jump to last post 1-50 of 130 discussions (1329 posts)

I can prove no gods exist

  1. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    A theist asked me to start a separate thread for this. I refused at first, but then I thought "why not?"

    Let's understand first that I am not against religion per se. I believe it can help some people.

    I do not think that religious belief indicates a lack of intelligence either. In fact, for the purpose of this thread, you can assume that I have sub normal intelligence, because the argument needs  to stand on its own.

    The logic begins with information theory. We need at least the ability to flip state from zero to one to store information.

    Zeros and ones by themselves cannot make decisions. Nor can any multi state device you might envision.

    The simplest decision making device is a NAND gate. It takes two inputs and gives one output. You can design more complicated logic devices, but you need at least this much to make decisions.

    A creator is posited to be responsible for our universe. The details don't matter: whether this is the fundies personal god or the uninvolved god of the deists, this creator needs reason. It needs to think, to decide.

    It therefore needs information storage and logic gates. The logic gates depend upon physics to work, and the creator cannot have created either the storage, the gates or the physics. These things had to exist before it could exist.

    Therefore, if this creator exists at all, it can only be a natural product of physics. I don't insist that it be our physics, but logic gates plainly need rules. The gates don't even have to be entirely accurate, but they must be functional.

    I make no assertions that it could not come together and not be a product of evolution, although that would be more likely.  I only assert that it requires preexisting storage and preexisting physics to drive the logic gates that allow it to reason.

    If a creator claims to be self created or to have existed forever, it must be lying or insane.

    No god is possible.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps we first need to understand your definition of God to provide any worthwhile discussions.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, we don't. It's not that easy, Penny.

        The proof is what it is.  It says that any creator must be a natural product of physics. It requires no other attributes other than being the creator and being able to reason.

        Surely all gods must have at least those two things in common?

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If one views God as the origin of all things including the universe (often symbolically described as the heavens) then God resided or rather was in and of the nothing before the big bang. In some philosophies of God before things were created there was only the void/nothingness/parentless.  From the void came structure then form  Which points to the big bang and evolution.

          If information is needed to obey the laws of physics then information must have existed in the nothing or void before the big bang to bring us where we are today.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You aren't reading this correctly, Penny.

            I'm not arguing against a creator. I think that's both unlikely and unnecessary, but I admit the possibility.

            Go back and read it again.  You missedit entirely.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think I missed it? Probably more that you are not familiar with the way I understand God I don't know?

              Nevertheless, lets see if I missed it?  You said a creator would have to have existed and stored its information somewhere and would need to go from 0 to 1. I said it was in the void. In the nothingness before the big bang. The big bang would have had the ability to use its stored energy right? So the stored energy existed in the nothing before the big bang. Whatever was stored in the nothing was the information needed for evolution to do its thing. This stored energy or information (I describe this as unrealized potential) is the creator. The 0 is the nothing. The 1 is the big bang.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, Penny, that doesn't work at all.

                It doesn't "go from zero to one".  It needs a storage mechanism.  The zero/one is just a simple way of describing information storage. It needs storage, but that is not enough.  it needs decision making equipment. Try again.

                1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why does it need decision making process in your mind? Did it need that for the big bang do you think?

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, Penny, this has nothing to do with any bangs, big or small.

                    Tell me how a decision can be made if all you have is stored information?  Explain that to me.

                  2. Cagsil profile image84
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Penny, your own logic is working against you by you asking this singular question. A Decision? Is the final thought in the thought making process before action. Once a decision is made, then 99.99% of the time there is an action, which derives from the decision. The other .01% is no action comes from making the decision, because the decision was to take no action.

            2. 60
              ltarranceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Agree to disagree....

              You are correct in some way. intellect by itself can do nothing, if for example, I conceive of this typing on replying, I still need impetus to make it reality -
              something has to be the mover....

              Another example: When you eat the tree of knowledge, it means that you have to go down and experience. Everybody says: " Boy, that eve sure was nasty, wasn't she aweful? Well she was nothing more than a symbol of emotion- but she had to be the DRIVING FORCE FOR INTELLECT.

              It takes emotion to move logic.......

              1. 60
                ltarranceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                In conclusion....

                This is where the " godhead" plays important role duality - the great unity.

      2. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just apply your own definition of god and see what happens. smile

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Haha, yes done that.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, you haven't. You have only posited a creator.  A creator could be a third year physics student in a parallel universe or even an unnoticed event in a cyclotron.

            Go back and read again.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What ever it is called, the supreme thing in existence must be "God".

      Your arguement merely re-names God... "evolution".

      What ever the first thing is that created the "pre-existing logic gates" is God.
      The creation of physics and the dependency we have to physics does not dis-prove the existence of a supreme being, that is not dependent on physics to exist.

      ...if a creator claims to be self-created or to have existed forever...
      Then it must be lying...  ???

      Got Proof?

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense.  Redefining the god class to include toasters doesn't help anything.

        The proof is that any creator must be a natural product of physics. Redefining words doesn't change that.

      2. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense.  It cannot make any decision to create, cannot plan, cannot think without the gates and the physics to drive them. 

        This is very basic.

      3. 0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        if a creator claims to be self-created or to have existed forever...
        Then it must be lying...  ???

        Got Proof?
        LOL

    3. wilmiers77 profile image59
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      pcunix, you are conceptually placing an orange inside of a grape. It must be creator and the physics (rules) is determined by the Creator, not rules and creator comes into being and employs them. The biggest One is the Creator, since Creator created us our reasoning end with knowing the Creator.  It's foolish thinking to place  restrictions on the Creator. As you know, any statement, positive or negative, about an unknown is a restriction to all that it could be. If creator is red, than creator doesn't have the probability of being any of the other colors. A restriction to the unknown Creator has been placed.

      By now you are probably wondering where does this all go.  It goes to the fact that you will always be a subject of the Creator, bound to His discipline.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, complete disregard of the argument,  That's more typical of theists - don't even bother with the logic, simply assert that God IS and be done with it.

        1. wilmiers77 profile image59
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          pcunix, your logic must apply firstly. Your magnitude is infinitely to small. As a Theist, I have faith that God exist, not proof because God is believed to be infinitely large in Spirit. I know that you would agree that we can not see God.

    4. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No matter how small or simple a machine is, it is still inert.

      You have a materialistic opinion.

      You think 2 dimensionally. You leave out the qualia or self awareness machine in your argument. You believe that "everything is physical and must constrain itself to a physical parameter and operate within than false dilemma.

      An abacus is a fancy club in the hands of a gorilla.

      It takes a thinking mind to use it to calculate. Show me that self awareness that is used to ""like the construction and color of the abacus"". If you cannot empirically show me the existence of that self awareness, how much it weighs, etc, It suddenly doesnt negate the existence of the abacus or the self awareness behind it.

      All it does is show presumptions of what existence is.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nope. You are arguing something completely different.

        You can't have your creator through magic.  Oh, I'm sure that satisfies you, but it does not address the argument.  You have simply side stepped it and want to pretend that information can be stored without physics.  It cannot be.  Your god would be a void.

      2. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is a strawman fallacy. smile

    5. JulesGerome profile image61
      JulesGeromeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You say :
      "It therefore needs information storage and logic gates. The logic gates depend upon physics to work, and the creator cannot have created either the storage, the gates or the physics. These things had to exist before it could exist."

      So if these things exist before the Creator of your theory, who's the creator that created them ? Material and physic things has to be created by some sort of creator. They can't just happen.  Or maybe you believe in magic !
      And then :

      ""...I only assert that it requires preexisting storage and preexisting physics to drive the logic gates that allow it to reason.

      If a creator claims to be self created or to have existed forever, it must be lying or insane.

      No god is possible."


      You are not proving anything. What you have here is your personal theory. You think that a Creator is like a human being, as you state that this creator has to use preexisting storage and physics to achieve a creation. You just go as far as to say that any creator to claims being self created must be insane. Hello ? What can possibly be more insane that thinking a Creator has a mouth to state that ? And  then you imply that it has to reason. To reason you need a mind. How do you know creators have minds ?
      And So.... who is the Creator that Created the preexistent storage and physics ? You need a Creator  to have that storage . And  then...who's the Creator that created that Creator ?
      Your theory is flawed,because as you think that Creators need physical stuff to create, there must be one first Creator creating that material. So If there is one first Creator creating that first materials, this Creator has to be God. Because it have to create itself as well.


      So with your theory, because this nonsense is no proof of anything, it's only your personal theory, you are stating that indeed there's a God, aka the First Creator.
      And you achieve this by involving material and physic stuff that has to be created by 'something' in the beginning of everything. Something with a mind to reason. I personally think, that's  the most accurate  description of a God.

      I'm an Atheist, and as such, I don't believe your theory. But I'm sure Creationists are very happy with the result of your deep thinking.
      Cheers !

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You don't need a creator to create the creator if the physics and the storage media always existed.

        That's the point. What the theists always miss is how their creator came to be - mouth and all. Yes, of course the very idea is ludicrous, but if we give them that, just for the sake of argument, we get to where I started: how can this thing be sentient if it existed forever? 

        Sentience requires too much.  The non-creator position only requires physics - it doesn't need specific arrangements that can store information, it doesn't require even more complicated arrangements that can function as logic gates. 

        In our non-theistic version of things, the ability to store and process information is what we call life and it came about only a few billion years ago.

        In the theist version, these abilities either sprang into existence or always existed. But it could NOT, because a complex, thinking thing NEEDS information storage and needs logic gates.

        That's the point.

        Also, this isn't a theory. It's a proof.

    6. michael's son profile image60
      michael's sonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Dear Pcunix:

      I do like your theory but there is one major flaw with it- the fact that "God" does exist. now before you jump to any conclusions hear me out. "God is not a deity or a being of a higher intelligence. The force that many have come to call "God" is nothing more than the energy that makes up anything and everything in the universe. Even science tells us that on the subatomic level, everything is made of pure energy. It is this energy that we are made of so therefore in the symbolic meaning, it is the creator. the words of the bible are not meant to be taken litterally, to fully understand the words held within one must look at the symbolism behind the words and read between the lines. Now I am not trying to insult anyone's intelligence or tell anyone that they are wrong. and at this point in time I would like to say that This is not neccessarily the truth it is just simply what I believe in but it makes perfect sense to me and many others I keep contact with. And if any of you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a christian, catholic, baptist, etc. your assumptions would be false. I have studied many religions the world over and all of the major ones send the same message, one that their followers dont even fully understand and most do not practice what they preach. The message is simple, love "God" and all things that exist equally, forgive any acts done against you or others, do unto others as you would have them do for you, turn the other cheek, seek wisdom and truth and nothing else but love, etc. It is this message that is at the heart of any reasonable religion and that is the message I follow. A true leader does not lead with his words, he leads with his actions. It is these actions that define who we are. anyways I am off topic. As I said before, "God" is truly nameless, faceless, and does not judge us. "God" is simply the collective of energy that is existence. This power has helped me many times in my life and I know that it exists because I have felt it many times before. To find it, all one must do is search within themselves to find it.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image83
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I agree.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You do?  Your god is insentient energy?  How useless..

          1. pennyofheaven profile image83
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why?

          2. michael's son profile image60
            michael's sonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is not useless and more importantly it is not my "God" the idea of gods is a rediculous one in my opinion and so are religions. All they are are more excuses for our race to fight. And as far as your useless comment goes, mirracles are not useless and neither is love. Is existence useless? When you call that energy useless, you are calling everything in existence useless. Am I useless, are you useless? I take responsibility for my own actions, I do not expect some being of higher intelligence to be responsible for my actions. What about you?

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Okey-dokey.

              Next?

    7. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Typical "Atheist" crap and still you have presented "NO PROOF" therefore you donot back up your opening title. You claim to be able to prove ther is "NO GOD" yet the fact that you are even discussing the topic proves you do not know what you are talking about for to discuss GOD and His existance or non-existance is like trying to prove a negative that cannot be proven.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yet another theist who didn't bother to read any more than the deliberate bait in the title.

        This proof was not about no god.  Go back and read and try again.  We aren't even attempting to prove a negative.

        By the way: "This is crap" alone  is usually not accepted as valid in any analysis of a proof smile

      2. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Is that how we should start all of our posts, too?

        "Typical Christian crap..."



        PCunix has his argument for the non-existence of gods in general and you have your bible, which is basically another man made argument for the existence of a particular god.

        So, how do you prove your god exists from your own man made argument? smile

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nope.  I am not even trying to disprove their creator. I am merely trying to make them understand that it can only be a natural being, just like the rest of us.

          In previous iterations, some theists have insisted that the creature still is "god" because it has the power of creation.

          I wonder what they will think when we create life?  That may not happen in my lifetime, but it might during the lifetime of some reading here.  We might also eventually understand physics well enough to spin off other universes and even to tweak their physics.  Will we then be gods?

          Some will say yes, but not THE god.  Droll times await the lucky atheist who get to hear THAT bleating.

    8. fireplaceguy profile image59
      fireplaceguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, but most peoples definition of god is that he can not be defined or understood. They are safe in their unfalsifiability.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Of course.  That's not the reason for this thread.

    9. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i n t e r e s t i n g presentaton, PC.
      However, here is a flaw to note:

      You mention the gates of logic, as 2 = 1. In a full logic it would be 1=3.
      You cannot combine 0 and 1 without the spacial "logic" between.
      The relata (cause/effect) has a middle man.
      In Quantum P, it would be a completely different calculation, as particles of physic can appear, disappear "at will" leaving no trace of having been or will be again in any given instance within a binary physic or otherwise.
      But that's another discussion entirely.

      But the flaw I see is in regard to the mechanics of the logic (physic).
      By all human methodology and technology it would be impossible to come to your determination, since no human is able to measure the physic entirely, that is the entire universe and all the elements within. They also cannot measure the frequency of "flips" in size, speed or relevance to the physic. Neither can the logic be deemed pertinent, given no other source of life has provided a counter logic or supportive logic of the claim.

      Second, by applying the logic of stored information, you are grossly assuming storage is necessary? Why? How- Without mechanics? Human logic says logic is required and storage of that logic required and maintained. But, a star has no logic, yet is maintained. It is not binary. It is not cyclical. So how does it "know" when and how to expel its energy or depress itself when the energy is reduced and explode itself before the energy is exhausted -allowing the formation of yet more of itself.?

      Who is to say information cannot be suspended or better expressed, depressed infinitely without storage??? What if the storage or containment unit was the entire information itself. A self contained and expressed logic?

      You might want to look into Quantum non-mechanics and do some research.
      The universe is much more infinite than binary sequential order. In truth, by human methods, there is no binary frequency to the universe at all, yet it lives (is) and does wondrous things, man cannot seem to conceive.

      At Any Rate, kudos for posting.

      James.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A star isn't sentient, is it?

        You have completely misunderstood this.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          --No, you just avoided the answer.

          A star isn't sentient, is it?
          --This is what? Dependent on either the meaning of conscious or sensation(feeling).
          --It has no binary !
          --So, your application of information theory is bogus!
          --If you cannot apply the theory to EVERY item in the universe, you cannot apply it at all.

          "We need at least the ability to flip state from zero to one to store information".

          --so tell me how a star stores information?
          --how does "space" store information?
          --where is the zero point and one point where the flip can occur?

          --Zero point would be the end of the universe and everything between the spacial differential until the One point is reached, where the flip may occur. Now, if you can measure the spacial difference, you might make a claim. But you cannot measure or calculate Zero-to-One. It is infinite, as the universe is continuously expanding, changing.

          --As I stated, information does not need to be stored and in all honesty cannot be stored by your parameters.

          --But even still, if it is a self contained information, like the universe, it does not need to store information to flip Zero-One as it IS the entire sum and substance defined as information.

          --So, it does not prove Creator does not exist, it just proves humans do not understand the universe they live in.
          --And, as AKA Winston mentioned to me -which I actually liked- it doesn't make humans bad people, it just makes them gullible (to their own humanism).

          James.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think you have any idea what is being argued here.

            We don't need to force anything to be binary. The binary state is simply the MINIMUM state to store information.

            No non-sentient thing needs either information storage or logic gates.  Only sentient creatures have need of these things.

            Finally, in logic, there is no "in between".  There is true and false, zero or one. You are way, way out in left field!

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No non-sentient thing needs either information storage or logic gates

              Really?? I am curious what science have you been reading.
              Give me an example of a non-sentient (but, natural) object in the universe that does or does not need your logic gates to exist, maintain form, etc.

              ps, you are implying it requires binary by the flip (zero-one).

              pss, Have you ever studied philosophy? What is Priori? What IS logic?
              Question - Think - Solution . The thinking is the "in between".

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Again, nothing I said even begins to imply a need for binary.  As I said before, binary state is simply the minimum necessary. Multistate systems (our human brains employ these) are perfectly fine.

                As to your silly demand that I show you a non-sentient thing that requires neither information storage nor logic gates, take your pick: NO non-sentient thing requires either.

                And one again, there is no middle state for these assertions. Tom is alive or Tom is dead.   A binary device has the value of zero or one.  My statements about the need for a sentient creator to have storage and gates is either true or false.

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  the Creator would not need storage or logic "gates", as It/He is the logic itself.
                  Example; The universe = Creator.

                  However, if  one considers visible-invisible; tangible-intangible; light-dark as logic gates than again, I exemplify the universe, which is the Creator.

                  So, does the Universe need logic gates? No. Does it have logic gates? Maybe.
                  But either way, the information (logic) is evident -existence well, exists.

                  Your theory --as I said before, is noble-- but inconclusive.
                  The application voids the consideration because you are using human logic to compare a universal logic. That is why I asked you to provide a non-human --sentient (or non-sentient) --object to validate the claim. That's all.

                  If you can do that, then you might have a basis for the theory.
                  smile

                  James.


                  ps, you did imply binary as a need, by this statement: "binary state is simply the minimum necessary". This means it is the bootstrap program that enable the entire operation and processing. Without it (and even with it), the system c/would crash. smile

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I simply have no further ability to respond to you.

                    We'll have to leave it at that: you have successfully thrust your spear right through the blade of a windmill.  The giant has been slain.

                    Someone else may have the patience to explain reality to you.  I do not.

          2. pennyofheaven profile image83
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, what?

              Stars are sentient?  Rocks too?

              Will you say "yes" to any foolish thing somebody posts as long as they end it with "I believe in Sky Daddy"?

              1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What is foolish about the post. I agree with twenty one days logic.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course you do.  I should have known that.

    10. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      NICE!

    11. CaravanHolidays profile image60
      CaravanHolidaysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone involved in making such a potentially inflammatory remark that has links to epistemology should be aware that especially in the 'ethereal region' nothing can be proved, but more importantly it cannot be disproved either.  Still, I do notice that you got as lot of replies, and it's always good to keep the channels of communication and inquiry open.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Anybody who answers this with "nothing can be disproved" didn't bother to read the proof.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What proof? Still waiting for the said proof.....

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The proof that is  post number one of this thread that not ONE of you has ever been able to refute, Penny.  THAT proof.

            It is really getting surreal here. Cecilia is denying integers and of course binary logic. You are redefining the meaning of sentience and there are so many other incredible assertions that aren't even worth listing.

            But the fact remains that in spite of this craziness, none of you have ever touched that proof. All you can do is sidestep it by invoking magic - the ultimate theist retreat.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No I am not redefining anything, you never asked for my definition, only assumed. You have not defined your understanding of God which it seems from your many posts, is that it is a sentient being like you and I are and that it needs the ability to make decisions according to physical laws. So what you have proved is God does not exist by "your definition" of God, and perhaps a few others. Your definition... To that end you have been successful. 

              You have not however given proof to mine and many others definition of God, which for the most part is undefinable.

              Do physical laws apply to space. Do physical laws apply to beyond the big bang? These questions remain unanswered by you who claim to have proof. At least to those who understand God is before the big bang.  I haven't seen any proof yet.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You do realize you just cannot go around creating definitions for things as you like? hmm

                1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No I did not realize that. And I have not defined my understanding.  Is there a definition that exists that suits 'all' believers? I doubt that.

                  It appears the accepted version of God is fixed only for those who don't believe.

                  Science redefines all the time don't they? Science theory is apparently different to our theory.

                  Oh and just in case you missed this

                  'You have not however given proof to mine and many others definition of God, which for the most part is undefinable. '

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image21
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    How dose one define the 99% Unknown World and Universe. The more you think you have the answer for or about God the more elusive and evasive God becomes.

                    I would not claim to know God only that it works for me and whatever works, go for it,

                  2. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Science doesn't redefine words to make inane arguments, Penny.

                  3. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Then, how do believers consistently attempt to speak and think for their gods, defining and describing gods characteristics in great detail? Whose definition of god is correct? Yours?



                    Okay, what is the accepted version of god?



                    No, science does not "redefine", that would demonstrate a poor understanding of science on your part. smile

                2. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Rocks are sentient, according to her and James.  And if Cecilia loses her wallet, she still has something that "approches" a wallet..


                  It's bizarre.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    (you weren't kidding when you said you had AS.)

                    You really have no idea what I'm talking about do you. You have not seen the classic Henri Poncare's Hyperbolic World?

                    See, if I lost my wallet is not the same conceptual scope as the beginning of time.  But I will talk to you on that level.

                    If I lost my wallet, my wallet still exists, it just moved. So losing my wallet is not ZERO.  That's negative wallet.  Because the negative wallet is dependent on having wallet.  If I didn't have a wallet to count and just a pocket, that is just pocket. So you can say pocket is zero. It's not nothing. It's something else other than wallet and negative wallet. It is the state before the concept of wallet could be measured.
                    Now if you I have 1/2 wallet, and then I cut it into half repeatedly until you can no longer tell if there is or there is no wallet. then you have achieved the state of Zero wherein, presence or no-presence cannot be determined. The unity of matter and its opposite, wave. Its both and neither.

                    -1+1 =0 =unity of opposites.

                    One always means you have begun to measure or observe a unit of presence.
                    -One means you have observed a unit of absence. There is measurement.

                    But when you cannot measure, you have zero. Do you understand now?

                    That is why 0=infinity because both are unmeasurable.

                    The Mystics say that G-d is not Keter. (will) Not One.  So G-d is not Energy. Because Energy is Alef=1 and zero is Ayn-nothing.

                    It is said that the name of G-d is Ein Sof, which means no-thing or unending, both defining zero and infinity and the numbers in between.

                    SO if you want to be literal you can say G-d is whatever all MATH stands for. all possibilities. Now how can you disprove that?

    12. Titen-Sxull profile image94
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Theists will just get around this by claiming that God always existed in his current state and that maybe the physics that allows him to exist is just a part of his nature. In other words he simply IS. Or they may attempt to claim that God is a spiritual being existing on a whole other level of existence and therefore immune not only to physics but possibly to logic as well. Remember that there are no rules when dealing with the supernatural.

      You can't reason with the unreasonable and unfortunately the more devout a religious person the more unreasonable, in my experience anyway. At least you tried though and perhaps this will have an effect on fence sitters or agnostic-theists.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We know all that. The point is to force them to admit that their beliefs are illogical and require magic and contradictions.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          To force them...lol

          You really need to meet more real scientists. From your thought leader:

          http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkin … verse.html

          translation. physics is magic and illogical and he doesn't understand it.

    13. Ruben Rivera profile image81
      Ruben Riveraposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      not convinced on your theory, speculation, theory does not mean proof.

    14. mplgmg profile image4
      mplgmgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think that god is not exists . I know that i haven't see any of them but believe on them. There are so many things that beyond hymen sense. for example we can only hear some limited frequency and limited sight also . so according to that there are so many things that we don't know... So there might be gods in our world that we couldn't see or hear.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        please check spelling of human...particularly that that mistake is part of your anatomy.

    15. Tumbletree profile image62
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      actually, no a creator does not need to think. The ultimate nature of things may be beyond our ability to conceptualize. It may be beyond cause and effect. We are in this island of understanding in this perhaps infinite sea of mystery. A God may be beyond even that, and bound by no logic, no law, no bounds, no paradoxes, nothing. We can look to our rational understanding an eliminate such things as a 10,000 year old earth, but God, which is defined by different people to be different things, cannot be. Einstein saw god as the totality of natural laws, are you saying their are no natural laws? But maybe there's a parallel universe that was created by a god in which the Earth is only 10000 year old. Can you prove that our humanities consciousness has slipped from one universe to another. Until we know all that is knowable and unknowable we can't affirmatively say there is no God. God my be just as accurate a description of the infinite multiverse and beyond, as science. Remember science is the child of religion, an attempt to understand, what will be sciences child?

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You didn't read the proof, did you?

        Parallel universes don't matter  (the proof still works) and magic doesn't refute logic.

        1. VoltaireZ profile image60
          VoltaireZposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I parallel universes that operate on different principles including one the lack of principles and logic. We still don't know what our little bubble universe of logic sits on or within. And are you forgetting a mixture of chaos theory and precognition (or time travel through quantum effects?) Remember it is now theoretically possible for scientist to create a whole universe, that grows and expands just like this one, in a lab, but once created it would never interact with this universe. If we can with our little minds create a whole universe, how do you not know some smarter being didn't create ours in his lab, and could choose between this universe intuitively. Dogs cannot understand our thoughts, well our more advance thoughts. There are beings whose thoughts we couldn't comprehend, and for those beings beings that they cannot comprehend, and so forth. It might be that thought and matter, physical reality, are one at higher levels. A baby takes time to recognize an adults language. Yet, animals speak to each other and adult humans are still struggling to understand their words. We now understand some of the language of prairie dogs, who say things to each other like, "human blue," "human red," but not dolphins. Could very advance intelligences be speaking to us right now. Could a tree be a poem. How do you comprehend the universe when you run it backwards.  I'll tell you what I tell people who use science to prove God, go publish your results. Let them be vetted by other scientists. I'm certain proof of God or against God is worth a nobel.

    16. 60
      stoneyyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      --pcunix
      I can prove no gods exist
      --pcunix

      Doesn't matter.  Logic, reason, and objective supporting evidence isn't the driver in the superstition (religion) universe as emotion, namely fear, is the driver.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We know.

  2. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Great analogy.

  3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago

    Interesting thought. I would have to say that if there is a god then he/she/it would be the NAND/NOR gate. It can exist...it just can not function or produce an output unless there is an input. So in theory it could have existed forever in a dormant stage awaiting the series of events that allowed for it to obtain input and in effect cause it to produce an output. But for this to happen...god wasn't the only thing around...there had to be something else as well...which means...god did not create everything...god only produced an output based on inputs received from existing matter. It is impossible to create anything physical from absolutely nothing. You can create an Idea or a thought from nothing (Spiritual/Mental). But to make something from that Idea or Thought you need some form of materials. Just my take on things..

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's pretty much it, Don.  Such a creature is no god. It is dependent upon the logic of the physics that allow it to exist.

      But you may still be confused. A NAND gate has requirements, and the base requirement is physics.  If it just happened to fall togerher, that certainly is no god even if it went on to become incredibly brilliant and able to create our universe. It would be quite an impressive creature, but still only a creature, right?

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. A NAND gate has requirements to function. I was simplifing the thought into an object can exist...but for it to become active(create/produce an output) certain requirements must be met...

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Correct. Do you agree that it is not a god?

          Some theists have argued than anything sufficiently powerful as to have created this universe is a god. Yet some physicist theorize that they could create parallel universes - surely they are not gods?

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I would say IMHO only. The only "god" that I know to exist...is something personal to me and me only...it is not a physical thing and it is not something that I can share with anyone else...To try to explain it to anyone is a lost cause because it is not meant for them... It is mine and mine only...Everything we see or know to exist and for me to attempt to fathom as to how it came to be (since I was not here when it happened) can at best only be a theory. My Logic tells me that the claimed "god" of christians is not possible...But my spiritual being tells me there are things that just cannot be expained sometimes...

            I do enjoy the thoughts behind these discussions...

        2. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In the physical world perhaps but in the world before the physical universe those rules may not necessarily apply. If that were so it is possible we would not be here because even scientists havent found what existed before the big bang. So for something to come out of nothing is not inconceivable.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You cannot decide withoiut a logic gate, Penny. Magic doesn't help you.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps you are missing the point. Do you think the big bang happened magically?

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Nothing to do with it. Misdirection isn't refutation.  The argument allows for a creator.

            2. wilmiers77 profile image59
              wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              pcunix, our bodies require input of nutrients and water but this is not life. An orderly arrangement of molecules produces no life. Life to scientist is magical. Where did life come from? Scientist agree that it is not in matter. Did a God give part of His life like lightening an infinitely amount of candles from one big fire...God. All logic, reasoning, and knowledge is not bound to matter and its behavior in our existence. Therefore, we most all accept the spirit and body (material) duel concept.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No real scientist thinks there is anything magical about life.  The word "life" is simply a label we apply when chemical processes get complex enough to replicate.  So far, the only compound we know that does that is DNA, but we do think other compounds might be able to do the same.

                No magic. Just chemicals.

                1. wilmiers77 profile image59
                  wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wrong! Life has never been proven that the arrangement of any matter produces life. It is still more magical than available to scientific method.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Interestingly enough, science does appear as magic to those who don't understand it. smile

              2. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Please don't lie. Thanks. smile

          2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly. We are trying to compare Physical and Spiritual...it is not possible...it is like trying to compare apples and oranges...

          3. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In fact I believe that something from nothing is the birth of God...

            ...at some point either there was only nothing, or there has always been something, which means there was never a begining, which is a paradox...

            which brings me to the bottom line:

            PCunix, Your central claim is that you have proof that God does not exist...

            No you don't, you have an opinion. I hope it brings you peace.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Something from nothing, sure. But not a god from nothing. As noted, the god needs information storage and logic.  Simpler things preceded it.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If it was the first thing, then "it" was also the only thing. Therefore "it's" starting point was "the" begining.

                God didn't have to start out complete, God may have started out as just a "bit"...

                ...and through "it's" developmental evolution "it" became what we conceptionalize as God today... (including logic and physics which may have came after "the begining")

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If it did not start complete, then it is a natural product of the physics that allowed it to assemble.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    only if "it" didn't create physics...

                    If "it" requires physics... then physics is God.

              2. pennyofheaven profile image83
                pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ah thats what you're not getting. God is the nothing.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  God is nothing?

                  How does "nothing" decide to create, then?

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                    pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    How did nothing bring about the big bang?

                2. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And this is known to you only because it was secretly "revealed" to someone else centuries ago. smile

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                    pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No because that is where you need to go. Into the nothing to experience something that cannot be described by logic or reason. Just as what existed before the big bang cannot so far be described by logic or reason.

              3. wilmiers77 profile image59
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, you need information storage and logic. Not God, our Creator...because we exist and all visible in the universe exist.

            2. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually I was pointing to what you were pointing to. So our opinions are the same or similar if I am understanding your posts correctly.

            3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
              DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, he has proven that "god" can not exist as is currently claimed by the masses.

              If we have to stoop to alternate dimentions, Space time continuums to explain "god" then we must also submit to the theory of Time Travel, Mystics, Mind readers, Aliens, Parallel universes and a various other "SciFi" theories. Sounds like if we are going to use this arguement to say that PC hasn't proven the "accepted" version of "god" false, then we might consider becoming scientologist... just my opinion of course

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If by "accepted version" you mean what the christians call God, then we are not on the same page at all...


                I DO NOT believe the christian version of God is what God truly is.

                In my humble opinion the Christian's are incorrect.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I made no argument concerning a christian god.

                  Try to get this once and for all: my argument is that a sentient creator cannot be anything other than the natural product of some physics.

                  I personally don't believe that there is any other physics than our own, but my argument doesn't depend on that. The only thing it depends on is logic. Simple cause and effect.

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                    pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    In physics if you are in space and you jump do you come back down like on earth? Thats assuming we can breath in physical form in space. I know we can't but just assume we can.

                  2. wilmiers77 profile image59
                    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    pcunix, as Einstein stated I am searching for the after thoughts of an Intelligent Being who created the universe. The created can not know more than the Creator. Once again, you are conceptually putting oranges into grapes.

                2. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "SMASH" goes yet another giant gauntlet as it hits the feet of millions. I am humbled. smile

                3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                  DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly...

              2. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have no problem allowing alternate dimensions, parallel universes or even turtles all the way down - except that somewhere the turtles stop, and there we must find no god, but only the natural product of some physics,

                1. wilmiers77 profile image59
                  wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  pcunix, who created the natural physics?

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You tell me.

                    Your creator cannot have, because it requires physics, storage media and logic gates to make any decision about creating anything.

            4. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Funny how you would attribute "nothing" to having somehow created something that is supposed to be an all-powerful and all-knowing entity capable of creating a universe, yet you won't attribute the very same "nothing" to having skipped over the process of creating the all-powerful and all-knowing entity, and just create the universe instead. Puzzling logic.



              Then, in order to solve the paradox, we would need to change our notion of a "nothing" to that of a "something" - this presents a problem of evidence, for which can only be drawn from our universe considering whatever the "something" is that created our universe is no longer there.

              Hence, we have the introduction of various creation stories based on scriptures written by various men who were claimed to have been inspired by their gods.

              We also have the application of the scientific method helping us to understand the world around us in an attempt to see if we can indeed find evidence for that "something" that kick-started our universe.

              But, for the time being, we can only refer to it as a "nothing" because for the time being, nothing is all we got.



              I'm so glad you've decided to engage PCunix and throw down the gauntlet at his feet. Well done sir!

              I await your rebuttal to his "opinion" with delight. smile

              1. wilmiers77 profile image59
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Beelzedad, nothing is all that you have, but us Christian have experienced the Spirit. Life is a spirit, not a piece of matter which gives life when arranged properly. Life is not in physics, rather physics supports the lives created by God.

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for your emotional outburst that did not address my post in the slightest. smile

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  just go to nearby bar you will get better spirit there..
                  or else you explain what is spirit.....

                  1. wilmiers77 profile image59
                    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    jomine, a spirit can be sensed and felt, but not seen nor phyically touched. Life is a spirit; a potentiality.

  4. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    Hey pcunix. Good for you to throw this out there. I'm very proud of you.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You stated earlier that you cannot understand the proof. Let me help you: where do you lose the train of logic?

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I did not lose your train of thought. I understood your thoughts completely. And as I stated previously. I plan to be courteous and attentive. Vey nicely posted thread you have here.

  5. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    I hate to be contrary, but...

    You are assuming that the god exists and began to exist in our universe.  But if God created this universe then it existed before that creation in some other place.  Call it another dimension or another universe, call it whatever you wish but it is not a part of the space/time continuum we exist in and is undefinable.  The rules of both space and time that we exist in are not applicable to the "place" that God inhabits and cannot be inferred from anything we can observe or experience.

    As the big bang (caused by God) created both the space and the time that makes up our universe, then God existed before time; by definition that is forever, at least in the "upstream" direction.

    Conclusion; God could exist, could have existed forever, or with "correct" "rules" in His universe could have created Himself. 

    GIGO rules the world of logic and imagination.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes agree with much of what you say.

    2. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, turtles all the way down doesn't help you.

      I already agreed that the creator does not have to be part of our universe or be bound by our physics. Read carefully. I most definitely did not assume any such thing.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But, PC, your argument is based on the fact that physics demands certain things like storage and the action of a NAND gate.  It also depends on the use of time as we know it; concepts such as "before" are necessary to your argument.

        There is no reason to suppose that time exists or is a part of Gods private universe.  All actions are simultaneous, although such a concept cannot exist without time to refer to.  Everything that has happened, will happen or is happening is actually happening at all points on Gods "timeline".  Not only the ability to switch from 0 to 1 but the steady state of both 0 and 1 are present in each and every NAND gate throughout that same timeline.  Not possible in our universe, but entirely possible in the imaginary universe of God.

        The physics of information storage could be the same deal.  Different laws produce different results.  Each bit of information (0 or 1) contains all the information in the entire universe at the same time; both 0 and 1 are present an infinite number of times in each bit. 

        Does it make sense or is it possible in our universe?  Of course not, but it could happen with the right "rules" of a different universe.  The rules of Gods universe are whatever it would take to harbor Him; physics, logic, time; nothing needs agree with what we see or experience.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, actually we do have reason to believe that time is independent.

          Your are trying to posit an illogical universe. Physics demands nothing: logic demands physics.

          You cannot contain more than one bit of information in one bit. You want to bring magic into thi, fine, but it doesn't help you any.

      2. wilmiers77 profile image59
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        pc, we must assume that God has always existed, and one of His acts was the creating of our universe and US. First evidence is what we do observe. Pinch yourself; you are the only entity in existence that felt it. PC, you be the proof that God is our Creator. Pcunix, you have just proved GOD!

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          More magic.

          A thing that requires simpler things has to have come into existence AFTER those things. The storage media could exist forever, the creator cannot.

          1. wilmiers77 profile image59
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ...putting oranges inside grapes again...you have assumed a prior creation or existence. Simpler things would constitute an existence.

  6. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I would also ask help in determining if this argument has been made before. I believe that it actually, has, although probably stated in far more complex ways that just make ordinary people run away screaming.

    It is hard for me to believe that no other atheist has made this point. If you know of an instance, please point me at it.

    I know that many atheists have made the mistake of giving up when faced with the impossibility of disproving a creator.  I just can't believe that I am the first to step beyond that.

  7. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 5 years ago

    Personally I would suggest sicking to computer technology because that explanation didn't prove anything.

    The concern for 1s and 0s binary language has nothing on the human brain who developed the concept for use.

    The human though process extends beyond switching on and off.  The mind can start with nothing and imaging a automobile, a missle, tacos, whatever.

        from where I'm sitting this doesn't even come close to proving God doesn't exist...really.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The zeros and ones merely are the minimum requirement for information storage. I said that above: you are free to imagine any information storage method and decision making apparatus you wish: it and the physics that drive it have to exist before the creator.

      1. wilmiers77 profile image59
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oranges into grapes again, pcunix. God always has existed is more harmoneous to our experiences; so is God created the physics. It works better than assuming that previous conditions existed before God, our Creator. Reasoning and common sense dictate that we follow this belief. After all, we all are in an incumbator, the universe, being conditioned to know our Creator.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We seem to be at the stage where which came first the chicken or the egg. Physics apparently created the creator. We advocate everything including physics was created by the creator.

          Through logic alone neither can be proved if we go back to the origins of the Universe.

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Reasoning and common sense???

          Reasoning and common sense say that your creator is vanishingly unlikely and that if it did exist, it MUST be the product of some physics it self!

          1. swedviking profile image74
            swedvikingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Pcunix, do you believe (from your brain not heart) that the imagination of human being about certain things is limited?
            Let's take one example: suppose you are in a room. can you imagine there is nothing after the walls of the room? what does your physics say? now suppose, our universe is the room, can you imagine there is nothing after this universe? ok, let's take billions of other universes and imagine as a small room. can you imagine there is nothing after that? Any logic, any physics or any human being can't imagine that, can they? if you say yes, then i will ask you to imagine it infinitive times, and when your physics will get tired of imagination then i will ask you to imagine your imagination  as a small room and to think "there is nothing after the walls".  If your physics can prove that 'there is nothing' after that the wall then i will go for debate whether god exist r not. why you people just misuse the term GOD? why dont you accept that  human being has limitations to think (after a certain point).? Why don't we accept that when we can't think more than a certain point we start to believe or disbelieving on that? It's just how God came. Why do you try to be so intelligent about a controvercial thing? Why dont you use your brain to something productive? And Pcunix, dont you think that you put so much time for nothing? Be productive!!
            I am not a physician or never studies physics, so i had to use the easiest way to point out on your unproductive works. If you answer me then please clarify any terms you use frm physics.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Physicians don't study physics smile

              Next?

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol lol

              2. swedviking profile image74
                swedvikingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                pc you are a crap. answer me if yu can

                1. swedviking profile image74
                  swedvikingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  pc you are mean too. you could understand i did not mean physician, i had been writing fast and you do understand i meant physicist. you are a real b-shit

                  1. Cagsil profile image84
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And, you could try being more civil with your tongue. Just a thought. wink

                  2. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You can't write English well enough for me to understand you. That's not intended to be mean: I simply cannot follow your confused words.

                    I think you are trying to say that your god is beyond logic.  If so, I have no more interest.

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's what I said.

      You can't prove it using computer logic. Because it is outside of logic it's a metaphor for your "just a creature" well "just a creature" makes the entire universe a mere aspect of this creature, which makes it not "just" but the holy grail of why you were allowed to evolved into you. So it's not "just". It is what could be what is being symbolized and named as "G-d". Afterall, white people were gods to the Aztec mythology. Their rulers were gods too. They were prophesize to come and make a Mexico out of their culture. What does that mean about the word "god" in that concept? So disproving the symbolism of god using the binary system is  once again ignorant and silly. Silly Silly Silly. And if you open another thread, I would call your "proof" silly there too.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You cannot escape logic, Cecelia.

        If your god cannot reason, if it does not reason, it is impotent. It is nothing but chaos in the truest sense of the word. Chaos does not store information and cannot reason.

  8. DoubleScorpion profile image86
    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago

    Christian theory says that "god" has always been...if that is true...why create everything that was created...are we humans so arrogant to think that "god" created us for the purpose of boosting "gods" ego by our submissive worship. That would imply that "god" needs us more than we need "god" and it would also imply that "god" has low self esteem and requires submissive worship from only the humans (not anything else that was created) to fulfill some void in "gods" existance...and since humans were "created" in "gods" image.. I can only imagine that "god" would have the same "needs" as a human does.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This proof also proves that the creator cannot have existed forever. The physics and the ability to store information had to predate it.

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      good points

  9. Bill Manning profile image71
    Bill Manningposted 5 years ago

    Nice try Pcunix, and I agree with you. However your taking about people that are not logical when it comes to the God thing.

    To them God just is. He's magic, defying all logical means and ways that we know.

    That's why you can't change their minds, or prove your right. Your prove is simply dismissed as not applying to a God, as a God is beyond human logic and means.

    However that is the whole point of believing in a god. They want to be saved, to live forever in a perfect world, a magic world. So your point is moot. smile

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Beyond logic?  Impossible. Their god MUST be rational. It can be smarter, faster, stringer and hold more information, but it must have reason.

      An irrational god?  That's an oxymoron.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        An Omniscient God that knows everything and therefore must test Eve to see if she will bite the apple?  That's an oxymoron as well (plus a total failure at logic), but it's what we have.

        Bill is absolutely right - No god is either logical or rational.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's more than that. No creator is possible withouut logic and physics.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            perhaps your conception of what a creator is can't exist without logic and physics, that does not prove the non existence of a creator that does not have those limitations. You assume without proof that what you classify as the creator IS the creator...

            again, got proof?

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I have no conception of a creator other than that it creates and has reason.

              No such thing can exist without simpler parts preceding it.  There are some limitations you simply cannot escape.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sure it is.  All it takes is magic, as Bill says.  Defined as anything that operates outside the laws of this universe.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's not a good definition of magic. I can imagine other physics that certainly are not magic.

              I want to find that time experiment for you, by the way. Give me a minute or two.

              This describes some of it: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s … ts/suarez/

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      my observation also

  10. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 5 years ago

    Interesting we can believe in witches,demons, devils but a being better then we are morally, mentally-Oh that can't happen.

    Yet when we look around we see that this world all by itself it take cares of itself-how can something that has no intelligence do that????

    No matter how someone drops a seed in the ground and cover it up with dirt it grows upward-how does it know where up is at???

    I guess we can tell ourselves any.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's a funny thing to say. How does the world "take care of itself?"



      Uh, it grows towards the light/heat from the sun. Have you never seen how plants turn towards the sun as they grow? Is that direction up, or is it a direction upon where the sun is situated? smile

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        When we're in the presents of light we know were it is but when we're in a room or cave in complete darkness where is the exit??

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I would follow the breeze coming from the exit. smile

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What makes you think breezes travel into every part of a cave and not in a closed room-please.

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Okay, so I get lost in a dark cave. What is your point? smile

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The point is you don't have all the answers so you never answered how something a seed functions the way it does.

                1. secularist10 profile image90
                  secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  A seed functions the way it does because of evolution by natural selection. No god need apply.

                  1. SpanStar profile image61
                    SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No one has said how does a seed knows what way is up when it' buried in the ground and generalizations says nothing.

                2. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That is a boldfaced lie. I'm so sorry you fell compelled to lie to support your belief system. I'm not interested in discussions with liars. Bye. smile

  11. secularist10 profile image90
    secularist10posted 5 years ago

    This is very similar to/ reminds me of the primary response to the transcendental argument for God:

    The claim: Laws of logic, morality and knowledge cannot exist without a designer/ God. God is the necessary, prior condition for the existence of logical, moral and natural laws, as well as the basic objective intelligibility of the universe. Such laws exist, and the universe is intelligible, therefore God exists.

    The response: If logic requires a designer, that designer by definition must be logical. In which case, who designed his logic? If, on the other hand, his logic is undesigned, then logic does not always require a designer, and therefore the logic of reality may have been undesigned.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, that is a similar argument, thank you.

  12. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I think we are progressing nicely. We have the expected magical explanations from Wildreness and others and the expected minds still stuck not understanding that a creator does not need to be anything supernatural (and cannot be).

    I'm going to take a break soon. I need to go look at puppy pictures.

  13. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I regret that I have to leave this for now. 

    I will be back, tomorrow or Tuesday.

  14. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    Hey pcunix, again, good for you. I realize it is probably difficult, bouncing around and trying to speak to everyone from where they are coming from. I think you are doing an excellent job so far, keeping up with all the questions.

  15. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    Hi pcunix. I am a little confused on something. You do understand that your model assumes that we have reached the ultimate level of knowledge we are able to obtain on the universe.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, it assumes no such thing at all.

      It makes sense that you'd try that tack, though.  Unfortunately, it's a dead end, because there is no such assumption in the proof.

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, no. I promised I wouldn't be argumentative here. I was just asking for clarification.

  16. ceciliabeltran profile image86
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Geez really? You couldn't wiggle of it in the other thread and now You're trying to peddle it here?

  17. ceciliabeltran profile image86
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    This was already settled in another thread.

    G-d is a product of human mythology. It is symbolic of a huge variety of things that pertain to something real. So proving it with computer logic is silly. silly. silly.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's not "computer" logic.  I used the computer analogy to help understanding. If I had explained it as pure information theory, even less of you would have understood it.

  18. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    Pcunix, I am so sorry. I know I said I would be courteous and attentive and I have been. I think your model is very nicely done, but I think the posts have proven that, perhaps there is a dimension you are not able to take into account. But, it is still a very impressive thread and it was kind of you to share.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol love it.

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I promised not to make fun of him if he would post it. I feel somewhat bad about the whole thing. He was so sure it would put the argument to rest.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Well I didn't make that promise. lol

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You think you have made fun of me?

          No, my friend, you have not. You and the other theists have only shown your inability to dispute my proof.  None of you have every even attempted it, but you clap each other on the back and pretend you have.

          No gods are possible.  Period.

    2. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What dimension is that?  The dimension of make believe because I need a god to be my friend?  THAT dimension?

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I apologize for asking you to posting this, and I swear to you, had I understood atheism better yesterday I would never have considered this a good idea.

        We are not alone. I repeat. We are not alone.

        There is actually something out there smarter than man worthy of reflective conversations.

        Physics is not the end all knowledge we are capable of attaining.

        a mind is a terrible to waste.

        Again, thank you for the thread, but I'm afraid the search continues for things beyond your grasp.

        Oh, and lighten up. You don't need an imaginary friend. God loves you. We love you, in our own odd way.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          yes that would be woman.

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, lack of reflection on that topic, too, could explain a lot of the problems between the camps.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I was joking. I don't know if you've read my long post. But we can really just speculate. that's all. make parallels and continue to search. Not be dismissive of anything. Not even the strong points of atheism.

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I completely agree. No one knows the truth. I find it difficult to converse with anyone who thinks they do.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                  ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  People find a truth and they get fixated. There are many perspectives of truth because THE TRUTH is just so big, you can look at aspects and occasionally you'll find neat parallels. But then if you know enough, you know it never really ends. Its infinite, its a single point and its both. There you go another parallel.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I wholeheartedly agree. Very nice way to state it, by the way.

                2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Aww - and just a few moments ago you stated with absolute certainly that "There is actually something out there smarter than man worthy of reflective conversations."

                  So - not only do you think you have the truth - you are so convinced - that you have difficulty conversing with some one who thinks they do.

                  This is why your religion always causes so many fights. Because what you actually mean is that you have difficulty conversing with some one who thinks differently to you.

                  Logically - no god can exist. The end. Now put your claims into perspective and what do you have? Delusions, myths and concepts that do not exist in reality. 

                  You are insisting that something in your imagination is real and - I am incapable of perceiving it. Hence the conflict. sad

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi Mark. So nice to see you up. Now, all you need to do is wake up, so to speak. You never answered my question, so I'm not sure I'm obligated to answer yours.

                    I will say, your argument about the war thing is not overly compelling. I find it odd, atheists close the borders of their country and slaughter willy nilly and apparently get to do it without the judgement of their ilk.

                    I guess out of sight, out of mind' is one of the tenets of the faith.

                    Do you think Amazon sells an atheist handbook? I'd be better at arguing if I had a firm grasp on where the heck you're coming from.

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Repeating "We are not alone" is your refutation?

          Well, obviously that does it, doesn't it?  Your logic carries the day!

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No. but I am at a serious disadvantage here. I promised to be courteous. My word is my bond.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ahh.  So you could refute the argument, but it would require insults?

              How telling.

              I assert that, in fact, you don't even begin to comprehend the argument. Like Cecilia and Penny, you either  find it beyond your ability to process or or are too lazy to read it through and actually think about it or, because you have already decided that it cannot be valid, you simply haven't bothered.

              Which is it? Inability, laziness or just didn't bother?  I'm betting on the latter, because I think it fits you best.

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I do comprehend your argument. It is very insightful, on one level. I think you have done a splendid job of defending it. Call me crazy.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I don't think so.  Again, I assert that you do not understand it at all.

                  Fess up.  You are as confused as the others, aren't you? 

                  Prove to me that you are not. Prove to me that you understand it by refuting it. That's the only possible proof -you do understand that, right?  In your theistic world, this argument must be false. Therefore you either need to refute it (I bet with magic in your case) or just ignore it and dismiss it (which has been your method so far).

                  I'm not going to let you get away with "on one level".  On what "level" is it false? 

                  Here's my theory:  You wanted me to start this thread because you couldn't understand the argument and you hoped that by bringing in more theists, one of them would provide the refutation that you are incapable of producing.  When that didn't happen, you went back to your typical responses, dripping with condescension and devoid of real argument.


                  The spotlight is on you. Strut your stuff and prove that you actually have something to say.

                  P.S. : None of us will be holding our breath.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I cannot refute your argument on the level you are comprehending. If you limit the conversation, as you have appeared to in previous posts, it's impossible for us to do discuss it.

                    Again, I say, you did a fine job. I just simply believed that you believed that you had come up with an answer. It is not, in my opinion, an answer. I am sorry we could not find a common ground. It does not negate the fact that you have made a valiant effort to state your point.

        3. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's exactly what those who don't understand physics who are believers, usually say. smile

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey, I was leaving, but I had to answer this. You need to open the lid on your box and gets some air. That comeback was a little light headed for you.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Too funny.

              More of the "think outside the box" advice from our curious friend.

              What box?  No box confines this proof.  You are free to roam wherever you wish.  I've already told you that we understand what "outside the box" means to theists: it means magic. It means a creator who has no need for information storage or logic gates.  This amazing creature is beyond all that.

              But for some reason you still want to pretend that this is not your only refuge.  Why is that?

            2. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So sorry if facts leave you breathless. smile

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There are a lot of of things that leave me breathless. Following this thread has not been one of them.

  19. ceciliabeltran profile image86
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Ok, I'm just having fun now. bye guys! lol

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, goodbye.  You have demonstrated that you can't even understand the argument, never mind refute it in any way.

  20. wizbitz profile image75
    wizbitzposted 5 years ago

    Science fails to destroy the idea of god because of one thing, "origin". Science can't explain where everything comes from.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You didn't understand the argument either.  The argument allows your creator - it simply proves that it cannot be a god.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes so it seems

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We don't need to explain everything and this thread doesn't have anything to do with that.  In fact, the argument accepts your concept that there must be a creator. It simply proves that the creator must be dependent upon underlying physics and is nothing but a natural creature, just like you.

        Are you a god?

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes that is exactly it. No super natural entity. Natural. We are expressions interdependent on other underlying processes because that is how evolution works. Everything is connected. One whole. Kinda like the body. Cells in the lungs do its thing but is still part of the body. Interdependent but connected.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you understand that your creator has to be a natural product of some physics?

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              After the big bang and given other processes not known yet sure. Before that is debatable.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, it is not.  Sadly, I thought we were getting close, but you've snapped right back to the Big Bang again.

                That has nothing to do with this proof, Penny.  You can't have your creator without the required components.

                1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh you are right I thought we were too? So the laws of physics came into being when?

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sigh.

                    Physics had to exist before the creator, Penny. So did the storage media. Then you need to assemble logic gates, which we will allow you to let occur by accident. Only then can your creator begin to exist.

    3. secularist10 profile image90
      secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      @wizbitz

      You said:
      "Science can't explain where everything comes from."

      You are assuming that everything came from somewhere. Why?

      1. wizbitz profile image75
        wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Good question, It is something I think intrinsic in us. That there has to be some beginning. You will be lying if you state that you didn't ask this question in your life.

        1. secularist10 profile image90
          secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ah! So I discover that up here is where you are really answering my question smile

          Anyway, actually, I only assumed there was a beginning when I was a child, not in my main intellectual life.

          Reality works in mysterious ways... rarely are our instincts or intrinsic assumptions correct.

          1. wizbitz profile image75
            wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            hahaha, I am learning

    4. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So, where does religion state where everything comes from? smile

  21. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    In summary, most of the theists here thought that the argument was against a creator, which isn't the case at all.

    I suspect that says less about intelligence and more about haste and laziness: because they KNEW that they could refute THAT argument, they assumed that they knew what it was about - and in spite of being told over and over that it is not, some still cling to that initial error.

    Refuting something that was given at the beginning as assumed fact is not refuting an argument smile 

    The rest (the few that actually understand what is being said) either accidentally agree without ever realizing that they did (the evolved god) or jump to the ancient "My god is beyond logic" nonsense, which of course is no argument at all and envisions a being that somehow employs logic without using any logic - an obvious contradiction, but of course that never bothers a theist.

    Then, laughably, we have the ones who congratulate themselves for winning an argument that they actually made no attempt to refute at all.

    All in all, a satisfying demonstration of how desperately theists need to believe.  This adds further weight to the theory that theism is strongly based in emotions. Deep, deep needs for security, reward and punishment, justice and love drive these beliefs - it really is no wonder that logic can't touch them!

    Fun, as usual.

  22. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Pcunix: Arn't you 'spose  to be watching the
    super bowl

  23. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    Amazing how some  keep returning to the same place. It makes me think of a rubber ball tied to an elastic string. No matter how many times they are told that the argument is not against a creator, they come  right back to it.

  24. wizbitz profile image75
    wizbitzposted 5 years ago

    So you are saying that the creator is also "created"? Am I right?
    (I do like your way of using logic gates as example,universal NAND gates, ^ ^ cool )

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have put no limitations on how this thing comes to be, but created by another god doesn't help.

      Created by evolution, fine. Created by accidental assembly, unlikikely but I'll, give it to you if you want it.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It must have evolved from some similar state but not as complex=bias

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Which agrees with the proof.

  25. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I have to go to bed. Don't feel I am ignoring you - I will be back.

  26. thirdmillenium profile image71
    thirdmilleniumposted 5 years ago

    If you believe, you believe. If you do not, you do not.
    No logic, no common sense here

  27. Adroit Alien profile image89
    Adroit Alienposted 5 years ago

    "I can prove no gods exist"

    The burden of truth is not on us. It's on creationists. Either way, let me give you a hand PC.


    Everything that exists in the known universe, can be measured to some degree. Accurately or inaccurately, the degree of measurement still exists. Matter can be measured in volume, mass, weight etc. Energy can be measure in temperature, joules, watts, lumens, etc. Stress can be measured with cortisol levels, happiness with endorphins. Time can be measured in seconds, days, years, etc. Even dreams can be measured with MRI's and scans.

    If god exists, surely he/she/it can be measured right? I have yet to see a method of measuring the existence of god. Could it be possible that a method have not been developed yet? That's very convenient. To say that god is infinite, all knowing, all seeing, and whatever fairy tales people come up with is not only silly, but lazy. The creationist's answer to everything: GODDIDIT.

    Even if you creationists challenge me to measure the size of the sun, I could simply wear sun glasses, close one eye and stick out my thumb and say, "there! It's about the size of my thumb." And at night, I could say, "the moon is the size of my pinky." Childish as it might sound, my measurements are more accurate than any proof you can come up with for the existence of god.


    This brings me back to my point. Measurements don't have to be 100% accurate. The only area where 100% accuracy exists is mathematics. Challenge a scientist to date the age of the Earth or a fossil and you can simply move the goalpost. It won't be good(accurate) enough. Hell, my own age is only accurate to a degree. I can say I'm 25 years, 3 months, 24 day, 14 hours, 11 minutes, and 14 seconds old but for a creationist, this will never be good enough. Moving the goalpost is easy.


    On the other hand, if you challenge a creationist to give ANY measurements of the existence of god, they'll say, "you just gotta have faith". Faith does not require proof.

    Staying true to the subject, I conclude that god does not exist because if god exists, he/she/it can be measured to some degree. Since I(and science) cannot accept [blind]faith as a form of measurement, god does NOT exist.

    1. secularist10 profile image90
      secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, they would make the argument that it is possible to measure God by reading the Bible or the Quran, or whatever text, along with learning about specific miracles.

      That gives an idea of God's power, what he uses it for, and what he is all about.

      1. Adroit Alien profile image89
        Adroit Alienposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Other than the number of time the word "god" was repeated, I don't think creationists can use the bible as proper scale of measurement.

        I get your point and it took me a long time to write that post. I hope it speaks clearly for itself.

        1. secularist10 profile image90
          secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, using a religious text is no less precise than using your thumb to measure the sun, which was your example smile

          1. Adroit Alien profile image89
            Adroit Alienposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, the thumb was a measurement of size. I used it as an example of accuracy or rather lack of. The POINT of using the thumb as form of measurement is to show that i can visually see my thumb and I can align it in between the sun as a CRUDE form of measurement. I am using my thumb to determine a measurement: Size.

            Like I said precision(accuracy) doesn't matter. The point is the measurement exists. Are you suggesting that god can be measured with the width of a religious text? Or with words? Or with pages? Please explain.

            1. secularist10 profile image90
              secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              With words that describe ideas, concepts, values, qualities, stories with lessons, morals, etc, yes.

              A yardstick provides a measurement of length, and a story (it could be argued) provides a measure of values and qualities.

              A table has length and God has values and qualities.

              1. Adroit Alien profile image89
                Adroit Alienposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I know you are playing devil's advocate but I'll humor you.


                If you are suggesting that God can be measured by values and qualities, then for one, you have to define the magnitude which these values need to be scalable. Just as I can define the magnitude of LENGTH, they are scalable. For example, inches, meters, light years, etc. I could measure my height with these scalable magnitudes. 5' 9". See? How are you going to measure god's "values" and "qualities" on a scale? Good, better, best? Sad, indifferent, happy? Dumb, average, smart? All of these values can be measured. How do you propose we measure god's feelings, or intelligence? Have him take an IQ test?

                If you are suggesting god can be measured with values and qualities, would you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Uniform be put through these measurements too? The words in the bible have no more weight than words in fairy tales. Are you suggesting that we subscribe to believing in the Tooth Fairy too simply because it was written in a storybook?

                Surely by playing devil's advocate, I am assuming you are proposing that god exists outside of storybooks. Correct me if I'm wrong.

                1. secularist10 profile image90
                  secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "How do you propose we measure god's feelings, or intelligence?"

                  I already told you, by reading the Bible smile The stories of the Bible have more than enough material to get a grasp on how intelligent or wise God is.

                  FSM et al--theoretically they can be measured through the writings and texts that have been written about them, in the same way.

                  "Are you suggesting that we subscribe to believing in the Tooth Fairy too simply because it was written in a storybook?"

                  You are shifting things here. Your original point was that God cannot be measured--> therefore God does not exist. The premise was that God cannot be measured. I am proposing that if God exists, God can be measured. That does not mean that God exists, of course (God may not--indeed, does not--exist for other reasons). But it does nullify your premise.

                  All I'm trying to point out here is that your argument from measurements is not very effective. There are plenty of reasonable objections that a theist could make.

                  1. Adroit Alien profile image89
                    Adroit Alienposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I have not shifted anything.

                    Measurements are nouns. They require mathematics. Quantitative proof. 1, 2, 3, 4, inch, mile, second, year. These are all nouns.


                    My argument is still effective. My thumb is a noun that I can compare to the size of the sun(another noun).

                    Let's look at this statement. "God is an intelligent being". "Being" is the noun. "God" is the pronoun. "God" is only implied to exist. There is no proof. The bible is not proof. You are under the assumption that words in the bible proves that god exists. It doesn't. It only implies it.

                    Even if we use "God" as a noun for example: "God gave me a high five." we still cannot measure he/she/it. It's imagination.

                    You can only measure pronouns once you've proven they exists because they are only IMPLIED to exist. Example: "He weighs 160lbs". "He" is the pronoun. You would have to define who "He" is. If I say, "He is Bill", then I can use that statement to measure Bill because I've defined who "he" is.

                    "God" is the pronoun. God cannot be measured. Your argument assumes god exists.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not in your understanding of God, probably not. Perhaps you need to read the whole thread.

      God or Creator created the universe. The universe was created by the big bang. God was in the void prior to the big bang. Can scientist measure before the big bang? Did physics exist before the big bang? It doesn't matter if you cannot measure till after the big bang because God existed prior to it. All things came from the big bang and we are a result of it. The process of evolution is the expression of this process existing prior to the big bang.

      Did physics or science create God?

      1. secularist10 profile image90
        secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hate to burst your bubble, but the big bang is not established as the beginning of all reality. It represents the beginning of this universe, but not necessarily all reality. That's what the science says, anyway.

        So to answer your question, yes, physics existed before the big bang, if the current models are correct.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I understand what the scientists are theorizing. Theories are not proven. The original post claims proof God does not exist through logic and physics. That may be true but has not yet been proven. So far not. If you have proof, cool, I am all ears.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Penny,the original post says no such thing. Go read it again.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, so what is this saying then? Maybe I am not getting it again? From your original post....

              The logic gates depend upon physics to work, and the creator cannot have created either the storage, the gates or the physics. These things had to exist before it could exist.

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

              I only assert that it requires preexisting storage and preexisting physics to drive the logic gates that allow it to reason.

          2. secularist10 profile image90
            secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "Theories are not proven."

            That's right. And the Big Bang is one of those theories.

            As for proof that God does not exist, well, you can't prove a negative. But logic tells us that it is extremely unlikely that God exists. That's another topic altogether.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Logic yes from ones opinion.

              1. secularist10 profile image90
                secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not unless you believe that 1+1=2 is someone's opinion. Logic and reason remain constant, but opinions can change.

                1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But logic tells us that it is extremely unlikely that God exists

                  Given the above opinion you had....

                  So in 1+1=2 kind of  logic please do tell how it is extremely unlikely?

                  1. secularist10 profile image90
                    secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Here is one way:

                    God is uncreated
                    God is the creator of everything.
                    God exists, therefore he is part of everything.
                    Therefore God created himself.

                    This is a contradiction because God is defined as being uncreated. The conclusion we must draw is either (1) God did not create everything, or (2) God, in fact, was created.

                    (Also, it is absurd to think that something can create itself.)

                    Either way, God (the uncreated creator of everything) ceases to exist.

                    I got a million of 'em smile

      2. Adroit Alien profile image89
        Adroit Alienposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "can scientists measure before the big bang?"

        No, but we can measure after the big bang.

        Can you measure god before or after the big bang?

        Can you measure god at any point in time?



        It absolutely matters if you can measure after the big bang. You are moving the goalpost.



        "god existed prior to it."
        Can you prove that?

        "all things came from the big bang..."
        Did god come from the big bang?

        If so then god should be measurable. If not, then you should retract your statement and choose your words more carefully.

        "did physics or science create god?"
        This is not a valid question because you are assuming god exists. Try again.

        1. yankeeintexas profile image59
          yankeeintexasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How about this: God was the "Big Bang"!
          God said it, and "Bang" it happened!

        2. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly, no, nothing can be measured or proven before the big bang. 

          No one said you can measure God. This might be a good question, can you measure infinity?

          Of course it matters after the big bang, especially to scientists and physicists, that is the nature of what they do. It matters not when proof that God does not exist is claimed because there was something existing prior to the big bang.

          I cannot prove God existed prior to the big bang any more than anyone can prove what existed before then. Physics and Science included.

          According to a previous post (hence why I suggested reading the whole thread) physics created God. I am not sure how that is possible since God is not human by any stretch of the imagination.

  28. wizbitz profile image75
    wizbitzposted 5 years ago

    @secularist10 , because even science do agree that everything must come from something.The Big bang theory, says two massive objects colliding but science would not say where those two objects came from.

    as this thread suggests, that the creator can be just a result of some evolution, or some natural force. It might mean that we are considering "nature" as god, or as you say "physics" so you are considering physics as god. And still you have your god there.

    I actually agree, that before we can disprove "GOD", we must have a clear definition of what truly GOD is.

    1. secularist10 profile image90
      secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wizbitz

      "because even science do agree that everything must come from something."

      Incorrect. Science says that everything in reality comes from something. Science makes no claim as to whether reality itself came from something.

      Think of a box full of stuff. All of the stuff is constantly changing from one form into another. That is the stuff that science talks about. Science was created inside the box, so by definition science cannot talk about where the box itself came from.

      Believing in an eternal/ uncreated reality does not contradict science. The Big Bang theory explains the origin of this universe, not the origin of all of reality.

      1. wizbitz profile image75
        wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        okay, so the problem of science is, it cannot tell the origin of reality?

        Maybe that is why science can't disprove God?

        1. secularist10 profile image90
          secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Uhhh... not exactly, lol. Talk about twisting words, lol.

          Again, you are assuming that reality has an origin. I already indicated that there is no reason to believe this.

          1. wizbitz profile image75
            wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you are saying reality is what it is...okay I understand thanks

            1. secularist10 profile image90
              secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ??? haha

              Reality is eternal and uncreated.

              1. wizbitz profile image75
                wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, you are saying that reality is what it "is", eternal and uncreated

                kk ^ ^

          2. pennyofheaven profile image83
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Where is the origin of nothing? You start with nothing end with nothing so it is nothing. No beginning or end of nothing like the symbol nothing 0 where does it start where does it end. Anywhere you want it to.

    2. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Something that evolved is no god.

      Are you a god?

    3. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but that isn't even remotely aligned with the BB theory.



      Use your own personal definition as that is all anyone has to offer outside of scriptures. Or, just use scriptures. Simple. smile

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wow. Good catch. I missed that bit of scientific "knowledge" entirely.

        It makes you wonder about our current educational system, doesn't it?

      2. wizbitz profile image75
        wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ^  ^, need to study more then,hahaha.

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Good luck! smile

          1. wizbitz profile image75
            wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            btw, whats wrong with my statement? just want to know thanks!

    4. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I thought that might have been a good idea too. Seems it was not useful.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, it isn't useful and you still have no idea why, in spite ofit being explained to you repeatedly.

  29. wizbitz profile image75
    wizbitzposted 5 years ago

    Also, a clear definition of physics

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Physics is just the rules.  It's that simple, at least for purposes of this argument. You only need more if you want to explain exactly HOW things work.

    2. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You don't know the definition of physics? Odd. smile

      1. wizbitz profile image75
        wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        hahaha you're being rude now ^ ^

  30. ceciliabeltran profile image86
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    See, this is what happens when you cross genres.

    A mystical figure in world literature is being disproven.

    It's like where is the Garden of Eden exercise or the Philosopher Stone. All sorts of funny arguments come up.

    First you have to pore through descriptions of G-d across the border in world mythology, then ASSIGN a scientific counterpart...like in PCUnix case "a unity" or zero =infinity. Then you have to know the theory surrounding that, which is the theory of everything.Then you can disprove it, using human logic. (you see how many assumptions you have to make?)
    But then logic breaks down at that level because we do not have as yet the ability to go back that far back in time to observe anything if indeed we can see what transpired beyond time.

    But PCunix is already under false premise.
    He says G-d is a unity, or zero.

    But according to mystical texts both in Hinduism and Judaism, the oldest religions of the world,
    G-d is beyond infinity and the ein sof (nothingness/no end) is just a product of G-d. G-d is beyond his Will. Beyond Om. So you are describing something that is beyond mathematics, beyond zero. Without duality, he says, you cannot observe manifestation. Well, according to the Jews, (and the Christian bible) the universe was created using the number 2, which has the conceptual equivalent of a House or a Womb. Like a separation. So, you can observe those things actually if you study them enough if they are indeed true. But the cause of it, it's insane to think that you've cracked what physicist have been trying to crack using megabrains and actual tools like the hubble with just your ingenious mind. Are we Einsteins here, maybe.

    We can make a comparison of how the universe began from the two religions and then compare it to mathematics and the theories. But to even go and try to disprove an indefinable cause...lol shakes head. Good luck.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, Cecilia, I say no such thing.  It astonishes me that this late in the conversation you still say things  that indicate you don't even have the most basic understanding of what is being argued.

  31. ceciliabeltran profile image86
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    For instance.

    According to Jewish Mysticism
    0 is the Ein Sof
    1 is Spirit/Energy
    2 is the House/Womb

    G-d existed beyond Ein Sof and created Ein Sof by constricting the endless light to a single point. So G-d is actually before the singularity. And upon constricting it, He created a vaccuum, a space.
    So First was nothing, then movement (constriction) Energy. Then from there he began emanating the emanations...what are emanations? in some texts it's called Intelligences, In others its radiations that vary in light intensity From white to red (you could say this is wavelength) and they bear human psyche descriptions. And from the very last emanation is the universe where He dwells.

    According to Hinduism

    Beyond being and no being, "the One breathed. Beyond that nothing that ever was"
    Before that, then brahman -willed, let me create the world he said.

    From Om the five elements.

    the first was space
    from space came air
    from air came fire
    from fire came water
    from water came earth.

    From the heart of Om came truth and all these worlds in their magestic glory, including time etc.
    then only the sun, the heaven and the earth. (actually the hindu version is clearer about the sequence)

    And all the creatures, consciousness is the purpose. Consciousness is Brahma.
    (hence the motivation for PCunix's gates!, if you follow the mystical logic, you have to choose one, scientific or mystical)

    From here creation begins and ends continuously.

    Science:

    What we know (Chaisson MIT, EPIC EVOLUTION)

    The arrow of time begins with the • particle epoch, (forces)
    then • the galactic epoch (structures of space which is a macrocosm of the particle, galactic bulges and black holes)
    then • the stellar epoch, which gives birth to elements, then the elements lead to
    • the chemical epoch, such as water (so fire first from stars, then water) then from the chemicals matter that became• planets organized.

    The Beginning Now, Nutshell, no-beginning, just cycles

    According to Roger Penrose: proposes a theory called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, which requires no beginning to the universe.

    "The analysis of Wilkinson Microwave Background Probe's (WMAP) cosmic microwave background 7-year maps does indeed reveal such concentric circles," he says in a report on the Arvix website.

    "This is confirmed when the same analysis is applied to BOOMERanG98 data, eliminating the possibility of an instrumental cause for the effects. These observational predictions of CCC  would not be easily explained within standard inflationary cosmology."

    The circles would have been created by a series of 'shockwaves' representing events before the last Big Bang.

    "If you're not accepting inflation, you've got to have something else which does what inflation does. In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future," Penrose told the BBC.

    "I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon."

    He further said:

    “Physically, we may think that again in the very remote future, the universe “forgets” time in the sense that there is no way to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big deal.” So the future boundary, to such an entity, is just like anywhere else. With conformal invariance both in the remote future and at the Big Bang origin, we can try to argue that the two situations are physically identical, so the remote future of one phase of the universe becomes the Big Bang of the next. This suggestion is my “outrageous” conformal cyclic cosmology.”

    The paper can be read here :
    http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/ … ESPA01.PDF

    There you go, what this means is, the big bang or Zero is just the a beginning of a process the begins and ends...expands and contracts infinitely.



    I'm sorry, but you can't disprove a mystical figure  but you can prove a myth to have basis. (I mean was there really Elohim, or Brahma saying Let there be, or Let me Create the World, so that all know who I am? How can you prove that? Or disprove it?)  We don't know if these are just coincidences but maybe religion now was the science then and we just forgot. We'll never know until we find a computer buried in Iran beyond 15,000 years before the last ice age....my this could have been a hub.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And I am sorry too, but you still don't have any idea about the actual argument.

      I agree that a mystical figure cannot be disproved. That's a given. So is disproving a creator.

      As I keep trying to get you and some other stubborn theists to understand, this isn't about that. It is about proving that if a creator exists, it can only be a natural product of the physics it operates in. It cannot escape that any more than you can.

      Overall:

      A few more theists have joined in here, mostly using "magic" to escape reality.  That satisfies them, so they can remain theists, secure in the knowledge that their god doesn't need logic to exist. 

      Then we still have those who, like Cecilia, don't even know what is being argued.  And of course we still have the ones who don't even bother to argue and simply assert that their god exists ( "We are not alone") and that's all we need to know about that!

      We have a few atheists who don't understand what is being argued, also. Like the theists, they have been taught that there can be no disproof of gods and, without reading anything, jump in to assert that this is wrong.

      Of course, at this point, most participants aren't really reading anything: we've reached the point of repetition because of that.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting that...our ancients had it like this

      Te Kore; energy, potential, the void, nothingness.
      Te Po; form, the dark, the night.
      Te Ao-marama; emergence, light and reality, dwelling place of humans.

  32. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    I have read it twice.
    It just seems to me that if you see this as proof that God does not exist  ...  Then ....  with this same logic ...  the universe does not exist.

      If we can not prove what created God, he doesn't exist??
      If we can not prove what created the big bang, it did not happen??

       Just the way I see it,  Sorry

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami, as expected, you, like so many of your theist brethren, don't begin to comprehend this thread.

      Nothing here even attempts to prove that something doesn't exist. In fact, the proof assumes that your concept of a creator could be accurate. 

      Your error is in refuting an argument that wasn't made.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If that is true, maybe the title of the thread is inacurate.

          I thought that, you thought the thesis proved.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The title was deliberate bait to draw in theists.  Our just_curious person needed help and, knowing the way theist minds work, if I had used a less provocative title, they might have ignored the thread entirely.

          So is your defense going to be that you only read the title and didn't bother to read the original post? Tsk, tsk.

          But it's not too late - you can go read it now, right?

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As I said earlier...  I read it twice and it ws well written.

              But when reading it, I ws looking to find the tie that proved the point that the thread was titled under.

               Didn't find that final statement that made  deinitive conclusion.

               That is all that I was saying.

               Sold a paint job yesterday and now have to put all the details together, materials and tool together. 

               I'll leave Yawl widdit.

  33. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Arrogance ? No. With his model, he can disapprove biblical god or any religious god.

    Universe > Species (god) > secondary species (humans) model is hard to disapprove. But in this model, god is not omnipotent, powerful and all knowing. He's just creator of secondary species.

    You can only catch PCunix in this argument of second model but if you appeal with your emotional arguments, then it's very easy to disapprove god.


    Christian churches used to believe in flat earth, and they punished those who used to believe in round planet model.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think you miss my point

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, he didn't.  But because you never were able to understand what was being proved to begin with, of course you can't understand what Skyfire said here.

      2. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No. I didn't miss the point. You're saying that PCUnix appears arrogant in this thread because as per you he didn't explored the universe and hence your claim of god's existence or belief holds true. You're just discarding him on basis of 'gaps' in knowledge and calling him arrogant because his opinion clashes with your religion or personal. When people believe in something and get approval from the tribe then it's natural that any person who makes point against tribe's opinion-appears negative to the people inside tribe. (this is what you're experiencing).

    2. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well phrased.

  34. superwags profile image80
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    You can't prove that there is no God. And I'm not using this as an argumentum ad ignorantium here, because I'm about 99.9% sure there isn't a God either; and entirely sure that there isn't a God as described in holy scripture.

    There's a hell of a lot of evidence to say there isn't a God. But you wont prove it conclusively by default. I refer you to Bertrand Russel's teapot!

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't contest that.  I have not attempted to disprove a creator.  I have only proved that such a creator cannot be anything but a product of the physics it must logically depend on.

      You've made the same mistake as the theists by jumping in with the assumption that you already know what the proof is.

      1. superwags profile image80
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why must a creator obey the same laws that it has created itself? I just don't buy your argument (and I'm an atheist!).

        Perhaps I don't understand fully your point, but it seems to have a very narrow field.

        Also, regardless of whether I fully understand your point or not, I have also never heard this being used as a proof of the none existence of God. Ever. Hawking, Dirac, Ginsberg, Dawkins, Feynman, Sagan and Krauss missed this one did they?

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, apparently they did miss it.  We talked about that earlier -many atheists give up when they realize that a creator cannot be disproved.  Perhaps they also realize that "magic" is the theists get out of jail free card, so they didn't want to bother with this.

          Small reminder: argument from authority is not a valid method.

          Nobody says a creator has to obey OUR physics. This proof merely says it is dependent upon SOME physics.

          1. superwags profile image80
            superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think there's a fair chance a theist would dispute that last statement.

            Like I said earlier, there's no argumentum ad ignorantium here. My default position on anyhting is to wait for evidence.

            You're right, argument from authority is not a valid method. However, given that I've said that I don't know enough to buy your initial argument one way or the other (though my gut instinct is that it's flawed by it's narrow field), I'd obviously err on the side of caution.

            I find it hard to believe that someone like Alan Turing with his knowledge base, genius and feelings towards religion would have failed to spot this one! I await the international newspaper headlines in anticipation....

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Amazing. More argument from authority.

              You don't know enough?  About what? About information storage?  Any person of normal intelligence should be able to understand that you need a minimum of two states to store information. Surely that is not where your understanding falters?

              Is it the concept of a logic gate? Again, just simple thought should tell you that information storage alone is insufficient.  What good is a zero or a one if you can't change the state of something else based on the state of one or more bits?  Is it that you cannot understand?

              If not these, there is nothing else.  So what is it?  An excuse not to think?

              1. superwags profile image80
                superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well at least I care about logic then now, ipse dixit!

                I understand the concept of information storage, I also understand the concept of a logic gate. That said, I fail to understad your argument. I understand logic gates as components of building circuits or models; not as a mechanism of physics in it's purest sense. You wouldn't use the tern "logic gate" for a physical process unless it was in electronics in any case. I mean, quantum tells us about probability functions for certain occurances, but that isn't the same as a logic gate as I understand it. 

                I understand physics is counterintuitive at the best of times but this is a circular argument and proves nothing. It's a straw man tactic; you immediately state that "this storage requires logic gates" and then tear it down.

                My feeling is that you've got your underlying physics wrong on this one anyway - though as I say, I am not from this field.

                Excuse my ignorance but I don't get it. You need to set it out again, I think.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  This argument does not depend upon any understanding of physics or computer circuitry.

                  It only points out that you need information storage first.  Do you deny that?

                  After that, you need some mechanism to read storage and affect the state of that or other storage based on what you reads. Do you deny that?

                  The mechanism obviously must be dependent upon some physics that makes it at least somewhat reliable. It doesn't have to be perfect, of course, but it does need to be more than random.  Can you deny that?

                  That's all you need to understand.  Given those very simple ideas, these things must exist before we an have any sentient being.

                  1. superwags profile image80
                    superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    This is the science that Turing and Feynman pretty much theorised. I don't actually understand the ins and outs of information theory and quantum. Feynman famously said that if anyone tells you they understand quantum, then they're lying.

                    I'm (and I see the irony in the use of this phrase) playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't a theist just argue that god has been here forever and therefore doesn't need to obey physics.

                    I mean, I agree with you that how can a creator exist without itself being created. But theists gave up a logical standpoint in agreeing with god initially; they tend to be pretty happy with that stance. You don't need to invoke information theory for that, because I'm not sure it's necessary, (and it is incredibly difficult to understand). 

                    Incidentally, have you heard of the holographic principle? It fries the brain. All of this is actually fairly illogical from a human stand point, to return to our initial chat. No natural logic may be applied from our point of view, but we must just go where the science takes us.

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Apparently you are an atheist who doesn't care about logic?

          How can something that doesn't exist create the elements that it needs to exist?

          That's magical thinking and is the only path for theists to get away from this problem.

          What's going on here is a game. The title was bait, but the argument has an entirely different purpose. First, it forces some of the theists to admit that they don't care a bit about logic.  That's their escape route.  I don't really care about them - they can be happy and good for them.

          It's the ones who cling to rationality that I find interesting. You can read through their posts here and watch them squirm, but sooner or later they have to either invoke magic or run away.  I find watching the process interesting.

          1. superwags profile image80
            superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, I care a great deal about logic, but I know very little about computational logic and only slightly more about logic as a function in physics. It's a case of semantics. But i think you knew that.

            I agree that there's something deeply illogical about a belief in any sort of creator or particularly in a personal God. But a theist would say that a God works outside of these bounds.

            I enjoy the game too, but I need to keep you on your toes a bit! Keeps the debate healthy.

            Off point slightly, but given what you've written you may enjoy (or have already read) Nick Bostrom's book on simulated reality. His arguments are pretty convincing, though obviously fudamentally nigh on impossible to prove...

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This has nothing to do with computational logic. That has been a common error of the responding theist.

              I don't read fiction, but someone else may find that interesting.

              Saying that the thing works outside of the bounds of logic is simply appealing to magic. It's the theists get out of jail card: the thing cannot logically exist, thefore we nullify the argument by making it illogical.

              How does an illogical thing make decisions?  That's not.. logical smile

              1. superwags profile image80
                superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think it has to be to do with computational logic or else your hypothesis is flawed. I think.

                It's hardly a fiction book! Prof Nick bostrom, Professor of Philosophy and future technologies at Oxford, it doesn't make for a beach read! I found it genuinely interesting and a good popular science book.

                Yes I'm not arguing with you on the fundamental point that a god is illogical; just pointing out the counter argument a theist would use...

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You think incorrectly. This has nothing to do with computational logic.

                  Yes, we know theists seek refuge in the illogical world of magic. That's not the point. The point is to tease them and watch them slowly get there or just walk away with their minds shut. This is not about convincing theists; it is about watching their reactions.

  35. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I do find it fascinating that even at this late date, the theists still don't realize that their only way out of this is magic.  They need a god that doesn't need information storage and doesn't need logic.

    That's enough for some, but what interests me is those that try to avoid that. It's as though one part of their brain really understands that things MUST make logical sense, but another emotional part requires this ludicrous belief. So, they desperately try to find the logical fallacy that simply isn't there.

    The psychology of this kind of theism is very interesting. Your garden variety theist simply shuts off their rational brain and doesn't let it bother them at all.  But these folks are bothered by that and want the rational circuits to justify what they need to believe emotionally. 

    I find it very, very interesting. It is one of the reasons I like to bring up this kind of thing now and then.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What I find fascinating is you have not bothered to get a definition of God that we all can agree on. You believe that God that all theists understand is a 'sentient being' that sits on a cloud waving a magic wand that needs logic and emotion like we do.  This is not true for many.

      Sound more like you need a God to have these qualities. These are our limitations not Gods.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The only attribute I demanded was sentience.  If you have a non- sentient god, what purpose is it?

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As sentient beings it is normal to demand sentience. However sentience is the nature of 'our' existence as limited expressions of God. The purpose (if you need one) is to experience itself in an infinite number of ways. Our existence as we know it demonstrates the infinite number of different expressions of the parts that make the whole.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So your god cannot think? Cannot make decisions? Am I understanding this correctly?

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Do you mean in the manner we do? If so. No.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I mean in ANY manner!

                What do you think "sentient" means?

                1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Here is the difference. We have a brain that determines what sentience is or is not. Without the brain it is just energy. No brain to make it this or that.

    2. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 5 years ago

      WTF! Seriously, what could be the educational qualification of these folks ? lol

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Slim to none, obviously.

    3. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 5 years ago

      If this kind of god exists at the top of hierarchy then bible and other scriptures are complete drama/play because this type of god is -

      emotionless
      highly creative (like create one species and another)
      highly ignorant about state of previous species he created
      infinite at almost any concept (logic and existence)


      in short you can't appeal this god with any emotion and 99% chances are there that this god gives rats behind to whatever happens inside this universe/galaxy/planet/country/state/city/home/mind. LOL.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Worse, it is entirely unpredictable and random.  Dangerous thing to be near, I'd think smile

    4. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago

      It's as though one part of their brain really understands that things MUST make logical sense, but another emotional part requires this ludicrous belief.

      - - - -



        ME
        What is not logical to me is that some people believe that our puny little brains are adequate to logically made sense of EVERYTHING in the universe,  ...  and when we can't, "IT" isn't there.

         It seems as though Theist and Atheist (Every one) has our heads in the sand, until we admit to ourselves that we don't and will never be able to logically make sense of EVERY thing.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Again, Jerami, you are arguing against a point never made.

        This is not a theory of how things came to be. This is a logical proof that deals with your creator fantasy.

        I'd say you are one of the "just shut it off and don't worry about it" types at heart.  Why don't you just do that?

    5. Daniel Carter profile image91
      Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago

      This is a curious and intriguing thread to me.

      So PC, by your proof that God doesn't exist, how do you justify our existence? How did that come to be, if not by pure coincidence, and if that's so, why isn't God possible by pure coincidence as well? Are the two related: there is no god, but yet we exist. If we are coincidence by a big bang or string theory, or whatever, then why isn't God possible based on our existence?

      It would seem that by the laws of physics, if we exist by a chance coincidence, then anything is possible, because physical laws could combine to create it, since they already have to create us and this universe.

      I'm neutral on all this. I'm just curious about yours and other's take on it.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Another one who hasn't read anything.

        Go back and read the original post, Daniel. This is not about proving the theist fantasy cannot exist.  It speaks to its origins, not its existence.

        1. Daniel Carter profile image91
          Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're right, I didn't read past the third page. Most of it was rather useless.
          Thanks anyway.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ah, "Useless".

            Another EXCELLENT refutation.

            You might have a promising career as a professional debater.

            1. Daniel Carter profile image91
              Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Information that is useless means I have no use for it. Not useless to everyone, just to me, right now. It's kind of like being a nonmechanic and reading a tech manual about mechanics, for which I have no use. May or may not be valuable to me at some point. We all specialize to some degree.

              There may be some bits here that will lead me to investigate further another time. Don't know yet.

              Refute as needed, PC. Doesn't matter. My interest level just isn't in it.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, that's a good theist out.  That's the "shut off the rational side and I don't need to worry about it".

                That does have some interest - it is surprising to see someone admit it so easily - but really I find the ones who want to cling to rationality more fascinating.

                But good for you - I really do think that is the only real path open to theists that won't make them queasy and uncertain.  Uncertainty and doubt has no place in the theists world and I am happy that you are able to avoid it.

                1. Daniel Carter profile image91
                  Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not a theist. God is irrelevant to me. Your mistake. Perhaps your emotions are too involved in this. My focus and interests lie in other places at present, but I have a passing interest in these subjects from time to time. However, this one failed to keep my interest.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Funny, because you THINK just like a theist.

                    But fine - whatever you think you are or are not, you don't understand that this argument can only be refuted by invoking magic. That tells me all I need to know.

                    1. PhoenixV profile image79
                      PhoenixVposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Where were you 15 billion years ago Pcunix? you need information storage first.  Do you deny that? You cant possibly exist without it
                      Where were you 15 billion years ago Pcunix?
                      After that, you need some mechanism to read storage and affect the state of that or other storage based on what you reads. Do you deny that?

                      Where were you 15 billion years ago Pcunix? You had no information storage capabilities.

                      Your argument fails because of your linear 2 dimensional materialistic bias.

                      We arent talking about the creating of tables and chairs from existing saws and lumber.

                      You think exist= something. And you cant think beyond that.

                      Your body exists "now" but it wont exist as anything but energy in the future, in the far future it may experience entropy. And not exist at all. You actually think that is viable "existence" = it isnt because "it comes and goes" do you deny that? Your body didnt exist 15 billion years ago. It was at best energy.

                      Your self awareness didnt exist then. Your self awarness wont exist in the future. You cant empirically show that self awareness as a "physical existent entity" Now.

                      You expect a hypothetical Creator , "to exist that way" because that is all your bias towards the physical will allow you to think.

                      Meanwhile at the quantum level, things pop in and out of existence. The fundamentals behind our "physical world: are not "physical". More like frequency than physical. Our physical world is possibly lower or higher dimensional "effects". If there is a hypothetical Creator of this, who resides in a 0 -1- 26 dimensional reality, you would never see it in your short "unproven existence".

                      A Creator of this cannot "live " like you do. It cannot arrive for 50 years and " have faith that it actually does stuff" like you believe you do, confined in your deterministic "wishful thinking reality."

                    2. Daniel Carter profile image91
                      Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      [YAWN]

                    3. 0
                      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      what?  Are all non-theists supposed to think the same way and find the same things interesting?

      2. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Daniel, I guess we discussed this on thread page 14, 15, 16.

        http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1465857

        Neutral stance is much better and so is opposite stance to religious god. If we go by the flow of religion/all-knowing god theory then chances are there that we'll explore less of this universe and waste time in prayers and assuming god' position and actions.

        1. Daniel Carter profile image91
          Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks skyfire, I'll take a look. Appreciate the useful response.

      3. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, this part was covered in the original post.  I make no assertion that this creature could not assemble by chance - I offered that as an (unlikely) possibility, in fact.

        The point is that an assembled creature is (obviously) made up of preexisting things. It isn't the Prime Mover - it's only a primary species (as Skyfire elegantly noted).

        It's nothing special. If it is powerful and deranged (thinks that it is a god), it is something to be wary of, of course - especially if it is deranged!

    6. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago

      Pcunix wrote 
        I'd say you are one of the "just shut it off and don't worry about it" types at heart.  Why don't you just do that?

      = =   - -   = =

         I will leave it lone  or now.  Gotta go and do a days work or a days pay.    Later.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Have a nice day, Jerami. I know you are a good person in your heart.  I suspect that you have emotional needs that are met by your fantasies and there really is nothing wrong with that.

    7. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 5 years ago

      Because his existence itself is from those laws ? You answered it yourself in that question.

    8. wizbitz profile image75
      wizbitzposted 5 years ago

      One final thought from me, perhaps I'll rest my case:
      If God is the god He claims Himself to be, then don't you think our logic would fail to comprehend Him? The logic of man is not the logic of God, don't you think? How could the finite grasp the infinite? Could we define Him by the laws we made? Is the law of the finite compatible with the infinite?
      If we said that the creator must come from something then we are relating God to us who came from something. And I think that would be unfair since the very definition of God is not equal to the very definition of man.

      (I don't think this would be my last post)
      I like these topic, I like to know your views

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I can't tell whether you have yet transitioned to magic. I think you have, but (as is often the case) it's hard to be certain.

        Logic is logic.  There is not a logic that can assert that true is false or vice versa and, at its base, this is all logic is. 

        But let's indulge your silly thought.

        If you want to play this way, return to the argument.  Do you agree that information storage is necessary for your creator? Do you agree it must make decisions?  Whatever "logic" it supposedly has (1 is not 1?), does it still not need both information storage and logic gates?

        Of course it would.  Try again.

        1. wizbitz profile image75
          wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          hahaha, I thought you would just ignore me.
          First of all, the definition of God is a being that doesn't need anything. So He doesn't need anything. Well, of course you would consider some of my statements magic, since you are defining God via logic of man. What if there is much greater logic out there, far greater than our own logic? You explained of needing logic gates, and,nand,nor,xor or xnor gates two or more inputs then an output. You are defining an infinite being by the finite laws you know. What if God created physics? and not the other way around?
          "If you say God may not exist as the way He is then you must be someone of infinite knowledge to know such things, but then again you are requiring yourself infinite knowledge to deny a being of infinite knowledge"

          We are creatures crawling out from the furs of the rabbit pulled out from the magicians hat, hoping to look at the eyes of the magician

          If you think I'm off course, sorry just ignore me

          need to sleep, I still have exams tomorrow

          have a nice day sir

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As I thought. Magic and circular logic.

            1. wizbitz profile image75
              wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ^ ^, we are all have our own opinions. But you cannot prove logically that my statement is magic. Have a good day sir

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Then what is it?

                If not magic, what is it?  Where is your logic that shows your being can exist without the necessity of information storage and logic mechanisms?

                1. wizbitz profile image75
                  wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That we may say is the limitation of our logic. Thus, the beginning might be of a higher form of logic.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    A higher form?

                    There is no higher form - is there a "higher form" of zero?

                    1. wizbitz profile image75
                      wizbitzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      I said "might be", but don't you think you are to conclusive?
                      When you say there is no higher form of logic (or there is no higher form of zero) does it not make you all knowing? Since if you said there is no higher form of logic (or higher form of zero) then you have been to every part of the universe and learned every knowledge in this universe, to be able to conclude that. You are all knowing then, therefore you are a god. So you are the only one who can answer your question.

                      Have a good day sir!