bellyacher because your Religion has been destroyed!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“by your reational rules one can not "prove" anything.”

Hey clown....what is PROOF to you, is a LIE to your neighbor. I already explained this to you and you AGREED!!!

Here, you are on the record...

Pythagarus: “OMG! I tootaatly agree with ff.”

So just shut up and don’t bellyache anymore. Just define PROOF, or concede that you are defeated by fatfist, got it?

“So you are being dishonest”

Exactly! We agree 100% here. A stupid moron who AGREES that proof is actually impossible, but then turns the other cheek (like a Christian) and demands for “proof”...is a dishonest moron who fools no one!!

Do you have any other arguments except for STRAWMEN?????

“The best you can do is "God exists" is irrational.”

The argument went right over your head, like it does for a typical Religionist know as an atheist.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist because it is impossible for God to have LOCATION, got it?

Exist = object + location

It has nothing to do with the STRAWMEN that you invent and call “negation”. You fool nobody!

“S is constructed within an irrational lexicon”

A lexicon is a dictionary you fool. Dictionaries are not rational or irrational....they define words in ordinary speech, and NOT in Scientific Language. Did your Pastor at least teach you that much while he was doing you in the confession box?

“Similarly, If not-S .... It's NONSENCE!”

LOL, you bet its nonsense! You are not talking coherently because the argument in this hub went 30 miles over your head.

“I AM ALIVE”

What do you mean by ‘alive’?

“Please demonstrate that you can invoke a concept of "thing" that does not results in "no thing".”

A ‘thing’ is what has shape, you clown! Haven’t you been paying attention? You cannot get nothing from something...never. A thing does NOT lose L, W and H and vanish into the void. But to a Religionist like you everything is asserted and claimed, without so much an explanation.

Again....do you have any other arguments except for STRAWMEN?????


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Pythagarus,

Just like my friend nicomp says...the song is still playing for you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnM67j9So8w


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

F_hruz,

“Not all forms of reality exist! Only objective reality does.”

Ummm...my dear Franto....’real’ is a synonym for ‘exist’. What is real is said to exist!

‘Real’ is an adjective which refers to that which has objective (i.e. physical) presence (is real). Objective presence refers to that which is objectified by its presence; i.e. is an object that exists; and not a concept which can only be conceptualized!

So existence (reality) deals exclusively with objects which have presence. Such objects are said to exist because of their locality; they have ‘presence’ in the Universe and can indeed be located. This means that they have ‘location’. Location is a property which refers to the collection of static gaps between the test object and all other objects in the Universe. Objects like squares and circles have no location, and cannot be present in the Universe. Such objects are conceptually abstract; hence do not exist.

Hence your clause “objective reality” is nonsensical rhetoric. You really haven’t said anything. Only theists & atheists use these irrational terms which they don’t understand. This is why atheists and theists have been arguing for over 2000 years whether God exists or not. Atheism is a pernicious Religion which is no different than theism.

“Fatfist has illustrated his personal idea of reality”

Only Religionists which are known as atheists and theists, will give you their ideas, i.e. opinions...and force them down your throat as truth and proof! A rational human is able to rationally EXPLAIN his position scientifically! That is, without rhetoric, metaphors, euphemisms, poetry, ambiguities and contradictions. Anybody who simply states their OPINIONS can easily be shown their contradictions....as I have shown yours. Can you show any of mine?

“Objects are constituted of various forms of matter.”

The term ‘matter’ alludes to the “aggregate of atoms”. So let’s get our language straight before we have a Scientific discussion.

An object is NOT “that which is made up of matter or parts”. This is circular and meaningless. An object is that which has shape!

The following are objects: God, Superman, Cinderella, Big Foot, rock, Sun, cat, box, ball.

The following are concepts: energy, dark energy, dark matter, spacetime, force, field, mass, time, photon, warped-space, dilated-time, singularity, graviton, wave, black hole, and all the Standard Model particles.

“Physics on its own is not sufficient to understand correctly how nature functions.”

Perhaps to a Religionist who doesn’t understand what Physics is about....

But a Physicist can most certainly use the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory) to rationally explain consummated events in the Universe. It just takes basic CRITICAL THINKING skills! No magic at all.....magic is the hallmark of theism & atheism!

My dear Franto......we have already been through this.....did you read my previous comment to you? If so, did you understand it? If not, perhaps we can meet over coffee and discuss....

This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a long time. St. Augustine was famous for using such tactics to win his religious arguments and prove that his God exists. The mathematicians have brainwashed everyone to repeat this SAME argument because these clowns have NO explanation for ANY natural phenomena. They are Religionists in disguise!!

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

“If you understood him, it would not be God.” (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663)

St. Augustine was honest and confessed his ignorance:

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

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

“Those who say these things do not as yet understand Thee, O Thou Wisdom of God, Thou light of souls; not as yet do they understand how these things be made which are made by and in Thee.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)

And by using this antidote, St. Augustine claimed to know EXACTLY what God was up to before the Creation of the world; even though it was to Augustine’s detriment. God was of course preparing Hell for those who wanted to KNOW God:

“Behold, I answer to him who asks, ‘What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?’ He was preparing hell, saith he, for those who pry into mysteries." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12)

You see, Franto????

The idiots of Mathematics are doing the exact SAME thing.....

They CLAIM to have PROVEN that space is warped and black holes exist. But when you grab these morons by the throat and corner them on the issue, they turn the other cheek (like Christians) and say that warped space and black holes are only ANALOGIES, and they really don’t exist out there! They are just FIGURES OF SPEECH. So these clowns are really practicing Religion...NOT Science!!

This is why Mathematicians are NO different than Religionists.

If you had a background in Physics you wouldn’t be talking in riddles like this. Here, let me explain to you what Physics is about....

Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects! Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification). It is Philosophy which studies concepts... and Religion which deals with the motion of concepts.

Anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on.

Therefore, the crucial words that anyone calling himself a Physicist must be able to define are the words ‘object’ and ‘exist’. If they cannot define these two words, they are NOT a Physicist. They are but a petty mathematician or religionist. So here goes...

object: ______

exist: ________

Please fill in the blanks. If you need help, just look them up in your first year Physics textbook. They should be on the first page.

A Physicist uses the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to hypothesize what the actor (i.e. object) is which mediates a phenomenon we call light. Then he rationally explains in the Theory exactly how this object goes about to mediate the phenomenon of light. It’s that simple.

Which part of Physics and the Scientific Method are you having trouble understanding, Franto? Let’s discuss your issues.

“matter is forced to interact with the qualities of other forms of matter”

Only in Religion does matter interact with “qualities”, which are concepts. But outside of the Church, matter only interacts with other matter. Real objects can only possibly interact with other real objects via surface-to-surface contact. There is NO other possible interaction. If you disagree, then you are free to rationally explain your position to the audience.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

F_hruz,

“It seams reasonable for....reality to require a constant process of change to occur....for it to exist.”

No, it is not reasonable at all. Such a proposal is contradictory at best!

Existence is a static concept, not a dynamic one (requiring change) which you irrationally assert. Existence is a snapshot....a photograph of an object....NOT a movie of an object, like you allege. Existence is not predicated on motion/activity. Existence is not a verb....no way, no how!!

You can easily “prove” this to yourself: use your cellphone to take a pic of your car.

Q: What do you see?

A: Your car is in the picture!

If a real object like your car was required to undergo “change” in order for it to exist (as you allege)... then there would NOT have been an image of your car in the pic you took. If what you “claim” is the case, then you would have required to take a “movie” of your car in order to see it....understand?


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

"But a predictable fool such as yourself will NEVER post a definition of any term, because I will instantly refute it!! "

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verbum

I did -- verbum -- (verb) which means word, so word is a verb because it has meaning. Contradiction? no! dichotemy maybe...

"So in the beginning there was the word, and the word bifurcated from verb to become meaning, before verb was a word". Verb gives meaning to itself and simultaneously bifurcates word and meaning.

You ignored it. But I know you looked, because you got the difference between English and Latin bang-on!!! -- good for you.

Sooo-loong fatfist, and thanks for the song;)) Peace.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“I did -- verbum -- (verb) which means word”

So what? What does it have to do with this hub? Do you even understand where you are going with this line of argumentation? Will this verbum (verb) either MAKE or BREAK your argument?? Let’s see below....

"So in the beginning there was the word, and the word bifurcated from verb"

Nonsense to the N-th degree!

And here is where our fellow Pythagarus has shot himself in the face. Here is where Pythagarus is showcasing his utter ignorance of language and reality. Pythagarus has NO clue what a verb is.

In the beginning, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have any word which is a VERB!!!!!!!

Why?

Because a verb is a relation between two or more objects. Without objects, you cannot even begin to conceive of a verb. Verbs are predicated on objects, not concepts. A verb necessarily invokes motion....the motion of an entity. Objectless motion is impossible!

“Verb gives meaning to itself and simultaneously bifurcates word and meaning.”

Wrong again!! There are NO meanings to be given to any verb unless an object is realized beforehand. Objects precede verbs!

The first word ever grunted/uttered by man was an OBJECT, and NOT a verb (concept).... just like this Adam fellow of Pythagarus’ Religion allegedly did when God put the animals before him.

Genesis 2:19-20 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.”

In language, we cannot even begin to define a word or a verb unless we point to and NAME (just like your Adam did) at least 2 objects beforehand. In fact, we cannot even define the objects themselves. It is objects which allow us to conceive of concepts, like verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc. and ultimately language and grammar itself.

Before you can teach the ET your concepts (phenomena), you must teach him the nouns of reality (i.e. objects). This is how we teach toddlers language; we start with naming objects....we give them shapes to play with. The only nouns you can teach him are the objects (rock, tree, dog, table). Verbs that are concepts (motion, location, direction, love, weight, mass, wave) are beyond his comprehension for the moment.

So if you are marooned on an island with an ET. You point and say 'tree'. You point again and say 'rock'. And then again and say 'coconut'. Gradually, he learns the names of OBJECTS. So far there are no verbs (the Gods of Pythagarasus’ Religion).

Of course, you can only point at 'that which has shape'. Now, the ET and you have been on the island for a couple of years and he has more or less learned your language. You tell him that he can use a rock (object) to break (verb) open a coconut. You are no longer alluding to the shape of these things, but talking in abstract mode. You are alluding to a PROCESS (verb) and not to the objects themselves.

The problem in Math is that they still haven't gotten beyond Square One. Not one mathematician can point and name the object. A mathematician cannot teach an ET the language (much less teach his own peers) because there are no nouns in Math.

A concept is "a relationship between two or more objects". Hence, the word "up" is a concept because something is "up" relative to something else. In a sentence, concepts cannot be followed by verbs. Love (concept) cannot pull (verb) two persons (concrete objects) together. Justice (concept) cannot arbitrate (verb). A HUMAN (concrete object) can WALK (verb) toward another HUMAN (concrete object). If you point to two humans walking toward each other and call it "love" then you are defining love as a concept, i.e. as two people approaching each other. A JUDGE (concrete noun) can ARBITRATE (verb). If you point at a judge in a courtroom banging his gavel and yelling at a criminal in black stripes and you say "justice" then, for the purposes of your discussion, "justice" is a concept referring to a judge banging his gavel and yelling at a man in black stripes. Notice that concepts do NOT DO ANYTHING. Concretes act, concrete objects are where all the action's at. The word "field" is a concept because "fields" don't PHYSICALLY do anything. "Field" is what something ELSE does. This is akin to the word "wave". A wave is not a concrete object anymore than a field is. A wave is a concept. You point at moving crests on the ocean and say "wave". A wave is not some THING, a wave is what something DOES. What is "wind"? Wind is not some THING, it is what something DOES. Similarly a "field" is what something DOES. If your concept can be illustrated with a movie involving concrete objects, or even better demonstrated using concrete objects, then you have a "concrete concept" i.e. a scientific concept.

We tend to think of Man (or even Pythagarus) as the most intelligent of animals because he has the capacity for abstract thought. No other animal even comes close to him in this regard. But abstract thought is also a tremendous handicap. People invented demons and spirits along the way to explain what their minds were not prepared to explain. We see ghosts and reify concepts. The soul of Pythagarus’ dead grandma now becomes the 'spirit' who touched him last night. He thinks he hears voices. Maybe it's God talking to him. And actually it's a monologue occurring inside his brain. And so on...

Lions don't have these kinds of problems. They are not as sophisticated as Pythagarus is. They don't need pills to go to sleep or anti-depressants to wake them up. Their life is much more objective. Their world is food. They wake up. They're hungry. They see a real wildebeest (i.e. OBJECT). And they go satisfy that urge (i.e. CONCEPT), plug that hole in the stomach. That's it.

Therefore, the trouble we have is separating what's real (what a lion KNOWS is real) from concepts. The abstract concepts we invented have become so many that we've made them real and what's real has become a concept. Most people have trouble distinguishing one from the other. Ergo, the Christian sees God and angels and the mathematician 'observes' warped space, 0D particles and black holes. He is convinced these 'entities' are real....just like Pythagarus is convinced that numbers, triangles and verbs (verbums) are real...LOL!!

And this is why people like Pythagarus, Philanthropy, emrldphx, aka-dj et all are living in their own artificial delusionary world....and they will probably NEVER wake up!

“You ignored it.”

No I didn’t, you fool. I asked you to explain your case because I knew that you would shout yourself in the face from your ignorance. You live in your own delusional world where concepts (like triangles, numbers, spirits, God, angels, equations, etc) hit you over the head in the middle of the night. I can imagine how frightening that might be for you.

As you can see Pythagarus, all you are doing with this “verbum (verb)” is just pissing in the wind. Oh darn....don’t face the wind while doing that! Now look at what you did to yourself.....quick, grab a towel.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

See what happens when ignorant people like you, Philanthropy and emrldphx blindly post definitions from the dictionary without so much as critically analyzing them first? Only the clueless will use the Dictionary just like fundamentalist Christians use the Bible to authoritatively make their arguments. Did you know that Argument from Authority is a fallacy? Well, you learned your lesson today!

All dictionaries were written by English Literature students who had no clue about Physics, reality, objects or concepts. It's funny how many people are ignorant of this.

Pythagarus....got any more definitions for me to shoot down?? Or better yet, can you shoot down any of mine?

"Sooo-loong fatfist"

And oh, btw.....my buddy nicomp and I are dedicating this song to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnM67j9So8w


El Dude 4 years ago

Always, always it comes down to definitions.

And they always run like cowards.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

fatfist

the God you are destroying was not constructed rationally.

to explain "God does not Exist" as a real construct, is not a logical exercise, it is an irrational endeavour, which relies on an irrationally constructed "God Exists". You are wasting your time!(exception, this hub fills your needs).

What you have to show is that their god construction is the logical consequence of something, and without that something there is no need for their irrationality. Then their god construction does not occur, and "god does not exist" becomes irrelevant). cause-effect.

I will say it again. LET'S MOVE ON..

Now.

I contest that any "rational" effort is bound by language and thus must start with agreement. But you can only have agreement if there are (at least)two entities to relate.

And.

Faith is an idiotist relationship -- L. idiota. onto it's own, not requiring agreement. (ironically, separate from di or deus, plural of god)

Whereas

reason relates bifurcated entities, faith attempts to reverse bifurcation to idiotism of idios (that is why faithers are "logical idiots") -- see, what I did here.

What do you think of this:

Reason (basis or cause) requires scale of observation (resolution). example, a dog looks different to a human/flea/atom. A HUMAN insisting the dog has form would find opposition from an independently thinking flea lunching on a dog, and the atom transferred from the dog's blood stream to the flea's belly, would have to insist on freedom from form if not function.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“the God you are destroying was not constructed rationally.”

Exactly! He doesn’t have location. Hence is impossible to exist. The clowns who conceived of God could not define the key words which made or broke their argument: object, space, exist. This is why their God Hypothesis can never be used to formulate a rational Theory.

"God does not Exist" as a real construct, is not a logical exercise, it is an irrational endeavour, which relies on an irrationally constructed "God Exists"

You are clueless of the Scientific Method. You fall in the same camp as atheists and theists. You should take a course in Science 101 after you finish public school.

Existence has absolutely NOTHING to do with logic, axioms, syllogisms or premises. These are TAUTOLOGIES. They are pre-DEFINED rules. Existence is not a “theory”. Existence is a “hypothesis”. It is clowns like you who don’t understand Science and come here to chase their tails in circles.

Existence is observer-independent.....and NOT based on logic!!!

You disagree?? Great....please use any logic and premises you want to demonstrate that the Moon exists, ok? Now don’t act like a scared little kitty and run away from this question....just do it. If you don’t respond to this Q by your next post, then you and audience will know that you have no argument and were bluffing all along about logic, premises, syllogisms, truth, proof, etc.

“You are wasting your time!(exception, this hub fills your needs).”

Perhaps Science is a waste of time to a Religionist like you, but in Science, God is an object which was hypothesized by Theologians. God has SHAPE....it says so in the Bible:

Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

Job 4:15-17 -- “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”

See what happens when you try to argue when you haven’t read the hub? You are just arguing with yourself. You have no argument. Maybe you should talk to your Pastor for advice on the Scientific Method before you troll on the Internet.

“I contest that any "rational" effort is bound by language and thus must start with agreement. “

All human communication is bound by language. When you finish primary school and learn to comprehend what others write to you, perhaps you might understand this. Did your Priest in Sunday School ever tell you that humans use language to communicate...or was it all fun and fondling games inside the confession box?

We don’t go to the ballot box to vote on what is rational. Opinion, as much as YOU want it to, plays no role here. You are always used to giving your OPINIONS as assertions and expecting others to swallow them as TRUTH and PROOF. Well, that doesn’t work here. Rationality is an OBJECTIVE issue...which is irrespective of my, yours or your God’s opinion, got it.

Rationality has no rules (logic, premises, opinions, etc). Rules are made by man to be broken. What is rational is what is critically reasoned!

A rational theory is one that:

a. can be illustrated (i.e., can make a movie of)

b. uses definitions consistently

c. Is non-contradictory

What part did you not understand? What part was so difficult for you? You continue to dodge these questions...LOL!

“Faith is an idiotist relationship”

You are perpetually confused because you are watching too many theist/atheist debates where these idiots don’t understand the issue.

God has nothing to do with faith. Only the clueless and uneducated (i.e. theists & atheists) have/lack “faith” in God. God is an entity..an object!! God is the subject matter of Physics, and Physics, only! Which part didn’t you understand?

Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects! Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on.

Science is obviously way over your head! Perhaps you’d be better suited to go into the Fashion forums and argue which celebrity is the worst dressed. Those types of arguments are much better suited for your level of intelligence!

“reason relates bifurcated entities”

What is a BIFURCATED ENTITY?? Do you even know....or are you just pulling out big words to make an impression?

Here you go... BIFURCATED ENTITY: _____________

I am willing to bet my life that you cannot define this.....we will see by your next post.

“Reason (basis or cause) requires scale of observation (resolution). example, a dog looks different to a human/flea/atom.”

Opinions play no role here. We don’t scale observations to impress others. What does this subjective BS have to do with Science? Reality could care less if a dog “looks” different to a drunken fool. Reality is objective, not subjective, like you try so much to make it. Reality pisses on idiots and their opinions.

“A HUMAN insisting the dog has form would find opposition from an independently thinking flea lunching on a dog,”

Is this what your Priest told you last Sunday?

A dog has form/shape independent of any observers; be it dogs, cats, fleas or drunken fools. This is an objective issue. A dog has shape all on its own. A dog is an object with a boundary......a dog does NOT blend in with space...it doesn’t lose L, W and H and vanish into the void....irrespective of what anyone thinks.

If the flea “lunches” (verb) on the dog, then obviously the dog has shape! Verbs can only be mediated by at least TWO objects with shape....one being the flea....and the second being the dog. So your argument is contradictory and ludicrous....as usual.

Got anything else to offer other than your ignorance?


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

you left out the atom, of course!

"A dog is an object with a boundary......a dog does NOT blend in with space...it doesn’t lose L, W and H and vanish into the void"

The atom (blood) was sucked from the dog-shape into the flea-shape. hmmm... the dog didn't lose any mass!!!! OMG! I figured it out!!!

I will repeat it; "it doesn’t lose L, W and H".

So an hungry flea ate the whole dog BOUNDARY(it's a tiny dawg) and the dawg still has shape SINCE "it doesn’t lose L, W and H".

OMG! FATFIST BELIEVES IN GHOST SHAPES AND SCIENTIFIC BARKING FLEAS!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

pythagarus,

"So an hungry flea ate the whole dog"

Go ahead, eat the whole dog....eat the whole car if you must. Did the dog blend in with the void??

Matter does not lose L, W and H. Matter does not disappear into a spirit after your car dies, as your Religion alleges. Atoms are redistributed and reused to perpetually build other objects.

Matter is eternal and in perpetual motion.

Your Pastor didn't tell you that?


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

@ff shapes are people too?;))

"Atoms are redistributed and reused to perpetually build other objects. Matter is eternal and in perpetual motion."

hmmm...very good fortran4!

The name atom comes from the Greek ?????? (atomos, “indivisible”).

there4 we now know, for sure, every-things is them atoms?

Want to continue without and apology to the rational people that read you hub?


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Curious that religion, quantum physics, relativity, and geocentric universe model all rely on the primary assumption that the observer is the central actor.

It must be part of the Heisenberg WTF? Principle...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

“shapes are people too?”

Are ‘shapes’ people in your Religion, pythagarus? Do you really have to ask such a dumb question? You can’t reason this on your own?

Is ‘shape’ a synonym for ‘person’??

---BEGIN_REALITY_LESSON_FOR_PYTHAGARUS

Object: that which has shape

Exist: object + location

A human is an object because it has shape. Aliens can illustrate a human on the blackboard in their Alien Physics Conference. They show to the other aliens that humans have shape....they have a boundary....they are objects....just like God is an object, irrespective of whether He is invisible or not.

Furthermore, a human exists because in addition to shape, they have location...i.e. there is a static distance between the human and every other object in the universe. And a human has location NOT because we can “know” it or “prove” it. A human, the Sun, the Moon all have location irrespective of any observer and their stupid OPINIONS (like yours for instance). Therefore, a human is a real object, as opposed to an abstraction.

So yes, humans are OBJECTS.

But most importantly....ALL women are OBJECTS....they are SHAPEly. If you don’t believe me, just ask my neighbor’s wife what we do together when her husband goes on business trips!

---END_REALITY_LESSON_FOR_PYTHAGARUS

“The name atom comes from the Greek”

The Greeks rationally reasoned that it’s impossible for matter to be incessantly divisible. There has to be a fundamental unit of matter which is a single indivisible piece. They called that “atomo”...meaning “indivisible”. Now, you must understand.....the Greeks did not propose that an atom is made up of 0D little balls held together by ‘spirits’ and 0D electrons ‘ghosts’ orbiting those 0D balls. These ludicrous proposals came from the Clowns of Mathematics....i.e. the Pastor’s of YOUR Numerology Religion who use crystal balls to make these breathtaking PREDICTIONS.

“there4 we now know, for sure,....”

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don’t get it!!!

You are still LOST!!!!

And this is what YOU cannot get thru your THICK SKULL, Pythagarus!! You are so brainwashed by your Priests & Pastors......you are so enamoured by CELEBRITY & AUTHORITY, that you are fetishly drooling at the thought of mathematicians like Hawking, Einstein, Bohr, Sagan, Pythagoras, Euclid, et all.

Knowledge is NOT a part of Science. There is NO provision for Knowledge, Truth or Proof in the Scientific Method.

Knowledge, Truth and Proof are OPINIONS which form the foundational basis of Religion....i.e. YOUR theistic/atheistic/agnostic Religion!

It is impossible for any human to KNOW how natural phenomena work or the structure of matter, because the bandwidth of the human sensory system (and the technology they invent) is extremely limited. Anyone who claims to know, like the Pastors of YOUR Religion for example, ...are arrogant LIARS!!

The Scientific Method (hypo + theory) is used to Hypothesize an actor (object, i.e. God) which mediates an natural event (i.e. Creation), and to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN the how’s and why’s of the event in the Theory. That is all the sci method does!

A rational theory tells us that the objects of the hypothesis are POSSIBLE to exist.

An irrational theory (like God’s Creation) tell us that the object (i.e. God) of the hypothesis is IMPOSSIBLE to exist.

I cannot believe that you are still struggling with the basics of Science! You should become a fashion commentator....

It is Religionists who claim that Science has truths and proofs and knowledge, because these clowns don’t understand the Scientific Method and the limitations of the human sensory system. They saw 0D particles and black holes in their dream, so now these concepts are asserted to be part of reality. This is not Science!

“every-things is them atoms?”

No, not necessarily. If we can identify certain natural phenomena which cannot be rationally explained by atoms alone....then of course, atoms must be made up of some fundamental constituent of matter. But the bottom line is....matter is NOT incessantly divisible. There is a fundamental constituent of matter which is made of a SINGLE indivisible piece which cannot be broken or separated.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Winston,

“observer is the central actor....It must be part of the Heisenberg WTF? Principle”

The mathematicians routinely rely on idiotic 'tree-in-the-forest' reasoning to answer mundane questions. Bohr and Heisenberg were two not-so-bright individuals who developed the 'tree-in-the-forest' reasoning into an art. They alleged that whether there is a reality out there depends on the perception of a human (i.e., experiment/truth/proof). So successful were these two heroes of Mathematical Physics that they created the 'tree-in-the-forest' Copenhagen Interpretation.

Heisenberg's position vs momentum dilemma can be synthesized in Physics as: "When the ball moves, it doesn't stand still, and when the ball stands still, it doesn't move." This amusing pronouncement was adopted as a 'principle' of the religion of QM.

In reality, an event happened irrespective of whether a human witnessed it, and this is where we have trouble with irrational people like Bohr and Heisenberg. They claim that if they didn't see it, it didn't happen (i.e., phenomenon = observer).

Heisenberg and the mathematicians have not been able to justify the force of PULL. You can't produce PULL with discrete particles. You cannot hope to strike the billiard ball, have it roll to the 8-ball, deliver 'negative momentum' and compel it to move towards you.

The first thing we do is kill the observer! There are no opinions in science. So it's a moot issue what it "looks like to an observer". We are only concerned with what REALLY happened and not with what a stupid wino or demented individual of math 'thinks' happened! Science is objective, not subjective.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

OMFG! I broke the f**kin' machine and AKA showed up to be nice!!!

sorry guys, how was i supposed to know that it was an experiment. here is a suggestion... remove irony from the uncertainty, and teach the borg allegory. AKA watch....


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

... too much fun with this... mumbojumbo

Let P = "There are opinions in science"

then not-P = "There are no opinions in science"

but (opinions) = not(science) --- by definition.

How do I know? it says so in the definition. How do i know the definition is correct... another definition said so... what???

Ask the scientist responsible for the first absolute definition... therefore scientist is GOD. No no no no! scientist got atoms defined wrong, so define scientist;))WHOA!!!!!!!!!

It is constructed nonsense (strawdummies).

A construct that is flawed.

SO TRY THIS...

"There are (opinions in not(opinions))"

self evident and trivial?? maybe...

Resolves into "There are ()".

Note that it's not "opinions" or "science" NOR "nothing" -- nothing is not-(thing).

Its Just simple dippidibooobaaasweetall ( ). And if you try to fill it with opinion or science you get fatfist irreverence or AKA considered kindness.

To me, that common unexpressed/inexpressible whatever ( ) is reason enough to be rational and irrational --- when ever I so desire, without need to fill the expression() with dumb words like GOD or science.

I am not saying it's not useful, I am saying that if you build a construct to destroy the stuff inside the brackets(), expect to get destroyed as well.... ME INCLUDED.

I must go play outside;)


El Dude 4 years ago

Pythagarus you have to be the absolute biggest dumbass that has ever vomited his incoherent gibberish onto a hub-page.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

Thank you El Dude, for your absolutist opinion. You have confirmed at least one of Oscar Wilde's axioms.... That indignation is hardly expressed with logical language.

Sorry Dude, I did not know HAL1000 was in beta version.

Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason. – Oscar Wilde


gconeyhiden profile image

gconeyhiden 4 years ago from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A

hi fatfist, you are a hard one to argue w so im not even going to try but I will comment on a few things if I may. I found your dissections interesting and you seem an "authority" on semantics if not anything else. your a seasoned infighter when it comes to throwing words around and dissembling notions. Im being very careful here, I dont want to get kicked. your hub, intelligence and comments suggest your a scientist of sorts. are you? just curious about your actual work as your profile is just a mystery. I find the statement you made that humans have the higest intelligence in the universe fascinating. how can you claim NOT to be an authority and utter such words. it seems you think you can understand everything there is to know. dont you know your wasting your time here on hubpages when you should be lecturing and inspiring brilliant minds world wide. forget about proving this or that about "God". in the frame of things it appears an exercise or contest of sorts. I didnt come across any responders that are worthy wasting your time so Im going to have to kick you to change arenas or are you just fine kicking amature butt.. my hats off, you just leave me wondering?? go easy on me cause im not an authority on anything, just trying to learn how the mind works within the universe.


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@gconeyhiden,

Ummm....gcon, what is your argument?

Please explain to the audience exactly what causes your tummy to bellyache about this hub. Is it the font? Is it the background color? Is it the use of punctuation? I mean, ya gotta come clean with the details, otherwise you are no different than emrldphx, who bellyaches because his Religion was DESTROYED.

Was your Religion destroyed??

If so, than you can do what Jesus did on the cross to feel better i.e. drink vinegar!!

Otherwise, if you have an argument that can refute this hub, then spit it out, ok?


gconeyhiden profile image

gconeyhiden 4 years ago from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A

I have No argument. And I know of only one fact pertaining to this interesting hub. Your not the most intelligent creature in the universe. if you are prove it, in your next hub. I have faith in you to make it interesting.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@gconey

"I have No argument."

Exactly!

And neither do your buddies emrldphx & Philanthropy. Trolls of a feather bellyache together!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Pythagarus,

"if you build a construct to destroy the stuff inside the brackets(), expect to get destroyed as well"

Exactly! That's why all your arguments have destroyed themselves....they are self-refuting. It didn't take me to destroy them, so don't bark at the messenger. I merely pointed out the contradictions in your feeble reasoning.

Perhaps you should kneel in front of your Priest and ask him to give you another lesson!


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

fast-fist you are a sweetheart. I did say "me included";)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Pythagarus,

"fast-fist you are a sweetheart."

You should look for sweethearts on Church St., in your downtown core. I hear they have all kinds there. You might even find the biker dude from the Village People....he'll take good care of you!


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

lol... HAL1000 has been rebooted; and back to identifying the non-humanoids -- and ignoring reason -- my work here is done;))


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Pythagarus,

So...you haven't been able to answer any of the questions I asked you. Trolls always run away instead of explaining their position.

Run away, Run away

Run away and save your life

Run away, run away

Run away if you want to survive

.....

Oh oh oh oh, run away, oh oh oh oh

Keep the faith, you gotta keep the faith

You better keep the faith and run away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnM67j9So8w


El Dude 4 years ago

Had to laugh at a comment made just below yours, here:

hubpages.com/question/144303/what-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-your-own-humble-opinion#answer388751

Look just below, a guy says, and I quote:

"The circle or a-symetrical,based on outward energy force caused by the Naked Singularity(big bang) and by detected microwave background radition on Nasa's I-rad.Taken into consideration Dark Matter,However now it has recently been discovered that a phenomina called DARK FLOW throw's all theroy for a loop as it consentrates to a single point of focus near the edge.Geodessics within a 4 dimentional space time curveture from a metric tensor as equaded in pythagoris therom show that parelell's don't remain constant.Indicating outward expansion.However if using elucidian geomerty and not hyperbolic geomerty when solving field equasions for general realitivy,the metric tensor will be true.And if using Hyperbolic Geomerty the metric tensor is true but DARK FLOW says other wise1Therfore I would be inclined to go with AN A-SYMETRICAL SHAPE!For this dimention! And inter dimentionaly stacked on top of each other!"

What a complete lunatic. Is this what mathematics does to your brain? Or just mathematical physics?!

Unbelievable gibberish. What a moron.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

Yes, this is what happens when the herding mentality of humans leads them from one religion to another.

We first had God as the explanation of all things. But certain dissidents, known as "atheists", decided to deny the good Lord. These fundamentalists thought they could do better by inventing their own gods (energy, 0D particles, dark matter, warped space, dilated time, black holes, Big Bang) in order to explain nature.

What we have is ignorant humans who don't understand the difference between an object and a concept. So they end up inventing their own surrealistic fantasy world where concepts come to life and "threaten" them.

I mean, can you believe that many people are scared that the LHC will make a black hole which will swallow the Earth? This is NO different than the Christians who think that a sinner will go to Hell.

Humans are doomed as a species. They have nobody to blame but their ignorance and gullibility.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

I got it directly from the corn that "He who walks behind the rows" is pissed that you are crucifying his followers.


El Dude 4 years ago

Fattie, do an article about the holy man himself, Karl Popper. I swear this jerk gets off lightly. He screwed humanity so much with his retarded ideas about "science". I always hear 'falsifiable this, unfalsifiable that' from empiricists and other clowns, yet those same parrots will look you in the eye and tell you wave-packets and black holes exist.

If 4d objects, infinite curvatures and space-time aren't falsifiable... WHAT THE FUCK IS?!


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Saw this on a site called All About Science: (Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) demonstrated in 1928 that the Universe is expanding, showing beyond reasonable doubt that the Universe sprang into being a finite time ago.)

Beyond reasonable doubt...I wonder what the sentence was?


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

Guys, you gonna end up creating signatum from signum all of your own if you continue to agree so euphorically.

btw did you know that eu- means good and also "I" in Latin -- just saying.

Ok here his a question to keep me honest.

"decided to deny"

Free will, Devine miracle, or pure coincidence and luck?


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

Fatfist you did not delete my comments. I am impressed with your ethos. Pathos - not bad either. Now your logos is not as good as Mr AKA or the Dude - he's smooth. Socratic?? Bahah I hear 3dudes beating up on ignorant people. Yes Dude, not moron, that shows your ethos. Throwing stones is a practice only some morons can engage in.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Pythagarus,

Of course your comments were not deleted. I don’t kick people who come here to discuss their beefs with my articles. But remember, you initially came here to troll. I, on the other hand, tried to get you to post your BEST ARGUMENT....I mean your argument that would destroy this hub and all my other hubs.

I did succeed in getting you to at least post a couple of half-assed arguments. And this is the best that your mental capacity can deliver. So by holding your hand, you were able to cough up some crap! That’s ok, crap is still an argument.

As you can see, arguments don’t get deleted......only trolls and spammers do. And these idiots know who they are....that’s why they never come here to post again. They stick in the Religion forums where they belong!


pythagarus profile image

pythagarus 4 years ago

No, no troll. Btw I am back again because I heard the term "freedom from fear" - so wanting to look-see objectively I shall ask again.

Faithers are pathetic, not because they are morons - from pathos which comes from believing. When dudes claiming logos, resort to pathos and then get a word definition wrong - don't they deserve to be called to the ethos carpet????? With the same vigor as you do here - very socratic - hence freedom from fear - but all three must be shown. So, again, the q is... To have the freedom to use or be ethical, pathetical, or logical - each must be whole onto itself -- 1. what is "objective" and please don't be circular with object. ie x=f(x)

As pointed out On this hub, Mathematician as well as faithers can be stuck in logos and pathos respectively such that they sound the same x=f(x) ; replace x for pathos or ethos or logos.

What does it take, to transcend being stuck in one, to use all three in good measure?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@F_hruz,

Franto, as seen from your previous posts, this hub rubs you the wrong way because it definitively explains WHY a God is impossible. I guess it has to do with fact that atheism is based on the BELIEF that God doesn't exist. I mean, just like theists, atheists claim that "proof" either way on the existence of God is impossible.

So....what are atheists left with? What is the atheist's response to the God Hypothesis? Do atheists use their own Religion to "deny" another Religion? Is this all that atheism can offer....just subjective "emotional" arguments?

In any case....you still haven't answered the question I asked you on my previous post:

"Anybody who simply states their OPINIONS can easily be shown their contradictions....as I have shown yours. Can you show any of mine?"

Perhaps if you could refute this hub, it may add some validity to your sentiments.

Here’s a question for you: Can you use Math to refute this hub?

Can you use Math to explain to the audience WHY 2 atoms perpetually attract each other?

Of course you can’t.....Math only describes; it never explains why.


El Dude 4 years ago

Math is used by priests today like Latin was used many hundreds of years ago. To frighten off inquisitive plebs and give an aura of intellect or divinity.

The only difference I can see is that the Math Priests don't tell you that their 0d Electrons LOVE you, but that you'll BURN in INFINITY for your sins in warped space-time!


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

After about 10 million spilt pixels, philanthropy2012 finally defined existence: "Existence is a relationship between an object and everything else."

He finally spilled the beans on my forum question, "If you subtract humans, what is left in the universe?"


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

When it comes to destroying big bang religion fatfist is the best author in these hub pages.

And when evolution is parrot by the atheist the mighty toobsucker shows up and destroys there irrational theories.

Pythagarus don't tell fatfist and aka winston that evolution is just as made up as big bang religion- they might get mad at me.

Here is and example of toobsucker destroying Darwin's religion or aka neo-darwinism religion

http://hubpages.com/politics/Evolution-or-Intellig...


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

This was an interesting Hub to read, and the comments just make it even better...

However, I must say, your Object/Concept religion will never fully explain anything, actually. No offense, but I like to call this age-old faith, the "Dead Rock Religion."

Unfortunately, this type of perception you have attained over the years, is blind to the obvious. It never will explain the mystery of life, the reason for the progression of evolution and constant need to improve and/or learn/evolve, or the emotions behind thoughts, personality, and what drives life in general, etc., as to you, none of those things technically exist because they ain't an object. Ha! You're a funny guy and very persistent, I'll give you credit for that.

I'm surprised you haven't been bombed with woo-woos talking about multiple dimensions and other otherworldly unprovable stuff. Me, I'm not bringing none of that in here, just saying that you unfortunately don't disprove anything other than the majority of the fantastical, silly religions of today.

Other than that, it was fun to read! Cheers! :D


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Winston,

"Existence is a relationship between an object and everything else."

Ok, let's try to understand what Philo is saying here......

He is DESCRIBING what the term "existence" ALLUDES to .....and not what it MEANS (definition).

And he is correct....in that the term/word "exist" is a CONCEPT. Obviously the word "exist" is not an object like the word "rock" is. Specifically, absolutely all concepts are relationships between two or more objects.

concept: a relation between two or more objects.

But let's go one step further and ask Philo to DEFINE "exist" and tell us exactly what it means in no ambiguous terms.

I am very proud that Philo finally understood that the term "exist" MUST absolutely....without any doubt or question.....MUST resolve to a RELATIONSHIP between objects. There is absolutely NO other option. Good for Philo!!!!

If Philo takes his above statement and critically reasones it through, he will inevitably resolve it as follows...

exist: physical presence (i.e. an object having a location).

And an object can only have a location if there are other objects around. Hence the term "exist" is a concept. It is our conception of what it rationally means for an object to "exist"....without an observer being present to see/touch/confirm/prove the object to exist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Insane,

"your Object/Concept religion"

Religion?? Do you even understand the words you are using?

Religion is a field of study which reifies objects into concepts, ascribes motion to concepts and asserts supernatural mediators for natural phenomena.

Where do I do any of that in my hubs??

" It never will explain the mystery of life, the reason for the progression of evolution"

Mystery?? Is this what your Pastor told you....that life is mysterious? Perhaps life and existence are mysterious to people such as yourself because you cannot define neither of these terms. For the rest of us, there is no mystery as we can define them in no ambiguous terms.

Obviously you have no clue what the Scientific Method is all about. Perhaps you should take a course in Science 101 and learn the difference between Hypothesis and Theory.

Evolution is a Theory....a rational explanation of natural phenomena. Do you understand this much?

" and constant need to improve and/or learn/evolve, or the emotions behind thoughts, personality,"

Oh gosh....you are obviously in the wrong forum. This forum is about Science....the study of existence....not the study of concepts, like love, emotions and what warms the cockles of your soul.

You should ponder these questions with a Theologian, Spiritualist, Levitating Guru of India, Psychiatrist.....or even a cocaine addict who shoots himself up every night in some dark alley. They will have a lot of advice to offer you during your soul searchin'.

"emotions, thoughts, personality.... none of those things technically exist because they ain't an object"

Bingo!!!!

Now you are learnin'.

" just saying that you unfortunately don't disprove anything"

Right on the money again!!!

Proof and truth are the Hallmark of Religion.

My articles are about the Science which has nothing to do with proof.


dagger 4 years ago

I'm figuring out your ideas being conveyed to the readers and just realized it is quite shallow.

You put a note to the readers and yet you actually,in your title, claim that God is impossibly to exist. Wow, you're contradicting with yourself proving your arrogance and pride.


El Dude 4 years ago

Then go ahead and state the contradiction, you moron.

Oh wait, you're full of shit!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Dagger,

“it is quite shallow”

I couldn’t have sinned in God’s presence if there is no God, right?

Does God have “presence” i.e. location?

“You put a note to the readers “

Yeah, the readers are put on notice that a “creator” God is impossible. The only God that is possible is the one which can “actually” be worshipped i.e. has LOCATION....like my neighbor’s sultry blonde wife with the luscious tanned curves and 44D’s....yum yum!!

“yet you actually,in your title, claim that God is impossibly to exist.”

Do you enjoy showcasing your ignorance all over the Internet? I mean, if your mother or your co-workers saw you posting such drivel, would they be proud of you?

A CLAIM is a POSITIVE assertion of a consummated event (i.e. that God created space & matter). The existence of God has nothing to do with “claims” or beliefs or wisdom or knowledge or truth or proof or faith or evidence. The Moon and God exist or not, irrespective of what a human ape utters once he learns how to communicate, got it?

That God doesn’t exist is not a positive assertion, much less a claim. It doesn’t even make sense to place this statement in such a context. You must be a theist, agnostic or an atheist, right? I mean, it’s only these 3 clowns on this planet who “speak in tongues” like you’ve just done. Everyone else talks coherently.

That God doesn’t exist is a rational conclusion stemming from critically analyzing the Theologian’s God Hypothesis (ie. the proposal that God is an object that exists) and God Theory (ie. God created space & matter). Have you ever done any “critical thinking” before in your life? Do you understand what I just said to you? I mean, how could these basics have eluded you? Did you even read the Bible or this article? If you did, then there is no excuse for your ignorant and embarrassing statements!

“you're contradicting with yourself”

A contradiction is of the form: P and not-P at the same time, where P is a proposition. Please showcase ANY contradiction with the luxury of detail, ok?

“proving”

A rational human understands full well that “proof” is the Hallmark of Religion.

So, what is PROOF?

In science, we neither prove nor disprove. Proof means that your Priest mounted and raped you. He had his way with you and 'converted' you to his Religion. That's all that 'proof' means. What is PROOF and TRUTH and EVIDENCE to one, is a LIE and BLASPHEMY and OBSCURITY to another. So how do we resolve this dilemma? Who is RIGHT and who is WRONG? Do we flip a coin? Do we consult a crystal ball or a Ouija Board?

The act of "proving" is a humorous human activity, not much different than binge-drinking or smoking crack-cocaine. Prove, like drinking & smoking is a VERB. To "prove", we require a human ape to use his limited sensory system to give us a subjective biased OPINION of what they sensed.

"Opinions vary!" -- Patrick Swayze (Roadhouse, 1989)

"Prove" is the verb that the Pastors of Christianity, Relativity, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Big Bang perform on our brain (or our orifices), to get us to swallow the nonsense that space and matter were "created" by God or by ‘nothing’.

Exist = object + location

The scientific definition of ‘exist’ makes no provision for proof or opinions, belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, testimony or evidence, authority or popularity.....whether we like it or not!

God exists or doesn’t, BY DEFINITION, only....not because some human ape with a clown outfit decrees it as such!

Proof is in the eye of the beholder......PROOF = OPINION!

“your arrogance and pride”

Like I said.... I couldn’t have sinned in God’s presence if it impossible for God to have ‘location’, right?

So I will happily resume my “sins of the flesh” activities with my neighbor’s wife, if you don’t mind.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Then go ahead and state the contradiction, you moron.

lol


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

I have been going back and forth on a couple of forum questions and I finally see what you mean about the religious aspect of neo-scientists, aka atheists.

A simple idea that clear and precise definitions are required to scientifically examine reality receives a chorus of strawmen all ballyhooing in unison that concepts, of course, exist, that if they didn't exist we couldn't have the neo-religion of neo-science.

When one responds with the very simple explanation that existence depends on the definition of existence, holy war 0D jihadists highjack and fly conceptual airplanes into the towers of your definition while screaming about gravity, force, and magnetism and then swearing that Allah isn't real and believers in gods are morons.

It is truly a spectacle to see - providing you can witness concepts acting upon the physical world - which is, of course, a direct route into Bellview on a psyche diagnosis.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Winston,

That's why atheism is no different than theism. They are both fanatics. They both espouse belief over reason and critical thinking.

The funny thing is that atheists cannot explain WHY a God cannot possibly exist. Even the religious atheist, Richard Dawkins, says that there is a 1% chance that God exists. Can you believe this shit??

Atheism is the Religion of Reification!! Concepts magically turn into objects and scare the BuJesus out of you in the middle of the night.

I urge everyone to abandon this religion called atheism and start using their brains to critically reason and "understand" reality,.... rather than to "believe" what others force down their throats. You made a very difficult and major step in your life to understand what theism was all about and abandon it. Now it's time to do the same with atheism. Both are untenable positions for a rational human being.


El Dude 4 years ago

What an incomprehensible load of gibberish and random angry mouth noises.

Where would one even start with this feces of a comment?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@pythagarus,

The issue of definitions and the Scientific Method has been addressed many times and resolved in explicit detail....with you, and with all the other trolls who come here to see their name in lights. So trying to revive a dead horse with the same debunked arguments only qualifies as SPAM. Stop cluttering my comments section with your nonsense.

P.S. If you want to see your name in lights, go to Hollywood and spread your legs for a rock star or something. He will make you famous!

Otherwise... surrender to your nearest Police station at 42 Division right now! They will call the men in white jackets who will take you to a nice place with lots of trees, flowers, sunshine, and nice people who will take care of you. I don’t know what your Pastor has been brainwashing you with over there at your Guildwood Presbyterian Church, but you have yet to understand why atheism is also a religion.


El Dude 4 years ago

I'm giving Spastic Ink a Nobel Prize in awesome curiosity for actually asking relevant, rational questions, in contrast to the swarms of religionists who frequent this "thread" (arf).

Bravo!


yourreasonable profile image

yourreasonable 4 years ago

WOW

THE LACK OF EDUCATION on theology and philosophy JUST PERMEATES THROUGH YOUR IDEAS. I know your gonna wanna strike back and belittle me but just listen instead of thinking you have all the wisdom in the universe.

If you had even the slightest knowledge of theology you wouldn't have typed a single word as God is NEVER EVER proposed of being in Space.

ACTS 17

"in Him we live, move, and have our being". The other cases are anthropomorphism's, "the hand of God", "face to face with God" etc

I gonna help here despite the fact that I'll probably be ridiculed and met with extreme bias...

An analogy...Think of your dreams. Is there any real space in those dreams? Your thought creates a space, people and objects. They even talk to you and you have no idea what they are going to say. "They live , move, and have their being" in your thought.

God is not IN the universe. The universe is IN God. If God and space existed eternally then space would be God because God would need it to exist In. God is the unmoved mover, the foundation of all reality--space was created for physical objects to move in. God doesnt move. God is Thought--he has no parts.

So, your young, or have no idea, whatsoever, about even the simplest concepts of theology. God is not energy, or any other physical thing. He is not physical period and no Christian theologian, EVER, has described the ground of all Being as physical. Not only is this never been taught---it is philosophically absurd, as it forces God to not only have a beginning--but it forces Him to not be God.

About Proof

Christians dont "believe" because someone showed us one last piece of evidence that finally convinced us this was all true. This isnt Columbo

If we treat belief as the collecting of data, piecing together clues, and then finally obtaining just enough to put us over the hump, we leave ourselves open to that one piece of new evidence that debunks our theory.

THINK

If we didnt live a life but all just stood before some great being with 2 doors...one to heaven and one to hell..there would not be a single person who would not follow that great being into heaven

...and Yes...even if he was the Devil. God did not set up such a ridiculous plan of coersion.

Why is God not on TV? Can he not perform such a task?

God is almighty..that means the world is exactly how it has to be to save the most humans. It cannot be better, it cannot be worse. God is hidden for a reason. There is no coercion, there is just enough proof for those who want to know God to search for him through prayer and just enough doubt for those who dont to just say its all crap. Anyone who feels coerced is not a Christian. God is not some idiot we can fool.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all who asked.. What Father would deny his child that gift, Christ said. Once you have that gift--Christ is a fact to you.

Think again about this point....If God set up a world in which knowing him was based on a collection of a certain number of facts or satisfactory answers--then that would mean you much reach that certain point of evidence to believe---which would also mean that if one was debunked you would no longer believe. This isnt some contest about who can figure stuff out the best. Its about your heart. Do you want God as your Father or Not? if so...turn to Him and he will make it clear to you. If not..just join the rest who make excuses.

God's plan is perfect. His message is designed to penetrate the Heart and he doesnt make mistakes. Those who are are FOR the Real God..not one they made up in their heads who agrees with everything they want--are His children ..it is guaranteed. They will turn to Christ.

Of all the people who I've talked to that dont believe in God, not one has ever answered yes to this question.....

Have you ever thought to ask God Himself what the truth is? Humbly and submissive?

They search for clues, have arguments with themselves, debating back and forth pros and cons, but never ask God. But why? Well, its usually because they think they're smarter than the supposed God of this world. In other words, "I can think of a better plan than this--so there cant be a God to ask anyway."

Dont you think that would block communication with God? :) Think about it..."I dont understand the plan...so there's no God." Isnt one of the definitions of God that he is infinitely smarter than us? Does a dog ever realize why we sent him outside to poop? You see suffering and think..I've got better plan. Doesn't a dog think he has a better plan than us too? Haven't we seen Man's grand plan enough to know we dont have clue?

It takes humility to admit we might not be as wise as we think we are. It takes a child like attitude to say, "God...help me understand. If you are real, help my mind understand it." If you drop your shields He will put it as a fact in your head. God's children flock to Christ(80,000 per day). People who are against this God flock to false religions and philosophies. They dont think they need saving.

Its not about clues or data. Yes, the probability of even the Atom's cohesion is insurmountable. Yes, there is testimony. People have died for it instead of suicide bombed for it. And yes, there are more copies of the Bible on earth than any other book. But ask God himself. That is the answer-- hear the testimony and ask God. No clever arguments will achieve what only God can do.

*****The vehicle God choose was not to put a burden on you---but HIM. We cant be perfect because have the freewill to think anything we want..(so its possible to choose.) We deserve to be punished for our behavior but God stepped in and took that punishment for us. All he asks is you accept that. His plan is like nothing man would think up. Man would make it hard..God made it as easy as it could be. Accept his offer and live forever. I say, where do I sign up? Man's idea would be to go on CNN. But God reveals the true state of a human heart by requiring child-like faith. Remember, they killed Christ when they saw him and all the great things he did. So seeing makes no difference because God knows who you are regardless of what you see.

The atheist search for "Proof" is not found in data, but in asking God. God transforms the mind...not data.

Paul, who also was a hater of the Christ, was very intelligent, but considered data worthless in the end. He found it was about the heart. He said..

1 Corinthians 1

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Corinthians 2

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

His point is you can research all the live long day and it will all be just text on a page unless God reveals it to you. So now that you've done your research, ask God for the truth. Lower your shields

There are gonna be a lot of people, especially in this generation, who boldly proclaimed their wisdom-- who are gonna be counted as the fools of the universe because of their arrogance. It is this ar


AKA Winston 4 years ago

yourreasonable,

WOW. WHAT AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF TIME.


gconeyhiden profile image

gconeyhiden 4 years ago from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A

EXACTLY!!!


gconeyhiden profile image

gconeyhiden 4 years ago from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A

REALLY??? FATFIST MADE THAT ALL POSSIBLE?? or are you just waxing poetic. God made the parasitoid that eats its host alive. God made insects because he couldnt figure out how to get the fruit any other way. God created the holocaust because Jews are the "Chosen People". God did this God did that. Did FATFIST tell you to write this overly sweet dribble? or did God just inspire you here on the holy station of FATFIST the unexistant one? Hail FATFIST!!!


Daughter Of Maat profile image

Daughter Of Maat 4 years ago from Rural Central Florida

Why do they always have to insist upon themselves? If you all are so right why do you feel the need to defend your beliefs? You will never prove God exists, if you could, there would be no need for faith, and there would be no athiests. You can spew all the bible verses at me you want and tell me my soul is going to burn in hell for all eternity and I'll still tell you the holy spirit doesn't exist just so I've committed an unforgiveable sin.

Here's a thought, try proving god exists without the bible....


Daughter Of Maat profile image

Daughter Of Maat 4 years ago from Rural Central Florida

That's all well and good, but it still doesn't prove the existence of God. Sorry.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Yourreasonable,

“God is NEVER EVER proposed of being in Space”

Of course not. Space is not an object. There is no such thing as space. Any entity, including God, can only be inside another entity, like in your mom’s Tupperware, for example.

“God is not IN the universe.”

Bingo again! You and me are not “in” the universe either. You see, the universe is a concept....a relation. It is impossible for objects to be INSIDE concepts. I am glad you understand that it is impossible to put an apple inside justice or inside love or inside running.

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

Objects, like you, me and God, cannot possibly be inside concepts. You are quite the smart guy....kudos :-)

“The universe is IN God.”

Ooops! I spoke to soon.....I take my last compliment back.

How can the universe, which is a concept, be INSIDE an object, like God??

Can you please put justice or happiness inside a box and mail it to me?

You really need to go back to Junior Kindergarten and learn the difference between an object and a concept before you use your mom’s laptop to engage in adult discussions and make a fool of yourself all over the Internet, ok?


GodlessHeathen profile image

GodlessHeathen 4 years ago from Arizona


El Dude 4 years ago

He is pretend, but not for the reasons you suggest, GodlessHeathen. Atheism's conclusions may be right (God does not exist), but their reasoning (WHY does God not exist?) is all messed up beyond repair!


GodlessHeathen profile image

GodlessHeathen 4 years ago from Arizona

There is no evidence of a God...that is reason enough El Dude


Allen 4 years ago

Today I was watching a conversation unfold between followers of Friar Krauss and some guy trying to make sense of their assertions, so I added a comment of my own. I thought I'd share it with you on this particular thread since Krauss blatantly states that the Universe was Created...

"We inhabit in a 2D Universe (the Plane) which was created out of a 0D point seething and bubbling with virtual particles, not actual particles, but kinda-particles, both existent and non-existent. They are and they are not, but they sure know how to do some Creatin,' busy little un-bees they are. The Universe/Creation has a boundary which is expanding into something-not-the-Universe, but not really space, since space was Created by the Singularity in the beginning. Finally, there's evidence of a *real,* actual, "nothing," rather than just than just the partial nothing, the sort of something, of our space provides. Time was created in the beginning, and space is curved according to the law. The Universe, is Just as far energy is concerned since matter is + and gravity is - . Equality rules Creation. This is in accordance with the laws Math set down. They are beautiful, after all. All is good without God, and better with the Singularity..."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Thanks Allen. That was funny...


Robotix 4 years ago

Haha, funny shizzle!


Robotix 4 years ago

GodlessHeathen: "There is no evidence of a God...that is reason enough El Dude"

This is not reason, this is pure faith!

If I have no evidence "for" an atom, do atoms vanish from existence? God and toms exist, or not, by definition. We assume (hypothesize) them, or don't, so we can go on to explain our theory.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Tim Brooks.....hellooooooo.....are you there? I am waiting for you!

Don't be SCARED, we don't bite here. We just ask you to justify your argument. Anything scary about that?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Hell yes, Fist. It is scary. Atheists CAN'T justify their arguments, they don't even understand their arguments!


Ricardius profile image

Ricardius 3 years ago

Tim Brooks will be a no show. He knows he will get his ass handed to him!


sammy 3 years ago

Hi guys,

I am interested in what you think of WLCs description of god,

"a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. "

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defining-god#ixzz2F...

His description of God assumes (unless you think I am interpreting it wrong) that God would be a third category (neither concept or object)

WLC states that he does not have to prove whether these attributes are true or not but rather he argues (through a cosmology argument for one) that God by this definition must necessarily exist.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Based on that God=concept

Guess WLC forgot what his bible says about god being an object.

Sorry, there is no third category:

Object

concept

?

WLC Kalam Cosmo argument is soundly defeated by the Fist here:

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

After you define object and concept, then you can define exist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Sammy,

“a person without a body”

Oxymoron….a linguistic contradiction. Person & body refers to SOMETHING (i.e. object), that which has shape…..not to NOTHING, lacking shape.

“ (i.e., a spirit)”

Spirit is a concept. Spirit lacks shape. Spirit is a VERB (an action). All verbs are CONCEPTS.

Spirit is what something (i.e. object) DOES (an action)….not what something IS.

For example: When my next door neighbor (she’s a blonde) gets drunk, her lively amorous spirit is quite pleasant, attractive and certainly welcome to a hot-blooded male (like me, for instance).

You see, Sammy, only OBJECTS can mediate actions, like drink, laugh, spirit, flirt, love, undress, sex….

“the creator of all things”

Another contradiction. Creation, whether under the guise of God, singularity, quantum fluctuations, primeval atom, virtual particles, ….or even via bubbling brew of nothingness….are all without question, impossible!

http://hubpages.com/education/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIB...

“God would be a third category (neither concept or object)”

Impossible! God is either SOMETHING or NOTHING….take your pick. There is no third conceivable category that you, WLC, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Peter Popoff, Jimmy Swaggart, Tim Brooks….or even God Almighty Himself can even conceive. Any word you can conceive will either refer to something or nothing….there is no conceivable alleged third category.

Once you understand what OBJECTS and CONCEPTS are, this is a piece of cake:

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

“WLC states that he does not have to prove whether these attributes are true or not”

Irrelevant! What is “Proof of TRUTH” to you….is obviously “Proof of a LIE” to your neighbor.

Whatever “Proof of TRUTH” my neighbor has that I had sexual relations with his wife….her and I have “Proof of TRUTH” that we didn’t. Whom shall the audience believe? Us or her husband? How do we decide who has the REAL “Proof of TRUTH”?? Do we flip a coin? Do we use a Ouija Board? Do we ask a Levitating Guru? Do we ask President Obama to make a public decision on the matter? Should we ask Stephen Hawking who is so in-touch with the Universe since he has already travelled inside black holes?

Q: How do you think we should settle the issue of everyone and their farting aunt having Proofs and Truths coming out of their butts? How do we decide who has the REAL proof???

Sammy…..Proof & truth are OPINIONS that human apes pull out of their butts in order to impress the slow-witted gawking pushovers who can’t even think or reason the ultra-basics for themselves…..about 99% of the population of human apes on this planet!

“[WLC]… he argues (through a cosmology argument for one) that God by this definition must necessarily exist.”

I have already taken good care of my dear friend, William Lane Craig:

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


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 3 years ago

Hi Fatfist. Around a year or so ago I asked a couple of questions above about ropes. Some fundamental stuff that I've since found has been asked a lot. You suggested I "See Bill’s hubpages articles. They are self-explanatory." Thanks for that.

I've been on holidays since Xmas so I've had some time to check things out in more detail. I did go for a much better look at his hubs, his site and his youtube videos and comments sections but I can't find anywhere where he explains any of this fundamental stuff regarding rope entanglement, rigidity etc. Whenever I see someone ask about these things he offers this little gem: "It is beyond the scope of the internet" and asks us to buy his book. What?! So it can be printed in a book but is "beyond the scope of the internet"?

I've googled those who did buy his book and they reckon he doesn't even come close to adequately dealing with these issues in the book either.

Me: “Are they made of something continuous, something solid?"

Fatfist: "Yes, they are continuous in the sense that they are not made of parts."

The question of how they can pass through each other aside, how can they torque like a normal rope made of parts if they are solid and continuous? I can't find Bill explaining this anywhere either and it doesn't make any sense to a layman like me. If his ropes are not rigid then they must be a relationship between objects - a concept!

Best regards.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Spastic,

“The question of how they can pass through each other aside, how can they torque like a normal rope made of parts if they are solid and continuous?”

We are talking about the fundamental unit of matter here! We are not talking about a rope you buy from your hardware store that is made up of parts (i.e. molecules, atoms, etc.). That rope can indeed be separated into parts. The fundamental unit of matter is necessarily indivisible in the sense that parts cannot be removed from it.

Why?

Because it if wasn’t, then it would not be ‘THE’ fundamental unit of matter.

So this is the Hypothesis stage of our Scientific Method. EM Rope = hypothesis.

The ropes are perpetually under tension between their atoms. In this sense, the ropes are not bending or “sagging” between atoms.

The ropes "cutting through each other” is the statement of the facts in the Hypothesis. Take two lasers and cross their beams. Something certainly went through each other. The question is what? Was it a bunch of discrete photon balls or an extended entity like a rope? There is no other option…..so which is it? Which one will you pick for your Hypothesis on light?

Light is necessarily mediated by an EXTENDED entity. Extended fundamental entities necessarily pass through each other. There is no other option.

The fundamental unit of matter, the thread, is unlike the matter we experience in the macro world. Even the EM rope is not like the rope from your hardware store. An atom does not behave like your ball of yarn. In the same sense, Bohr’s planetary atomic model does not behave like a solar system with the Sun being the nucleus. And this stuff is discussed in the book.

As for torqueing the EM rope to send an EM-wave torsion signal as light… it is the atom which Quantum Jumps and necessarily torques the dna-like twined rope.

“I can't find Bill explaining this anywhere”

Is it reasonable to expect an author to give away his whole book for free? I mean, it only costs $17…as much as a decent lunch. You won't find a cheaper Science book anywhere in the Universe.


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 3 years ago

Thanks Fatfist, I get all that but it still doesn't really address what I'm getting at.

If a rope torques it necessarily means the link length will change - which means the rope must be 'elastic'. The only way we can currently understand elasticity (for lack of a better word) is that the material is necessarily made of parts. If Bill says a rope can be fundamentally continuous and solid yet still elastic then he must explain how, in detail, without committing the same sins he accuses the 'establishment' of. It is utterly unacceptable to sweep a make-or-break issue under the carpet by simply saying "the rope is not like everyday rope". That's as unscientific as it gets.

When I was a child I asked my Sunday School teacher how angel's wings worked in the vacuum of space. He answered "Angel's wings are not like everyday bird's wings. End of story!" He spanked my bottom - albeit slowly come to think of it - and sent me on my way.

"Is it reasonable to expect an author to give away his whole book for free?"

That's up to him. But I've already said there are others who have bought the book who all say he does NOT adequately deal with these make-or-break issues. That's only one of many red flags that have put me off of sending him money.

"As for torqueing the EM rope to send an EM-wave torsion signal as light… it is the atom which Quantum Jumps and necessarily torques the dna-like twined rope."

Thanks but unfortunately I don't know what 'quantum jump' means. I've read a bit about it but it sounds kinda freaky to me. Interesting but freaky. I thought Bill hated anything 'quantum'?

Cheers.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

"there are others who have bought the book who all say he does NOT adequately deal with these make-or-break issues. That's only one of many red flags that have put me off of sending him money."

You gonna let others decide for you what's worth your money? Are you waiting for the New York Times to put WDGE on the Best Selling list? Surely, you can read, and think for yourself.

What if Fatfist doesn't know what he's talking about? Or, is he your authority now?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Spastic,

“If a rope torques it necessarily means the link length will change - which means the rope must be 'elastic'.”

No, it only means that the rope can bend. That’s the only conclusion you can draw. You cannot conclude elasticity/stretching at this point unless YOU understand the implications of bending and incorporate them into your hypothesis to account matter and the phenomena mediated by matter, like gravitational attraction. People always like to jump into conclusions without understanding the basics. Hence all the strawman attacks on the Rope Hypothesis by those who cannot think beyond discrete particles…..which are impossible btw.

“elasticity (for lack of a better word) is that the material is necessarily made of parts.”

Yes, that’s the only way an entity can stretch. It HAS to be made of DISCRETE (i.e. standalone disconnected) parts! Its parts have to shift location as the entity gets thinner until it breaks. Your ‘elasticity’ proposal necessitates that matter is comprised of discrete entities. So, let’s take YOUR elasticity hypothesis at face value. Your implication is that those parts are made of parts….and those parts are made of parts…and those parts are made of parts…..ad infinitum. I mean, they HAVE TO be made of discrete parts otherwise, according to YOU, they cannot “elastically bend”. Is this what you are proposing, an ‘infinitely’ divisible discrete medium?

Elasticity means that:

1. Matter is made of infinitely discrete constituent parts. This is impossible. There are no ‘infinities’ in nature. Infinity is an irrational concept invented by man.

2. Matter is comprised of DISCRETE entities. This is impossible as gravitational attraction can only be mediated by necessarily non-discrete, interconnected; i.e. EXTENDED entities. Discrete entities have absolutely no mechanism to attract each other and form galaxies, stars, planets, DNA, cells, plants, animals, etc.

3. More and more of these discrete elastic parts MUST be produced from the void and magically assemble into matter in order to fuel the stretching matter, otherwise the elastic matter can break and be forever disconnected. Creation of matter from the void is impossible.

He who proposes ‘elasticity’ in matter has to solve at minimum these 3 issues, among many others. But it cannot be done because elasticity implies discreteness in matter which makes gravitation and light impossible.

With the Rope Hypothesis, breaking does not mean “breaking into discrete parts”, as this is IMPOSSIBLE. A seemingly broken or disconnected entity has only separated contact with its molecules and atoms. But the atoms are still interconnected with all other atoms in the Universe. The EM rope cannot be cut, and obviously, cannot stretch (i.e. be elastic). The thread is made out of a SINGLE piece we call the FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF MATTER….not of discrete parts. Do you understand what this means? It means that it is irreducible…..cannot be cut into discrete parts. Therefore, it is impossible for it to be elastic and stretch.

"Angel's wings are not like everyday bird's wings. End of story!"

This is not an argument. You are arguing that matter MUST necessarily be elastic which implies discreteness. And yet, discrete entities are IMPOSSIBLE in reality….ergo, elastic entities are impossible in reality. Do you understand how you have answered your OWN question? You don’t see the contradictory circularity in your argument?

I mean….if you cannot see the impossibility of your proposal of DISCRETE entities and hence, why matter must necessarily be made out of a single piece….then you really don’t understand your argument.

You haven’t taken your assumption of ‘elasticity’ and applied it to reality and phenomena like gravity and light. That’s why you’ve jumped into irrational conclusions…..just like your buddies did….which btw are SCARED to raise these issues in our forum because they run for the hills when we showcase the contradictions in their proposals.

“I've already said there are others who have bought the book who all say he does NOT adequately deal with these make-or-break issues.”

That can be said of ALL the books in print. Others have bought books on how to change the spark plugs in their car and couldn’t do it. So because they didn’t understand the book and couldn’t change the spark plugs, the reasoning and procedure in the book is faulty, huh? This is your argument, right?

“Thanks but unfortunately I don't know what 'quantum jump' means.”

Sounds like you need to start from the basics then…..


Spastic Ink 3 years ago

monkeyminds, read my post again. Especially this part: "That's only one of many red flags that have put me off of sending him money."


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Spastic Ink: Read my post again:

What if Fatfist doesn't know what he's talking about? Or, is he your authority now?


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 3 years ago

Fatfist,

"No, it only means that the rope can bend."

Sure, we can go with that. It still leaves us with the same problem. How can the link lengths in Bill's continuous, solid ropes change?

"People always like to jump into conclusions without understanding the basics."

That wouldn't be a problem if Bill could explain those basics. But he doesn't. Not on the web (it's "beyond the scope of the internet") nor in his book apparently.

"Is this what you are proposing, an ‘infinitely’ divisible discrete medium?"

Nope. I'm asking, primarily, how the link lengths in Bill's continuous, solid ropes can change?

"That can be said of ALL the books in print. Others have bought books on how to change the spark plugs in their car and couldn’t do it. So because they didn’t understand the book and couldn’t change the spark plugs, the reasoning and procedure in the book is faulty, huh? This is your argument, right?"

Nope. Read what I told monkey.

Cheers.


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 3 years ago

monkey,

"What if Fatfist doesn't know what he's talking about? Or, is he your authority now?"

And you ask that of everyone who posts here monkey?


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 3 years ago

How can something solid and continuous bend?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

No, Spastic Colon, maybe before you post something stupid like that, you should...IDK read the thread first.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Spastic,

“It still leaves us with the same problem. How can the link lengths in Bill's continuous, solid ropes change?”

If the threads twine to form a rope, it goes without saying it has link lengths which can simulate Maxwell’s equation: c = freq x wavelength whenever atoms quantum jump and reel rope in and out. Atoms are in perpetual motion.

“That wouldn't be a problem if Bill could explain those basics. But he doesn't. Not on the web (it's "beyond the scope of the internet") nor in his book apparently.”

The problem is that North Americans have approx. 1% literacy rate and even less comprehension rate. No wonder they don’t understand anything beyond God, Jesus, the flag and terrorists. All this stuff is explained in the book, in his videos and in his discussion groups. There is no excuse for not understanding the basics of Physics, and then attempting to engage a discussion in Physics.

“I'm asking, primarily, how the link lengths in Bill's continuous, solid ropes can change?”

Get a simple 2 strand twined rope. Hold one end while your girlfriend holds the other. Now pretend you are an atom and simulate a quantum jump by pulling on the 2 strands. You will notice the link lengths got shorter. Now release….you will notice the link lengths got longer. Basic stuff.

“Nope. Read what I told monkey.”

I will repeat again because you cannot seem to grasp a simple argument:

****That can be said of ALL the books in print. Others have bought books on how to change the spark plugs in their car and couldn’t do it. So because they didn’t understand the book and couldn’t change the spark plugs, the reasoning and procedure in the book is faulty, huh?****

I can find tons of folks who cannot grasp the basic stuff presented to them in books….even recipe books on how to make a simple cake or even how to boil an egg for Christ’s sake! Such folks are easy to find in North America….just come and visit my neighborhood if you want “proof”. Society is filled with brainless nimwits. I am shocked that you find this surprizing....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“How can something solid and continuous bend?”

Grab anything between your hands and bend it. If you can’t, then you need to go to the gym.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Suggest something solid and continuous and I'll give it a try.”

Anything! All matter is non-discrete. In fact, you cannot conceive of or demonstrate ANY object in the Universe that is comprised of DISCRETE PARTS. This is the litmus test that makes or breaks these types of irrational proposals.

I get a similar argument from Creationists who assert matter can be created, but cannot conceive of a single object that can be created…and yet….they want me to prove that matter is eternal.

This is not an issue of proof. This is a conceptual issue.

“you seem to be clued in to Bill's work.”

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Bill, Tom, Dick or Mary. Nobody gives a shit what Bill says about this. I don’t understand why you are so obsessed over Bill. May he struck a sensitive nerve. Regardless….this has to do with either of 2 options:

1) Matter is discrete.

2) Matter is non-discrete (i.e. continuous one piece).

There is no other option….nada…zip! Please pick one and justify your case. All the idiots of Mathematics avoid this choice and run for the hills….poor bastards.

“If the link length shortens then the 'stuff' of the convex side MUST stretch and the 'stuff' of the concave side MUST compress! “

There is no “stuff” to stretch or compress in matter. This is the flaw in your reasoning.

You are attempting to “prove” your case using macro world objects comprised of the fundamental unit of matter. This is your flaw. You are essentially using TRUTH to prove that there is TRUTH (i.e. it is 'true' that there is 'truth'). These are classical begging the question arguments. You are arguing that since you can bend a rod (i.e. a macro object) with your hands, you have STRETCHED the atoms from one end of the bend and COMPRESSED the atoms on the opposite end…..until there is no more give and the rod eventually breaks.

You show the rod to the audience and now you have allegedly PROVEN to those gawking pushovers that matter (i.e. atoms) can actually bend. This is your argument! But the only thing you’ve managed to do with this experiment is to make a damn fool out of yourself. In fact, you didn’t BEND nor STRETCH nor COMPRESS anything. You’ve just performed an illusion for the audience and for yourself. You’ve only managed to fool a bunch of idiots!

What seemed to be the visual bending, stretching and compressing of the rod was actually the shifting of atoms from one location to another. You bent squat! You cannot STRETCH or COMPRESS atoms. What seems to be “stretching” is actually nothing more than the redistribution of molecules and atoms in a different configuration. There is NO bending or stretching in what comprises that rod. Matter (i.e. atoms) cannot bend, stretch or compress…..impossible! Please tell me you understand this much. Only the FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF MATTER (i.e. Thread) can bend as outlined in the Hypothesis of the ‘Thread’ and ultimately, the formation of the ‘atom’. If you disagree, then please show the audience the model of the atom you are invoking to base your assertions of bending, stretching and compressing. Which is the REAL atom as taught by the Priest in your Church?

1. Thomson Plum Pudding (berries)

2. Rutherford Planetary Bead

3. Bohr Planetary Bead

4. Sommerfield’s Wavon which incorporates Relativity

5. DeBroglie's Ribbon

6. Schrödinger Wave

7. Born's Electron Cloud

8. Lewis Shell

Will the REAL atom please stand up?

I didn’t see it stand up. Hellooooooo atom….are you there????

The real atom is nowhere to be found in the above 8 options!

What you have missed in this thought experiment…..is that the rod cannot be broken into discrete parts. The two seemingly broken (or disconnected) parts of the rod are perpetually attracting each other gravitationally because they are necessarily connected at the atomic level via their extended mediators comprised of the fundamental unit of matter. In fact, with this thought experiment you have candidly argued that the fundamental unit of matter can indeed bend WITHOUT stretching because atoms are comprised of extended mediators. Think about it.

Again, this is not an issue of proof. This is a conceptual issue. You have to provide an argument that eliminates one of the 2 cases above. You haven’t. In fact, there are tons of arguments eliminating the proposal of discrete matter…..so you are really stuck in your irrationality.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Spastic,

" I've already said there are others who have bought the book who all say he does NOT adequately deal with these make-or-break issues."

I bet that if I give these assclowns a recipe book on how to make a simple boiled egg they would fall flat on their feces...err....I mean, faces.

How come none of these idiots can come here and look at the audience straight in the eye and tell us which one of the 8 atoms above is the true blue real atom?

Why?

Huh?

Of course, these assclowns can only whine and bellyache for the purposes of diverting attention away from their own ignorance and utter stupidity.

If any Mathematician on this planet can come here and justify any of those 8 atoms above, I promise to paypal him $10,000. How about that? I am on the record!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

And when you come back, you had better tell the audience which one of the above 8 DISCRETE atoms YOUR Priest uses to explain how he bends his rod, ok?

If you can do this, I have $10,000 USD in PayPal cash ready to be transferred to your account! If you can't, then you don't have to pay me anything....just admit that you are an idiot is all I ask, ok?

Don't run away and show up a year or two later and post the same bellyaching nonsense again in the hopes that people forgot about this conversation.....like all the other COWARDS do who post here, ok? These tricks don't work with the Fist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

$10,000 in cold hard $cash$ are getting cold and lonely. They need a new home. Will the real atom please stand up and adopt the homeless cash?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 3 years ago from Heaven

http://news.yahoo.com/higgs-boson-particle-may-spe...

Fatfist is this truth, I fear for my life please explain it to me.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

I'm not gonna repeat the same arguments, Spastic. If you wanna have a discussion, you gotta answer the questions I have asked you, just like I have answered your questions for the past 2 weeks, ok? You still haven't answered a single question I've been asking you. I don't play these games. If you wanna troll, go troll somewhere else.


ThatGuy 3 years ago

What you found in Numbers and Jobs is an interpretation.

Cause what you see is a God who is sitting in the skies and thats what you assume from what you read. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Physics tells us that everything that is physical has a beginning. The Bible teaches that God do not have a beginning. So God is not physical and God is not controlled by what we know as time. God can take human from and did it as Jesus and when he met up with Abraham. In Revelations John talks about seeing God feeling God. So we must assume as mere mortals that in heaven God must feel and look physical. So what Job and Moses saw as God's form was just... well.. the only way they could explain what God showed them.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

@ThatBrainWasher

“What you found in Numbers and Jobs is an interpretation.”

Indeed, I’m glad you agree in what you’ve found in the whole Bible is an interpretation. +1

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Agreed….since you eliminated for us that it is impossible for the Bible to not be an interpretation, it is TRUTH that what remains is a PURE interpretation. +1

So far so good….look at you….you got 2 points!

ThatBrainWasher : “The Bible teaches that God do not have a beginning.”

ThatBrainWasher: “what you’ve found in the whole Bible is an interpretation”

You just contradicted yourself, BrainWasher. That’s a -1 point for you buddy! Sorry to be so harsh, but all children must be punished accordingly….that’s the ONLY way you can love them, my child.

Proverbs 13:24: Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Ephesians 6:4: Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

You current tally: 2 – 1 = 1

Be careful, don’t shame yourself before God.

“Physics tells us that everything that is physical has a beginning.”

You should ask your parents to enroll you in Grade 9 Grammar and Physics courses. You will learn that physical ‘things’ (i.e. objects) do not have a beginning. Only processes (i.e. verbs), like running, jumping, eating, farting, etc. can have a beginning and an end. Objects like stars and planets don’t. There is no micro-second tick of a clock when a non-planet all of a sudden BEGINS to be a planet….nor is there a specific time when a planet ENDS being a planet. Did you learn about clocks and time in school?

“God is not physical”

You should check your vision or eye-glass prescription…..I know life is fast-paced, people work, have fun, laugh it up, get drunk, sleep with their neighbor’s wife, etc….and end up neglecting their eyes. When your eye specialist gives you a clean bill of health, here’s what you will see:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-12-17-Imageo...

NOTE: Only click the above link AFTER you get your eyes checked out by a specialist. Only then will you see what the rest of humanity sees: a PHYSICAL God; i.e. an OBJECT, not a concept.

“ In Revelations John talks about seeing God feeling God. So we must assume as mere mortals that in heaven God must feel and look physical. So what Job and Moses saw as God's form was just... well.. the only way they could explain what God showed them.”

All interpretations, as proven by YOU earlier ^^^^. You just CONTRADICTED yourself again!!!!

That’s ANOTHER -1 point for you buddy! Sorry to be so harsh, but all children must be punished accordingly….that’s the ONLY way you can love them, my child.

Your final tally: 2 – 2 = 0

CONCLUSION: You’ve shamed yourself before God and said absolutely NOTHING!


Ricardius profile image

Ricardius 3 years ago

ThatBrainWasher, You just got the FIST! Now go my child and educate yourself on reality and existence!


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 3 years ago

Deleting my comments now fatfist? After all your chest beating about people being "SCARED" to post here you prove yourself the ultimate hypocrite as soon as I bring on the heat and ask you the questions that make-or-break your argument. I notice you're still avoiding the issue.

As for this "troll" nonsense - humbug! Any of your readers who've read my previous comments can see I am civil.

I openly challenge you to un-delete my post and deal with my question. What are you afraid of? I'm not. Perhaps I'll just post it elsewhere and you can come and defend yourself there, if you're not too "SCARED", that is. Up to you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Spastic,

“Deleting my comments now fatfist?”

It took you a month to wake out of your coma? Back for more? Here then, please answer my previous question posed to you about which of the 8 Mathematical versions of the atom is the REAL atom. Then please define the term BEND in your Hypothesis and tell the audience how this term applies to a rod of matter comprised of YOUR Hypothesized version of the atom. I don't wanna put any words in your mouth. I wanna hear it from you.

I’m not gonna play your games and keep repeating myself.

22:15 KJV - Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

“After all your chest beating about people being "SCARED" to post”

Then stop beating your chest and POST. What are you waiting for? Where is your answer to the question I keep asking? This is all you need to tell me right now. One step at a time.

“I am civil”

That’s good to hear. Now, lets be civil by addressing the claim you initially raised about matter bending. Before you bend anything, please tell us what the real atom looks like and what the term “bend” means according to YOUR version of the atom. Then we can compare notes.

You can’t get more civil than that.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Spastic,

If you don't wanna answer my question, that's fine. I'm not here to force anyone to do anything. But then you can't come here complaining that I hurt your butt. In case you have trouble comprehending….let me remind you what issue you raised and the claims you made:

1) You said that matter is comprised of discrete particles.

2) You said that matter can bend, even though you haven’t defined the term BEND to apply to your proposal of discrete particles.

3) You stealthily attempted to apply this undefined term BEND to my proposal of non-discrete matter. That’s when the Fist slapped your wrist quite hard….you didn’t like that….it upset you very much.

4) I asked you to tell us which one of the mainstream’s most popular 8 versions of the atom is the atom that YOU are invoking in your claims. And I asked you several times. You conveniently refused to answer my question pertaining to YOUR claim.

5) You stated how much you hate me, …..how much you despise me, ……how vile I am…..how sick I make you,…blah blah…etc…etc. Nobody gives a rat’s ass about feminine emotions. These pathetic diversion tactics will be deleted like they are everywhere else. You need to stick to the topic: your CLAIM of discrete matter that BENDS. Nobody cares about your emotional rants of how much you’ve been butthurt from me. Save that for your shrink. Here we talk about your Scientific claims. Don’t sidetrack or raise any other issue until this one is settled. My job is to deal with YOUR claim until the issue is settled.

6) Did you comprehend steps 1 to 5? Shall I repeat them again….perhaps s-l-o-w-l-y this time? How many times do I need to repeat myself? I don’t know how else to communicate with you…..perhaps using Cherokee smoke signals?

Maybe you know someone more qualified to answer my question. If so, feel free to invite him here. And btw, saying “I don’t know” earns people tons of respect instead using feminine diversion tactics.

Spastic, like I said, you don’t need to answer any of my questions. Just say “No thank you, stupid fathead!”….and be done with it. I don’t want to embarrass anyone by ripping their claim apart. And I certainly don’t want folks to have sooooooooo much hatred towards me that they can’t sleep at night or have a normal life. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to come here and deal with someone you despise so much…..someone who turns your insides out.

But people who troll without justifying their claims will be dealt with accordingly. They need to address their CLAIMS. Their irrelevant garbage diversion attempts will be DELETED. Spanking is good for the soul….it drives evil away from the foolish heart of a child! There is lots of good to be had from the Bible, so let’s not dismiss it entirely.


Spastic Ink 3 years ago

I'm hearing a lot of your usual diversional white noise here and I can see I've got your panties in a twist.

Sure, we'll continue on when you man-up and un-delete my post.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Spastic,

“I'm hearing a lot of your usual diversional white noise”

That’s what happens when you are too SCARED to answer this simple question which DESTROYS YOUR RELIGION: Which of the mainstream’s 8 recently popular versions of the atom is the one YOU invoke…..AND…..define your term BEND in reference to matter comprised of YOUR atom.

This is the initial issue you raised…..I asked you showcase YOUR atom…..but you’ve been doing your best to divert and dance around the issue for over 2 months now.

This question will NEVER go away. It will be a thorn by your side until you answer it. Your irrelevant trolling garbage will be deleted. Yeah, please CRY that your DIVINE refutation to my article was censored. These girly rape-victim tactics are a dime a dozen. Divert all you want…..you are just raising your anxiety and making yourself ill. Not even a shrink can help you out in your current condition. Your sleepless nights are my reward! Feel free to join all the other mental patients who refuse to answer questions that destroy their Religion. It’s fun watching you cower in FEAR.

You’ve shot yourself in the face and now you troll here for emotional therapy like all the other nutcases who are mentally affected by my articles. How sweet is that?


Redact 3 years ago

I agree with your conclusion that God as a creator cannot exist. The reasoning behind it is valid as far as it goes, in my view. You wrote "Realistically, the term “God” (like any other term in human language) resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category." However, I would point out that there is a third option, one which is important to know and to analyse, which is no small task. It was known through the ages in Eastern religion and philosophy, namely, that the creative force is consciousness, not an object nor just a concept. According to the Vedantists, for example, the cosmos arises from 'eternal Consciousness' ('satchitananda' or being-consciousness-bliss), which creates perceived reality as a vast multitude of insubstantial forms (also echoed in Plato's theory of forms or 'eidos'). Reality as perceived is, according to this, empty of substance, which is a perceived illusion (Maya). This is the basis of all theories of mentalism (i.e. the cosmos is mind, not matter - where mind refers to consciousness). The theology which supports this best is known as 'advaita' or 'total non-dualism' and is in fact entirely a speculative and non-scientific theory, of course, being based on subjectivity (and 'explaining away' the possibility of any objectivity). The many variants of mentalism (such as that of Adi Shankara, Paul Brunton, Nisargadatta etc.) can be extremely sophisticated - not that this makes them true, of course. They require a great deal of ingenuity to disprove. The following 'Critical reflections on Advaita Vedanta' may be of interest: http://robertcpriddy.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.p...

and in more detail: "God is in everything - in everyone - all is divine as a circular 'spiritual teaching'. " http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/25/everything.html


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 3 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

"there is a third option... consciousness, not an object nor just a concept."

Consciousness is brain activity, it is a relation between the atoms of a brain that evokes motion. Consciousness requires motion and only objects can move. Considering this, consciousness is but a mere dynamic concept and not a third category. I can't even say "nice try".


anonymous 3 years ago

You know what, fatfist (or should I say "fathead")? You're a big fat shallow liar who claims that God doesn't exist because you can't get past physical sense. Haven't you learned that seeing isn't always believing?

It's your choice if you want to be an atheist. But to force others into thinking like you is wrong.

Oh sure, you think that science can solve everything.But guess what? It can't!

And don't try claiming that you're the most logical person on Earth. If you think that you know everything, think again. No one knows everything.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Wow Analmouse, way to miss the boat, the pier and the water!

Exist has nothing to do with believing.

Fattie is NOT an Atheist.

Science doesn't solve anything. The intellect conceives and the rational mind explains phenomena with objects. Then each individual can decide for themselves: possible or not?

Logic is a man made system. One simply follows the premises to it's prefabbed conclusion.

No one 'knows' anything.

Next time, try reading through some of the Fist's material before posting ill-informed rants.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Hey anony....you forgot another possibility in your worthless rant. That I HATE God!! How could you miss that one? It would at least put more weight behind your argument than that other BS you posted.

I mean, I did hate my high school teacher when she refused my sexual advances back in the day. She was a hot milf. But after I hated her....she ceased to exist! Perhaps this is the killer argument you really wanted to present about God and against my article, huh?

You are such a simpleton, anony. Governments love sheep like you!


My amens 2 years ago

Yo fatfist. I get everything you are saying. But how do you disprove Jesus dying on a cross and then on the third day he reappears to over 500 people? (During the early church Christians were considered Atheist. A-theist)


Eferg 2 years ago

I just can't believe someone was trying to argue that air is not an object because it isn't tangible. Tangible means perceptible to touch. Blow on your arm you can feel air.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

David Copperfield does much better tricks, 'My amens'. Even the iPhone can do better tricks than cheesy Jezzus.


My amens 2 years ago

So you believe he actually did die and rose again. @fatfist


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

You didn't comprehend what I wrote, my amens....it was a trick. Even animals play dead and come back to life, like goats, dogs, cats, birds, ants, etc. So if some hippy played dead for a bunch of idiots 2000 years ago....and was able to convince them it was real....it just goes to show you that people are no smarter today. Besides, there were hundreds of hippies back then who did these popular tricks.....and yes, they all called themselves the Messiah. You need to expand your knowledge base and make it more "worldly".

Hope you didn't have trouble comprehending that, my amens. Autism is indeed an epidemic today, but this stuff ain't rocket science.


edcat 2 years ago

I got tired of reading this, but figured that anyone who reads all the way to the end might as well see some sense. I am an agnostic meaning since you oddly require definitions and then disregard them that I do not claim to know whether or not God exists.

The reason we use definitions from dictionaries is because people created words and have subjective interpretations of words. If you intend to disregard the dictionary definitions of words you need to create your own definitions of words which will be impossible without using previously defined words. We have to cave to the conventions and traditions of our language in order to communicate because that is the only way to understand each other.

The statements that God does not exist and that it is impossible for God to exist are claims. This is because they are assertions of the truth of something that is in doubt. These statements are in doubt because people like me doubt them. Hence, they are claims and will remain so until you or someone else proves them to the satisfaction of your entire audience which you appear to have made people on the internet since that is who your statements are open to.

If I used words that you have not yet invented scientific definitions for yet I am sorry. I tried to limit my vocabulary to the kinds of words that you seem to understand based on your post. I have however almost certainly failed because it is very easy to overwhelm the vocabulary of someone who is strangely convinced that word's meanings must be scientifically proved and have an absolute definition that can be reached.


My amens 2 years ago

@fatfist The Romans were very skilled at killing people. They loved to invent ways to kill men. A large gathering of people watched a rabbi get crucified and they all saw what the Romans did to him. He was beaten, with Cat O' Nine tails, and the amount of blood he lost caused him to go in hypovolemic shock. This causes water to gather around the lungs and the heart. So when the soldier pierced Jesus and water flowed out of the wound it's safe to say he death was upon him. Also when your are being hung on a cross it is very difficult to breath.


Anne Curtis 2 years ago

Thank you for the explanation to why God does not exist. I'm not so good with words these days. So I'm very happy to find that I'm not a complete idiot believing that God does not exist. I believe in Jesus because he was a man who people followed. Mind you if he were to reappear today he would most definitely receive the same treatment. God however is nothing but a figment of these believers imagination. It's a great way for them to do all sorts if bad wrong things knowing and believing that God will forgive them. I try to live my life as a reasonably good person but I'm not perfect I make mistakes like everyone does. If you believe in God you might as well worship the sun. We can see it and feel it and it gives us so much. Nuff said. x


sekharpal 2 years ago

I have one question: is the universe an object, or a concept?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

All terms in all languages will either resolve to an object or a concept….there is no other option.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relation between objects

Universe: a concept that embodies matter and space.

Although the Universe is a noun for the purposes of grammar, it cannot be treated as a noun in the course of a scientific presentation. It is not a noun of Reality. There is no object you can illustrate or imagine that can be called “Universe”.

An atom can certainly move wrt another one. But when space or “the Universe” starts moving or expanding,…OMG, watch out...Jezus Christ….either you had too much to drink, your are high on drugs, or your wife hit you over the head with a frying pan.


joe cakes 2 years ago

Someone needs a hug from god!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Someone needs to ask God or the Wizard of Oz for a brain.


sekharpal 2 years ago

"Universe: a concept that embodies matter and space."

If the universe is a concept, and not an object, then can it be said that it exists?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Of course the Universe doesn't exist! What sense does it make to say that a concept such as love, justice, surfing, Universe, etc...exists? Only in Religion do Priests claim that concepts exists.

A Scientist defines the terms that make or break his argument....

Exist: object having location

object: that which has shape

location: the set of distances to all other objects

An object MUST have shape. If an object wants to 'exist', it MUST have location in addition. If a term does not meet and resolve these 2 requirements, then that term cannot be said to resolve to "something" that exists.

These definitions are Scientific NOT because I say so....they are Scientific because they are objective and can be used consistently in Physics. They are impossible to contradict.

This is how we do things in Science....we "MAN UP" and define our terms. We aren't little "sissies" who whine and hide under our momma's dresses so we don't get put in the spotlight to justify our terms and our arguments because we are scared the audience will see thru our bull$hit.


sekharpal 2 years ago

May I ask some more questions? This is because I want to learn. If the universe does not exist, then does it mean that it is not there at all? But if it is not there at all, then how does it embody matter and space?

Maybe these are all foolish questions, but I will have to clear my doubts.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“If the universe does not exist, then does it mean that it is not there at all?”

sek, you ask these basic questions because you still don’t understand the difference between an object and a concept. You still don’t know whether Bertrand Russell was a mystic or a rational thinker…..whether Mickey Mouse exists or not…….whether a spirit or a soul is an object or a concept……whether a shadow or an effect is an object or a concept.

You cannot continue living like this……believing in Gods, ghosts, goblins, wizards, the unexpected and being scared to live your life in peace with reality.

The term Universe is a concept. Concepts don’t exist, only objects may exist IF they have location. There are only objects in reality: stars, planets, comets, humans, trees, etc.

There are no CONCEPTS in reality, like time, mass, energy, force, field, charge, warped space, spacetime, 0D particle, black hole, singularity, Big Bang, dark matter, photons, electrons, gravitons, phonons, tachyons, chronons, solitons, muons, pions, Higgs, Bosons, Bozos, neutrinos, 1D strings, etc.

If you don’t understand the reason why…..then how can you possibly look at yourself in the mirror and say that you live in reality? Anyway….join our facebook group “Rational Scientific Method” if you need further understanding and start asking questions.


Mackwho 2 years ago

Well since I got no response on my previous page I thought I would again ask you this, howndonexplain these miracles if there is no God?

http://freebrownscapular.com/brown_scapular_miracl...

http://www.michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com

Because when it comes down to it these were not random occurrences God intervened in them!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"howndonexplain these miracles if there is no God?"

The existence of God is not a matter of IF or of belief/faith or of remote possibility. It is impossible for God to exist as rationally explained in this article.

Having said that.....anyone who thinks that the clouds, the blue sky and flying birds are miracles, obviously hasn't made it past high school or wasn't paying attention in class or playing hooky. These are elementary questions of Science which are extremely easy to answer. We are not here to play 20 questions.....you can easily educate yourself just like anyone else. This discussion is about the existence of God. Stay in context please.


Travis 2 years ago

WOW. This is a really poor attempt at disproving the existence of God. You're using physical laws in most of your arguments, like when you say that God has to be a static distance between God and your nose. This is your biggest (and definitely not your only) mistake. What you have to understand is that God (the God of the Bible, my God) is outside of space, time, matter, etc. He created these things, and is infinitely bigger than them and what they represent. You cannot disprove his existence with laws that He created for the physical realm in which we live (there is spiritual realm, most people cannot sense it). He is outside of this universe, but also permeates every part of it. The scriptures you referred to in your argument that God has a specific form were only instances in which God chose to take a form or at least create a form of some sort to communicate with humans. The truth is that He is formless as far as we can understand His"form". Let me explain. Everything that we can sense with the senses He gave us came from Him and is being kept in existence and held together by Him. He is present in everything. This article is like the worm in the apple trying to deny the existence of the tree. You're trying to use your human understanding of physical laws (which, frankly, seems to be very limited in the first place) to disprove truths that involve but are completely beyond the physical, and must take into consideration spiritual truths (existence in its entirety). You made other mistakes but I think this covers the majority of them. My advice to you: visit a church, ask for a Bible, pray for forgiveness. If you need help or advice I'd be glad to help. May God bless you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Travis, did you buy your crack cocaine from a street dealer? You were fooled...it wasn't pure. No amount of pure crack cocaine can make anyone spew such nonsense and contradictions as you did in that post.

When you sober up you can try to actually read the article instead of just the title. And while you're at it....read the comments as all your garbage has been beaten to death before.

Smoke responsibly and only buy from reputable sources.


Travis 2 years ago

Is that your rebuttal? I thought so. Next time you write an article like this make sure you at least have a basic understanding of the topic and the concepts involved. Do some research, and don't accuse someone of cocaine abuse just because you get smoked in the comment section.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"Is that your rebuttal? "

I was gonna say the same about your first post here. But then I realized that it couldn't possibly be a rebuttal because you didn't even read the article. For if you did, you would address the issue presented by the article which you see as contradictory and show your refutation. Instead, you go off in a cocaine-induced rant about Religious irrelevancies in an attempt to pretend you said something. You said nothing!

If you wish to talk about your BELIEFS, go talk to some Atheists. Those Bimbos have even MORE beliefs than you.

If you wish to talk objectively and rationally about the Physics of God and the creation of space and matter, this is the THE place! But you'd better address the issue presented here and show where the contradiction is without posting irrelevant static. Got it?


Travis 2 years ago

I read the article. It was a complete waste of your time to write it. I already explained why. You cannot prove the existence of a creator using the physical laws of what he created. The minute you even entertain the idea of a creator, you have to acknowledge that He would not be ruled by physical law; HE CREATED IT... I thought I was "addressing the issue presented here"; the existence of God (it's in the title). If "this is the place" to "talk objectively and rationally about the Physics of God" then I suggest you change the title to "The Physics of God". It would cause less confusion among people who are actually serious about discussing Gods existence, not physics, which is completely useless to us. May God bless you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Travis: “creator … the physical laws of what he created”

The term “law” is a concept, not an object. Concepts are CONCEIVED, not created. All concepts are relations between objects. This means that objects MUST exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept, such as a ‘law’. And of course, this is what God did when He conceived of the 10 Commandment Laws!! He related objects in EACH AND EVERY ONE of those 10 laws....go read them again and educate yourself on OBJECTS vs CONCEPTS….it’s all in the Bible.

At BEST you can “claim” that God created objects, like atoms…..but the Almighty is totally handicapped to perform such a magical feat because He cannot convert nothing (no shape) into something (shape). God can only take the pre-existing ETERNAL matter/atoms and build a chair, a table or even a baseball bat and whack you over your empty head with it!

Learn basic English and Grammar skills before coming here to showcase your ignorance,…you pathetic uneducated, unread, unReligious, unworldly, un-God-fearing, un-Bible-read, insignificant Bimbo! And please....lay off that crack pipe so you can talk rationally without contradictions.


Travis 2 years ago

You can insult me all you want. I'll do this all day. I have truth on my side, and rational theological theorizing. I don't want to disparage you, and I especially don't need to insult you. In fact because of God I can forgive you and have nothing but love for you. What I said in my previous posts still stands. I've just started studying theology, but I know enough that I can tell you your argument refuting God's existence is vacuous at best. Basically all of the things you are saying are true, but you are confused as to how they relate to God. The term "law" is a concept; this is true. Concepts are conceived not created; this is true. All concepts are relationships between objects; this is true as well. However "objects must exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept", is a contradictory, redundant statement. I'll go back to the main point of my previous posts. By definition, a creator God must exist before the creation of any object. This is why I believe physics is effectively useless when discussing the existence of God. You say "objects must exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept", I say objects must exist prior to anyone conceiving (proper grammar; lol!) of a concept, but this has nothing to do with God. Also, there is no concrete scientific evidence that matter is eternal. In fact, any real scientist would say that everything points to a beginning (big bang), and that the universe is still expanding. This is what I believe, and in no way does it interfere with my belief in the God of the Bible. I hate to sound like a broken record, but please allow me to restate my thesis a bit more clearly. When discussing a Creator, logic dictates that said Creator would have been in existence before the Creation of any space, matter, objects, concepts etc. Therefore, His existence cannot be proven or refuted using these things, because his existence would not be dependent on them. I guess I could go into more detail but I'm not sure it would make my point any more transparent. The fundamental difference between us is very simple: I'm using theology combined with rational, logical thinking, which is what you need in order to discuss God's existence, while you are not. You're understanding of theology seems to be virtually nonexistent, and until that changes, you will never be able to effectively negate my arguments when I assert that God exists. Anyway I wish you the best and I'll be praying for you. If you want to learn about the existence of God and the theology involved (physics will do very little to help you), Ravi Zacharias is a terrific theologian and public speaker. My offer still stands, if you would like a relationship with God through his Son, Jesus Christ, I would be honored to help you. May God bless you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Travis: “"objects must exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept", is a contradictory”

It is YOU who contradicted yourself by reiterating the above statement Here…

Travis: “I say objects must exist prior to anyone conceiving (proper grammar; lol!) of a concept”

“but this has nothing to do with God”

It has everything to do with God since He can relate objects too….so can a cat, snake, ant, etc. The point is that God must relate objects – i.e. the very objects referenced in the 10 Laws – before He even conceives of these Laws. Pay attention.

“a creator God must exist before the creation of any object”

Now this is a perfect example of a contradictory statement. Objects cannot be created from nothing. Objects can only be ASSEMBLED from pre-existing objects, like atoms, molecules, etc.

Object: that which has shape; synonym: something, thing, entity, particle, etc.

Nothing: that which lacks shape; synonym: space, void, vacuum.

No matter how powerful you claim God to be, the Almighty cannot morph nothing (i.e. no shape) into something (i.e. with shape). There is NO thing there to morph or convert. Morph/convert/create/assemble are VERBS. ALL verbs necessarily require a MINIMUM of 2 objects that already EXIST in order for the verb/action to be mediated by an entity (i.e. God). We learn this in Grammar 101.

So God needs to exist beside matter (i.e. atoms) before He can use matter to assemble a baseball bat to whack you over the head for being so ignorant of the Kindergarten basics!

For example: God all alone in space cannot perform any action (i.e. morph/convert/create/assemble/etc.) on nothing. It is IMPOSSIBLE to perform any action on nothing…..impossible! Matter is eternal.

So the correct statement is: “an assembler God must exist before the assembling of any object”.

Makes perfect sense. An assembler God must exist before he can assemble a barn out of pre-existing matter. We call this assembler God a CARPENTER outside the circles of your church. We have plenty of Gods you can worship on this planet....just choose.


Travis 2 years ago

I can see this isn't going anywhere so we're going to have to agree to disagree. You're whole argument rests on the idea that all matter has always existed and will always exist; this hasn't been proven and is simply not true. The universe had a beginning, and it will have an end, no matter how uncomfortable that makes some scientists/physicists. I could keep on repeating my thesis but it's clear that you don't understand it, or you would have given up by now. I could take each one of your attempts at making a point and tear them apart individually, but I don't have to. All I have to do is point you back to my thesis and you're entire foolish argument is toast, regardless if you comprehend it. You took my statement " a creator God must exist before the creation of any object" completely out of context. It's most certainly not contradictory, you just failed to understand it. Basic theology says that a creator God would have to exist before anything in the universe ever existed. IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD, HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER, SPACE, CONCEPTS ETC., THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE DISPROVED USING ANY OF THESE, BECAUSE HE EXISTED PRIOR TO AND SEPARATE FROM THEM. "No matter how powerful you claim God to be, He cannot morph nothing into something". HA! It's not about how powerful I claim God to be, it's about how powerful God would have to be to be God. But you can't understand this because you're theologically challenged. Physics and its concepts may be able to prove God exists eventually, but they cannot disprove God in any way shape or form. You cannot disprove God until you prove that the universe has always existed, and you can't. Actually it's been proven that it's 13.8 billion years old.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“I can see this isn't going anywhere”

Of course YOU are going nowhere because you contradicted yourself as I explained above. You now realize why creation is IMPOSSIBLE….a minimum of 2 objects are required to mediate verbs/actions like ‘create’. Therefore, it is impossible for God to create anything….only to ASSEMBLE from pre-existing eternal matter. The Universe is eternal. This is reality. You can disagree all you want….nobody gives a rat’s ass about your OPINION on this issue. Reality is rationally explained WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS (and doesn’t give a shit about your opinions) just as I did for you before your very eyes. Now you are SHOCKED!

So now you decide to cower and concede defeat and run like a coward with your tail between your legs. You finally realized you cannot contradict rationality. So take your emotional BS and Religious beliefs and run back to your church…..here we do Physics, not Religion…..here we talk Reality, not Fantasy…..here we JUSTIFY our arguments with critical thinking, not ASSERT them and twist your arm to BELIEVE them. Beliefs are for brain-dead losers!

“IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD, HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER, SPACE”

God is an entity with shape/form as outlined everywhere in the Bible. This is how Theologians hypothesized God as something (an entity) rather than nothing. Read it and weep….sorry it destroys your Religion.

Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

1) As an entity with shape, God is NECESSARILY surrounded by space. Without space, God cannot possibly have form as demanded by the DEFINITION of form. The background of God is space/nothing. Ergo, God did NOT create space. How can God or anybody create nothing? I mean, wtf is there to create? LOL, this is impossible. Nothingness is eternal and surrounds all entities.

2) God did not create matter from His background of nothingness as explained above. Read it again.

Creation is impossible….no Big Bang, no magic, no hocus pocus. The Universe is eternal as explained here and in 10 other articles in my profile. Check them out…..read them and cry rivers!


Travis 2 years ago

IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER SPACE CONCEPTS ETC THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE DISPROVED USING ANY OF THESE BECAUSE HE EXISTED PRIOR TO AND SEPARATE FROM THEM. Whether you can understand it or not that spells checkmate for you bud. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with logic. Case closed.


Travis 2 years ago

And please don't quote scripture when you have no idea what it means its incredibly insulting.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Travis repeats: “IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD, HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER, SPACE….”

God is an entity with shape/form as outlined everywhere in the Bible. This is how Theologians hypothesized God as something (an entity) rather than nothing. Read it and weep….sorry it destroys your Religion.

Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

1) As an entity with shape, God is NECESSARILY surrounded by space. Without space, God cannot possibly have form as demanded by the DEFINITION of form. The background of God is space/nothing. Ergo, God did NOT create space. How can God or anybody create nothing? I mean, wtf is there to create? LOL, this is impossible. Nothingness is eternal and surrounds all entities.

2) God did not create matter from His background of nothingness as explained above. Read it again.

Creation is impossible….no Big Bang, no magic, no hocus pocus. The Universe is eternal as explained here and in 10 other articles in my profile. Check them out…..read them and cry rivers!

And stop repeating claims that have been already CONTRADICTED as shown above. This is spamming! The only reason you spam is because you have NO counter-arguments because it is impossible to contradict my response to you. Repetition and whining is not an argument. If you can contradict what I posted, please do so…..but any further spamming will be purged!

“scripture when you have no idea what it means”

Exactly, you don’t! That’s why you couldn’t respond to the scripture I posted because you haven’t a clue what the term FORM means and why all entities NECESSARILY have form and real entities are surrounded by space. What a turd!


Travis 2 years ago

Just because a claim is contradicted does not mean it is proven wrong. I stand on my thesis, because it is true, and it cannot be proven wrong using rational thinking. You can whine and cry and dance around it all you want but you have lost. That is why you are so upset. Your pride is hurt. Your ego is bruised. You cannot admit defeat. Either that or your ego is so enormous its able to do these gymnastics to make you actually believe you have won. It is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Period. You can choose to believe that He does not exist, just like I can choose to believe that He does; but we certainly cannot prove that He doesn't exist, and the chances are slim that science will ever prove that He does.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“a claim is contradicted”

A contradiction (P and not-P) always tells you what is impossible…..always….without exception! That’s why a claim that is contradicted is necessarily IMPOSSIBLE. Your God as the Creator claim has been contradicted and hence impossible!

Pay attention (for the FOURTH and last time), Bimbo Travis…..

An object cannot be both a sphere and a cube at the same time.

Just like an action (i.e. create) necessitates a minimum of TWO entities to be performed, not one….since all verbs/actions are concepts which relate two. One entity always performs an action on another entity. Impossible to have it any other way (i.e. 0 or 1 entity verb/action) and NO exception can ever be shown….NEVER!

Just like any entity (i.e. God) is necessarily surrounded by space/nothing in order to have FORM and be defined as an entity (that which has shape/form). Remember….FORM is a concept that relates two. Real entities can never have form without a background of space. Impossible to have it any other way and NO exception can ever be shown….NEVER!

That’s why it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create space & matter.

These arguments have brought your down to your knees for the very first time in your life. This is why you are so pissed and running around like a chicken with his head cut off not knowing what to do. You have ZERO counterarguments. Why? Because it is impossible to argue against what is shown to be impossible in the realm of rationality and reality.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

To the theologically challenged, reality, rationality and critical thinking is all you have, Fattie! HA HA HA HA HA!

That had to be the funniest exchange I have ever read. Thanx!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Of course,.... the Theist, the Atheist and the Mathematician begin to hold their hands in a circle, while they stand in awe with their jaws to the floor after they realize that they've NEVER heard these non-contradictory arguments refuting God & Creation before. They have ZERO responses....nada! All they can do now is to emotionally comfort each other by cheering:

"God can possibly exist....and so can His Creation!"

"God can possibly exist....and so can His Creation!"

"God can possibly exist....and so can His Creation!"

.

.

Their Religion of Creation has finally been buried forever without any chance of revival and without any chance of even a debate. It's finally over!

No Atheist-Theist debates.

No Second Coming of Krauss, telling us that a Mathematical Deistic God Created the Universe.

No Absolute Truth.

Their only recourse is to make some final emotional comeback as follows: "Boo hoo....you're a big bad bully, Fatfist. You hurt my feelings you insensitive monster. There should be a LAW against people like you!"


Jethu262 profile image

Jethu262 2 years ago from Cincinatti

Ouch, the previous several comments were like ramming my face repeatedly into a brick wall covered in glass shards.

It's always disappointing when a well spoken, "rational", "intelligent", pupil of the theological establishment tries so hard to convert non-believers with the same, tired shtick that's been used for centuries.

His entire argument, which fails terribly from the very start, hinges on two major points which have long ago been proven irrational, contradictory arguments at best:

LOGICAL FALLACY #1- You cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

You also cannot prove that I don't have a magnificent invisible unicorn living in my garage. Fails right from the very start.

LOGICAL FALLACY #2- Basically WLC's tired argument. "The Uncaused Cause", in order for ANYTHING to exist (LOL), there had to be some sort of non-created Creator, who "always" existed (which is a fatal contradiction).

This argument is utter rubbish. You may as well just cut the middle man out and say that EVERYTHING "always" existed. It's the last gasp of people who fear death, desperately clinging to any kind of hope for an afterlife.

Same lackluster, unconvincing "arguments" that haven't led to anything notable. Unless of course you are already a knuckle dragging bible-thumper. In which case you probably think they are the best arguments for God currently available.


Travis 2 years ago

Jethu, you say that my argument hinges on two points, and then you say that the first point is.... my argument?.... Also, I never said that in order for anything to exist there has to be some sort of non-created creator who always existed. Maybe you should go back and read it over. To address your other comment "You may as well just cut out the middle man and say that EVERYTHING "always" existed."......... saying the universe always existed is the only way that atheists, physicists, etc could EVER challenge the idea of a creator God. But as I said before the eternal universe theory has been scientifically proven wrong, therefore it is impossible to disprove a creator God... Your comment was complete ignorance from start to finish. I'm sorry, it just was.


Jethu262 profile image

Jethu262 2 years ago from Cincinatti

Travis-

Your argument could be summed up with the 2 logical fallacies I outlined.

1.- You cannot prove that something does not exist.

2.- A magic sky-fairy was invented thousands of years ago because of people's unwillingness to admit that the universe JUST IS. There is no creator necessary. They concluded that he had to be the Creator-Who-Was-Not-Created.

Unless you want to go round and round in a never ending cycle of regress, the entire "God did it" worldview must by necessity assume that "God" is the uncaused cause. Otherwise you will infinitely fall back on "God's Creator", and "The Creator of God's Creator" before him, on and on, for eternity.

If you want to convert me with your meta-physical hullabaloo, then you must explain to me, rationally, how your "God" came into existence himself, and what materials he used to build the universe.

There are serious problems with "the eternal universe theory has been scientifically proven wrong". Quantum Physics has major problems, GR has major problems, even judging distances with telescopes has problems. The CMB is a joke. Don't tell me there is undeniable proof that the universe is finite, when mere mortals can't make any sense of the "proof" mainstream scientists spoonfeed the public. Good science is simple enough for any of us to understand.


Demarcus J. 2 years ago

@Fatfist - this is a wonderful article you have composed. I think your article has terrific points of insight and reflection. Thank you. I consider myself an atheist, but I also adhere to what I call "a scientfic attitude". My profession is that of an assistant professor of psychology. I pride myself on my proficient understanding and/or high respect fof science and its methodology. As a psychologist, I know that reality is "created" in our brains. The so-called real world is only "real" according our subjective brains' perception of the world and the universe. Tell me if I am wrong, but I conceive of science as merely a sophisticated tool to aid humans at discerning reality for what it REALLY is...outside of our subjective views. To this end, I revere science for allowing me to get at the real world as accurately as humanly possible. I appreciate how you breakdown the phrase "Does god exist?" and I think you do a very good job, at least, in provoking reflection.

So, should I continue to call myself an athiest? I honestly do not believe in god or gods. I just don't. But am I a "religionist" instead??? I also, for the record, do not support religion or any organized faith.

oh...and by the way, I have greatly enjoyed your replies to the many comments here, especially to some of the trolls here like Philanthropy.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

@Demarcus,

We have reached the pinnacle of human critical thought. We finally have the Scientific rigor, objective definitions and rational explanations to justify WHY the Universe is eternal, just like Aristotle did 2300 years ago, but without the subtle ambiguities. And it is impossible for our critically reasoned argument to be contradicted, just like Aristotle's. Eternal Universe is the default position....not the claim. A claim is predicated on an event....the event of alleged "creation", which is what we have CONTRADICTED.

This means that Atheism is nothing but a boring Religion....no different than all the flavors of Theism.

Congratulate yourself for having the ambition to get up to speed with these concepts.


Arthur 2 years ago

"If you want to convert me with your meta-physical hullabaloo, then you must explain to me, rationally, how your "God" came into existence himself."

That's the wrong question. Pretty much the whole point is that God did not 'come into existence', He is a necessary, timeless entity who always existed. That's part of the reason why He's posited as an explanation for the universe, which *did* 'come into existence' at the Big Bang.

I'm sure there are plenty of other objections you could raise, but this one implies that you haven't been paying attention to what mainstream monotheism has to say.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Arthur: “He [God] is a necessary, timeless entity”

Time is a CONCEPT, not an entity, like alcohol. You can have an alcohol-less beverage because BOTH alcohol and beverage are entities….but it’s impossible to have a timeless entity because as a concept, time cannot be removed/departed/omitted from an entity because time CANNOT POSSIBLY be within ANY entity….IMPOSSIBLE! Physics 101.

As a corollary, no entity can be outside of a concept. Entities can only be outside of objects. For example, God can be outside of His house, since His house has shape which necessarily implies a border. And since God is indeed an entity as you correctly stated, He can only be outside other entities. There are NO timeless entities. We learn this in elementary school.

Entity: that which has shape; synonym: object, thing, something, etc.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

@Neo.....if you have any argument that contradicts this article (and I hope you do)....please copy/paste what you think is a contradiction and please explain for the audience why it is so. All you need to show is one and it invalidates this article and YOUR God can go back to "existing" once again.

Only then will you be able to start sleeping at night. Don't be a coward and suffer in such agony.....just do it!

What's the matter....are you SCARED to debate me on such a simple issue? Like a typical Atheist, you must fear me more than God. Tell you what.....just show one contradiction and God will exist again for you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Neo is just a Copper-toxic, Estrogen-charged specimen from the Religion of Atheism whose paranoia and cowardice got the best of her. That's why she won't participate in any debate. Scared chicken!

Don't worry, Neo.....even though God doesn't exist in reality, you can still think about Him daily through your DISBELIEF. That I can never take away from you.

Physics is the Science of Existence....not of Belief. You've confused your Religion of Atheism with Physics, that's why you're crying!


Tamas 2 years ago

You've got 1) wrong, fatfist. Matter IS created and destroyed, and constantly.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

You gotta justify your claim, Tamas. I get a million claims posted here by everybody and their flatulent aunt.

Please explain the process by which nothing surreptitiously acquires L, W + H and morphs into an object in zero time (i.e. in a single frame). I'm all ears.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Anybody wanna help out poor Tamas? Seems a 0D cat without L, W and H ate his tongue.


Judge Death 2 years ago

There's no god but saying it's impossible is the acceptance of absolute truth.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Judge,

“There's no god”

Is that true, Judge? Please prove your CLAIM otherwise your whole post is summarily reduced to an unjustifiable claim! Claims are a dime a billion…..everybody and their flatulent aunt has one.

.

“acceptance of absolute truth”

Absolute Truth is the Hallmark of Religion. Only a Religionist like YOU who has NO clue about the Philosophical antagonistic concepts of the Relative vs Absolute would make such a self-refuting ludicrous claim as I explained to you in this article:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/ABSOLUTE-T...


Judge Death 2 years ago

God has logically contradictory properties like a square-circle. Those can't exist.

It is absolutely true that god does not exist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“God has logically contradictory properties like a square-circle.”

Nope! God is not a square-circle! God is an object that created space and matter. Here, have a look at the Almighty….use your glasses this time….there is no square or circle there!

http://brandonvogt.com/wp-content/uploads/Angry-Go...

God created the Universe in the Big Bang. God exists!


Judge Death 2 years ago

God cannot be such an object. He would be everything. How could he be an object and be everything?

There's no god.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“God cannot be such an object.”

Please justify your nonsensical CLAIM. In case you haven’t noticed, Mr. Judge…..this place ain’t the Atheist Experience show where a bunch of brain-dead Religious Nutcases calling themselves “Atheists” come here making delusional claims and asserting them as absolute truths, even though the ‘absolute’ is a Religious term that is contradictory as I explained to you in the other article. It’s definitely NOT “business as usual” here for the illiterate, uneducated, unthinking and brain-dead Atheist. Here you are expected to USE YOUR BRAIN and JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM…..and to DEFINE but NEVER WHINE.

God is a HYPOTHESIZED OBJECT. God has shape. God is an entity in the Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method. Go take a Science 101 course.

A Hypothesized object “cannot be” (as you claim)…. ONLY IF YOU CAN SHOW IT TO BE CONTRADICTORY WITH A JUSTIFIABLE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. What is contradictory about God being an OBJECT, Bimbo Judge??

.

“He would be everything.”

No! This is YOUR strawman attempt to modify MY Hypothesis. You can’t do that. God is an OBJECT with shape. God is not everything. The term ‘everything’ alludes to a concept, not an object. God is not a concept.

Object: that which has shape

There is NO provision for ‘everything’ in the definition of object. Go to primary school to learn how to read, comprehend and what a DEFINITION is versus an irrelevant strawman assertion such as “He would be everything.”

You have NO arguments against God!

.

God created the Big Bang from the Singularity. Even your idiot bimbos of the Atheist Experience show acknowledge this much.

Here’s PROFESSIONAL ATHEIST Tim Brooks to set you straight on this issue, so listen to a Professional:

“It is possible for a God to exist. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang…nothing! Do you understand that? To say that there was not a God BEFORE the Big Bang is to claim something that you cannot KNOW!” -- Tim Brooks, Professional Atheist

See video comments @ 1:01:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrdzyK6-5MA

A foolish brain-dead Atheist CANNOT PROVE there is no God. In fact, the caca-head claims that God could possibly exist and created the Big Bang. Of course!!!! The Big Bang needs an entity to mediate this event. The only entity that can possibly do this is God!


Judge Death 2 years ago

A creator god would be all that exists and an object cannot be all that exists. A object must exist is relation to something else. What does it matter if it's hypothetical?

God has contradictory properties. It cannot exist.

If you have some conception of a god that does not have contradictory properties then fine but it's not really "God".

There are no gods.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“ A object must exist is relation to something else.”

Yes, and God exists in relation to the Singularity. This satisfies the Big Bang theory with flying colors. Just ask professional atheist Tim Brooks and other pros out there.

“God has contradictory properties. It cannot exist.”

Nope! There is nothing contradictory about an OBJECT…..otherwise apples, tables, cars, planets, etc. wouldn’t exist either, as per your claim.

Object: that which has shape.

No contradiction there. That’s why you cannot justify your claims.

Enough claims. You are nothing but a Religionist who just posts CLAIMS without a rational argument to justify them. This is your last warning. Stop trolling here like a Religionist with claim after claim. If you post another claim you will be banned. Your next post had better justify WHY God is not an object even though an object forms the Hypothesis of the Scientific Method.


SHAUN 2 years ago

HE DOES EXSIST


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Agreed. He's an Ex-Cyst! No wonder He has cretin fans like you.


Lipstick Lesbian 2 years ago

It is hard to believe that other people still believe the BuyBull is inerrant. Even science has flaws but fundies would never say their BuyBull has flaws.


EnigmafromtheNorth 2 years ago

I personally have to laugh at you, Fatfist. You're sitting there saying that God doesn't exist = which is your CLAIM, not necessarily fact. Then you have the nerve to say that concepts should not exist simply cause they are not OBJECTS. Then you say you hate God and try so hard to argue he does not exist, but still find time to pull quotes from the Bible out your butt. Way to go buddy! Oh and not to mention you also have the tendency to automatically assume that people who try to refute your arguments are zealots who come from religious upbringings, that their claims are fabricated and that they need to be reeducated simply because they try to defend their views on the matter. By the way, your logic that for something to exist has to be an option and have location is nothing more than an subjective assertion. Why am I here? To call you out as a Hypocrite and call you out on your biased, bigoted and absurd assumptions, and yes your claims, as that what they are. You sir, are no better than the Atheist/Theist Fanatics, trying to project their views onto others; and here I thought I'd find someone with a grain of intelligence and actually provide some worthwhile evidence on why God could not possibly exist; explains why I'm here right? Right. Sorry for wasting my time and yours. With that, I am done ranting. See ya later.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"You're sitting there saying that God doesn't exist = which is your CLAIM"

A 'claim' is an assertion without an explanation. This article explains with luxurious detail why God cannot possibly exist. You just contradicted yourself. That's why the rest of your rambling goes in the trash!

And the fact that you came here to troll EXPLAINS why you didn't read or comprehend the article. No wonder you can't refute it.....never ever!


EnigmaoftheNorth 2 years ago

Oh, I'm sorry for being so hasty to deny the points in your article. I'll start over. You say 1st:

"1) Space is nothing; has no borders, boundaries or edges. Space is a concept invented by man. As such, space is impossible to create. Not even an all-powerful magical God can create space!"

Number 1: That doesn't disprove the existence of God, anyone and everyone learns that space is the absence of substance, so of course it can't be created, not even by God. Space can only be filled by something. It doesn't show how God doesn't exist. But to be technical, who said that God ever created space? I certainly didn't.

"2) Matter has shape and is impossible to create from nothing. What sense does it make to say that “nothing”, which lacks shape, suddenly acquired shape in ZERO TIME; i.e. in one frame of the Universal Movie? Objects can only be ASSEMBLED from pre-existing matter. Matter is eternal….cannot be created or destroyed. Not even God can morph “nothing” into an object with shape.

Remember, points 1 and 2 are NOT claims….they are rational explanations which contradict the positive claim. It is the Theologian and the Big Bang Creationist who blindly asserts the positive claim that space and matter can be created. Their claim is irrational and contradictory. This is why they only “assert” it, and can never “explain” it."

Yep... we already know this from science class. However we don't know if matter even always existed, it's just a man-made theory, right? There is no evidence of matter always existing and personally, I think the Big Bang theory is idiotic. I will agree with you though, space has, and will always exist, and you're right about another point. A random explosion just doesn't come out of nowhere and it doesn't have the capacity to form or create, only destroy, as explosion are only destructive forces. However there's still my question: "What does this have to do with proving whether or not God exists?" I personally believe that everything in this world has a beginning as well as an end... or wait. You could have a point. Still I don't see how you equate this to God's nonexistence, or are you trying to say that because matter cannot be destroyed or created, that God couldn't possibly have created the Universe? If you are... I would like to ask: What is the matter that you are referring to, the raw elements themselves or the man-made items we see everyday, and how do we know that matter had always existed and will exist unless we find out the answer ourselves? I usually perceive it as the latter (Man made inventions), which is why I often see the "Matter can not be created or destroyed" argument as moot.

"Since God is a hypothesized object, space must necessarily enclose and contour God. This makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty. God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The God Hypothesis assumes God to be eternal, but space is what allows God to have form. There is no other way about it: God cannot be an entity without space. He would instead be nothing (i.e. space itself) and the God Hypothesis would be moot. Had it been possible for God to even attempt to escape this eternal prison we call space, He would have lost His most precious superpower:FORM; and be reduced to nothing. To assert that God created space is a blatant contradiction.

God can be as all-powerful as He wants, but since space doesn’t have a border, even He cannot cross that which has no boundaries. It is absurd to propose that God is outside of space (transcends it), looking in at space AND matter from a bird’s-eye perspective. Therefore, God cannot do without the background of space that grants Him form & being."

Aahh okay, let me see... again I don't think anyone ever said that God created space. It's impossible. It was only stated (at least in the Holy Bible and other texts) that he created Heaven and Earth... no one said anything (to my knowledge) about God creating space... so where did you get your assumption?

Next point: You say that since space has no border, it is impossible for God to transcend space. I would ask "I thought you said he was all-powerful? So wouldn't God be able to find some way to break that rule?" but it would only make me sound like an idiot. You did in fact stump me on this. I guess in the end though it's all a matter on our own perception when it comes to the wonders of something like space. What you perceive as an endless void, I may see as simply one realm that could be explored.

You'll have to forgive me, I am a person who tries to look at the world past my human intellect, and I often question is there more to the world than just what we see now.

Before I go... I would like to apologize for my earlier comment about the argument. I will admit, I acted rashly and immaturely the first time. I will however say that it still wasn't very fair to say those things about the theists and atheists and act all smug, but still I am very sorry for acting so childish, and I ask your forgiveness.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“But to be technical, who said that God ever created space? I certainly didn't.”

Nobody cares if you do. It is the Theologian’s Theory that God created space, matter, time, evil, etc. Just read some Theology and Philosophy over the past 2000 years and you will see these claims.

Regardless, you concede that God did not create space and that He is an object, which necessarily has the background of space. If God did not create space, then God did not create the Universe as Theologians allege.

.

“However we don't know if matter even always existed, it's just a man-made theory, right?”

This is not an issue of knowing. Knowledge is your OPINION and nothing more. Science has NO knowledge or other opinions. Science only explains Theories rationally.

And no….that “matter is eternal” is NOT a Theory. Eternal Universe is the default position.

Why?

Because 'Eternal Universe' can never be a Theory. You cannot explain a mechanism that made the Universe eternal....I mean, was it non-eternal (created) prior to being eternal? Contradiction! Eternal Universe is not a phenomenon…..not a Theory....no explanation is even possible.

It is basic reasoning such as this which the trolls of Mathematical Fizzics (especially Atheists) will never understand. Hence why they come here to post strawman & emotional arguments.

Creation is a proposal….a claim of an alleged phenomenon ….a process….an event. Such a claim is obviously conceived by a human. A human cannot possibly conceive of a “claim” for an eternal Universe….there is no such possible claim to be made. Eternal matter is the default position, understand?

Creation is a claim that necessarily requires a mechanism explaining the process. If the proponent of Creation has no explanation, then all they have is irrational belief and nothing else. And those who are familiar with the reasoning behind it, will understand why Creation is ontologically impossible.

Try to understand the reasoning here without letting your emotions get the best of you. We are talking Physics here, not Religion.

.

“I personally believe that everything in this world has a beginning as well as an end”

‘Things’ don’t have beginnings or endings. You need to understand what you speak of here because you’re contradicting yourself.

Physical ‘things’ (i.e. objects) do not have a beginning. The terms ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ refer to time metrics….to verbs….to processes. Not to objects, like stars, planets, chairs, humans, etc.

Only processes (i.e. verbs), like running, jumping, eating, farting, etc. can have a beginning and an end. Objects like stars and planets don’t. There is no micro-second tick of a clock when a non-planet all of a sudden BEGINS to be a planet….nor is there a specific time when a planet ENDS being a planet. Matter is eternal. Objects are ASSEMBLED from eternal matter.

.

“What is the matter that you are referring to”

The fundamental unit of matter (just call it FUM for argument’s sake) which everything is comprised from, even the very atoms themselves. This matter is irreducible…..cannot be split….cannot be destroyed and morphed into nothing….nor can be created (i.e. space morphing into matter).

.

“how do we know that matter had always existed and will exist unless we find out the answer ourselves?”

Knowledge = Opinion! What one claims to ‘know’ is what’s dear & sweet to their heart.

In Physics we don’t preoccupy ourselves with such nonsense. In Physics we grab the bull by the horns and use our critical thinking skills (i.e. the brain God gave us) to reason our statements without contradictions. This is how….

Objects cannot be created from nothing. Objects can only be ASSEMBLED from pre-existing objects, like atoms, molecules, etc.

Object: that which has shape; synonym: something, thing, entity, particle, etc.

Nothing: that which lacks shape; synonym: space, void, vacuum.

No matter how powerful you claim God to be, the Almighty cannot morph nothing (i.e. no shape) into something (i.e. with shape). There is NO ‘thing’ there to morph or convert. Morph/convert/create/assemble are VERBS. ALL verbs are concepts and necessarily require a MINIMUM of 2 objects that already EXIST in order for the verb/action to be mediated by an entity (i.e. God). We learn this in Grammar 101.

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

So God needs to exist beside matter (i.e. atoms) before He can use matter to assemble a planet.

For example: God all alone in space cannot perform any action (i.e. morph/convert/create/assemble/etc.) on nothing. It is IMPOSSIBLE to perform any action on nothing…..impossible! Matter is eternal, understand?

Makes perfect sense. An assembler God must exist alongside eternal matter before He can assemble a barn out of that pre-existing matter. We can call this assembler God a carpenter if you like.

.

“that because matter cannot be destroyed or created, that God couldn't possibly have created the Universe?”

Exactly! The term “God” refers to “THE CREATOR OF SPACE AND MATTER” in accordance with Theology. Since space & matter cannot be created, then obviously a creator God is impossible. You can worship Lady Gaga as your God if you like (as many actually do)….but she’s no Creator. Humans have evolved to worship. They have this innate desire to worship authorities, gods, celebrities, etc.

“You say that since space has no border, it is impossible for God to transcend space. I would ask "I thought you said he was all-powerful? So wouldn't God be able to find some way to break that rule?"

What rule? There are no rules in reality. Rules are invented by man to brainwash the masses and control them.

It all boils down to critical thinking and elementary reasoning, regardless of any rules someone can force down your throat with a gun to your head. Dictatorship is not part of Physics. Physics is about critical thinking and rational explanations without contradictions.

Space: that which lacks shape

The term ‘space’ refers to nothing. Nothing has no shape, no borders, no boundaries. Hence, nothing there to cross or transcend. It’s that simple. Elementary reasoning.

.

“You'll have to forgive me, I am a person who tries to look at the world past my human intellect, and I often question is there more to the world than just what we see now.,,,, Before I go... I would like to apologize for my earlier comment ”

Yes, you need to question what people are trying to shove down your throat. But at the same time, you need to use your brain for reasoning and making sure you understand what you are trying to push forward to others. Because if you don’t understand it, then someday, someone will find the contradictions in your reasoning. This is how we learn…by making mistakes and FIXING them. There is no other way to move forward in life. And no need to apologize for anything. I don’t want people feeling like they need to apologize here. The only requirement is to talk rationally, no contradictions, define your terms objectively and justify what you say with a rational explanation. This is what Science is all about. If you wish to BELIEVE in God, this is your right, keep it to yourself. But please…..don’t come here and push your beliefs as Science. Belief is divorced from Science.


John Berbatis 2 years ago

Logical proof of Monotheism.

Theos – The Supreme Good

Time must exist before matter can be created and only an animate entity can conceive of space-time; time must be a stabilized and uniform condition before matter can form, thus monotheism is a Truth.

The universe consists of space-time, which is functionally active, stable and growing; and these characteristics combined are indicative of a living entity, thus Pantheism is a reality. As a consequence, all mortals’ behaviour and attitudes become conspicuous by our Creator.

If all electrical particles were in different time zones, matter would not form, thus, time is controlled electromagnetic radiation (energy) E = mc2 To be perfect, one must know the past, present and future; there is only one, the one that created time.

John Berbatis,

Perth, Australia


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“Time must exist before matter can be created”

Whoa! Come again? You have too many errors in your reasoning as I will explain…..

Time is a concept, not an object. Only objects can possibly exist. Concepts are relations between objects. That’s why time doesn’t exist.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relation between objects

Exist: an object having a location

Time is a scalar quantity used for quantifying motion.

Time: A scalar quantity established by an observer to relate the relative motion between two objects, where one object’s motion is referenced as a pre-established agreed-upon standard (i.e. seconds, days, years).

For example, when the hand (objet 1) on your watch moves a second, the Earth (object 2) moved approximately 30 km on its orbit, and a cesium atom waved (i.e. oscillated) 9 billion times. You are comparing the distance traveled by the hand on your watch (or the oscillation of an atom) against a distance traveled by another object.

As you can see, my dear John….the concept of ‘time’ necessarily requires a MINIMUM of 2 objects to exist before it can be conceived. This means that matter HAS TO EXIST before you can conceive of time.

Therefore, matter is eternal. There was no Creation….and certainly no Creator God.


Intergalactic Rube 2 years ago

So if matter cannot be created: where did matter come from? I understand you believe it has always been. But what you think started everything. I.e. Not the big bang or an all powerful being.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“So if matter cannot be created: where did matter come from?”

Too many basic, childish, Kindergarten errors! Do you see the contradictory question you asked? No?

Here, let me give you some more examples on top of the one you already gave. Maybe you can understand the irrationality of your question….

1) So if pigs don’t fly: where did pigs learn to fly?

2) So if a feather isn’t heavier than a car: why is the feather heavier than the car?

3) So if a cat can’t be both dead and alive: why is a cat both dead and alive?

4) So if you can’t hit more than 100% of the targets: how is it that you can hit more than 100% of the targets?

Do you see the fallacy in your reasoning?

.

“I understand you believe…”

Clearly you’ve understood NOTHING….NADA….ZIP…..INFINITE NOTHING…..THE RECIPROCAL OF INFINITY!

No where in any of my articles do I state any BELIEFS. I always EXPLAIN what I say…..and I do so rationally….without contradictions. Nobody cares what people’s beliefs are. Beliefs are OPINIONS…are subjective and have nothing to do with reality.

When you come to the Physics Conference and stand up on the podium and handed the microphone….you had better EXPLAIN rationally whatever it is you are going to say about Creation from nothing. If you can’t….then the audience will throw eggs at you….storm onto the podium, attack you, remove your clothes, hang you upside down from the ceiling and everyone will take turns whipping your white pasty anemic buttocks with their belts. Got it?

.

“But what you think started everything”

Ummm….Intergalactic….did you even read the article? Creation or beginning to matter is IMPOSSIBLE. The default position is that matter is eternal. It is up to the morons who assert otherwise to explain in detail how nothing (i.e. no shape) magically morphs into something (an object with shape).

Understand?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 2 years ago from Heaven

But what you think started everything”

Ummm….Intergalactic….did you even read the article? Creation or beginning to matter is IMPOSSIBLE.

love it

Theosophy seems to agreed with fatfist.


Dan Bruce 24 months ago

New Book

Proof of God: Hard Evidence for 21st Century Skeptics

If you are skeptical about the reality of the God of the Bible, but open to the possibility that his existence can be proven to your satisfaction if there is real evidence that you can verify for yourself, this book is for you. Using an ancient prophecy and its modern fulfillment spanning more than two millennia in history—the only passage in the Bible that actually proves God is alive and well and active in the affairs of Mankind today—the evidence is laid out for you to verify for yourself. No faith is required to see the evidence of God’s existence. All you need is the ability to think and reason logically as an open-minded skeptical inquirer

Read preview on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O2OON6M#reader_B00O2OO...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 24 months ago Author

That's proof enough for me, thanks!


SAQIB6608 profile image

SAQIB6608 22 months ago from HYDERABAD PAKISTAN

Well I disagree fatfist, God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent. God is in our minds and hearts. GOD really exists. Just thank God if grantes happiness and ask God,in any trouble.

God is the creator indeed.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 22 months ago Author

Thank God for disagreements!


tt 21 months ago

sorry... your argument is pretty bad. I agree that the Bible claims God is an object, but you ignore time, energy, and multidimensionality. I completely missed your logic leading to your conclusion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 21 months ago Author

tt,

What do you mean by...

time:_____

energy:____

dimension:___

Please define and explain what these terms have to do with reality.

.

“I completely missed your logic leading to your conclusion.”

I would certainly hope so. Logic has nothing to do with reality or Physics. Please educate yourself on what logic is because you are begging to sound like an Atheist after a night of binge drinking at a Feminist rally.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-LO...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/LOGIC-Its-...


Razi Alaster 21 months ago

I get it. Nothing to argue with here.

God is defined unambiguously as an object. The source for this definition are the theologians who hypothesized such an object (enough said).

This hypothesis, rationally explained through the definitions of Physics (this is important, as nouns according to physics and nouns in ordinary speech are different), is shown to be irrational and impossible. Therefore, God cannot be an object.

Those who assert that God is a concept are surrendering God's existence by the virtue of a concept. Therefore, God as a concept must necessarily be non-existent.

To be clear, the argument states that God cannot be an object, can be a concept, but one must surrender its existence if a concept.

So, as fatfist likes to say ... whether you like it or not, according to the Science of Existence, it is impossible for any God (object or concept) to exist.

That is the article. Nothing really to say there.

Some comments that pertain more to the comment section.

Though concepts don't exist, they can be necessary to rationally explain relationships, i.e. A dog (object) chases (concept) a cat (object). The nouns (concept) of Physics (concept) are objects (concept).

In the comments, fatfist clarifies this nicely illustrating the necessity of space (concept) to explain the relationship (motion) of objects, even though space does not exist.

"Space necessarily 'wraps' all existing objects and gives them spatial separation, which is the pre-condition to motion. Since objects are separated by space, one object can move and collide with another."

If one is encourage to question everything, then the only question left by the article concerning the topic of God, is whether God, as a concept, is necessary to explain any relationships? Physics cannot answer this question as the Science of Existence is not concerned with the non-existent, whether you like it or not.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 21 months ago Author

Razi,

God is an object. He performs actions, like listening to your prayers. He created the Universe. He became a burning bush. He wrote the 10 Commandments. Concepts can't do that.

Here, look at God for yourself. He's an object. He has shape:

http://brandonvogt.com/wp-content/uploads/Angry-Go...

Where is the difficulty?


Razi Alaster 21 months ago

fatfist,

God is not an object. God is an English word (concept) defined to hypothesize an object by certain theologians (i.e. the Bible) as presented by you.

This article addresses this specific hypothesis. There is nothing to argue here.

I highlighted an unanswered question, I don't offer any answers, as God defined as a concept is necessary and entirely different than God hypothesized as an object. If you simply claim to assert that God is the only non-hypothesized (certain) object in the universe, you are just as hypocritical as the rest of us.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 21 months ago Author

Razi, you are talking in riddles because you still don't understand the difference between objects and concepts.

All words in all languages are concepts. Even the words 'rock', 'car' and 'object' are concepts....linguistic concepts or more succinctly, lexical concepts.

If the referent of a term resolves to that which has shape, then we say that term refers to an OBJECT. In shorthand we say: rock is an object. And we are NOT referring to the lexical concept 'rock', but its referent.

Same with God. Please have a look at that pic of God again. He's an object. We can point to Him. We can make a statue of Him and bring it to the Physics Conference to attempt to explain the Theory of Creation.

The term God necessarily refers to an object. It has to because God performs ACTIONS. Concepts cannot perform actions.

Don't confuse the lexical term/concept with its referent, like Mathematicians & Atheists do.

Here's a quick and short tutorial explaining these issues in detail:

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...


Razi Alaster 21 months ago

The referent is uncertain. At best, we can hypothesis an object and rationally explain the possibility or impossibility of the referent. If the hypothesis is explained to be impossible, the hypothesis is discarded, the referent is explained to be impossible. Science does not deal with the referents, but only hypotheses that can be rationally explained to be possible.

What we say in ordinary speech (shorthand) is irrelevant. This article is a rational argument and saying "rock is an object" is not the same as saying "rock is a hypothesized object." One infers certainty, the other possibility. Science deals only in possibilities, not certainties.

In this article, you are addressing a hypothesized object, God, defined by certain theologians (see "What is God" above). God, in this hypothesis, resolves to an object because it performs actions and the referent is rationally explained to be impossible.

Any critical thinker will critically think about the entire article. You briefly address God as a concept in this article:

"Those who claim that God is a concept like love, truth or intelligence, will summarily have excluded God from existence."

Concepts are not claimed, concepts are only defined. A concept cannot be defined as an object because concepts do not exist.

Where is my confusion?


Razi Alaster 21 months ago

I need to make one correction: "God, in this hypothesis, resolves to an object because it is hypothesized to have form, but the referent is rationally explained to be impossible.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 21 months ago Author

" If the hypothesis is explained"

Science doesn't explain hypotheses. A hypothesis is an assumption used to explain an event in a theory, like theory of creation. And there is no certainty as that requires proof, and proof always resolves to opinion. So certainty = OPINION. Educate yourself.

"God, defined by certain theologians"

God is an object. Objects are illustrated and named by humans before they are referenced in a sentence. Only concepts can possibly be defined. Objects are impossible to define.

idiot Razi: "You briefly address God as a concept in this article:"

fat: "Those who claim that God is a concept like love, truth or intelligence, will summarily have excluded God from existence."

Razi, it's quite obvious that you are dumber than a sack of rotting potatoes since you haven't a clue about Science, hypothesis, theory, etc. and keep chasing your tail in contradictions. But LYING will not be tolerated. Cease and desist the lying or your fanny will be booted, comprende? You can go lie somewhere else.


Sandibear764 20 months ago

Enjoyed this article. I would like, however, to suggest that "God" is possibly both a concept and an object. I come to this perspective after reading "A History of God." A well researched and well thought out book that explains the evolution of how we came to the current view of God over time through the construction of what is now called the Bible. The concept of a one and only God that many Christians believe in, was not the original God of the Old Testament. Rather, people began worshipping many gods. Though these many gods have essentially been relegated to mere myth, it was through the belief and worship of these many gods that a one and only God Creator began to be constructed.


Righteousdefender 20 months ago

How bold a claim that you do make my friend. One that is substantiated by your very mind with its sensory boundaries and lack of sight. You claim that things like ‘love’, ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ are just concepts. That is what you believe and that is how you live your life. Then you say that because of this, because you cannot see nor touch them, that they are only figments of the imagination or mental constructs. This is your grounds base on your limited senses. Is the air no real because I cannot touch it. Does me believing that it is a concept make it any less of a thing? Has history not happened because I was not there? Was it just a concept and a mental concept that we all agreed to believe? Or is it real? Who are you to judge and to take away the choice from both others and yourself base on what you can see and touch and rationalize. How petty are the rationalities of a man without knowledge, or a man who is puffed up in what he does know, which is woefully little. You have the answers to the universe my friend, I am assuming. You have been to every point and time to give a testament to the fact that your words actually were created and are therefore things and not just a concept which will make all that you say valid. No, you were not. You were not there to see the creation of everything and even if you were, who would believe you? Why is belief even necessary? Because truly, all we have, is right now. You can neither look backwards into the past nor see forward into the future. All you have right this instant is the belief that you still are and have been from a certain date. Then you have others to tell you that this is the truth. What do you know? I claim to know only Christ and Him crucified and resurrected, but you claim that there can be no God. How does the clay know the potter exists or the computer realize that humans are what created unless it has faith. Where does your boldness come and why is it here. Was it always there or did you facilitate and create it? You try to answer battle against something that always was and always will be, and you do not realize that you are lost in the futility of your own perception because you judge only by what you can see, and touch, and taste. Not by what is told to you as truth and life based on faith which is the only thing you have in this world right now. Faith and that ever powerful choice to believe or to not. So do not strip those who are weak in mind and in strength of this beautiful choice. How can you? Do you make yourself the god of your own religion in which people take your word as doctrine? Then you are a hypocrite. You wish to free the people of an imagined bondage but do not realize that you put on your own chains as you write. Leave the people with a choice because you have no right to take it from them. It is useless quibbles and vanity that the lives of men consist of. All that we know is that there is good and evil, right and wrong. Because without that knowledge, there would be no room for you to talk because you will have already been killed by someone who didn’t like what you had to say and I would not be able to speak as I would because there would be no reason to. We are meant to love, I know this. Time and time again love prevails. Love is God. Not the petty emotion or passionate feelings but the unrelenting sacrifice that love truly is. It is okay for you to be adored or left alone in your want and in your misery but do not cast the darkness and futility of your mind where it is not wanted. Cast your lot with that hopeless group that has not faith enough to even believe that they have a brain in their head and air in their lungs because they cannot see it, touch it, feel it, or taste it. Go and be lost in the futility of your senses but do not weigh heavy your anchors of apathy and godlessness on us. Leave us with a choice. Leave me with a choice, and I shall leave you with yours. Speak when spoken to for your words lack wisdom and therefore you should only open your mouth out of necessity.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 20 months ago from My Tree House

HahA! That's some selfritcheousdefender wall of shameonyou right thar!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 20 months ago Author

" ‘love’ or ‘nothing’ are just concepts"

Exactly!

concept: a relation between objects.

object: that which has shape.

Stay on topic, be a man, grab the bull by the horns and address the issues directly without going off in tangents. This place is not for preaching your beliefs and unjustifiable claims. You can try an Atheist forum for your Religious drivel, those clowns eat it up. This is your last warning.


krillco profile image

krillco 20 months ago from Hollidaysburg, PA

I declare that fatfist does not exist, and no one can prove h/she does.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 20 months ago Author

Korrect, krillco. It's impossible to prove anything. Proof is an anthropocentric concept that always resolves to OPINION.

"Opinions/proof/truth vary!" - Patrick Swayze, Roadhouse (1989)

If you cannot refute a simple movie, then you have no business talking about reality.

Science is about EXPLAINING, not opining!


Jethu262 profile image

Jethu262 20 months ago from Cincinatti

Lol, that Righteousdefender post made my night. So much emotion. Drama. Anger.

I love it when people mention the crucifixion of Heyzus. They sit with a straight face- and I don't think they even read into this deeply- and tell you about how god sent himself to earth, preached his own word, sacrificed himself- to himself, so that he would forgive you of your sins- which HE determined to be sins, to save you from the hell that HE created. Wow! I've never understood why people believe this bullshit!

fatfist, I hated you after reading one or two of your articles, but after five or six I began to love you. No one can convincingly refute anything you say, which makes for good internet times. Keep up the good work my friend, stir up more shit and get these numbskulls to think a bit more about the dumbassery they assert as "truth".


krillco profile image

krillco 20 months ago from Hollidaysburg, PA

Since you do not exist, I shall not respond.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 20 months ago from My Tree House

Krillco, you are talking to yourself again. Better take your meds!


Believer 20 months ago

Evolution makes as much sense as unicorns. The big false bang makes no sense either. You can't just have something and explode it and get living organisms out of it. Then those organisms 'evolve' and eventually comes to a man. Fact 1 that evolution is stupid: Darwin's Finches. Apparently there beaks get larger and that's a sign of evolution. The pictures of beaks getting larger is called adaptation. Those little birdies are just adapting to their environment. Fact 2 that evolution is stupid: Scientists think we're evolving and gaining more knowledge. That is called human progress. We humans are just progressively getting smarter and learning new things. Fact 3 that evolution is stupid (this one you can do at home!) : Go buy something that explodes and explode it. You see that when it explodes that all of the sudden you create an universe. Actually no, a universe isn't created, just some fire and mabye chaos if you did it in public. Fact 4 that evolution is stupid: Look at the Earth. The big freaking bang just so happened to make our Earth at a perfect distance away from the Sun so we don't freeze and die or overheat and die. So that means when the Earth was there and we were evolving, we were in the perfect temperature to live. That shows us there had to be a Creator and position the Earth for us. Then there were people that actually went to heaven and back. And they couldn't have been dreaming beacause they were dead. Go on ahead and post something that says Creation is dumb. Or what you could do is know God. But if you don't want to, then hey, let satan torture you in Hell, I did try to help you. There is so much evidence pointing to Christianity than evolution. But remember that you have a choice and God is waiting for you to make that choice. Right now you should make that choice, because you may die tomorrow or today, or mabye your reading this at your dying breath. Take a chance with God. If you die and nothing happens, then you were right. But if you die and go to Heaven or Hell, then you'll know that I was right. Believe in God.


LoverOfGod 20 months ago

What makes evolution more real than Creation? Evolution is just a theory, not the truth. Also if you think about it, Creation makes more sense than evolution. I think a non-believer should still at least give God a chance and get to know Him. God still loves you and he wants you to know Him and accept Him in your heart so that you can go to Heaven. God thinks YOU are the best person in the world, and is hoping every second that you will get to know Him. So give God a chance and give evolution a break.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 20 months ago from My Tree House

Now I'm really confused. Evangelist Kevin O'Brien says that God told him He uses evolution on a daily. And he's not alone, there are many Theistic Evolutionists.

Guess you can't trust Christians to tell you the truth.


Leo 20 months ago

What is the definition of shape?

Also, what is the definition of definition? I'm not sure if these are trick questions. Let me know if they are and why?

Wait...how could something be a trick question...according to what authority?


Leo 20 months ago

I see the hole.

I'm pumping a vacuum into this box.



Ryan 19 months ago

Good stuff, man. Enjoyed the article.


sekharpal 19 months ago

Object is separated from space. But what separates object from space? Is it another object? Or, is it some more space? What I mean to say is this: if object is separated from space, then what is in between object and space? Because if nothing is in between object and space, then object and space are not in reality separated from each other.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 19 months ago Author

"what separates object from space?"

Space is nothing. An object is something. There is no provision for "separating" an object from nothing because it ain't something.

space: that which lacks shape; syn: nothing, void, vacuum

object: that which has shape.

Space and object are the antithesis of each other. The term "separate" doesn't even apply in this context.

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