ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Philosophy

CREATION is IMPOSSIBLE - Space, Matter & Motion are ETERNAL

Updated on February 17, 2014
How can God create from nothing?
How can God create from nothing?
Does space have a BORDER? Can God peek inside the Universe? What is outside this supposed border?
Does space have a BORDER? Can God peek inside the Universe? What is outside this supposed border?
Have you put your BRAIN on today?
Have you put your BRAIN on today?

INTRODUCTION


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

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

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

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

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





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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

So motion is scientifically defined as follows:


Motion: Two or more locations of an object.


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

Q: Can matter exist without space?

No!

Why?

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

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


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


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

No!

Why?

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

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





SCENARIO OF CREATION: It Necessitates Motion!


Our first ultimate question will ask….

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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





SCENARIO OF UNMOVED MOVER: It Necessitates Motion!


Our second ultimate question will ask….

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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





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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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





MATTER AND MOTION ARE INSEPERABLE


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

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

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

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





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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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





EVEN ‘LOCATION’ IS MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD!


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

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

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

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

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





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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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



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


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


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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

1) ”The Universe is ETERNAL.”

2) “Space and matter were not created.”


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

1) “Jesus walked on water.”

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

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

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

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



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


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


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

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

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


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


Enough of this BS!


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


The only rational conclusion is that CREATION is IMPOSSIBLE!

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



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

Here’s how we settle it:

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

or,

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


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

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


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


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

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





SOME COMMON QUESTIONS



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


Sure you can!

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



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


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

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

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


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



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


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

Motionless matter is impossible. Matter is eternally in motion.

Why?

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

Why?

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

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





CONCLUSION


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


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


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

He cannot make space.

He cannot make matter.

He cannot make motion.

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


Space is eternal.

Matter is eternal.

Motion is eternal.

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


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




Comments

Submit a Comment

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    John, Mackowhaco, and all the other hundreds of aliases you use to diguise yourself here.....please listen up as this is your LAST chance to participate in a rational discussion about the Physics of God: Stop crying, whimpering, bellyaching and bleeding ESTROGEN in my hood as you are staining and stinking up the place with your high cortisol and copper-toxic feminine juices.

    If you cannot rationally justify your claims about this article, then go home and play the same EMOTIONAL games you lamebrains have been playing with those Atheists for the past 2500 years!

    Much to the dismay of the Religions of Atheism & Theism....the God issue is SETTLED once and for all in this article. If you can contradict it and refute the article, there is a $10,000 USD PayPal reward for you or your favorite Church or Charity.

    This article has NO point of view or opinion and nobody cares about yours either. This article rationally explains why God is impossible….OBJECTIVELY (i.e. without opinion) and WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS. If you disagree (and I hope you do)…just be a sweet darling and copy/paste any text that you say contradicts this article and explain why. And please…..don’t respect me….just whack me over my friggin’ head with your intellectual prowess and let me have it, ok?

    This is your last warning before you get banned permanently from here. Either put up or STFU!

  • profile image

    John 3 years ago

    While I respect your point of view and found this article quite interesting. Please stop with the harsh attacks on others and their perspectives. Half of what you wrote is "religion this and religion that". It doesn't make you sound any smarter when you're raging and throwing insults out the door. Though you are a smart guy don't get me wrong. I just can't stomach all of this bitterness.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Muffin Man.....emotional pleas, proselytizing, morality and other subjectivities are better served for the Atheist forums....the asylum of boneheads that believe in God/gods.

    If you have a Scientific argument to post here, please do so. If you can contradict this article, please copy/paste where the contradiction is and explain why it is so. Trolling doesn't work here. Try the Atheist forums where you can find fools that care about your emotional pleas and psyche.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    I always tell them: Ok, I accept your word that God is omnipotent and ever-powerful to the fullest extend of the word. Now let's put your "omnipotence" to the test and see if it passes with flying colors....

    Problem is: God still cannot create the Universe. God cannot create space as He needs space to have shape/form. And God cannot create matter, as formless space cannot convert into an object.

    Therefore, omnipotence is contradictory. But I will confess....it's a very nice sneaky word that forces Atheists into submission and to admit that God COULD be possible. But those who take the time to analyze the word don't fall for this obvious trick.

  • Jethu262 profile image

    Jethu262 3 years ago from Cincinatti

    fatfist, I've enjoyed your conversation with Whackmole and I'd like to just chime in here for a moment with a question for he/she, or any prospective debators, and it is mostly a question relating to their "holy grail". Omnipotence. These folks always have to fall back on this magical word, "omnipotence" in every case where their "argument" fails. They'll say "well, God is omnipotent" or "all powerful", in order to explain how their sky-fairy shatters the behaviors of physics.

    To these folks I present a single question. Any of them with half of a brain should see the contradiction inherent with the term "omnipotence", or "all powerful" immediately. Here is my question:

    Is God so powerful, that he can create an absolutely unmovable object, that not even he himself can move?

    An even simpler version would be:

    Is God so powerful, that he could create an object so heavy, that not even he could lift it?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “yet state no evidence that he doesn't exist”

    Nutcase Whacko…..that which doesn’t exist has no evidence BY DEFINITION. Basic Reasoning 101.

    Regardless…..what is evident to you is OBSCURITY and a LIE to your neighbor. Evidence is the result of an action from a human and dependent on his limited sensory system and always resolves to OPINION. Did you ever go to school or did your parents sell your body to a Catholic Priest to be his personal sex toy? I’ll assume the latter since you’ve never answered any question I posed to you.

    “must be true!”

    TRUTH = OPINION. Learn something for once in your life and stop using terms you don’t understand:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-...

    Truth is the hallmark of Nutcase Religions like Atheism & Theism. Science only explains reality without contradictions. You confuse Science with Religion…..an honest mistake made by Atheists and Agnostics like you. If you wanna believe….go believe with the clowns that have your reasoning capacity….the Atheists.

    If you have something to refute, you would have done it after 15 posts. You’re just here to bellyache, whine and cry forever because for the very FIRST time in your life, your head has been cut off and you're running around in circles headless……not to mention that you’ve been FISTED by the best the Good Lord’s Universe has to offer.

    Your trolling time is up, Whacko!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    You have just stated you have constricted yourself yet stae not contradiction, you have sayed God does not exist yet state no evidence that he doesn't exist, you have stated many therioes, yet have no proof behind them thus only making them a hypothesis, and also no math, you state that the Big Bang never happened but recent evidence has even showed that the Big Bang has happened: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/14...

    Also you seem to keep attacking the organization and not the topic and again seem to be weak in your argument, and I understand what you are trying to say but have no evidence, and common science these days contradict what you are saying! Also you say atheist and theist are the same well you sir are the one that needs to learn English because atheists means against God, and theists wih God, quite opposite!

    You still as stated above don't address the fact that the Carholic Church has had the only miracles, thus it must be the only True church thus God must be working with it! Thus what it teaches must be true! As far as faith and Morals!!!!! You are the one that seems not to face this, I am quite open I believe a lot of scientific therioes but yours seem to fall apartnatbthe seems!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mackwho.....Atheists believe that God POSSIBLY exists. So right off the bat you two are at the exact same level as far as beliefs and intelligence goes. No wonder you've been debating for over 2000 years.

    Atheism is a Religion that opposes Theism for one and only ONE reason: they hate a specific PERSONIFICATION of God along with His accompanying dictatorship! Atheist believe in a Deistic God, the Creator of the Big Bang, space and time (i.e. spacetime). Here…..educate yourself:

    “I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! The question is, is there evidence for that? That’s what we tried to debate. So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. And it may, it may indeed, ultimately, we may find that it’s required. But the relation between that and the specific God that some people believe in here, and the specific God that other people believe in here, is obviously a problem, because not everyone can be right. And everyone believes this fervently, most people who are fundamentalists in their religion, believe this fervently, that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. And they can’t all be right. And the point is that they’re probably all wrong. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Lawrence Krauss

    "I don’t think you can disprove the existence of God. That’s the problem. I think it’s absolutely impossible to disprove the existence of God." -Krauss Deistic Agnostic Cosmologist

    “I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible.” – Pastor Lawrence Krauss

    "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Richard Dawkins

    “It is possible for a God to exist. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang…nothing! Do you understand that? To say that there was not a God BEFORE the Big Bang is to claim something that you cannot KNOW!” -- Tim Brooks, Professional Atheist

    See video @ 1:00:00

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrdzyK6-5MA

    So Mackwho…..go and sell your contradictory wares to the Atheist community since both of you are at the SAME level of intelligence. It’s Sunday today, so they’re in Service (i.e. Atheist Experience). Try Monday – Saturday. Their Deistic God rests on Sundays.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    It's all gibberish gobbledygook which you don't understand and can't defend,....especially since I have articles refuting the Big Bang, uncaused cause, and all the other Atheist-Theist nonsense you posted. Not a single definition....not a single rational explanation....and just contradictions (as I outlined previously and in all my other articles). The garbage you post here is no different than the Religious crap posted by Atheists. You two belong together in Holy Matrimony forever and ever Amen!

    Your Religion and all Religions go in the trash once you Scientifically define OBJECT, SPACE and EXIST. You need to educate yourself rather than copy/pasting stuff you don't understand.

    If you want to convince a bonehead by twisting his arm until he says "UNCLE".....go try an ATHEIST. Those clowns will believe anything!

    These articles are about Physics with precise definitions and rational explanations without contradictions. Please keep the discussion to this level from now on if you wish to participate here.

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Okay let me try to get at what I was saying earlier all those miracles happened in the Catholic Church thus, the Catholic Church is the legitimate Church, and as it goes the teachings of the Catholic Church go with it, God was the single event from which everything came.

    Try reading this:

    Argument from Motion

    Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

    Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

    Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

    Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

    Therefore nothing can move itself.

    Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

    The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

    Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

    Argument from Efficient Causes

    We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

    Nothing exists prior to itself.

    Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

    If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

    Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

    The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

    Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

    Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

    We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

    Assume that every being is a contingent being.

    For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

    Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

    Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

    Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

    Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

    We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

    Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

    Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

    Argument from Gradation of Being

    There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

    Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

    The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

    Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

    Argument from Design

    We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

    Most natural things lack knowledge.

    But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

    Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

    Also you keep saying your bible well in the Catholic Church there are four interpretations of scripture, you are using the literal sense which we are not always supposed to use! For if you took the body literally you would have not limbs right now!

    1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

    2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

    3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

    Thus you need to use the other branch too which the Church address the traditatiom which maintains how the pope is inherent on the topics of Faith and Morals and it has been said that God is he start thus He is.

    Also, if nothing exists also known as space, how does it have a name, everything that I know that exists, in a grown up world that is has a name. (Ex kids may create childish names for certain objects)

    The Big Bang has happened, for everything has expanded out and keeps expanded out due to dark energy, thus explain to me how to Big Bang happened it has been described as a sudden move from energy to matter this seems a lot like God!

    Lastly, for this comment God is existent no doubt about it, and as stated before the Church regards him as all powerful, and is not of this time and space, thus what affects us doesn't affect him because, he is in a different place, Heaven... And when your say He is here that is because he is interacting with this world, and is obvisoly notes clock maker God!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “show me the theory of how space in non existent”

    Existence is NEVER a theory. You need to take an introductory course in Science instead of getting your contradictory “one liners” from Atheist-Theist debates.

    Theory = rational explanation of the physical mechanism that mediated a past event; like continental drift, or evolution, or light, or gravity, or magnetism, etc.

    Existence is a hypothesis (an assumption for the purposes of explaining YOUR theory)….NOT an event. So whatever YOU propose exists, it had better be non-contradictory.

    Object: that which has shape

    Space: that which lacks shape

    Exists: an object with location

    REPEATING FOR THE SECOND TIME TO YOU: Space/nothing is not an object and has no location. SPACE DOES NOT EXIST AND IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXIST BY DEFINITION. Asserting that space exists is an ontological contradiction....i.e. impossible. Please tell me you can read Engrish and understand this!!

    “how time is eternal?”

    ARE YOU BRAIN-DEAD OR WHAT? Which part of time being a CONCEPT didn’t you understand from my previous post to you? Of course time doesn’t exist and can’t be eternal!!!

    Are you here to troll me?

    “I don't think you still understand the word God it means all powerful so this he could create something from nothing!”

    It is YOU who doesn’t understand YOUR HYPOTHESIS of God. You can propose in YOUR hypothesis that God is as powerful as you want. The fact remains that….

    1) God is NOT an object because God cannot create space. Space is THE background that every object requires in order to have SHAPE/FORM as YOUR Bible wholeheartedly agrees….and very rationally might I add! No space = no shape/form = no God! Without space, God is nothing. Ergo…..God did NOT create space because space MUST surround God. You now have the chicken-or-the-egg problem which contradicts God.

    2) Even if you discount #1 by BELIEF alone (not by any Scientific criterion)…..the fact remains that God cannot create something from nothing. From nothing….NO THING arises. Impossible for God to morph no shape into shape….irrespective of how powerful the Almighty is ascribed to be by his clan. Regardless.....nobody cares about BELIEFS, even tho I tried to entertain one for you here just to educate you.

    Moral of the story: You need to stop watching Atheist-Theist debates. They mess up your brain with contradictions!!!!!!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Also I don't think you still understand the word God it means all powerful so this he could create something from nothing! Why don't you believe this simple principle?

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Okay I am curious about this some of what you say is based on scientific theories , although some aren't for example show me the theory of how space in non existent, or the theory explaining how time is eternal? Phil have said I need theories when you yourself don't have any!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Let me ask you this do you believe in the bug bang?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “You seem to believe”

    Sorry, there are NO beliefs whatsoever in any of my articles. Everything is rationally explained without contradictions. Please learn the diff between beliefs and the Scientific Method.

    “God…..no time affects him”

    Exactly! Time doesn’t affect any entity, living or inert…..including non-existing entities like God, Superman, Cinderella and square-circles. Time is a concept, not an object. Only objects can perform the verb AFFECT to ascribe motion to another object. Learn the diff between objects and concepts and set yourself free from tyranny!

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

    “same with space! “

    Space: that which lacks shape.

    Space is a concept too. Space is borderless, boundless, colorless, temperature-less, object-less….i.e. can only be described in the negative because space does not exist.

    Ergo….space does not perform actions either. And God can’t create space…..nor matter! God is completely powerless to a nothing like space. Very embarrassing, isn’t it??

    “Also these bible quotes are ….”

    …from the Holy Bible, the faithful word of God Almighty. Those who don’t believe in them go straight to Hell. This is what your Religion proposes, idiot……live with it or just drop it all in the trash. But don’t come here like a demented loser complaining about how YOUR Bible destroys YOUR own Religion….got it?

    “you stated earlier space is nothing, although if something is nothing how does it continue to exist, for space is something that is able to be filled”

    Space doesn’t exist. Pay attention:

    Exist: object with location

    Space doesn’t even qualify as an object, much less have location.

    Space: that which lacks shape

    Space lacks shape, so it ain’t a Tupperware of sorts you can fill with marbles and stuff. Use your brain to think and reason for once.

    “Also you seem to have no explanation from what I understand of where matter came from?”

    You should read this article in its entirety and receive the education you’ve never received in your entire life. Maybe then you won’t ask such contradictory questions.

    You will learn that matter is eternal……cannot be created nor destroyed. Creation is impossible. WTF have you been doing here for the past week…..just trolling and no reading. Shame!!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Okay while I still disagree with your statement of how space and time have been forever because nothing in this world is infinite and everything does so thus someday all will die, thus it requires a God that is of another world, and goes on forever! Also you seem to have no explanation from what I understand of where matter came from? Because space and time sure didn't create it! It had to come from somewhere, more so something.., God!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    You seem to believe that God has restrictions but you must understand this, God lives in a different world then we do where no time affects him, same with space! Also these bible quotes are from a human author so they are going from Gods respective so thus, time and space do not affect him, also the miracles in which all of these took place were the Catholic Church thus you would assume that the Catholic Church is the church God chose and if that is correct that means that it's teachings are correct thus, what I have said is correct, and I must apologized for the spam, although one last thing you never seemed to answer this one question, you stated earlier space is nothing, although if something is nothing how does it continue to exist, for space is something that is able to be filled thus is has to be something...?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mackwho my friend, please pay close attention to what I am about to say cuz trolling will not work here. I hope you can respect that. I hope you can also respect the fact that in Science we don't compare each other's notes and ask the audience to raise their hands for the most convincing argument. This works in atheist/theist debates and in Politics/Religion....not in Science.

    A Scientific argument is one which has no contradictions and stands on its own regardless who agrees or disagrees with it. A planet in the Andromeda galaxy exists regardless whether humans invented telescopes powerful enough to see it…..or even a spaceship to fly there and witness it live. Existence has no provision for eyewitnesses, testimony, observations, belief, knowledge, faith, experimentation, wisdom, authority, credentials or democracy. That planet exists before even a human came into the scene to give their opinion on the issue.

    1) Existence is OBJECTIVE, where the object (i.e. planet, God, Big Foot, etc) is the entity that exists; i.e. irrespective of human observers and their opinions.

    2) Belief is SUBJECTIVE, where the subject is the human using his senses and emotions to draw a conclusion about his BELIEF on the existence of an entity. This has nothing to do with reality. People see visions all the time and believe in all sorts of stuff. Nobody cares about beliefs and opinions.

    Now it is OBVIOUS that either God exists or doesn’t……not because you or I say so…..but because existence is objective without a gawking audience, their opinions or dictatorship!

    1) God is claimed to be the creator of SPACE & MATTER by Theologians. This is their HYPOTHESIS or proposal they put forth on the table.

    2) A hypothesis requires a THEORY that explains WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS how the God entity can POSSIBLY (not exactly how, but one possibility) create space and then create matter. And this explanation had better be rational; i.e. WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS.

    Scientific Method = Hypothesis + Theory

    Once you can provide this explanation for #2, you will have JUSTIFIED why God can POSSIBLY exist.

    But I already got that started for you in my article below where it is Scientifically justified that it is impossible for space and matter to be created. Therefore, it is impossible for such a God entity to perform this process. Ergo….a CREATOR God is IMPOSSIBLE.

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-...

    Now having said that…..some folks believe in non-creator Gods. For example, I believe my neighbor’s blonde wife is a GODESS! But hey….beliefs vary.

    Now, my friend….I don’t want to discount your work, so I took the liberty to look through it. But nowhere did I find a THEORY (i.e. rational explanation) that explains how space and the very first bit of matter (i.e. atom) were created. Hence…..your articles have nothing to do with Science. They have to do with Religion and belief. This is the domain of ATHEISM & THEISM. Your articles are actually targeted towards ATHEISTS who “believe” there is no God. Your articles are specifically written for the purposes of twisting their arm and CONVINCING them to believe in God. Science & Reality will have none of that. God either exists or not regardless of how many arms you can twist….understand???

    The existence of God has nothing to do with man’s ignorance of where beautiful clouds and flowers came from…..or where the Earth, the sky and the stars came from……or where life came from. Just because an individual doesn’t have the intellect to propose a rational theory (again, Science!) for these pressing questions, doesn’t imply that a hypothesized God did it. I hope you can look at yourself in the mirror and admit that you understand this.

    The existence of God or the existence of ANY entity falls directly in the realm of PHYSICS. Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics studies via the Scientific Method only entities which are HYPOTHESIZED to exist…..like God!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    After reading some of your links now read some of mine, and prove to me that God does not exist! For this was not caused by anything else but Him!

    http://freebrownscapular.com/brown_scapular_miracl...

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

    http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com

    Because when it comes down to it these were not random occurrences God intervened in them!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “why I hold that matter is eternal and at the same time can not "get-out" to believe in God ?”

    Because you need to differentiate between Science (explanation of events in reality) and BELIEF (The degree of reliability you place in a past event)

    It doesn’t make sense to belief in objects. Do you believe in my car? My car exists if it is an object with location....regardless of your belief.

    Object: that which has shape

    Location: the set of distances to all other objects

    Exist: object with location

    My car or God exist or don’t, by definition. Are they objects? Do they have location? If so, they exist irrespective of whether you know it, believe it or have proof of it. This is what Science is about.

    “Why I can not be just like you, matter is eternal and there is no God ?”

    Ohhhhh….trust me…..you don’t wanna be like me. I am a heretic and a sinner….and I sleep with my neighbor’s blonde wife! Furthermore, everybody hates me because I won’t convert to their Religion.

    “It seems that you never have a question on your mind or at least you have all the answers “

    The only answers we can possibly have are rational explanations to justify what we say without contradiction. A belief is not an answer....it's an opinion. Reality can only be critically reasoned Scientifically with a valid Hypothesis and a rational Theory. This is how we can explain events in reality (like Creation) without contradictions.

    We Hypothesize that God is an object that exists, just as we are told in the Holy Bible.

    Then we try to rationally explain how God can create space & matter. If this process leads to contradictions, then creation is impossible. So….IF creation is impossible, there is NO creator God. But between you and me……I believe my neighbor’s blonde wife is a GODDESS! Please don’t mention this to anyone as I don’t want her husband to find out.

    You can learn more about the Scientific analysis of God here:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-...

    “Thanks for your article, your hub is the answer of my "wondering" about matter is eternal.”

    You are very welcome, reko.

  • profile image

    reko 3 years ago

    First, pardon my English as I'm not from an English spoken country - and I never even go to a College or University only finish my Senior High school.

    I came across your page because I've been wondering that space and time is nothing without matter, and matter is eternal.

    But surprisingly, I don't know why I believe in God (though I'm not a kind of religious person). It is something that difficult to be described and of course I can't describe it :).

    To me, faith is two kinds.

    One based on something I know, and the other based on something I don't know.

    I've to admit that I at first actually believe matter is created. But then my mind questioning like this : "I know that whatever the object (matter) is, it can not be destroyed so it's poof gone without a trace, null, empty. Then why I combined and push my believe that matter has a beginning (created) but has no end rather than matter has no beginning and no end ?" I search the internet and found your page.

    Thanks for your article, your hub is the answer of my "wondering" about matter is eternal. But another "wondering" follow : why I hold that matter is eternal and at the same time can not "get-out" to believe in God ?

    Why I can not be just like you, matter is eternal and there is no God ? It seems that you never have a question on your mind or at least you have all the answers to your own questions ?

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    Wow! Contradict much?

    "Creation is impossible"

    and then

    "I just offer you a real science how the universe can come to be on it's own."

    If creation is impossible, how can 'the universe' come to be?

    I can see why you don't want to define terms and why say definitions are meaningless. If you did defined exist, object and space, everything you have written here would be meaningless to YOU. It already is to me. Thanx for a waste of my time and a huge waste of internet bandwidth!

    Continue rambling on to yourself with your word magic. I'm opting out of this mess.

  • profile image

    Gary 3 years ago

    Advocate

    "Light does not 'exist', it is what something does, not what something is." Sorry I disagree light does exist, it IS something a photon. It also does something. This is just stupid arguing about wording, meaningless.

  • profile image

    Gary 3 years ago

    I actually agree with this hub. Creation is impossible. Science does not have all the answers. I don't just believe because some physics rock star says so. I use logic and my own judgement to come to a conclusion. You say you use science to prove creation is impossible, yet you quote things like objects and space like you know the true science.

    When you say space is nothing how can you be so sure. When you say an object (matter) is what is in empty space who are YOU parroting.

    If the universe has no creator then how do you explain all the things we find there and how they came to be. You say evolution does not explain it either. So what is your point. You want to use science to disprove creation, but want to use basic knowledge of space and matter to explain it. Forget it you have already said science can not explain the universe. And I agree science is wrong.

    I just offer you a real science how the universe can come to be on it's own. Space is not nothing or empty and matter is also space. Now all we need is the correct properties of space substance and how they work to form matter and everything else we find in the universe. No creation needed. No god needed. We just say space substance is eternal, which follows that energy and matter are also eternal. So I agree with you, except space is not nothing.

    For those who do believe god CREATED everything. The argument that god could not create everything because something had to be here first is trumped by the logic that god does not have to follow any physical laws, he makes the law. God can use miracles, and magic. There is no logic to religion this is why they need faith.

    So arguing about English wording and what is a place, a thing or what something does or is, is meaningless . It is the basic concept that is important, not how someone says it.

    At one time saying the world was round or the earth was not the center of the universe would have been considered absolutely absurd, so the theory of space and matter being the same thing has company, but I believe we will discover it to be true.

  • profile image

    Gary 3 years ago

    Advocate

    You must be a teenager. I think you are more interested in impressing you friends with smart ass remarks than having an intelligent conversation.

  • profile image

    Gary 3 years ago

    Advocate

    It does sound crazy that space and matter are the same. This is my conclusion not something I heard. We have all excepted e=mc2 (maybe not you). This means energy and matter are related by the speed of light. The speed of light is determined by the density and compressibility of it's medium space substance. Therefor it is not too much of a stretch to say not only are they related there are in fact the same.

    So how is it space appears empty and matter is all we see as substance. It is the properties of space substance that allows this. Space is very very dense and under tremendous tension like a rubber band. Yet at the same time it is frictionless and like a fluid. So dense it is more solid than any ordinary matter. Yet still fluid and frictionless. We are like fish in water they do not see the water. And matter is like steam bubbles in the water. The fish see the bubbles but not the water. As they move through the water the water flows around them unnoticed by the fish.

    We do not see the space substance and it flows around us as we move through it. What we do see is the bubbles in the space substance (matter). Like steam bubbles the steam is made of water. Like wise matter is made of space substance.

    We know the space substance is there because we can feel the effects. Inertia is the effect of the space getting out of the way as we try to move through it. However it is a little more complex than that. Since matter is actually a vortex in space the space substance actually forms another vortex around the matter vortex. This is where the energy of momentum is stored. When your car hit something a 60 mph you know a lot of energy is released, it is not stored in the car, it is the vortex flow around the car that has the energy. Ok you want to feel this space, put two magnets close to each other. What you are feeling is the effects of the matter vortex in the space substance. In matter all the spins are randomly aligned and a large scale magnetic force is not visible, only the very small magnetic moments inside the matter attract. When matter is magnetized many of the spins are alined in the same direction giving rise to the large scale external magnetic (space) vortex.

    I could go on and on and explain how the gravity, nuclear forces, and electromagnetism are created by the space substance. But you seem to think you already know everything, so what is the point.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    "Creation implies a god."

    Actually, as I already stated, God implies creation. Since creation is impossible, as you agreed with your first post, then creators are impossible. End of discussion. Game over.

    "Unfortunately we can not prove a negative."

    Once again, science never proves. You invoked science in your response to me, so I assumed you really wanted to discuss science. I see now that instead you want to discuss religion and philosophy.

    As for as logic goes one CAN prove a negative. Just Google, "Can you prove a negative?" and all kinds of examples that counter this pseudologic will appear before your very eyes. This is what happens when you accept authority and parrot others instead of thinking for your self.

    "You can say god, the big bang or space it's self was the no cause event."

    and

    "You just can't pick and chose what does and does not need a creator."

    You may say that but you can not substantiate such a irrational proposal, Big Bang creationism is just as irrational as God creationism- not possible! You would have to explain how zero dimensions become the three dimensions of reality in an instant. The point of this Hub is to explain to you that CREATION is impossible because space, matter and motion are eternal.

    "If we just say space substance is eternal the god problem goes away."

    Matter is eternal, but would be impossible if not for the void. No need to invoke god at all. The whole point of this Hub was to point that out to the religious minded, not to the scientific minded folks.

  • profile image

    Gary 3 years ago

    As far as missing the boat. The introduction to this hub says. "This hub is a continuation of the topic of Creation and why it is impossible." Creation implies a god. If we disprove Creation we disprove god.

    Unfortunately we can not prove a negative. To say Creation or god is impossible is to prove a negative. We can only say it is unlikely. After all god is supposed to be able to violate any physical laws and make his own physical laws. However, we could prove he did exist if he would show himself, and I mean show himself physically not the religious claims that he shows himself by his actions. This has never happened and religion has made up a well tuned story why it has not.

    A god or creation implies cause and effect. This always breaks down at the first cause. So at some point there must have been a no cause event. So something must have already been here with no cause to get everything going. You can say god, the big bang or space it's self was the no cause event. Here the simplest (space it's self) is the most likely. A god the least likely, a god being complex needs a creator more than the others, and so a creator needs a creator. Anything you apply to a god is equally valid for the other. If god was eternal so could space be eternal. If space needs a creator so does god need a creator. You just can't pick and chose what does and does not need a creator. If we just say space substance is eternal the god problem goes away.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    "My point is space is not nothing."

    Space is nothing; void; nada; zip. Now what? More appeals to authority, or are you going to explain how if space is matter what is 'it' in? More space?

    " We can measure a single object."

    If there is no one to measure, does the object still exist?

    "In a true nothing space even light could not exist."

    Space is not a what it is a where. Light does not 'exist', it is what something does, not what something is.

    "All scientist believed in the space aether."

    Who cares what anyone believed? Science is about explaining not believing. Brian Greene can not explain his Fabric of Space. Nor can Krauss, or Hawking, or Kaku, or any one of the Rock Stars of Physics. And neither can you. BUT you are the one bringing these nonsensical ideas up so the onus is on you to back up what YOU are saying.

    "My other point is what you call objects is in actuality just another form of the space substance. Space and matter are one in the same. "

    Do you even understand how ridiculous this sounds? If space and matter are the same, then motion would be impossible because matter could not be displaced.

    "When space forms a vortex of standing waves it becomes visible as what you call an object. But this object is not separate from space. It is space and is connected to space."

    A solid block of matter? You have been reading too much electric universe and quantum magic nonsense. A vortex is what something does not what something is. Standing waves is what something does not what something is.

    "It is not surprising to me you fail to grasp this idea. Scientist have been struggling with it for decades. "

    I understand full well the ridiculousness of any such proposal as space is a vortex, aether, field, waves, energy, etc. Doesn't matter what scientists have been grappling with. You state that space is matter. Now you need to explain what you are talking about instead of just polly parroting something you heard some one say.

    "But if you want to prove or disprove god on a scientific basis, You need to know some real science."

    First of all "real" science never proves anything. Never has. Science 101. Take a course. Read a book. At least learn the basics before telling others what they need to 'know'.

    Whether God exists or not is a matter of physics. When one uses the word exist, they have crossed into physics territory. Exist; object with location.

    But also, all gods are considered creators. You yourself said that there is no creation, therefore there can be no creators. End of discussion. No opinions required or accepted.

  • profile image

    Gary 3 years ago

    Advocate

    My point is space is not nothing. We can measure a single object. The frame of reference is space it's self. We use the speed of light to measure. In a true nothing space even light could not exist.

    Until the Michelson Morley experiment failed to detect the space aether and Einstein came up with a theory that says space is empty. All scientist believed in the space aether. Lately there has been a lot of rethinking about the space aether. Call it space time, dark mater, Zero point energy, Higgs field, etc. They all have to admit space is not nothing.

    My other point is what you call objects is in actuality just another form of the space substance. Space and matter are one in the same. When space forms a vortex of standing waves it becomes visible as what you call an object. But this object is not separate from space. It is space and is connected to space.

    It is not surprising to me you fail to grasp this idea. Scientist have been struggling with it for decades. It seems to me all you want to do is argue about wording. But if you want to prove or disprove god on a scientific basis, You need to know some real science.

    A god does not make much sense. And science does not need a god. As to whether a god exist has not been proven. My personal opinion is god is a fantasy like Santa Claws, or the Tooth Fairy.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    You really should read the Hub again and then read all the comments. You completely are missing the boat.

    "It seems to me you are right about creation can not exist, because space and motion had to exist first."

    Fattie never says creation, space or motion exist. Existence pertains to objects.

    object: that which has shape

    Something exists if it is an object with location.

    " Two objects in a nothing space can not move either because the distance between them can not be measured."

    Before there were rulers, and before there were men who measured there were objects with location...and there was motion- two or more locations of an object.

    You really need to re-think this.

  • profile image

    Gary 3 years ago

    It seems to me you are right about creation can not exist, because space and motion had to exist first. This is valid and all you need to say. However your assertions that space is nothing has got a big flaw. And that at least two objects are needed to define movement are also flawed. Two objects in a nothing space can not move either because the distance between them can not be measured. If space is nothing it can not have dimensions. How can you measure nothing. Also we have motion without matter. What about electromagnetic waves. You need to do some more thinking about matter and space and their relationship.

    Here is the answer:

    Matter and space are the same thing. Space is the basic stuff. It is invisible and assumed to be nothing because we can not see it. We can not see it because it is the medium of light waves. Without a space substance we would see nothing. Matter is made of space substance it is a standing wave or vortex of space substance. Energy is actually any movement of the space substance. With e=mc2 it means when space is moving in a vortex it has energy and is matter. All movement of space substance is a form of energy and matter. A space vortex becomes visible as matter. The smallest stable space vortex is the Quark. All the forces inertia, gravity, week and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism are a result of interaction between the space vortex and space substance.

    We don't need a god, god is an excuse to explain the unknown. At present we still do not have a good theory to explain the existence of matter. This is due to the belief space is nothing. When we define the space properties and understand how they work we will define what matter is. And understand where the fundamental forces come from.

    The big bang may be valid it's cause still unknown. But the basic space substance must have been here first. It is space substance it's self that is eternal. Of course we can always ask where did space substance come from. Something we may never know. But a simple thing like space substance being eternal is more likely than a complex god creator who also need a more complex creator of himself.

    The real question is why there is something instead of nothing. This would even apply to a god.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    BTW, I meant to say that eternal is not an adverb it is an adjective. Sorry to have left that out, but the comment section is not letting me edit my comments.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    An adverb can also be used to qualify an adjective or another adverb. But once again you are taking that out of context. Fatfist is referring to Aritstotle's use of eternal universe:

    "We will explore Aristotle’s eternal Universe with an Unmoved Mover, which was claimed to be the ultimate source or cause of motion in the Universe."

    The problem is in Aristole's reifying universe and making it a noun.

    Universe is NOT a scientific term, but is being used for the purpose of illustrating the ridiculousness of creation. Fatfist is forced to relate using colloquial terms.

    "The universe” is not an actor in any phenomena and has no location with respect to anything else. Universe: a concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).

  • profile image

    eric fatfist gaede 3 years ago

    If "eternal" is an adverb, then it can only describe a verb which is an action. "Universe" is not an action.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    That was taken out of context., er...eric.

    First he said this:

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

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

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

  • profile image

    eric fatfist gaede 3 years ago

    "so in Physics, it is irrational to say that the “nothingness” of space is eternal. Nothingness cannot move!! You can say nothingness is uncreated."

    Then you say,

    "Space is eternal"

    Huh?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    The loud-mouth from Sherwood Forest is just a spammer and a troll after all…..like I’ve been saying all along. His sock-puppet posts and behavior here proves it. When the skinny little runt with the feminine voice is cornered with a Fat FIST staring him square in the face and asked to justify his impossible assertions:

    1) That anything can be related to itself.

    2) That the term Universe alludes to an object (even though he can’t illustrate ‘it’).

    3) That there is absolute truth.

    ….he runs under mummy dear’s dress for protection. LOL…..my God does this troll run!

    He still hasn’t taken his mental illness medication, so his destructive behavior is understandable.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Twitter just called me. They’re trying to locate the one-liner bandit who thinks he lives inside an ABSOLUTE ONE-OBJECT UNIVERSE. They want to give him the Twitter idiot of the year award.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “For some reason this comment reminds me of Sherwood Forest.”

    It reminds me of the hundreds of times it has been refuted in the last few years. But some folks like to turn the other cheek and continue to push their Religion on others. It gives them a sense of comfort when others blindly agree with them; i.e. the making of a Religion. This is why our mentally-challenged friend has to deliver the 2 goods requested of him…..or he gets BANNED for good.

    Oh, this will be good…..it will be real good. Stay tuned, you don't wanna miss this!

  • Jonas James profile image

    Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

    "The only eternal object is the universe."

    For some reason this comment reminds me of Sherwood Forest.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "A concept is a relation between two or more objects."

    Exactly, all words are concepts, and thus relations. Not a single word you can utter doesn't embody a relation....even the word object...hint-hint...wink-wink ;-)

    "The only eternal object is the universe."

    Oh, what do YOU mean by object?

    object: ________

    After you define object, .....please illustrate this alleged object you call Universe. The audience wants a pic of it....you know....to make sure it's an object and not a concept.

    What? Getting a little hot behind your ears? I bet it is....but that still doesn't excuse you from answering my 2 questions. Don't post anything else but those responses or else you will be BANNED....got it?

  • profile image

    fatfuck 4 years ago

    The only eternal object is the universe. A concept is a relation between two or more objects.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "An object cannot be compared with itself. A concept cannot be defined by synonyms or negative predication."

    Cut the crap with the obvious, burro do caralho! You don't fool anybody with your diversion tactics.

    "saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction.”

    So answer the question to the claim which YOU initially raised on your first comment:

    That the Universe is eternal is a contradiction because_______

    Fill in the blanks, filho da puta!

  • profile image

    fatfuck 4 years ago

    An object cannot be compared with itself. A concept cannot be defined by synonyms or negative predication.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Pasting paragraphs from my articles is not argument. You made a claim....and now you fold under questioning. So now that I have your number, I will continue to torment you until you either answer the question or retract the claim. Let's see if you have some honesty in you.

    "saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction.”

    So answer the question to the claim which YOU initially raised on your first comment:

    That the Universe is eternal is a contradiction because_______

    Fill in the blanks, entende?

    Do you even have a clue or do you just pull claims out of your fat arse?

    Entende?

  • profile image

    fatfuck 4 years ago

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

    Absolute Truth: An ETERNAL truth which is alleged to be “true forever and ever, Amen!” Absolute truth necessarily needs to be validated for every possible circumstance because it has no restrictions. If at this point you refuse to understand why absolute truth is the Hallmark of Religion, then you obviously have your own Religion to protect....sorry!

    ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!

    'Absolute', 'truth', ‘universe’, ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘concept’, etc. are just words in language. We must define them objectively (without synonyms or negative predication) to ensure they are unambiguous and non-contradictory.

    How so? Don’t just give us your OPINION.

    - Define eternal objectively.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “If A=A is a contradiction, then saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction.”

    How so? Don’t just give us your OPINION. You need to justify your argument. Where’s the beef?

    That the Universe is eternal is contradiction because_______

    Fill in the blanks, entende?

  • profile image

    fatfuck 4 years ago

    If A=A is a contradiction, then saying that the Universe is Eternal is a contradiction. (The only thing eternal is the universe, A=A, contradiction.)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Well Luis....any language has figures of speech. We are all guilty of committing these crimes; myself included. But one who understands the issue should be able to correct his offense. It is these metaphors that we try to avoid in order to give an unambiguous meaning to our Scientific presentations.

    In the proper context, Jimmy should have been told in no ambiguous terms: Jimmy, please do your homework!

    Negative predication is always ambiguous. I mean, just look at all the rules predicate calculus uses to prevent such ambiguities....but still can't eliminate them. I remember pointing out to my logic professor about an ambiguity in one of his exam questions. He marked it wrong. But after I explained his ambiguity and the other equally-weighted interpretation, he gave me the marks. Ambiguity is a sin in Science.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    Alright, I think I got that. But tell me what's wrong with this picture:

    ''Jimmy, why aren't you doing your homework?''

    ''NOT doing my homework? What sort of nonsense is this, woman? I can't 'not be' doing something. I can only be doing something. Now go and make me a sandwich.''

    Is Jimmy right?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Hey, of all the things to NOT believe in, I suppose God(s) are just as good as any.

    I'm different than Atheists, because I choose something different to NOT believe in every day. That keeps me on my toes.

    I'm NOT believing in fairies in my garden today. Tomorrow, I'll NOT believe in Unicorns. I've got the whole year lined up, ending in NOT believing in Santa.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “But here's the part I don't get: when you say that 'lack of belief' amounts to a negative action (an impossibility), this means that belief is an action, right?”

    The term “belief” is a huge problem word in Philosophy and Religion. Nobody has been able to provide a rational definition for this term in the past 10,000 years…. despite all those claims that people “believe” in gods or this or that….

    Believe it or not (ha!), many claim that belief has something to do with truth. How ironic is that?

    “Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    But truth should be certainty. When you declare a proposition as “true”, there is no turning back. For if you turn back (like they did when the Earth was declared a sphere as truth, and not flat), then it wasn’t a truth to begin with. And this is the case with humans. They all have truths about this and that….but their truth is always tentative and subject to change in the future. Ergo, truth is an opinion.

    Clearly, truth and belief are subjective anthropocentric concepts which are predicated on human opinion. As such, they are divorced from reality. How can anyone understand what you mean by “belief” or “lack of belief”? Just what is it that they are supposed to do in order to perform these tasks? But the answer is irrelevant because such subjective concepts are used in religion, not in science.

    “would the following statements be nonsensical: 'I'm not a stockbroker' and 'I don't dabble on the stock exchange for a living'?”

    It’s saying what you are not, and not what you actually are. You should say: “I am an auto mechanic”. Telling me what you aren’t, isn’t really saying anything. It becomes nonsense when you create of a movement like Atheism, claiming it’s a lack of belief, then you turn around and attempt to Philosophize and give Scientific arguments against God. Either God exists or doesn’t. It is irrational to have a movement against the existence of X. We instead use the sci method to explain why X is possible or impossible. The rest is just opinion with theatrics…..all irrelevant.

    “My question is still the same: how does one label someone in relation to the thing they're not doing?”

    What does that have to do with anything? I am not an astronaut. Why should I go out of my way to create a worldview, books, youtube videos, conference, debates, etc. about a non-astronaut movement? Negated movements don’t even make sense. Just explain why it is impossible for God to exist and call it a day. Those who want to continue to support the God claim can knock themselves out….nobody cares.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    Okay, I understand your point now about God (a creative agent) necessarily being an object, since actions are necessarily mediated by objects. Duly acknowledged.

    But here's the part I don't get: when you say that 'lack of belief' amounts to a negative action (an impossibility), this means that belief is an action, right? If you would agree that there are actions that one doesn't do (if not, what does 'doesn't' mean?), then would the following statements be nonsensical: 'I'm not a stockbroker' and 'I don't dabble on the stock exchange for a living'? Or is belief a special type of action that precludes the consistent use of this descriptor (thus preventing 'I'm not a believer in God')? That's what's confusing.

    'If you can’t do it by your next response, then you concede that it’s impossible for anyone to perform a negated or non-action…..which obviously is anyway, ….but I just want YOU to be honest and admit it.'

    Alright, if you say so. My question is still the same: how does one label someone in relation to the thing they're not doing? Should 'not', 'isn't' or other negative descriptors EVER be used with respect to actions?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “To listen to William Lane Craig and others, one gets the impression that he's talking about a God that has no spatial extent.”

    It is irrelevant as to what tricks people use to protect their Religion. Creation is a verb….”to create” is a process. All actions are necessarily mediated by objects. If this term “God” will have the process of Creation attributed to it….then it goes without saying that God is necessarily an object. Otherwise, God is a concept and summarily excluded from existence and the debate is over. The Theologian and the Atheist can’t have it both ways. Opinions & bellyaching are divorced from reality.

    “My point is simply that the absence of having a belief in something can form the entirety of 'lack of belief', rather than what you're implying, which is to see my lack of belief as 'belief in the lack' - emphatically not the same things.”

    You are going off in tangents and didn’t answer the question which makes or breaks your argument about a person “lacking belief”. So here you go again….

    It is impossible for a human to perform a NEGATIVE action like “lack of belief” or “lack of running” or “lack of eating”. You can only perform THE action, not its conceptual negative.

    Hence, the onus is on the claimant to justify otherwise. Please tell the audience the exact steps we need to perform in order to accomplish this act the Atheist calls: LACK OF BELIEF.

    Here you go, don’t keep us in suspense:

    Step 1: __________

    Step 2: __________

    Etc…

    SECOND TIME I ASKED. If you can’t do it by your next response, then you concede that it’s impossible for anyone to perform a negated or non-action…..which obviously is anyway, ….but I just want YOU to be honest and admit it. These articles here are about Intellectual Honesty.

    “My absence of belief is simply a description of my cognitive state of not having a belief in God present.”

    You just contradicted yourself.

    I asked you previously to prove or justify that God is IMPOSSIBLE. You can’t do it. Ergo….you necessarily believe God is POSSIBLE in your worldview. Indeed, the Religion of Atheism necessarily makes provision for the POSSIBILITY that a God exists. Atheists are claiming to be WAITING FOR EVIDENCE OF GOD SO THEY CAN ACCEPT HIM. They believe a God may be possible. Atheism 101.

    Please don’t repeat the same debunked arguments. It does't justify them.

    “seeing things your way, …. right or wrong…..etc.”

    Irrelevant! Nobody cares about my or your opinions/emotions….take them up with a shrink. I don’t deal with mental patients.

    Objectivity is the key in any rational discussion. If you cannot rationally justify your position on the issue of God and Atheism….without contradictions…..then you have no valid argument. So please….don’t launch irrelevant complaints to me about your intellectual inadequacies, ok?

    I mean….at the end of the day….this is what makes or breaks arguments, right? This is fair.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    ''Theists and Atheists should both read their Bibles before they continue arguing morals and nonsense for the next 5000 years.

    God certainly has shape/form. God is an object.''

    True, in the Bible, he's an object, but I was actually focusing on the more recent formulations that believers often retreat to when the object-God is criticised (which are even more wank-headed. To

    listen to William Lane Craig and others, one gets the impression that he's talking about a God that has no spatial extent. God is supposed to have 'created' space, time and of course matter, after all).

    ''Only an ignoramus would say that he doesn't BELIEVE or have LACK of BELIEF that God exists!''

    Not really. My point is simply that the absence of having a belief in something can form the entirety of 'lack of belief', rather than what you're implying, which is to see my lack of belief as 'belief in the lack' - emphatically not the same things. I think what you're saying is that this lack of belief of mine is what motivates my atheism. But nothing 'motivates' my atheism as such. My atheism is simply a description of my cognitive state of not having a belief in God. My atheism doesn't have content of its own. It's actually the absence of content. Specifically, the absence of beliefs consistent with 'I think God exists out in the universe'. To repeat: my atheism isn't defined by a BELIEF in a lack of God. My absence of belief is simply a description of my cognitive state of not having a belief in God present. Nor, by the way, was I implying that my lack of belief, however I construe it, has any

    efficacy as to whether the object or entity in question exists. Clearly, it has none whatsoever.

    ''Should we perform these steps while we’re down on our knees while hanging garlic cloves from our ears?''

    Sorry, no idea what you're talking about, but I think I can see a glimmer of 'unbecoming' lurking in there.

    But actually, on that note, I have to ask why you even made this website if you're just going to call everyone else an 'idiot' and then

    complaining that humanity is 'doomed'. Observe: it's supremely ironic that you lament the mathematical physicists and their religious constructs, and yet, when someone comes to you for clarification and is at least half way towards seeing things your way, your reaction is to refer to that person as 'the world's biggest bonehead'. That has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong, of course, but since the other person doesn't YET fully understand your points, they might be

    forgiven for thinking that you're compensating for an inadequacy in your arguments (after all, aren't hectoring exposes of the other person's supposed idiocy a stock-standard feature of religious

    apologetics? So why are doing it?). If you think this is an EFFECTIVE way to get your message across, let me know. I'm not saying this for my sake, by the way. I'll return to this website and read all your stuff. Just some friendly advice from an ally (sincerely meant). If you're genuinely concerned about humanity's impending doom, you might as well do something that's going to be effective , or you should just take this site down and not bother. Again, if there are options other than those that seem rational to you, let me know. Possibly, you understand that jolting people out of stupor by denigrating language is, on occasion, effective, but is this what you're actually going for? Perhaps you can explain it to me.

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

    Here was his 'argument' Fatfist:

    "The Idea that anything physical DIDN'T have a beginning... is irrational. Therefore creation is the only conclusion. Everything comes from something in our 3 dimensional space. "

    That and something about looking for the "truth."

    Guess he didn't read anything here. If he did, it went wooooosh right over his head. SO his argument is:

    I can't understand reality, therefore I choose creation, even if no one religion seems to have the 'truth' I am looking for.

    The Great MonkeyMinds

    That would also explain Darwin Religion.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “ But why can't that be the basis for (rational) atheism (lack of belief in God”

    Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism, Secularism, Brightism, Free-Thinkingism, Objectivism, etc. are unscientific and divorced from reality. In reality, we neither believe in existence nor in non-existence. Only an ignoramus would say that he doesn't BELIEVE or have LACK of BELIEF that God exists!

    In reality, if God exists, lack of belief will not make the Him disappear. And if God doesn't exist, belief will not make Him appear. Belief has NOTHING to do with existence. Whether you believe or not that your hand exists has no bearing on its independent existence. I can’t fathom why people don’t get this.

    It is impossible for a human to perform a NEGATIVE action like “lack of belief” or “lack of running” or “lack of eating”. You can only perform THE action, not its conceptual negative.

    Hence, the onus is on the dumbest individual on the planet, THE ATHEIST, to tell the audience the exact steps we need to perform in order to accomplish this Religious Ritual the Atheist calls: LACK OF BELIEF.

    Here you go, don’t keep us in suspense:

    Step 1: __________

    Step 2: __________

    Etc…

    Should we perform these steps while we’re down on our knees while hanging garlic cloves from our ears? Those of us who wish to convert into this wonderful Bonehead Religion called Atheism, wish to know how to do it. Please do tell.

    “I repeat: we - you and me - don't, after all, believe in God)?”

    Speak for yourself. I never use the word ‘belief’ in either positive or negative terms when it comes to existence. The term BELIEF isn’t even within the definition of existence. So please continue with the rituals that make you happy. Don’t drag me into your world.

    “As for the first point: aren't a proposed entity's alleged attributes the very features we use to reason whether it is a geuine object?”

    Nope! The only intrinsic property an object has is shape. All other properties are extrinsic and up for debate. You may argue your God has green eyes that can see everyone naked in the shower…..but your neighbor will argue that His green eyes are used for checking if you’re naughty or nice. Irrelevant human garbage!

    In science we only ask: is God an object or not?

    “he doesn't have shape/spatial extent in the theological formulation”

    Theists and Atheists should both read their Bibles before they continue arguing morals and nonsense for the next 5000 years.

    God certainly has shape/form. God is an object.

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

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

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    Inching closer and closer now...

    You say: ''God’s alleged attributes are irrelevant as to whether He is an object or not. We only care if the proposed entity is a genuine object.''

    Okay, I understand the second point. But why can't that be the basis for (rational) atheism (lack of belief in God. I repeat: we - you and me - don't, after all, believe in God)?

    As for the first point: aren't a proposed entity's alleged attributes the very features we use to reason whether it is a geuine object? For example, isn't the claim that ''God isn't a genuine object because the things that are ascribed to him necessarily preclude him from being a genuine object (namely, he doesn't have shape/spatial extent in the theological formulation), and hence cannot be an actual object that exists''?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    ''How are concepts distinct from proposed entities?''

    An entity, whether proposed (i.e. conceived by man) or real (i.e. out there somewhere) has the fundamental property of OBJECTHOOD. An entity is an object because it has shape. You can illustrate for us your proposed entity on paper…you can make a mock-up statue prototype of it in order to show the audience what you are talking about. We do this all the time…not just in Science, but in all fields of discipline. Auto makers will illustrate a 2018 Corvette….a proposed model of the car. If the proposal makes sense, they will further develop a clay model of it….and so on.

    Object: that which has shape (Synonyms: exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, material, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

    A real object, in addition to having shape, also has location because it exists.

    Exist: something somewhere (i.e. object with a location)

    Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

    A concept on the other hand is a relation we form between objects.

    Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

    The concept of love relates one person with possibly many others (where allowed by your government).

    The Moon is an object and it has location, irrespective of any observers. The Moon is real (i.e. exists). The 2018 Corvette is a proposed object as it is illustrated before us. It has shape, but no location. A 2018 Corvette may POSSIBLY exist somewhere right this very second and we don’t know it (it’s a secret prototype). All we know is how it looks like.

    Same with God…He is a proposed object that created space & matter. The Theist and Atheist think God *may* exist, but have no evidence of Him….just like they have no evidence of the 2018 Corvette. In Physics we use the Scientific Method to critically reason whether God or the 2018 Corvette are possible or impossible to exist. It turns out that God is IMPOSSIBLE to exist. Ergo, Atheism is an irrational position….a Religion of sorts.

    ''God is an incoherent proposed entity, because it does not have the attributes of an object,”

    Lots of Atheists make this claim….but as you can see, God’s alleged attributes are irrelevant as to whether He is an object or not. We only care if the proposed entity is a genuine object. Can we illustrate it and make a mock-up? If so, then it’s a genuine object.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    Hmmm...I sort of get it. If I was off the mark with how I used the term ''concept'', then my next question is, ''How are concepts distinct from proposed entities?'' (I was, or I thought I was, referring to the latter category when I said ''concept'').

    So God is a proposed entity (agreed) that is necessarily supposed to have created space and matter (also agreed). When I said ''I think that God is an incoherent concept'', should I have said ''God is an incoherent proposed entity, because it does not have the attributes of an object, and if it's not an object, it's just a proposed entity, and therefore doesn't exist''?

    p.s. any book recommendations as I try to grapple with this?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “I don't admit of the possibiltiy of God because I see God as an inherently and irresovably incoherent and linguistically disingenous concept.”

    Well, then what we have here is your opinion about the term God. But this is an objective issue where people’s opinions about God are divorced from the underlying issue that this term refers to a Creator…the Creator of space and matter. God necessarily refers to an entity which performs this Create action. So it is impossible for God to be a concept, like love, morality or virtue. God is a proposed entity that created space and matter.

    So there you have it. You and your movement of Atheism are off the mark when it comes reasoning the basics. You said God doesn’t exist….but yet you admitted that you have no clue what God is nor how to justify God doesn’t exist. You only told me what you believe, without any rational justification whatsoever.

    You cannot justify that a God is impossible….for if you could….you would not be an Atheist. Atheists necessarily believe that a God may possibly exist….they just don’t know it and cannot justify it either way. That’s why they are no different than theists or agnostics who cannot know it or justify God either way.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    ''can you prove or justify this simple "no" answer?''

    Yes, with arguments largely similar to yours. For example, I've often argued that for someone to talk about 'something' which has no spacial extent (or shape, for that matter) is the same as talking about either an abstract figment of one's imagination or of nothing at all. What's wrong with that?

    I'm just not getting what the distinction is with your brand of non-belief-in-a-creator-God and 'atheism' per se. I don't admit of the possibiltiy of God because I see God as an inherently and irresovably incoherent and linguistically disingenous concept.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    But Luis, can you prove or justify this simple "no" answer? If you can't, then that's simply your belief.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    ''Does a creator God exist, Yes or No?''

    No.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    ''Now….just answer one question for me: Does a creator God exist, Yes or No?''

    No.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “ I was also clearing up some untoward claims emanating from you (hopefully due to a confusion on your part) that atheists 'necessarily' believe in the possibility of God, when in fact Strong Atheists (like you and me) don't.”

    Ok, let’s handle one issue at a time.

    I am neither a strong/weak or any other kind of flavor of Atheist. To understand why, we need to test out the reasoning of some of yours claims about Atheism. It will be clear in the end, so all I ask of you is to be honest with me, that's all.

    Now….just answer one question for me: Does a creator God exist, Yes or No?

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    Well, my argument, which I already provided, is that you were untowardly trying to confuse the hell out of the meaning of 'atheist', when you know perfectly well it simply means 'lack of belief in deities'. Agreed that a lot of atheists have religious shit-gobblins haunting their brains ('The universe came from nothing', 'A black hole is infinitely dense'), but atheism only addresses ONE category of such shit gobblins, namely the one they don't have: 'beings who created the universe'. Atheists are still free, with the right arguments, to reject all the others. Many don't, but whatever, I'm not looking to be like them.

    Simple, isn't it? I was also clearing up some untoward claims emanating from you (hopefully due to a confusion on your part) that atheists 'necessarily' believe in the possibility of God, when in fact Strong Atheists (like you and me) don't.

    Lest you construe that as trolling on my part, let me say categorically that I'm genuinely in the dark about why you reject the label of 'atheist' for yourself. I would like you to explain it to me for my own enlightenment. For example, why do you think that I'm bound to Dawkins' shortcomings if I nevertheless accept that the universe is eternal?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Here was his 'argument' Fatfist:

    "The Idea that anything physical DIDN'T have a beginning... is irrational. Therefore creation is the only conclusion. Everything comes from something in our 3 dimensional space. "

    That and something about looking for the "truth."

    Guess he didn't read anything here. If he did, it went wooooosh right over his head. SO his argument is:

    I can't understand reality, therefore I choose creation, even if no one religion seems to have the 'truth' I am looking for.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "Maybe I hit a nerve with my Taliban jab"

    Hey, just be a little more sensitive next time, ok? My brother was a member of the Taliban and he died from a NATO attack. We never did recover his body.

    Anyway....if you have an argument, just post it. If you are responding to my argument....please....justify a counter-argument, ok? Replying with "no" just doesn't cut it in this Information Superhighway we have in this era.

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    Mental faculties are nicely in order, thanks. Hence, I can note that you didn't address any of my counter-claims and went straight to the option that's been in vogue in Afghanistan for a good long while. Anyway, I see that this matters to you (goodness knows why. Maybe I hit a nerve with my Taliban jab), but whatever. You can continue being someone who lacks belief in God and isn't an atheist, and I'll continue to...be the the same, but wrong for some reason. Meh. This is apparently the world we live in.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    When you get your mental faculties in order, Luis, and have something other than spam to contribute here, feel free to post, ok sunshine? At Fist America, we hold all our children to a higher standard.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    On a trolling rampage today, Luis? Did your medication run out?

  • profile image

    Luis 4 years ago

    ''Aha! Just as I figured.....your Pastor's 'dimensions' left you speechless, huh? Was it the Length or the Width that did you in? It's ok, don't answer....you need to recover.''

    Haha! Love it!

    ''did you in'' :)

    Kudos to you, my friend. Kudos.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Phil,

    My articles are not about countering Theism. Since they take the issue of God and Creation on faith, very few theists take offence with my articles. And the ones that do are nothing more than boneheads who are looking for a fight and nothing else. This world has all kinds.

    On the contrary, my articles are about Science and exposing the Religion of Atheism. Most who come here to fight with these articles are fanatic fundamentalist Atheists. If the rigors of the Scientific Method can show that God is impossible, then the Atheist will be enraged! POOF goes their Religion. Now the fanatic Atheist can’t spew his hate agenda on the Theist and his Religion. He has no more punching bags. The Atheist is out of a job and his whole organization collapses right before his very eyes. He has nothing to do with his time. He will fall into depression. This is why all the hosts of the Atheist Experience Show have a HUGE problem with my articles.

    You see, Atheism is actually a synonym for AGNOSTICISM because it leaves open the possibility of a God existing. I get more Atheists than Theists coming here arguing that God may exist. Go figure. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Lawrence Krauss and all the clowns of Mathematical Fizzics believe in a God who doesn’t hand out Bibles….a Deistic God!

    “I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Pastor Lawrence Krauss

    “There may be no evidence for purpose in the Universe, but that doesn’t imply that there is no purpose in the Universe. If tonight the stars spelled out ‘I AM HERE!’, then I think most scientists will say: you know, there’s something there.” -- Pastor Lawrence Krauss

    "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Pastor Richard Dawkins

    “Maybe we are all in somebody’s computer simulation, maybe the entire Universe that we’re in is the product of a purposeful design of an alien intelligence that has put us into a simulation…that’s equivalent to saying that it’s a grand God of some sort, and I don’t have an objection to that.” – Pastor Richard Dawkins

    And here are some Professional Atheists arguing for the existence of a God:

    “It is possible for a God to exist. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang…nothing! Do you understand that? To say that there was not a God BEFORE the Big Bang is to claim something that you cannot KNOW!” -- Tim Brooks, Professional Atheist

    See video @ 1:00:00

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrdzyK6-5MA

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Phil,

    “3 dimensional space”

    Sorry, Phil….space has no dimensions. Space is a concept, not an object. You cannot cut a chunk of space out there, between the Earth and Moon. You can’t package a chunk of space and mail it to me.

    Space: that which lacks shape; synonym: nothing, void, vacuum.

    The term dimension is only applicable in the context of objects.

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

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

    “GOD is outside of 3 dimensional space”

    Impossible…..think about it: Space has no border or edges for God to cross, like a prisoner escapes the border of the prison. God is trapped in here with the rest of us forever. Space is the largest prison never built. Space cannot be escaped.

    “Every religion I have studied has been tainted with its own forms of corruption and self promoting agendas. However, that doesn't mean GOD isn't real.”

    Indeed, your reasoning is rational. Human emotion and subjectivity has nothing to do with reality. God is something which concerns Physics and will be studied in this discipline. The subjectivity of Religion will not influence the Scientific Method. But….we will take their claims seriously and analyze them with the rigors of the sci method. Simply disregarding people’s claims based on bias, hatred, emotion, etc. is not what science is about.

    This is all this article is about, Phil….the study of God using the Scientific Method. No biases, emotions or subjectivity are used in the analysis. Atheism is about biases and subjectivity….Science is about OBJECTIVITY. Atheism is a Religion and divorced from Science and from reality.

  • profile image

    Phil 4 years ago

    "No person can ever hope to provide ONE reason explaining why this claim could even be a remote possibility."

    The Idea that anything physical DIDN'T have a beginning... is irrational. Therefore creation is the only conclusion. Everything comes from something in our 3 dimensional space. GOD is outside of 3 dimensional space and created what we know as our universe from there, not from nothing. The idea that everything we know and are yet to discover has Always been there is the most inconclusive conclusion that one could come to.

    Now in my defense before I get blasted, I don't follow any particular religion because I refuse to believe that whatever whomever tells me is true...as fact. So I'm not bible thumping here. Every religion I have studied has been tainted with its own forms of corruption and self promoting agendas. However, that doesn't mean GOD isn't real. People have twisted and distorted the truth to benefit their own short worthless lives. I resent the idea that if there was a message for us that they have destroyed any possibility of us knowing the truth or having anything solid to base it on. I am on a personal mission of observance and understanding through intelligent conversation about factual knowledge and ideas., to find the truth. This isn't meant to be a aggressive post and sorry its so long winded.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Maj,

    “fatfist is a still little coward”

    Indeed I am!

    I mean, why would anyone want to believe in a Pastor who is raping them senseless….and many a time…. tying them up with rope (not EM rope!) in the basement of their Church, beating them bloody, into unconsciousness and raping them until climax.

    You may have been raised in this sort of lifestyle, Maj….it may be your so-called “American Dream”…..Mom, America, Jesus, my Pastor and apple pie! But please….do not force it on others, ok?

    I admit that I am a COWARD! I would never ever ever want to be in the presence of this type of garbage that American society creates by placing them on top of a pedestal, giving them 15% of their hard-earned income, get brainwashed by them and even raped senseless.

    You are a very BRAVE little Princess, Maj!

    BTW….Stephen Hawking claims to have proof of massive Black Holes…..now I believe him!

  • profile image

    maj 4 years ago

    im not commenting back to anyone else either. Man this sad.

  • profile image

    maj 4 years ago

    jonas james were did you even come from man i wasn't even talking to you i was talking to fatfist mind your own business.fatfist is a still little coward though he wouldn't be talking all big and stuff in front of anybody you and him are internet lames.Without science backing him up he says the most retarded things i ever read.IF you people want respect show it.

  • Jonas James profile image

    Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

    "...aren't worth talking to"

    The amusing thing here is that MAJ has contradicted 'itself' five times now! So much for not being worth talking too!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    @Maj,

    Aha! Just as I figured.....your Pastor's 'dimensions' left you speechless, huh? Was it the Length or the Width that did you in? It's ok, don't answer....you need to recover.

    Take an extra-strength Tylenol and gargle with salt-water....you should get the sensation back in your throat in a few days. By that time, God could perhaps give you a brain so you can talk coherently.

  • profile image

    maj 4 years ago

    what the heck 'apple pie. kneeling in front of my pastors and drooling' dude you will really are not worth talking to after this man i don't know where you even got any this man but you obviously have the brain cells of a brick i let you win whatever you was talking about that was so lame man your lame go had have you last comeback like you always do im not going to reply after this one.fatfistlol

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    I will pray for you, maj.

    Perhaps God can help place you within that 1% American literacy rate one day. And maybe in some other lifetime in another Big Banged Universe, the presiding God there can bestow upon you some basic comprehension skills.

    Here’s a tip for a fine Texan like yourself: Next time you’re offered God, America and apple pie…..just eat the apple pie for Christ’s sake! Don’t let the former eat your brain, alright? Otherwise you'll end up like those fanatical Atheists out there.

    And oh, before I forget….you really should refrain from kneeling in front of your Pastors with your drooling mouth wide open, ok? I hear those swindlers have extra ‘dimensions’!

  • profile image

    maj 4 years ago

    i do agree though atheist are deranded they say that they don't believe in god's existence but then they can't shut up about god they say that god sucks god is evil and then talk about christians say they are idiots say that they are crazy lol then they talk about not believing in his existence but ridicules god deranged.they talk about christians saying that they are immoral then talk about us thats crazy.

  • profile image

    maj 4 years ago

    'a brain dead clown like yourself' this is coming from someone who has faith(trust,hope,and belief) in science.you know that everything in science is not true still Believe these people. science and atheist keep talking about manipulation but he is what science thinks if you disagree with them you are an idiot now that sounds like manipulation. thankyou you inherited the respect of your mother Lucy ape girl

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Maj,

    “you're either ignorant or biased”

    Acutally, Maj…..you are BOTH!

    Why?

    Because a brain-dead clown like you can’t even read this article which explains why creation is impossible. I know the literacy rate of Americans is about 1%, but c’mon, this article is so basic. If your attention span is less than a few seconds, then yeah….it explains why you can’t read it.

    As for your cosmology and Big Bunk arguments, educate yourself:

    https://hubpages.com/education/OLBERS-PARADOX-A-Ph...

    https://hubpages.com/education/Big-Bang-The-Univer...

    https://hubpages.com/education/Big-Bang-The-BIG-LI...

    As for your Infinity argument, educate yourself:

    https://hubpages.com/education/INFINITE-REGRESS-Ar...

    As for your Logic & Math argument, educate yourself:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-L...

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/LOGIC-Its...

    “angry atheists aren't worth talking to”

    Exactly!!!!!

    Finally, you got 1 out of 10 correct!!!!

    An Atheist is a deranged lunatic who thinks that the nothingness of space can be created. Furthermore, this nutcase thinks a 0D singularity (i.e. nothing) can magically morph into matter.

    Atheism is a Fanatical Religion of Platonist Mathematicians who are divorced from reality. All Atheists are actually AGNOSTICS…..they hate the good Lord’s written word and thus choose to ignore Him!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    If there is a universe, there can't be a multiverse. If there is a multiverse there can't be a universe.

    Time (and you forgot space) are concepts, and were created by man.

    You can't explain how zero dimensions can become three (H, L & W).

    Logic & math are tautologies and science has no part of them.

    Angry, or not, Atheists are less reasonable than other religious persons.

  • profile image

    maj 4 years ago

    WOW fatfist,

    .

    Modern cosmology says:---The universe/multiverse BEGAN to exist

    Modern cosmology says:---The Big Bang is the origin of ALL energy-matter-time

    Modern cosmology says:---In t=0 there was nothing, not even time

    Logic and Math says:---an infinite number of things can't actually exist, absurd

    Logic and Math says:---so an infinite number of past events is impossible

    Logic and Math says:---you're either ignorant or biased

    thanks for confirming angry atheists aren't worth talking to

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "so the point in what you are saying is?"

    ....that someone who wants to critique an article must have minimum intelligence to read it and understand it before coming in to make a fool out of himself. No "higher" education is required....just primary school.

    So hopefully, about 20% (perhaps only 10%) of Americans should fall within this basic requirement....and hopefully you are one of them (crossing my fingers).

    Now....Andy.....without further ado.....please tell the audience what you understood after reading this article and why it is contradictory or doesn't make sense to you. Quoting text would really help your case.

    If you only came here to troll, then goodbye!

  • profile image

    andy 4 years ago

    so the point in what you are saying is?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "you must be beyond prideful and disrespectful"

    Wow! You got me there!

    I don't think I can disprove this irrefutable proof of Creation you just posted.

    My God....is your Pastor aware that you are so well-versed in Physics?

  • profile image

    andy 4 years ago

    disrespectful

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science”

    Laws are made by humans for the purposes of controlling the masses via concepts, like mind control.....or via objects, like guns!

    There are no laws in Science. Apparently, you confuse Science with the legal profession. Law is a discipline that is full of liars... I mean lawyers. In Science, we have explanations, not laws. 'Laws' means that YOU adopted someone’s asserted dogma as YOUR personal truth. That doesn't concern Science in the least.

    There are no laws of nature. In the context of Science, the term ‘laws’ is concept we invented to describe what we as humans do well: pattern recognition. Laws are rule-based descriptions conceived by the petty primates we call humans. It is presumptuous to expect nature to follow human-made rules. Quite funny to expect nature to behave as Adam & Eve dictate.

    Only human apes claim that what they see is impossible. Reality is comprised of objects which are comprised of atoms.

    “Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible”

    Scientifically impossible? Wow! How so?

    Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Matter cannot lose Length, Width and Height and morph into space. Space cannot acquire Length, Width and Height and morph into matter. Matter is eternal. Furthermore, space is nothing. You cannot create nothing as space is not a “thing” that one can assemble from other things.

  • profile image

    john 4 years ago

    well what do you think

  • profile image

    john 3 4 years ago

    Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Preston,

    “The concept Universe can be reduced to one atom and space (no object). “

    Sure, we can conceptualize any hypothetical scenario. So let’s assume there is only one atom in the Universe. This lonely atom is an object with shape. Furthermore, this atom is necessarily surrounded by nothingness (space). Its border differentiates one medium (i.e. the inside of the atom) with the other conceptual medium (i.e. space), for the purposes of conceiving the concept of space. We treat space as a noun for purposes of syntax only. When we resolve the word space into the context of reality, space actually resolves to nothing because ‘it’ lacks shape.

    “The concept "no thing" refers to an actual quality of the Universe that we can discover”

    No. No-thing is not a quality. A quality is an attribute of an object. The universe is not an object...it is an abstract concept that we use to understand the relation of matter and space. Concepts don’t have qualities; only objects do.

    “Water is a dynamic concept.”

    Let’s backtrack here. You can throw water at me and knock me down. You can use water to cut concrete. Water is indeed an object. Water has a surface and shape and can come into surface-to-surface contract with other objects. We can illustrate an H2O water molecule. Hence it has shape.

    “But water becomes ice! Which has location and form/shape. Making it according to your definition, an object.”

    One step at a time, otherwise it is easy to jumble these ideas and get confused in the process. Water had shape before it changed configuration and became ice. Ice is an object because it has shape. Shape is the only criterion of objects. Location is the criteria of existence, only....not of objecthood.

    Object: that which has shape

    Exist: object having location

    Location is the criterion that gives presence or locality to objects. Objects exist because they are located “somewhere”, right? And WHERE they are located is irrelevant to the issue of existence. Our knowledge of WHERE God is located has nothing to do with whether God exits or not. God exists or doesn’t, irrespective of anyone’s opinion on the issue.

    Again....objecthood is a separate concept from existence. Superman is an object that doesn’t exist.....so is the 2015 Corvette. These words refer to objects. We can make a mock-up statue or prototype of these objects....so the statue exists....but that doesn’t mean the genuine object exists.

    “what object mediates the creation of ice”

    None. Ice is not “created”, like a carpenter creates a house frame from wood parts. Ice is a change of state of matter. The atoms comprising the water (H and O) are vibrating much slower at lower temperature and the molecules are reconfigured. That’s why ice doesn’t “flow” like water.

  • profile image

    PrestonDeath 4 years ago

    "Concepts always require two or more objects in a relationship." The concept Universe can be reduced to one atom and space (no object). So we would have to use the word Object inconsistently if what you said is correct, right? The concept "no thing" refers to an actual quality of the Universe that we can discover as Bill put it, doesn't it? Here's an important question no one has answered for me, you're a smart guy (because there is truth to gather) Water is a dynamic concept. But water becomes ice! Which has location and form/shape. Making it according to your definition, an object. Since only objects can do things, what object mediates the creation of ice, it can't be H2o, right?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Preston,

    “But the concept of Universe is made up of only one thing. Matter.”

    Concepts are not “made up” of things. Concepts only relate....they are relations, not compositions/structures. Please try to understand the difference.

    “Space is no thing”

    Yes, space is nothing (not a thing/object). Space lacks shape. Space is a concept that is related between an object and its environment. Without a minimum of 2 entities, one being a test object and the other being its environment (which must be treated as a conceptual medium), it is impossible to conceive of space. To conceive of space...you must relate ‘IT’ to some-thing!

    “so it cannot be said to be the second object needed to make up the concept Universe according to your own criteria.”

    According to MY criteria?? Concepts have NOTHING to do with anyone’s criteria, including God’s! This is not a subjective issue of opinion. Concepts are objectively nothing more but pure relations. A relation necessarily needs A MINIMUM OF 2 SOMETHINGS in order to be a relation by definition. You need to understand the basics here. Of course, space is NOT an object. Space is a term that we treat as a noun of SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR, only....not as a noun of CONTEXTUAL GRAMMAR. Do you understand the difference? If not, please read this article where it is explained in detail here...thanks!

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

    So space is a syntactical term; a noun of syntax that we treat as a “conceptual medium” for the purposes of syntactical grammar, only! Ergo, as a noun of syntax, space is treated as a “conceptual” object only for the purposes of defining and understanding the contrasting RELATION of something vs nothing. It is NOT treated as a real object because we are dealing with SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR and not resolving its context to reality when we relate it CONCEPTUALLY, understand?

    Read the above article where I explain this stuff in laborious detail. This is Language & Grammar 101 stuff. In Europe they teach this stuff in Grade 10. Only North Americans have problems understanding linguistics & grammar for some reason.

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

    As you can see, the concept Universe relates two nouns....matter and space.....both treated as CONCEPTUAL mediums, only! Understand?

    “Two or more objects do not make up the concept Universe!”

    Actually, you didn’t notice that MATTER is also a concept in the above definition of Universe. Universe is actually an ABSTRACT concept (see above article to understand what abstract concepts are).

    matter: A concept that designates the set or a subset of the objects that exist; the total aggregate of atoms.

    As you can see, when you understand the difference between syntax and context, everything falls into place without problems. Again, I urge you to read the above article. I don’t think you learned the difference between syntactical & contextual grammars in school. You also don’t understand what an abstract concept is. They also teach this stuff in computer science language & compiler development courses.

    "For the purposes of Science, Space is not a concept. All concepts were invented by man. Like Concepts, space doesn't have shape. But unlike concepts Space was there before any of US came along. WE discovered Space, we invented concepts." -- Bill G

    Actually, this is an error in the video which Bill has identified but hasn’t edited/fixed yet. This issue has been raised by many people before, and there's been much confusion, so I understand your frustration. I don’t know when Bill will fix this to say that space is a concept.

  • profile image

    PrestonDeath 4 years ago

    We can imagine a Universe where the ONE object in space is an observer! And so so this solitary observer could still conceptualize "Universe", not needing two objects. Self and Space make up the concept. Not two objects.