ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Philosophy

FIRST CAUSE Argument for Creation - REFUTED

Updated on February 17, 2014
Is this what you envision when you hear the term UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE? Does this diagram even make sense? What are all those "causes" in the picture, OBJECTS or CONCEPTS? Are they real 'things' or are they contrived by Religionists? Do you even KNOW?
Is this what you envision when you hear the term UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE? Does this diagram even make sense? What are all those "causes" in the picture, OBJECTS or CONCEPTS? Are they real 'things' or are they contrived by Religionists? Do you even KNOW?
Do you really understand the LAW OF CAUSALITY or do you just parrot what everyone else says? DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW THE LAW OF CAUSALITY APPLIES TO THE GOD HYPOTHESIS? Isn't it about time you started thinking outside the box and understand?
Do you really understand the LAW OF CAUSALITY or do you just parrot what everyone else says? DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW THE LAW OF CAUSALITY APPLIES TO THE GOD HYPOTHESIS? Isn't it about time you started thinking outside the box and understand?

INTRODUCTION


THEISTS say that God is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.

ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.

AGNOSTICS say that we are limited beings, and can never “know” who or what created the Universe.


Q: So who is right? Who makes sense? Which position is the rational one?

A: NONE! They already decided for ALL of us that the Universe was created. And they made this decision by merely converting a contradictory CLAIM into a fact.


Most people are conditioned to accept irrational claims like, Creation, as 100% proven certainty; and meaningless terms, such as, Uncaused First Cause and Infinite Regress, as absolute unquestionable “knowledge”. Such folks need to understand that a CLAIM is any “positive assertion” which deviates from the default position of ‘existence’. Since the proponents of Creationism wish to deviate from this default position, the onus is on them to provide an analysis which rationally explains that the “creation” of space & matter at some instant in the past, is a VIABLE option. Proofs, truths, facts, certainties, evidence and authorities are the hallmarks of Religion. The only objective criterion is a rational explanation.


Q: So what does this gibberish, “Uncaused First Cause”, even mean?

A: Absolutely NONE of the parrots of the First Cause Argument can even tell you what ‘a’ cause, ‘an’ effect, ‘an’ event, or even an object is; never mind ‘an’ Uncaused First Cause. They don’t even understand what the word “infinite” means or whether it’s applicable in any context. They have been spoon-fed these breathtaking contradictory arguments from their favourite authoritative celebrities who don’t even understand the arguments themselves.


This article will explain:

1) Exactly WHY Christianity’s beloved First Cause Argument is in complete violation of the Law of Causality. Whoever uses the Law of Causality in the context of “First Cause” or “Creation from Nothing”, is either embarrassingly foolish, or intellectually dishonest.

2) Exactly how the sleight of hand conversions of concepts, verbs, and “nothing”, into imaginary objects, are deceiving the audience into accepting the First Cause Argument.

3) The ontological contradictions hidden within all First Cause Arguments.

4) Exactly WHY the Universe (space & matter) is IMPOSSIBLE to “CREATE”, whether under the guise of a God, a Singularity, out of nothingness/void, or by any other conceivable means.

5) The 4 possible Creation scenarios asserted by humans throughout millennia. The application of the Law of Causality to ANY Creation “claim” will easily explain why the Universe is eternal – it had no beginning and will have no end.


We will explain why space is omnipresent and precedes God, and why God cannot perform “causal actions” without the existence of Target objects. This means that space and matter were already there BEFORE the alleged creation event. The Universe is indeed eternal.

The FIRST CAUSE argument is the “bread & butter” for Christianity’s God hypothesis - the eternal creator. You will be surprised to understand why it doesn’t have a leg or limb to stand on. It’s Game Over for the Uncaused Creator!





THE LAW OF CAUSALITY


Describing nature with the concept of Causality goes back to at least Aristotle where we have its first formal documentation. Aristotle formalized a theory of causality for the first time in human thought, which brought together elements of various thinkers of his time. Aristotle first introduced his theory of causality as a way of understanding the human experience of physical nature. His theory was instantly accepted in the known world by philosophers and theologians who used it as a tool for structuring their arguments, and demonstrating the reasoning behind their claims.

From a Scientific perspective, the Law of Causality pertains to the Physics of nature itself, rather than to any subjective or biased experience of it. In nature, causal actions occur between objects: mediators and targets. And causal actions occur whether an observer is there to make them evident or not. Absolutely ALL causal actions occur between objects. Causal actions do NOT occur between concepts. Whether the objects are invisible to a human observer is IRRELEVANT to the issue of Causality. All objects, whether invisible or not, have an inherent being or structure. All objects are entities which have the intrinsic property of shape – they have form! This is the only property that allows objects to be spatially separated from their background.

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

Even the God of the Bible is not stupid. God knows that absolutely all entities MUST have shape. And He goes out of His way to tell us so in no uncertain terms:


Deuteronomy 4:16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman”

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


And God goes a step further by disclosing to us that ALL invisible entities, like light, air, and even God Himself, absolutely have shape (form):

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?”

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light”

Amos 4:13 He who forms the mountains, creates the wind”


So the Law of Causality is absolutely applicable to ALL entities/objects whether they are visible, invisible, made of flesh, inanimate, living, dead, and even if the object is God Himself!!!!!!



Aristotle’s Law of Causality is stated as follows:

A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B)


Its specific application in the context of Creation is stated as follows:

A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B). At event consummation, there is a resulting Output (object C)


For example:

Aristotle uses the example of a builder creating a house to describe the Causality of Creation.

“A builder (object A) is using material (object B), to create a house (object C)”



All the concepts pertaining to the Creation event are:

Cause: The “act” of imparting action (surface-to-surface contact) with the material (object B), as performed by the builder. Synonym: “causal action” (a verb).

Effect: The “change” realized by the material (object B) during the duration of the “causal action” imparted by the builder (object A). Synonym: “change effect”.

Event: The phenomenon of Creation (house built) from initiation of Creation, to termination of Creation. An event is always consummated.


The ACTORS participating in the Creation event are:

Object A: The MEDIATOR object (builder) imparting “causal action”.

Object B: The TARGET object (material) undergoing “change effect”.

Object C: The OUTPUT object (house) resulting from the consummated event.


Cause, effect, and event are all concepts, and not actors participating in the Creation event. The actors participating in the Creation event are the following objects: A (the Mediator), B (the Target), and C (the Output).

We must not forget that the crucial ACTORS to any causality argument are the objects, like A, B, and C, shown above. Without a minimum of TWO “actor objects”, there is absolutely NO causality argument that can be established.





So what do these elusive terms, “CAUSE” and “EFFECT”, mean?


a) “Cause” and “effect” are VERBS. They are concepts, and not objects. There is NO such thing as ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event; ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event does NOT exist. Only objects, like Mediators and Targets exist!

b) “Cause” is what something DOES (i.e. action), not what something IS. Specifically, “cause”, is the action that object A (the mediator) DOES to object B (the target) while interacting with the target.

c) “Effect” is what something DOES (i.e. changes), not what something IS. Specifically, “effect”, is the change in object B (the target) while interacting with object A (the mediator).

d) Object A (the Mediator) and object B (the Target) must BOTH exist, BEFORE the Mediator can perform “causal actions”, and BEFORE any “change effect” can be said to have been realized.


So what does the MEDIATOR (object A) do to the TARGET (object B)?


1) At event initiation, the Mediator moves toward the Target object and imparts surface-to-surface contact with the Target.

2) At this stage, the Mediator object has imparted “causal action” to the Target object.

3) Simultaneously with 2, “change effect” is realized by the Target object while interacting with the Mediator.

4) At event termination, the phenomenon is formally termed: Consummated Event.


The details of the “causal action” stemming from the Mediator, and the details of the “change effect” realized by the Target are issues which MUST be critically analyzed and explained in the Theory stage of one’s “claim” (i.e. Theory of Creation). The proponent of Creation MUST rationally explain to the audience all the WHY’s and all the HOW’s of the Physics and ontological details associated with the claim.

a) If the explanation has no contradictions, then we say that the Theory is “rational”, and hence the “claim” is viable (i.e. the event “could” have possibly happened as specified by the claim). Consummated events cannot be proven. Certainty plays no role in consummated events; they are only “claimed” to have happened in the past.

b) If the explanation has a single contradiction, then it will elucidate the Theory as irrational, and hence render the “claim” IMPOSSIBLE.


Remember: A contradiction always tells us what cannot be the case; i.e. what is impossible!





HISTORY OF THE LAW OF CAUSALITY & ITS REINTERPRETATION BY CHRISTIANITY


The monotheistic religions have regarded Aristotle's Metaphysics with both appreciation and hostility. Christian, Islamic, and Jewish theologians generally approved of his well-ordered, teleological world in which the Law of Causality describes how natural processes are directed toward the fulfillment of particular ends. Yet Aristotle’s philosophy was viewed as hostile to newly established Christian tenants in the late 2nd century. These included the doctrines that God is the “ultimate cause” of the existence of the Universe, the resurrection of the body, and the full immortality of the soul.

In Book Eight of his Physics, Aristotle describes what he calls the "Unmoved Mover" or "Prime Mover," which is the ultimate source of motion in the Universe, but is itself unmoved. For Aristotle this is an abstract conception of an impersonal god, who dwells at the edge of the universe and causes object motion. Although the Unmoved Mover was regarded by many as a god, it did not create the Universe. Aristotle reasoned why the Universe was uncreated in his philosophical argument for the eternal universe (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3).

Even though the monotheistic religions loved the idea of a prime Godhead overlooking the Universe, they hated the idea of an impersonal God who didn’t create all of existence, and who was not personally connected into the cultural and emotional aspects of human existence. In Aristotle’s eternal world there is no room for miracles, for providence, for reward and punishment either, and thus the basis of religion is totally shattered. So as Christianity progressed through the centuries, it was particularly compelled to repudiate Aristotle. Theologians thus tended to reject or reinterpret what they took to be Aristotle's offensive philosophical works. They even went as far as reinterpreting and rewriting Aristotle’s inconvenient laws of logic and inconvenient causality laws in order to suit their personal tastes and objectives within the Christian movement.

Contrary to Aristotle’s Law of Causality, in the thirteenth century, most Christian philosophers tried to reconcile Aristotle's logic and causality with the Christian idea that God created the world out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo). As a consequence, Aristotle's “unmoved mover” which set all objects in motion, was transformed into a “creating cause of existence”. More generally, the Liber de Causis (a Neo-Platonic Arabic work of the ninth century, translated into Latin in the twelfth century) had a decisive influence on the concept of causality. Christian theologians and philosophers reinterpreted and modified portions of Aristotle’s works in order to make them fit within Christian dogma. These actions resulted in making the Law of Causality inapplicable to the new dogma of Christian Creationism, “creation from nothing”.


Aristotle reasoned that “creation”, in the sense of matter surreptitiously appearing from “nothingness”, is contradictory and hence, impossible. Aristotle’s Law of Causality could not be reconciled with “matterless motion”, as all causes, without exception, are verbs that are mediated by a “mediating” object to a “target” object. Whereas Christianity’s dogmatic paradigm asserted “Creation from Nothing”, which meant that matterless “nothingness” will somehow acquire motion and participate in causality; specifically, it will be imparted with causal action from a mediating God, and result in an effectual output of matter and space (nothingness).

But space (nothingness) was ALREADY there! How is it possible to create space, when space is already “nothing”?


It doesn’t take a genius to understand that such contradictions are akin to arguing that “married bachelors smell like triangular square circles”. It doesn’t make any sense to claim that causality can be imparted on “nothing”. The only “nothing” in the Universe is SPACE. Although space is our conception of nothing, it is not artificial in the sense that we invented it as a concept. Concepts are artificially invented by humans. But space was “discovered” by humans. Space is not a WHAT. Space is that which lacks shape. Space is nothing. So as “nothing”, space can only be described via negative predication. Space is non-causal and not caused. It does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges for a mediator to “grab” on to and perform causal actions on it. We’re done!





THEOLOGIANS REINTERPRETED “CAUSALITY” TO PROTECT THEIR RELIGION


Not only was Aristotle’s Law of Causality changed in order to facilitate the irrational Christian dogma that the Universe was “created from nothing”, but it was also covertly REIFIED with DUALITIES by future theologians and philosophers, such as, St. Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig, just to name a few. Through the past 1400 years of mindless philosophical arguments which were used by theologians to convince the uneducated masses of Creation,..... theologians used ambiguities to convert the terms ‘cause’, ‘effect’, and ‘event’ from VERBS (concepts) into NOUNS (real objects). Today, these 3 terms are used interchangeably with the term ‘object’, as shown in the examples below:


- ‘The’ cause is ‘the’ event that made it happen. (cause and event = objects)

- God is ‘an’ uncaused fist cause for all of existence. (God and cause = objects)

- Humans are ‘the’ effect of God. (Humans, God and effect = objects)

- God set the event in motion that caused us to exist. (God and event = objects)


Is there no ontological difference between ‘cause’ and an ‘object’?

Is there no ontological difference between ‘God’ and ‘cause’?

Is there no ontological difference between ‘effect’, ‘event’, and an ‘object’?

Can God make ‘causes’, ‘effects’, and ‘events’?

Can God set ‘events’ or ‘causes’ in motion?

Do people even understand what they are saying? Have people lost their brains?


Yes, there is a difference. And God cannot make ‘causes’, ‘effects’, or ‘events’; neither can He move them! God can only build ‘objects’. Causes are actions or verbs which are MEDIATED by God upon other objects.

Remember: The Law of Causality necessarily requires a minimum of 2 objects:

1) The mediator (God).

2) The target object of the mediator’s causal action. The mediator will necessarily impart “causal action” on the target object, which will realize “change effect”.

** And in the special case of Creation, there is a resulting “output object” from the consummated event.

And no, people who mindlessly parrot such nonsense do not understand what they are saying. But no, people have not lost their brains; they just REFUSE to use them. People will mindlessly parrot whatever terms their favourite celebrity (authority) uses in their presentations. And they will happily do this without so much as blinking, and without even understanding the basics. Then they will go to Internet forums in order to defend a concept which they haven’t a clue about. But that issue is of no significance to them. They prefer to instead defend an irrational idea because they watched a YouTube video of their favourite celebrity defending it. That is all they’re interested in doing!!


But why is this issue I’m raising so relevant? Why am I nitpicking on petty semantics? I mean, we all understand the usage of these terms, right?

WRONG! Such terms which embody concepts cannot be used as ACTORS in any argument, presentation, or theory; especially in physics or in any context of reality. Love does not swim. Justice does not run. Beauty does not fly. Not in reality! If you are going to be clear for the sake of understanding, then you must be clear. Otherwise, your claim that “God is ‘an’ uncaused first cause” is pure baloney. It is irrational and has no meaning whatsoever. So this is not semantic nitpicking. People have been accustomed take too much for granted. And theologians count on that in order to easily PROVE their arguments and have them readily accepted. The theologian has to specify exactly what he means when he gives a scientific presentation on Causality and Creation. No euphemisms, figures of speech or ambiguities are allowed when understanding is at stake. Especially when understanding has the capability to influence people’s beliefs, and ultimately their lives. Theologians and philosophers don't like to use rigorous, unambiguous, and scientific terms because such consistencies destroy their arguments, if not their Religions. There is no other reason for a presenter of Causality and Creation to fall back on such wishy washy notions.

The buck stops here. When it comes to issues of ontological existence (reality), and the existence of God, there is no room for.....”nudge nudge, wink wink, you KNOW what I mean!”



Q: What benefits do theologians and philosophers obtain when introducing DUALITIES into their arguments?


1) They eliminate crucial problems which are DAMAGING to their arguments, because dualities allow them to COVERTLY make use of MATTERLESS MOTION. This novel idea allowed them to use the expression, ‘a’ CAUSE (irrational notion), in a very deceptive way that made it seem that “cause” was a noun (an object), specifically, the object God! So they conveniently eliminated the troubling objects B and C from Aristotle’s Law of Causality. And now, ‘the’ EFFECT is an object (irrational notion) which didn’t exist before, but now has magically resulted directly from God in the appearance of the Universe from nothing. In this irrational interpretation, there is only ONE object, God, which is synonymous with CAUSE. So there is no motion or causal action imparted by God to “create”. But then the EFFECT is the Universe, which magically appears out of nowhere! Only fools will swallow such concocted nonsense!


2) Now they established a situation where ‘a’ cause, which is a concept or “nothing”, is also treated as God (duality). So “nothing” now performs actions, specifically “creation”, and it is irrationally associated with the object God. This allowed them to convolute the Law of Causality and conveniently eliminate from their analysis the TARGET (object B), which the “causal action” was directed to. It is this TARGET object which was the source of heartaches and sleepless nights for many theologians and philosophers. Now that it has been ELIMINATED from Aristotle’s Law of Causality, the phrase, ‘a’ cause, is synonymous with God, and axiomatically made God the ONLY NECESSARY OBJECT in the Theologian’s new irrational Law of Causality. How convenient is that? This allowed them to easily FOOL people into thinking that God is the one and only, Uncaused First Cause. How could people miss such underhanded trickery? To borrow from a Capitalist slogan: “A fool is born every minute of the day!”


3) This reification and alteration to the Law of Causality also made their arguments SHORTER, because uneducated people back then could not follow an argument that was more than 3 lines long. And it made their arguments more convincing (believable). The audience now “believed” these arguments as PROVEN fact! How could they not believe them? I mean, God was now a magical creator and ‘a’ CAUSE; specifically, ‘an’ UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, even though this was contradictory to the Law of Causality. Now they have a spoon-fed argument which they THINK they understand, so they swallow it a face value without so much as blinking. Duh, but it sounds convincing to me!!


In fact, to this day, almost everyone and their brother considers the following terms as synonyms: cause, effect, event, and object. And the scary part is that they haven’t a clue how to distinguish between them. And that’s why these First Cause arguments are geared towards such folks; which sadly comprise the majority of the population.

Today, theologians, apologists, theists, naturalists, spiritualists, atheists, philosophers, logicians, and even mathematical physicists, have mindlessly inherited this SAME tradition from theologians of the past. They are now parroting this breathtaking knowledge as if they know what they are talking about.

WELL THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! And they shouldn’t be able to fool anyone with half a brain. Causality necessarily requires 2 objects: the mediator (object A) and the target (object B). Only if the mediator performs a causal action on itself, can we disregard the secondary target object. But even in this case, the mediator must be mereologically comprised of at least 2 component objects; otherwise it cannot impart causal action onto itself.


As demonstrated by the societal appeal of Religion, Einstein’s Relativity, Quantum, and the Big Bang Theory, many people harbour preconceived notions that consider matterless motion and creation from nothing to be logical possibilities. In fact, some even consider such notions as absolute proven certainty!


Today, people are unable to understand the ontological contradictions in the following list of impossibilities:

- Theologians ascribe motion to ‘a’ CAUSE, which is already a verb (i.e. nothing!!) that must be mediated by a mediator A to a target object B. Then they say that God is this CAUSE, by using reification. And they conveniently eliminate object B in order to make their arguments work.

- Theologians ascribe motion and causal actions to “nothing”.

- Relativity ascribes motion to 0D particles, space, black holes, and concepts such as ‘length’, ‘mass’, ‘time’.

- Quantum ascribes motion to 0D particles, space (quantum fluctuations), concepts such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and the various Standard Model particles.

- String Theory ascribes motion to 1D strings.


But isn’t ironic, that theists and atheists accuse each other of believing in Creation from Nothing, when in fact, they are both creationists who clearly believe in Creation from Nothing and matterless motion?


In summary, I hope the reader now understands how Aristotle’s Law of Causality was reinterpreted by the monotheistic religions in order to dogmatically and covertly allow the IRRATIONAL notions of:


1) Creation from nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).

2) Matterless motion.

3) The reification of concepts (nothing) into objects. Specifically, the conversion of ‘cause’, ‘effect’, and ‘event’ into gratuitous spur-of-the-moment OBJECTS that can be used to suit any argument.





APPLYING THE “UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE” TO THE CLAIM OF CREATION


In the next section we will analyze “creation” from BOTH the theistic (God) and atheistic (Singularity) perspectives. But before we begin, let’s establish our rational approach to the ontology of creation so that we understand what creation entails:


1) Do you agree that “creation” is a verb, an act that necessitates the motion of a MEDIATOR entity which always existed? Yes or No?

2) Do you agree that the act of “creation” necessitates “causal action” from the MEDIATOR? Yes or No?

3) Do you agree that “causal action” CANNOT be imparted on “nothing”? Yes or No?


If you are not in agreement with the above 3 points, then you are practicing one of the worst Religions imaginable: a religion which asserts ontological contradictions as facts. Your religion is not based on “faith”. It is instead based on the worship of “contradictions/impossibilities”.


I will now do what every atheist fears: I will grant the theist and theologian the premise that God is the Uncaused First Cause.

This is the atheist’s worst nightmare! Atheists prefer to attack God and immediately dethrone Him from His asserted beginningless existence. There is no reason to attack God and it is very unscientific to do so. We don’t attack objects in science, we use them to either explain the viability people’s claims, or to explain their contradictions.

Since creation is the theist’s “claim”, I will use their own Causality argument for an Uncaused Creator to determine if their claim has any merit, validity, or viability. And in order to do so, the claim of creation must NOT have any ontological contradictions. The same analysis will apply to the Big Bang Theory’s assumption of the Singularity.


Since mathematical physics posits that the Singularity is 0D (shapeless), has no width, no height, no length, then it is NOTHING, and the Big Bang creation theory FAILS right here and now! Creation from nothing is impossible. The Big Bang is absolutely NO different than Religion. It is absolutely EQUIVALENT to the doctrine of an Uncaused Creator God!

But, just to give these atheists a fighting chance against the theists, for argument’s sake, let’s assume the Singularity is a real object with shape.

Let’s use the notation, “object A”, as a convention to refer to an object with no beginning, that is, either God or the Singularity. So object A will be the MEDIATOR in the foregoing analysis.

Now we are able to analyze the act of “creation” from an ontological perspective with no bald premises, no logical semantics, no proofs, no assertions, no opinions, no biased observers, no subjective evidence and no BS!


In the foregoing analysis we will ACCEPT the Theistic and Big Bang assumption that either God or the Singularity is the Uncaused First Cause: The Creator. We will use the Scientific Method to determine the viability of this assumption at the conceptual level. We will critically analyze the process of creation and rationally explain WHY an Uncaused Creator, can or cannot, impart “causal actions” through all the creation scenarios that are ontologically possible. There are only 3 scenarios which are ontologically possible for an Uncaused Creator, and we will exhaustively analyze all 3 of them. If any of them lead to contradictions, then we will have rationally explained WHY that particular creation scenario is not viable and is ontologically impossible.

For the purposes of this analysis, we will use object A as a moniker for either ‘God’ or the ‘Singularity’; it is synonymous with either of them. Hence we will assume that object A is a real object that always existed (it was not created).

So let’s analyze the 3 possible ontological scenarios for the Causality of Creation:





SCENARIO 1 – Causality on Something


This is an example of creation out of something (Creatio ex Materia).

In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon another object, B, which always existed without cause, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). This scenario is an example of Causality on Something, because TWO “actor objects”, the Creator (object A) and the material (object B) have always existed without being caused. The result of the event of Causality on Something mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.


1) Before the causal action of “creation” can begin, do you agree that an object, call it object A (God or Singularity), is necessarily required to have always existed (without cause or beginning), in order to perform this CREATION action we call, “cause”? Yes or No? If No, go to 3.

2) From 1, if Yes, then do you agree that “at least” another object, call it B, MUST exist in order to have causal action performed on it by object A, so that object A can “create” something from it? Yes or No? If No, go to 4. Absolutely ALL creation actions require a physical Creator object A, to mediate its “creation” causal action upon a Target object B, in order to create object C. This means that existence is an ontological necessity and it precedes any cause/action. Before a causal action can occur, AT LEAST 2 OBJECTS MUST ALWAYS EXIST, object A and object B. In the context of “creation”, object A will impart causal action on object B, in order to “create” object C from it. Both objects A and B have no beginning – they were never created! They necessarily ALWAYS existed! But object C was ASSEMBLED from at least object B. It was not created from nothing! It is impossible to realize any scenario where object A imparts a causal action, without at least one Target object, namely B, having always existed. Any notion suggesting otherwise, is either an ontological impossibility, or object A has to perform a causal action on “itself” or on “nothing” (see 4). Go to 5.

3) From 1, if No, then you are SERIOUSLY in trouble! You will need to rationally explain how causal action can be performed without an object to mediate the action. You are positing a state of nothingness. How does “nothing” perform causal actions? Go to “SCENARIO 4”.

4) From 2, if No, then do you agree that object A must impart causal action on itself, and SACRIFICE ITSELF in order to “create” something? Yes or No? If Yes, then go to “SCENARIO 2”. If No, then go to “SCENARIO 3”.

5) From 2, since object A and “at least” another object, B, must have always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour these objects and allow them to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothingness), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Space precedes causes; it necessarily precedes motion. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!

6) From 5, we have rationally explained that space, object A, and “at least” one or more objects, namely, object B, were ALWAYS present and could not have been created. Since SPACE WAS NEVER CREATED, and necessarily is the background for all objects, then space is necessarily OMNIPRESENT. SPACE IS EVERYWHERE, contouring all objects (invisible or otherwise). Space has no boundaries or borders to cross. Space is “nothing”. Only objects have boundaries (i.e. shape), not space. There is no “outside of space”. Therefore space cannot be “transcended”. No object, including God, can do that magic trick – no matter how much they kick, scream, and shout!


Conclusion from Scenario 1:

So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.


It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.

It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.

Space is “nothing”; it has no shape and is therefore neither finite nor infinite. Space is unbounded and borderless. Therefore space is ETERNAL because it cannot be created or destroyed. Since space must necessarily enclose and contour God, this makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The Uncaused Cause Argument assumes God to be eternal, but space is already OMNIPRESENT AND ETERNAL. God is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space! There is no other way about it. Space is there without God, but God cannot exist without space. Space is IMPOSSIBLE to create as its omnipresence necessarily wraps all objects. God must be IN space in order to move and perform causal actions, like “create”.

Similarly, one or more objects (B, B1, B2,...Bn) always HAD to exist as targets in order to facilitate the causality of “creation” from either God or the Singularity. These objects are matter (atoms). And since matter cannot be created or destroyed (converted into nothing), therefore matter has no beginning and no end. This necessarily implies that the amount of matter (atoms) in the Universe is constant. No new matter can ever be created. Therefore God is not omnipotent; He is not able to do whatever He wants. God cannot defeat nor contradict the omnipotence of “nothingness” and “matter”.

Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter in this scenario of Causality on Something, this means that object A was just another matter object (atoms) in the possible constant amount of matter in the Universe: A, B, B1, B2,...Bn.

This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. Space and matter were already there. They were always present with no beginning or cause, at least in the form of objects A and B.

So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one’s self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!

Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.





SCENARIO 2 – Self-Causality


This is an example of creation out of the being of God (Creatio ex Deo).

In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon itself, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible. So in this particular case, object A must necessarily consist of at least two component parts, and not a single continuous indivisible finite piece. Only then can object A, as a whole, impart causality upon itself, that is; upon its component parts. The result of the event of Self-Causality mediated by object A upon itself is intended to be the Universe.


1) Object A will impart “causal action” upon itself, and sacrifice its component parts in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).

2) From 1, since object A has always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). And space necessarily contours all the component parts of object A in order to allow them to move when imparted by causal actions. Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!

3) From 1, it necessarily follows that object A is made up of matter (atoms), and breaks pieces of matter from itself and distributes them in the Universe. Since space is omnipresent, it necessarily contours all the matter (atoms) in the Universe, even before they were dismembered from object A.


Conclusion from Scenario 2:

So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.


It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.

It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). They can only distribute atoms which they already have. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! In this Self-Causality scenario, God is necessarily made up of matter and would have to sacrifice His own matter in order to disperse it in space. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe. If anything, God can only build it from pre-existing matter.

If God dismembers Himself to distribute matter, then what becomes of God? Isn’t God a living being? How much matter can God afford to lose before He stops living?

But of course, since space necessarily contours all of God’s matter (atoms), why would God need to disperse these atoms in space? They are already IN space. Their distance of separation is meaningless and irrelevant as to whether the matter currently in the Universe comprises God’s being or not. If we conceptualize and visualize all the matter in the Universe from a “bird’s eye” perspective, we could easily “join all the dots” to outline an object and claim that this object is indeed God. So what then is the difference about how the Universe is NOW, versus at the alleged moment of Creation? The only difference is in the ‘location’ of the matter (atoms); there is no other difference.

Well, the Devil’s advocate may say that God is still alive because He still has matter connecting and comprising His being,.... even though the rest of the matter in the Universe is disconnected from God and therefore comprises OUR “separate existence”. After all, God is outside of space and matter.

But the Devil’s advocate would be DEAD WRONG! Absolutely every single atom in the Universe is gravitationally bound to every other atom. This means that all the atoms in the Universe are physically interconnected with each other! So if God’s being consists of atoms (and it MUST be if He sacrificed his matter), then God is incapable of having his own SEPARATE existence from the rest of the matter in the Universe, including us. If we are capable of having a beginning and an end to our life, then obviously God MUST have a beginning and an end to His life, because after all, He consists of atoms. Only matter is eternal, life is not, because life is NOT an object, life is a concept. Life is not what something IS; life is what a collection of atoms DO!

Life consists of a collection of atoms, which come together under gravitational attraction in specific configurations, to form an object that is able to move of its own volition against gravity. If crucial configurations of these atoms dislocate from the object, or if other atoms combine with the object to alter these crucial configurations, it is said that the object has come to the end of its “service life”. And since the atoms of God are necessarily gravitationally bound to all other atoms in the Universe, then God’s atoms are influenced in the same way our atoms are influenced. This means that if God did exist, and did have life, and sacrificed his matter to distribute it in space, then God’s life has either come to an end, or it will come to an end. There is no escaping it. God can be as omnipotent as he wants in this scenario of Self-Causality, but even He is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space & atoms. Since God necessarily consists of atoms wrapped by space in this scenario, then He is powerless to them.

So God cannot have it both ways. God cannot say that He sacrificed Himself by dispersing matter all over space, and yet have the capability to be a separate discrete entity, because absolutely ALL matter is interconnected. All matter is attracted to each other via gravity. There are NO discrete entities which are separate from matter; all entities are interconnected at the atomic level. God cannot be OUTSIDE of matter anymore or any less than He can be OUTSIDE of space. There is no such “outside” context when it comes to the ontological primacy of existence. Space has no borders to cross and thus cannot be transcended. All of matter is interconnected at the atomic level, so God cannot sever these eternal interconnections, for if He could, He would destroy His atoms and His being. Therefore God cannot transcend matter. In this scenario of Self-Causality, God is necessarily all of matter......whether He likes it or not!


Q: So then, what did God create, build, assemble, or organize in this Self-Causality scenario?

A: Nothing that wasn’t already there! To posit that a God exists who simply increased the distance between portions of his matter to enable our existence to “assemble”, is an irrational and ludicrous notion. All the matter was already there! And it was already interconnected! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL!


Regardless, the quantity of matter in the Universe is constant; it cannot be created or destroyed. If the universe was composed by an unlimited quantity of matter, the Universe would be a single infinite solid block of matter, and there wouldn’t be any space at all. Such a scenario would not permit motion, life, let alone a God.

The BEST that proponents of creation can do in this scenario is to use the words ‘God’ or ‘Singularity’ as synonyms for “matter”. It is obvious that if ‘God’ or the ‘Singularity’ existed, they MUST have necessarily been composed of matter (atoms). Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter, this means that it can be conceived to be a conglomerate of matter (atoms), which comprise a constant amount of matter in the Universe (i.e. objects: B, B1, B2,...Bn). The Universe would be no different back then, than it already is today; other than for the locality of matter. There is no other option!


This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one’s self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!

If theists, atheists, or other creationists wish to refer to all the matter in the Universe as ‘God’ or ‘Singularity’, then more power to them, as that would make them Pantheists. Synonyms are no substitute for a rational explanation to the contradictory claim of creation.

Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.





SCENARIO 3 – Causality on Nothing


This is an example of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).

In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon “nothing”, which was always around without cause, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). In other words, object A will perform “Creation from Nothing”. Object A must necessarily impart causal action upon space (nothingness), since no other medium is available to create from. The result of the event of Causality on Nothing mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.

BUT....

We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!

This scenario defies the Law of Causality! An Uncaused First Cause is IMPOSSIBLE in the context of Creatio ex Nihilo!


1) Object A will impart “causal action” upon “nothing” in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).

2) From 1, since object A must impart causal action on “nothing”, and since space is “nothing”, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!

3) Since object A will attempt to impart “causal action” upon space (nothing), it will absolutely FAIL to perform any causal actions. Why? Because space is nothing. Space is non-causal, not caused, shapeless, structureless, boundless, and incorporeal and it is not a Target actor in causality. Only objects can possibly be “actors” in causality. Causality necessarily requires SURFACE-TO-SURFACE CONTACT between TWO objects, A and B. Since object A is the only object assumed to always exist, it is impossible for it to impart causal action on its background medium of nothingness, space. Space is the necessary background medium giving form and contour to object A. Space is what gives spatial separation to object A, thus enabling it to be an entity, and giving it the ability to move against the background. God cannot rub elbows with space (nothing) and cause actions on it. All the objects in the Universe are constantly moving in space. If we deem this motion as “causal action”, then WHY aren’t they “creating” new matter in the process? The creation of matter from space is indeed impossible!


Conclusion from Scenario 3:

So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.


It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.

It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms) from nothing. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. In this scenario, object A is indeed a conglomerate comprised of all the atoms in the Universe. Creatio ex nihilo is impossible! Causal actions cannot be imparted on the nothingness of space. Therefore, in the scenario of Causality on Nothing, it is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.

So whoever posits the scenario of Causality on Nothing, has to understand that object A is ALREADY representative of all the matter in the Universe. All the matter was already there! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL! You can call it God if you wish, but that is completely irrelevant.

The ramifications of this scenario are similar to that of scenario 2, Self-Causality, and so are its conclusions about object A and its component parts being equivalent to all the matter in the Universe.

But the most important issue here is that Causality on Nothing VIOLATES THE LAW OF CAUSALITY! There is absolutely NO causal action. Causal actions necessarily require the motion of at minimum, TWO objects. This means that object A must act as the Mediator of causal action to a Target object, say, object B. So object A will be in motion and impart causal action via surface-to-surface contact of another object, B, which will necessarily impart motion to object B. God cannot rub elbows with nothingness, and cannot impart motion or “causal action” on it.

This scenario of Causality on Nothing posits the irrational idea of “matterless motion”, which is completely IMPOSSIBLE because it is an ontological contradiction. Space cannot have motion imparted on it because it has no shape, no structure, and no boundary or surface to contact. Only objects can have motion imparted upon them.

So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space. But it was unable to impart a causal action on space, as space is motionless and non-causal. Thus it was unable to create matter from nothing. Such a magic trick is indeed impossible under any context!

The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals with a dishonest agenda to push.

Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.





SCENARIO 4 – Causality out of Total Nothingness


This is another variation of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo), where there is no mediator or any object present. Even space is said not to be present in such a scenario. So it is a case of Self-Creatio ex Nihilo.

This is an irrational creation scenario posited by those fools who claim to believe in a “Creator-less Creation from Nothing”, where nothingness is the “mediator” imparting causal action on itself to create a real “output” object”.

The fools who posit this scenario are no different than those who posit any variation of Creation from Nothing. We already settled this issue before. Nothingness is non-causal and not caused. Nothingness does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges. Hence, as a MEDIATOR, it cannot come in contact with itself in order to perform causal actions on itself. We’re done!

And I can’t wait for the proponents of this scenario to explain to me with the luxury of detail, exactly how ‘nothingness’ is different from ‘space’. I will crack open a bottle of champagne just to hear that explanation. I will not give such fools the time of day by discussing this scenario further in this article, as there is NOTHING to analyze! If there was such a scenario as total nothingness, then we wouldn’t be here discussing it.

The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no MEDIATOR or no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals.

Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.





AN “UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE” IS ONTOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!


Of course, “Causality on Nothing” is the most popular causality scenario posited by theologians. They covertly treat ‘a’ cause as a noun (object) and make it synonymous with God, as in: “God is ‘the’ cause of the Universe”.

So we have a situation where the Law of Causality is contradicted because a minimum of 2 objects are required for causality, the MEDIATOR and the TARGET. But there is NO target object, even though the unsuspecting audience is under the impression that the target is the Universe, it is in fact the word “cause” which confused them and threw them off course because it is treated as an object. So the audience interpreted this ambiguous sentence as: God imparted ‘a’ cause, which seems to be the “causal action” (but it is not), and the effect or outcome was the Universe (but it wasn’t).

It is easy to understand that there was NO “causal action”!!

Q: What was the target object on which the “causal action” was imparted upon?

A: There is no target object. And the Universe is not the target object because it is the end result of the event of creation.


By treating verbs/concepts as NOUNS in a sentence, the unsuspecting audience thinks the sentence is about REAL ‘things’; i.e. things which exist. But it’s not the case. The ontology of Causality deals ONLY in real objects, not concepts or missing objects. Concepts don’t exist; they require a conscious observer to conceive them. Objects precede all concepts. Objects were around before humans arrived to conceive of “causes” and “effects”, and decide whether the ‘mediator’, ‘target’, or ‘output’ objects are representative of “causes” or “effects”.

It’s no wonder why such “fast and loose” ambiguous language with metaphors and euphemisms to drive home the point is HIGHLY DESIRABLE by theologians and philosophers. It has to be, as they have no legitimate and rational means of rounding up mindless followers to join their Religion. But their party hasn’t stopped there. They have managed to brainwash the mindless atheists and mathematicians to parrot the same irrationalities without having a clue of what they are talking about. But there is no surprise there, as most atheists are ex-Religionists and most mathematicians are Religionists.


Without understanding the underlying principles of ontology and Causality, people cannot even begin to comprehend the fatality that is hidden within ALL First Cause Arguments. People are used to going on the Internet and YouTube to educate themselves on this contradictory First Cause Argument, without so much understanding the basics. Then they will parrot this nonsense to others like it’s some Nobel Prize winning knowledge. Even Stephen Hawking is a clueless victim to this SCAM as is evident in his presentations on physics, causality and the Universe.


As you can see, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE SLEIGHT OF HAND which 99.99% of all people fall victims to, no matter what their level of education. The human brain is first and foremost a “pattern recognition machine”, and this is the most efficient job that it does most of the time. And in this mode, the human brain automatically fills-in the missing ‘target’ object in the Uncaused First Cause scenario. And it fills it in with the reified object noun “cause”. And the unsuspecting observer swallows up the argument as absolute fact without even using a neuron to think about it.

So naturally, it is almost impossible for most of us to spot such contradictions as missing target objects in the above example. Most of us prefer to BELIEVE what we are told by “perceived” authorities. Humans are extremely LAZY creatures. They prefer to have their “knowledge” spoon-fed to them from a decorated authority, rather than spending a few minutes of critical thought to figure things out for themselves. And this is the primary reason why we have beliefs in Gods, creation of existence, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, black holes, warped space, time dilation, time travel, 0D particles & singularities, particle accelerators, ghosts, spirits, monsters, etc. It’s business as usual here on Earth!


Here is another popular example that is often asserted by theists:

“Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call God.”


And if we replace the word ‘God’ with ‘Singularity’, we will get the breathtaking atheistic version of the First Cause argument. So I guess that one is proven fact too, huh?


Homework: Can you spot the 3 ontological contradictions (reification of ‘cause’, matterless motion, creation from nothing), in the above statement?



If you have ever debated a Christian, you will inevitably see them choose arguments that allow them to play on both sides of the fence.

Christianity’s bread and butter is Aristotle’s Law of Causality in its application to the First Cause argument for the creation of the Universe. Christian philosophers often claim that:

“Nothing exists without a cause; and the uncaused first cause of the Universe is God.”


Isn’t it ironic, that theologians, philosophers, and theists use Aristotle’s Law of Causality to attempt to prove their claim of creation, when in fact, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at MINIMUM, the existence of 2 objects: the MEDIATOR (object A) and the TARGET (object B).

And in the specific application of Creation, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at minimum, one OUTPUT object from the consummated event. Under the ontology of Causality, Creation in any form, under any mediator, under any context, is completely impossible!


THE LAW OF CAUSALITY DOESN’T EVEN APPLY TO SUCH CONTRADICTORY FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENTS WITH MISSING OBJECTS.


Why is this basic concept so difficult for people to understand?

1) If God is going to perform a “causal action” for Creation, then it rationally follows that He will perform this action on a TARGET, right? Otherwise, what is it that He is going to perform?

2) And it rationally follows that the result of that consummated event will have an OUTPUT that stemmed directly from the TARGET, right? Otherwise, where is the OUTPUT object going to stem from, nothing?

3) So BEFORE Creation, there must have been at minimum 2 objects always existing: God and the Target, right? This means that matter is necessarily ETERNAL!

4) And AFTER Creation, there must have been at minimum 3 objects existing: God, the Target object, and the Output, right?


I mean, this is straight forward stuff. There is no reason for somebody to use deception and dishonesty to make their argument acceptable, right?


It is painfully obvious that:

THE PROPONENTS OF CREATION CANNOT USE THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS THE LAW OF CAUSALITY.

As I explained in my analysis of the 4 possible scenarios for Creation, “creation from nothing” contradicts Causality and is thus ontologically impossible. Anybody who attempts to use First Cause Argument to account for the claim of Creation, is either a VERY ignorant person, or a charlatan!

C’mon people.....God must have given you a brain. Use it for a change. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.


But don’t get me wrong. I am not here to pick on theists, as atheists, logicians, philosophers, mathematicians, and mathematical physicists are no different when it comes to understanding the ontology of Causality. They have all been taught to parrot this nonsense by Religionists. So let’s pick on them for a change, shall we?

One of the many disturbing examples out there can be found in the writings of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the eminent British logician and philosopher of the 20th century. Russell, an atheist himself, once claimed that:


“If everything must have ‘a’ cause, then God must have ‘a’ cause. If there can be anything without ‘a’ cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.....There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without ‘a’ cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about ‘the’ First Cause.” -- Bertrand Russell (Why I am not a Christian)


It’s obvious that the Law of Causality as applied to Creation even eluded the much praised Bertrand Russell. Even Russell, a famous mathematician and logician, did NOT understand the basics of Causality and ontology. For if he did, he would not have made such a silly childish argument against God being ‘the’ First Cause. He was blind to these fatal ontological contradictions in his above remarks:


1) He did not notice that he is reifying ‘a’ cause and ‘the’ First Cause, from a verb, into an object.

2) In his statement, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without ‘a’ cause”, HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! If say, for argument’s sake, that it is possible for the Universe to come into being (which is impossible), then that event MUST ABSOLUTELY be mediated by a MEDIATOR that imparted “causal action” upon a TARGET. To say, like Russell did, that a consummated event does need to be caused by a mediator, not only violates ontological existence and Physics and logic, but is TOTAL LUNACY!

3) He did not notice the implicit necessity of matterless motion in the First Cause Argument.

4) He did not notice the necessity of “creation from nothing” in the First Cause Argument.


Such a smart person should have pointed out that Causality requires at minimum 2 objects: the mediator and the target. And from this he should have concluded that creation under any context is impossible. So Russell was indeed WRONG in his conclusion....he should have spent a lot more time thinking about and understanding the Law of Causality. He gets a failing grade.


If God cannot create space and matter, especially when matter was ALREADY present in the 3 Causality Scenarios I outlined earlier, then what makes theologians, philosophers, and logicians think that God can create “out of nothing”?

How is that even a possibility?

Why would any logician attempt to use childish emotional arguments to attempt to discount Christianity’s “creation from nothing” myth?

Are these people on drugs or something?

Creation from nothing, or any sort of creation of space and matter, under any context, is easily shown to be completely IMPOSSIBLE via the Law of Causality. An Uncaused First Cause is instantly shown to be impossible because it is an ontological contradiction.

Should we accept as fact, or believe in, or have faith in the possibility of a triangular-square circle?

Can God be omnipotent and not-omnipotent?

Can God make parallel lines intersect, while still maintaining their parallel nature?


If you are a human being with HALF A BRAIN, you must concede that there are things which a God CANNOT do, no matter if His life dependent on it. In fact, many Christian apologists and logicians (William Lane Craig and Matt Slick come to mind) will explicitly tell you in no uncertain terms, that God CANNOT defy the laws of logic, and God CANNOT defy the ontology of nature.

It takes the worst kind of Religion imaginable to base its beliefs in pure contradictions. It takes the most dishonest and heinous Religion imaginable to teach its followers to worship and base their lives on pure contradictions. An honest and real Religion bases its epistemology on what is rational and reasonable. And it bases its faith and belief system on the UNKNOWN and UNEXPLAINABLE, which it attributes to God. Unfortunately, Christianity is no such Religion, as it bases its epistemology on impossibilities which are easily explained to be impossible!


People can make up all the excuses they want in order to protect their ignorance, their emotional biases, or their Religion. But one thing is a definite 100% certainty: All irrational claims and excuses have inherent contradictions which are easily unravelled, .....not by logical proofs, observations or evidence, .....but by critical thinking and analysis. Intellectual dishonesty never prevails, especially in Creation Arguments, whether in support of God, or of the Singularity and Big Bang.


No matter how you approach the First Cause Argument, and no matter what the context, when you critically analyze the ontology of Creation, you always reach the same conclusion: THAT MATTER WAS ALWAYS THERE. Even if God was there, matter was necessarily with Him, whether as another object, or in the composition of His being – whether He likes it or not. But the ultimate death blow to Creation is that space necessarily precedes God. God cannot exist without space contouring Him and allowing Him the free-will to move. Space reduces God’s free will. Space is MORE formidable than God!

Therefore, God is not omnipotent, not omnipresent, and does not have ultimate free-will,......and if God is said to exist.....then God is necessarily comprised of matter (atoms), just as we are. God would be just another being, maybe much bigger and more power than us, just as the dinosaurs were, or maybe even bigger.





THE DEVIL HAS MANY ADVOCATES


The Devil has his career to think about. Without God to set some authoritative standard, there would be no authoritative negated standard and no Devil; and vice versa. If there was no God the Devil would have to pack it in; he would have to shut down his business; he would be run out of town. That’s why the Devil has sent his advocates to tell me that I have it all wrong. The Devil’s advocates have their stake in “creation”. They have put all their eggs in that basket. Without creation from God, the Devil and all the other characters in the mythical story vanish in an instant!

The Devil often sends his advocates to beat me up with their arguments from ignorance. Here are some responses I’ve received in my exchanges with theists and atheists:


“Hey, how do you KNOW with certainty that God is an object? How do you KNOW that God has shape/form? Our Lord is not like you or me. He is not visible, He has no structure. You cannot SEE my Lord in order to prove your claims. God is immaterial. Take your trash elsewhere. You are a pathetic simple-minded clown making wild claims you have no evidence for!”


How do I “know” that God has shape? How do I “know” that God is an object?

BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO, THAT’S HOW!!!!!!!!!!

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?”

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light”


God tells us that ALL objects have shape/form. God tells us that He has shape/form, even though He is invisible. Absolutely ALL invisible objects have shape/form, even the mediator object for light, and even God Himself. God cannot defy the ontology of nature – no exceptions!

"God said it....I believe it.....that settles it."

So who is the pathetic simple-minded clown??


Whatever God or any authority tells us is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Neither I, you, God, nor anyone else can claim to KNOW anything to be 100% true, or even 1% true. There is no objective way to resolve such biased observer-dependent claims. And my analysis does not go down the irrational path of truths, proofs, facts, knowledge, wisdom or faith. We only need to think critically in order to explain why God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’.

God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity; a being. It is taken on faith that God exists. So if God is an entity, if God is something rather than nothing, then God necessarily has some type of intrinsic structure; God necessarily has shape! Therefore God is indeed an object (that which has shape). The specifics of God’s shape are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The point is that God is ‘something’. God can most certainly be invisible, just like the invisible mediators for light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc., which are objects. But like all these invisible ‘things’ which mediate those phenomena, God has ‘shape’ as well.

Nobody needs to SEE God in order to critically reason that God is an object. Nobody needs to see the physical mediating mechanism for gravity in order to reason that it is a physical object which is in contact with all matter. The existence of objects is observer-independent. The Sun is an object whether or not you were born to SEE it. Even a blind person can reason that the Sun is an object. So if God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’, then God is necessarily an object! And there is no such anything as “immaterial”. Anything that is negatively predicated is actually referring to nothing. Only space is immaterial. Only space can be negatively predicated. If God is said to be immaterial, then obviously, God is nothing.



“Dude, how can you tell us that you KNOW exactly what happened at the moment of Creation? Were you there to actually SEE God fail at creating the universe? Can you PROVE what you are saying? What is your evidence?”


Claims regarding God, ontology, creation, or any claims for that matter, have nothing to do with what we can know, prove, see, or have evidence for. Any such claims can be hypothesized, conceptualized, visualized, and critically reasoned in order to reach an objective conclusion of whether they do or don’t have merit, validity, or viability. This is the only objective, observer-independent, and unbiased method we can use to assess claims made by humans. All it takes is a single ontological contradiction to demonstrate a claim to be IMPOSSIBLE.

So let me ask this of the Devil’s advocate: “Do you objectively KNOW, can you objectively make EVIDENT, and can you objectively PROVE that your right arm ‘exists’? Are you sure that you can handle such a formidable ontological challenge?”

For those who disagree; for those who would like to “prove” me wrong; for those who want to make ME look foolish....here is YOUR chance:

I am officially on the record as challenging anybody to objectively prove that their right arm exists. They are free to post their “proof” in the comments section so they can tell the audience how they intend to go about proving their claim. That should be an easy task, right? Well, they can try.....but only then will they be able to realize how the words KNOW, EVIDENCE, PROOF and CERTAINTY humble even the most intelligent of logicians. If the reader still doesn’t understand why claims of KNOWLEDGE, EVIDENCE and PROOF are the hallmarks of FANTASY, LUNACY and IRRATIONALITY, then I am willing to sweeten the pot for them in the hopes that they GET IT! If the reader can prove that their right arm exists, I will PayPal them $1000 US so they can donate it to their favourite charity. Any takers? Nope, I don’t see any! ”Truthers”, “Provers”, and “Logicians” always RUN from a challenge rather than admit to their ignorance.


So to answer the Devil’s question: there is nothing to “know” about the moment of creation. The issue at hand has nothing to do with knowledge. The issue has to do with a critical analysis and understanding of the claim that is posited by theologians. Creation is a CLAIM, remember? The “moment of creation” is a supposed consummated event that is THEORIZED by theologians.

We don’t need to “SEE” God attempting to “create” in order to understand whether it is possible for Him to do so. Knowledge, truth, fact, proof, or evidence plays absolutely NO role here! The only way to assess this claim of creation is to take it at FACE VALUE and critically analyze all the details surrounding the claim. If there are ontological contradictions, the claim is instantly discarded as it has been rationally explained to be IMPOSSIBLE.



“You don’t know everything. You have to accept that there are limitations to human intuition, and that common sense is not always applicable. We are not gods. Some things we cannot KNOW for sure, like God or Creation for example.”


Oh, really? But yet you KNOW that what you just said is true? So what is the objective criterion for deciding what is “common sense” and what isn’t? Should I ask for my mailman’s opinion, Oprah’s opinion, Lady Gaga’s opinion, Pat Robertson’s opinion, Stephen Hawking’s opinion, or Einstein’s opinion? Whose opinion would be better? In fact, the opinion of a “mouse” carries the SAME weight, as far as opinions go.

We resolve these matters objectively by reasoning them through, and identifying any inherent contradictions. And if we destroy the belief systems of celebrities such as Pat Robertson and Stephen Hawking, then that would fall under the category of: TOO BAD!!

What does subjective “knowledge” have to do with anything? We can never “know” that claims of consummated events are the case. We can only explain whether they are rational and viable, or contradictory and impossible. The issue before us an objective one: Are we gonna wait around for some authority to spoon-feed us what we are supposed to KNOW or BELIEVE, or are we gonna grab the bull by the horns and use our brains to think for a change?

Only fools will make such wishy-washy excuses as limited knowledge and intuition because they don’t have the balls to admit that they don’t understand the difference between an object & a concept, the difference between existence & nothingness, the difference between rational & irrational, and the difference between reality & delusion. These fools went to University for 4+ years just so they could warm up a seat and get a certificate of attendance!

For those who want to nitpick on the terms ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’, I am 10 steps ahead of you! I explain the difference between rational & irrational in detail in my hub: Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED.



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

St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we can NEVER KNOW God:


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


Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can use it to win BOTH sides of the argument. He argues that if you don’t KNOW God, then you are a really stupid idiot:


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


And by using this antidote, St. Augustine claimed to KNOW EXACTLY what God was up to before the Creation of the Universe; even though he unwittingly implicated himself to damnation with this knowledge! He argued that God was of course preparing Hell for those who wanted to KNOW God:


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



Unfortunately, St. Augustine’s stupid circus show is still prevalent in all sectors of society, especially in Theology, Atheism, and Mathematical Physics. People always fall back on lame EXCUSES in order to protect their biased arguments and beliefs from being destroyed by rational explanations.

Enough of this lunacy!

All these fools can take their excuses about Limited Intuition, Knowledge, Evidence, Truth, Proof, etc. and shove them!!

Let me repeat it again in case it didn’t sink in: If a claim, any claim, is critically analyzed and explained to be contradictory, then whatever the claim posits to be the case, is an impossibility!


Whoever thinks they can refute my case is welcomed to post in the comments section a rational explanation of how it could be possible that there was no space and no matter in the past. They will need to explain HOW God can go about creating space, when space was ALREADY there preceding God. The will need to explain HOW God can go about creating matter, when matter was ALREADY there as one of the ACTORS in the Law of Causality. Without matter being always present, causal actions are impossible! If God is powerless in creating space from nothing, then how can he possibly create matter from nothing? These are magic tricks which man speaks of God. God is clearly humbled by the incredible omnipotence of space and matter.





In summary, here is how we rationally put ALL Creationist arguments to rest:


1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.

2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.

3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.

4) Space is formless, shapeless, unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing! It is the void.

5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object. Existence without space is impossible!

6) There is NO object that can occupy all of space, or enclose space - including a supposed “Universe object”.

7) Matter cannot escape or “transcend” space, because space has no boundary. There is no structure, surface, or edge to cross. We are all trapped in “here” (space) for eternity.

8) The Creationist claimed scenario where there once was no matter AND no space is inconceivable and ontologically impossible. Causes don’t exist; especially an “Uncaused First Cause”. Only objects exist.

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


Therefore, we rationally conclude that matter & space are ETERNAL. God and the Singularity are Hypotheses that die at inception!

a) The God Hypothesis of the big 3 monotheistic religions is invalid not only because it leads to absurdities and contradictions, but because it is ontologically impossible for it to be used in a Theory to rationally account for the Creation of space and matter.

b) The Religion of the Big Bang is absolutely NO different than that of God’s Creation, sans the intelligent being. The Big Bang hypothesizes a 0D singularity having no Length, Width, or Height, and definitely no background to contour it and give it form and existence. This 0D singularity supposedly created not only space and matter, but an artificial concept known as ‘spacetime’. So it is even MORE surrealistic and irrational than any Hypothesis that has ever been conceived by any religion!


The nonsense of Creation under the guise of God, the singularity, or by ANY other mechanism has been put to rest. It is impossible. We’re done!


Nature had no beginning and will have no end. Rocks, gases, stars and atoms recognize no past or future, which are conceptions of a human brain. Nature only functions in PRESENT MODE, the NOW, and as such, nature is effectively the only perpetual recycling machine – it is non-entropic! Atoms have no ability to rub their elbows against space, grind to a stop, and die. They float in space and gravitationally interact with each other forever. God cannot create atoms from scratch. And as such, even He cannot alter the eternal activity of atoms.






THEISTS AND ATHEISTS HAVE A LOT MORE IN COMMON THAN THEY CARE TO ADMIT


Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre wanted to prove that God created the Universe. So he found ways to conjure up the Big Bang for the science department in the Vatican. And of course almost everyone accepted his theory; most of the members in the scientific community were theists themselves.

1) Christians like to argue that their position is NOT “Creation from nothing” because it was God who created the Universe. Atheists do the same, but say it was the Singularity that created the Universe when it exploded, and expanded.

2) Christians allege that they don’t know what happened BEFORE creation, although St. Augustine claimed to have KNOWN that God was preparing HELL for those who pry into such mysteries (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12). Atheists do the same, and tell you that it is unscientific to ask such questions (pry into such mysteries), because it’s like asking what is north of the North Pole, i.e. like asking where HELL is.

3) Christians want the Universe to begin AFTER God created the heavens and the Earth and said “Let there be light!” They will do anything to AVOID such questions as “Where did God come from?” Atheists do the same. They want the Universe to begin AFTER the Singularity exploded and started expanding (Let there be BANG!). They will do anything to AVOID such questions as “Where did the Singularity come from?” They both claim that such questions are meaningless because time did not exist back then. Little do these mindless clowns realize, is that TIME DOESN’T EVEN EXIST NOW! Time is a concept invented by man.

If you are ever accused of murder, tell the judge and jury that it’s MEANINGLESS to ask such questions as: “Where were you and what were you doing the days leading up to the murder, and the day of the murder?”

Tell the judge and jury that it’s like asking: “What is north of the North Pole?”

Tell the judge and jury that TIME only began at the INSTANT the murder occurred (t=0), and that anything before that is MEANINGLESS and must be SUPPRESSED in order to PROTECT you from inquiry and scrutiny, and allow you to walk out the courtroom having PROVEN your case of “not guilty”.

What is so SPECIAL about the God Hypothesis and the Singularity Hypothesis that compel their proponents to enforce biased rules and regulations so as to prevent public inquiry and “snooping around”?

Why don’t we do this in court cases?

Isn’t the hypothesis that YOU were at the crime scene before the murder took place?

Isn’t the hypothesis that God or the Singularity were at the crime scene before the Universe began?

Isn’t the theory that YOU made prior preparations to commit the murder, and committed it in the manner the prosecutor outlines in his explanation?

Isn’t the theory that God or the Singularity created the Universe because of some prior events leading up to “creation”, and it happened in the manner the Christian Apologist or the Big Bang Apologist outlines in his explanation?


Can you believe how accustomed we’ve become to letting such clowns get away with murder? Aren’t we incredibly stupid to let such contradictions walk out the door and declare victory that they’ve PROVEN their case?






CONCLUSION


Causal “creation” can take on the 3 possible scenarios which we explained: Causality on Something, Self-Causality, and Causality on Nothing. There are no other options.

We rationally explained why all 3 scenarios lead to ontological contradictions where God or the Singularity cannot create space and matter. We explained why in all 3 scenarios, matter was necessarily pre-existing; it had no beginning of creation – IT WAS ALREADY THERE!

Indeed, that which is necessary must also be eternal, for if something is necessary it can never begin to exist or cease to exist, but must have always existed. Since matter and space are not contingent, they are not necessitated by any “external” causal action. That which is not contingent is by definition necessary and thus never had the potential to not exist, let alone the potential to be created via “external” causal actions mediated by some God entity.

And besides, there are NO causal actions that are “external” to the Universe. There is no “outside” to the Universe. The Universe cannot be transcended. The Universe encompasses all of space and matter. Space is omnipresent – it is everywhere, and has no borders to transcend. All matter, invisible or otherwise, is gravitationally interconnected at the atomic level and hence no entity, including a God, can transcend and escape the interconnectivity of matter.

Existence is the default situation as existence obviously exists. Existence is not a claim. Existence was already there. Only “inexistence” and “creation” are claims. And they are CONTRADICTORY claims. Creation of existence under any context is impossible, as explained.

If there is a God, then God was definitely assembled “within” space. This means that matter necessarily preceded God. It had to, because space forbids God from being ‘eternal’; and ontological causality forbids God from being a ‘creator’. So if God is assumed to exist, then it follows that God was naturally ASSEMBLED by matter, and is subject to death, just like any other living being in the Universe. This means that matter is indeed eternal......and as for God.....He would just be a simple being, either like us, or some other life form. But God’s ontology is irrelevant. The key issue is that it is impossible for God to be an “eternal being” or a “creator”.

Therefore we conclude that the claim of Creation, whether via a God, a Singularity, or in any other context, in not only irrational, but also, completely IMPOSSIBLE!

The Universe is eternal; it cannot be created or destroyed.




Comments

Submit a Comment

  • profile image

    wayne92587 3 years ago

    fatfist, wrote; Wayne,

    “I am going to refer to your ball as though it were a Particle,”

    What's your point.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

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

  • Eric Breaux profile image

    Eric Breaux 3 years ago from Seabrook, Texas

    Very misleading title, since just about all of your "refutation's" are nothing more than internally inconsistent IDEAS. This is such a simple concept to understand that children instinctively comprehend it, but as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss" http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28... http://geochristian.com/2013/08/29/it-is-more-reas...

  • profile image

    wayne92587 3 years ago

    In basic, natural. Math, using real whole cardinal and ordinal numbers Math uses only Singularities and combinations there of.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "a Particle as a Singularity is not an object."

    Of course it ain't! A singularity is a concept. Singularities don't exist, they are delusions from Bimbo Mathematicians who never got laid in their lives and always dreaming up contradictions in their lone nightly delusions. These singularity concepts are only place holders in math equations, no different than x or y.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 3 years ago

    I missed this in one of your posts and never responded.

    fatfist 2 years ago Hub Author

    Wayne,

    “I am going to refer to your ball as though it were a Particle,”

    A ball is a particle by definition because it is an object with shape.

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

    “ball....an Infinitely Minute, Finite”

    Nonsense to the Nth degree!!!!!

    Fatfist, anything can be referred to as being a particle compaired to something that is larger, however a particle is not a ball, is not an object, a Particle as a Singularity is not an object.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    You still don't "get it", Wayne. Like all theists, atheists, agnostics, priests, pastors, clergy, mullas, popes, cardinals and mathematicians alike, you are still stuck in the past (500 BC) with your antiquated ideas that BELIEFS & OPINIONS have to do with reality.

    I don't know what to do to make you snap out of your coma. Would I be considered abusive if I tied you to a tree and gave you 50 lashes with a Singaporean cane.....followed by another 50 with a Home Depot gardening hose? I'm at a loss. Perhaps it is you who needs to help yourself. And we're not asking for any miracles here....it goes without saying that opinion & belief have nothing to do with reality. Reality can only be rationally explained and justified without contradictions.

    I already justified why all forms of Creation (God, first cause, infinite regress, Kalam Cosmological, Big Bang, etc) are impossible. Nobody cares who disagrees, disbelieves, opines, whines, complains, bellyaches, is emotionally outraged or hates on this issue. And it's not about winning or losing. Subjectivity is irrelevant. All people care about is IF you can objectively contradict any of these articles with Physics.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 3 years ago

    You win; I should not try to communicate with a person that has created the best Theory of Nothing that I have ever heard of.

    I truly do appreciate you Knowledge; you have saved me a lot of leg work acquiring knowledge that I have use for.

    I agree with our beliefs about a bunch of empty headed mathematicians that do not seem to understand that the Math that will explain the Theory of Everything is based only upon the Logic of elementary math, the used of cardinal and ordinal number, math based upon Singularities and Multiples there of.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Numbers have nothing to do with Physics, Father Wayne. There are no numbers or equations in reality....just in the empty brain-dead heads of Mathematicians and their brethren Priests.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 3 years ago

    It was not my intent spam.

    May argument is not Religious, just the opposite.

    Does physics have anything to say about Primordial numbers.

    By definition why are not O and One-1 considered to be primordial numbers?

    Is there a difference between a Singularity of O which has no relative, numerical value and a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1.

    How can there be two Singularities, I say two because they each have a

    totally different Nature.

    In the long run my whacko gibberish will explain the Reality of First Cause, which is not God; In fact it is my intent to prove the non-existence of God.

    A singularity can not have relative, a numerical of one-1 unless it is deemed to be in motion; I know a Singularity does not have motion; maybe that is why the first primordial number is defined as being 2.

    The First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity attaining relative numerical value by being the first in a series, the beginning of a Process such as the Evolutionary Process, being the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

    Wow, Wayne reads like a candle, or a Dr. Bonners soap bottle.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    @wayne....stop spamming this place with your Religious meaningless garbage. There's lots of Atheist Forums you can dump your crap into and those boneheads will be on the same wavelength as you. This is a Scientific forum where we discuss Physics....not a place to spam your whacko Religious gibberish.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 3 years ago

    Mankind’s Salvation, the Hidden, the Secret, the Sacred Knowledge of Immorality having, been gleaned, evolved, over a long period of Time, could have been, distorted, perverted, lost forever if the Greeks had not hidden the Sacred Knowledge of Immortality in Greek Mythology.

    The Historical Knowledge of the Immortality was hidden by the Greeks in Myth, Religion.

    The sacred Knowledge of Immortality being placed in a vessel, a jar, a bottle, an ark, a Grail, in order to preserve the Historical Knowledge of Immortality for the prosperity, for the Salvation of Mankind.

    Mankind’s Savior, Salvation, Fundamentally Speaking, exists without shape, form, design, Man’s Savior not existing as Material Object, not being an equalizer, a weapon; Man’s Salvation existing as a Spiritual Reality, being a Creation; a Creation being an original product of the mind, Man’s Savior, Salvation being Boundless, not being bound by the Fundamental Laws of Causality.

    It being necessary to build a vessel an arc, a grail, Myth, Religion,

    in order to preserve, the Hidden, Secret, Sacred, Historical Knowledge of Immortality, Mankind’s Salvation, Savior, the Knowledge of Immortality having been preserved.

    Man being required to interpret, not Translate, the Historical Knowledge of Immortality; Immortality being spoken of not in reference to the Individual Man, but to the Immortality of Man as a Species.

    Ninety-Nine percent of every Creature that has ever existed on the Planet Earth now extinct, due to the Competitive Nature needed to Fight and to Win the Battle for the Survival of the Most Fit.

    Man being born naked, incomplete, flawed, not born fully dressed, quipped, to become Immortal, the Ultimate Survivor.

    Man being born bare, born less than a mere animal; being a Mortal Being, born to only Die, to become Extinct.

    Man must become more than a mere animal if Mankind is to become the Ultimate Survivor, an Immortal Being; Man must find a way to end the Cycle of Life based upon the Law of Causality, Case and Effect; there being no meaning of Live for a Mortal Being; Man being bound by the Law of causality, being born to die, to become extinct, unless of course Man as a Species could find a way to become the Ultimate Survivor, to become Immortal.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 3 years ago

    A Creator would only be necessary if, in the Beginning, prior to the Creation of the Reality of First Cause there was only Darkness upon the Deep; reminding you that at this point in Time, before Time and Space had become relative; the Reality of Everything existed as Singularity; a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, meaning of course, that sense Singularity was the only thing that exited, the Macrocosm existed as a State Nothingness.

    Nothingness being a state or condition in which nothing was readily apparent, noting was measurable as to location or momentum; the Motion (momentum) of a Singularity being meaningless, a Singularity not being relative, existed alone in the emptiness, had no relative, numerical value; Singularity, 0/1 not being a primordial number.

    The Law of Causality requires two objects; Two being the first number, quantity, to have material, have relative, numerical, value; which of course shows that the existence of matter was not only not probable, the existence of a, material, physical Reality was an Impossibility; therefore the existence of the Universe as we know it to be must be Eternal, Ever Lasting; there is no Creator.

    Before the Moment of Creation, before the Light was separated from the Darkness, before anything was made readily apparent, attained numerical value, Everything existed is a State of Nothingness, there only being Darkness upon the Deep.

    When the Day was separated from the Night the Sun became the Light unto the World, the Empirical World of Reality as seen in the Light of Day.

    Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail--O

    Ya! Amen Ra!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Bradlee,

    Please consolidate your musings in ONE post. Don’t spam the comments with multiple fragmented comments as it makes difficult for others to read.

    .

    “He has the power to come to us in shape”

    Either God has shape or He doesn’t...this is a YES or NO issue. There is no other option. Choose which one you like. The Theologians who wrote the Bible correctly hypothesized God as an entity….as SOMETHING rather than nothing. That’s why God necessarily has shape/form!

    If you say God has NO shape/form, then God is necessarily NOTHING and summarily is impossible to exist. Either God is an entity or nothing….there is NO other option. So your above claim is CONTRADICTORY!

    .

    “[God] in shape …. but he is not of matter”

    Since God is an entity and necessarily has shape, it follows that God has a boundary and an architecture. God is necessarily made of SOMETHING rather than nothing. There is NO other option. Google an image of God and see for yourself. And that “something” He is made from we call it “matter”. Claiming otherwise leads to contradictions. That’s why your statement is CONTRADICTORY!

    Indeed, that’s why the Theologians in the Bible hypothesized God to be something (i.e. entity, object, thing, etc.)

    .

    “The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says….”

    Argumentum ab Auctoritate( Argument from Authority)….a Fallacy!

    God does not exist because your Authoritative Pastor says so or because any other human ape says so! “Pigs can fly because my dad says so!”

    ALL definitions and arguments, without exception….MUST be rational, objective and non-contradictory! There are NO authorities. We don’t OUT-VOTE others on definitions and arguments…..got it, Bimbo Bradlee??

    Grow up and grow some balls and be a REAL MAN, not a cowering pussy looking for the APPROVAL OF OTHERS,….. and use YOUR brain to make a rational argument that cannot be contradicted…..just like I did because I have REAL balls!

    .

    “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause”

    .

    -----------BEGIN Physics 101 Lesson for Bradlee

    Cause: The “act” of imparting action (surface-to-surface contact) with the material (object B), as performed by the builder. Synonym: “causal action” (a verb).

    Effect: The “change” realized by the material (object B) during the duration of the “causal action” imparted by the builder (object A). Synonym: “change effect”.

    Event: The phenomenon of Creation (house built) from initiation of Creation, to termination of Creation. An event is always consummated.

    The ACTORS participating in the Creation event are:

    Object A: The MEDIATOR object (builder) imparting “causal action”.

    Object B: The TARGET object (material) undergoing “change effect”.

    Object C: The OUTPUT object (house) resulting from the consummated event.

    Cause, effect, and event are all concepts, and not actors participating in the Creation event. The actors participating in the Creation event are the following objects: A (the Mediator), B (the Target), and C (the Output).

    1. Object A is God, the Mediator of the event of Creation.

    2. Object B is matter (i.e. atoms), the Target the God performs the action of “Creation/Assembly” to.

    3. Object C is a star or a planet, the Output that God just assembled from the pre-existing atoms!

    There you have it, idiot Bradlee…..MATTER IS ETERNAL because Causality necessarily requires a minimum of TWO objects….A) the mediator (God) and B) the matter that He performs His actions upon. Without pre-existing (i.e. eternal) matter, God cannot perform the action “create/assemble” (a VERB) in order to assemble a star or a planet. And He assembles it from the matter that ALREADY EXISTS. God cannot perform actions (create/assemble) on nothing, as nothing is NOT an object amenable to causality. This is reality! Grow a brain and understand it.

    -----------END Physics 101 Lesson for Bradlee

    .

    There you go….I showed where your contradictions are in your CLAIMS.

    So stop posting your emotions, your preaching, your whining and crying because you FINALLY discovered an argument that rationally justifies why God is impossible…..an argument that is IMPOSSIBLE to contradict!

    From now on, please only copy/paste text from my arguments that you disagree with and show how it is contradictory. Otherwise your emotional SPAM will be deleted. This is your LAST WARNING. No more emotions….no more crying….no more spam. Please DO NOT post any more CLAIMS that you cannot justify with a rational supporting argument. Every dildo-head and his farting aunt has tons of claims....but NONE have rational arguments that can't be contradicted. This is what a serious INTELLECTUAL ACADEMIC conversation is all about. This is what Physics is about. If you don’t like it, go get yourself some tissues and see a psychiatrist!

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    One more thing you think atoms were just here and they know no beginning and no end!! Where did they begin?? In nature everything has to have a beginning..... RIGHT??? You think I'm and idiot sir your explanation is just.... Wow.... All you said is atoms have always been here.... That's impossible and you contradict your self over and over again!! Thanks for strengthening my faith even more through your impossible explanation of the existence!!!!

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    You will never have physical proof of god!! Read the bible that's not what he wants!! So if that's what you want you are SOL But if you think real deep and understand the bible I believe you are smart enough to find God!!

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    You can't comprehend that God has the power and is the beginning and the end... Understandable but God is the only possible way we are here right now!! Sorry to knock you if your high horse but you waisted your time with the ridicules article!!!

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    For you to say existence was always here is against the law of cause and effect..... LAW you know what that means.... Don't you???

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    If you think the universe has no natural cause like I do!!! Then you not believe it came from god leaves you with nothing.... So how are did everything come to be?????????

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (2003, p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it.

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    He has the power to come to us in shape because he is all powerful but he is not of matter but a spiritual being read the bible and TRY to understand it!!!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Fat: "….but necessarily surrounded by space in order to have form/shape."

    Arthur: “Wait what? You think God has form/shape?”

    It is irrelevant what anybody “thinks”. Opinions have nothing to do with any issue. This is an issue of critical thinking and rationality….an issue which can be justified WITHOUT CONTRADICTION. Personal opinions, emotions, high-ranking authorities and voting at the polls play NO role here!

    Besides….it is YOU, Arthur, who said that God is indeed an entity….and I quote YOU from the hub:

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

    Arthur: “He [God] is a necessary…..entity”

    Entity: that which has shape; synonym: object, thing, something, etc.

    And you are correct that God has shape/form, just like Theologians have hypothesized God as an entity with form/shape and just like the Bible proposes God to have form/shape as I quote in my previous comment here ^^^.

    Next time, read and understand the words that are coming out of your mouth!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Bradlee: “scientists and philosophers recognize that….”

    Nobody in the Universe gives a rat’s behind what a human ape recognizes or doesn’t. Opinions have nothing to do with reality. Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally justified WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS. Science 101….take the course sometime!

    .

    “there must be an initial cause of the Universe”

    Clearly there isn’t!!!! Read the article which provides a rational argument which is IMPOSSIBLE to contradict!

    .

    “direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics”

    You haven’t the slightest clue. Parroting your Priests without understanding the critical underlying issues of Physics is not an argument. Your CLAIM is contradicted here in spades….educate yourself for once in your life:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Entropy-a...

    .

    “However, God, not being a physical, finite being…”

    Whoa! Did you ever read your Bible, idiot Bradlee?

    Here, educate yourself:

    .

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

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

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

    .

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

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

    Object: that which has shape; synonym: thing, something, entity, physical, etc.

    Nothing: that which lacks shape.

    God indeed has SHAPE and is an entity (i.e. physical) as said in the Bible. No Theologian would say that God is formless (i.e. nothing). Grow a brain!

    .

    “He [God], therefore, had no beginning.”

    Exactly!

    Why?

    Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist! Here, educate yourself and grow a brain for once….

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

  • profile image

    Arthur 3 years ago

    “God is not in space or time He is of his own”

    "….but necessarily surrounded by space in order to have form/shape."

    Wait what? You think God has form/shape? Don't you know what 'omnipresent' means?

    Or are you suggesting that God *must* have 'form/shape' on pain of not being a meaningful thing to posit?

  • profile image

    Bradlee 3 years ago

    scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.] However, God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” The Bible describes God as a Being who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Hebrews 3:4 again states, “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God,” indicating that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect as are houses, but rather, is the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being who initially set all effects into motion. The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “God is not in space or time He is of his own”

    ….but necessarily surrounded by space in order to have form/shape. It is impossible for God to have form without space. Almighty All-Powerful Space necessarily precedes petty little weak God!

    “that we can not comprehend”

    The fool who cannot comprehend should take some time to read his Bible…but only after he asks The Wizard of Oz for a brain:

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

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

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

    God has form. Ergo, He is necessarily surrounded by space. This is kindergarten stuff….meh.

    But if you had bothered to educate yourself on these matters, you wouldn’t be asking such retarded questions over and over again despite the fact that I’ve already answered them for you.

    Here, educate yourself:

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

    https://hubpages.com/education/CREATION-is-IMPOSSI...

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

    https://hubpages.com/education/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmo...

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    You are not using proper argument skills you are attacking the presenter of the argument first off this shows weakness in your argument. Secondly, God is not in space or time He is of his own, that we can not comprehend... Also creation is the combination of things how was a watch created many parts were combined to create it, thus food, was combined to create me, thus you have constricted yourself for you said creation is impossible which is false because if creation is impossible how does this website for example exist? And space is not all powerful, it can't do anything, for how can nothing do anything?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    How can space come from something when space necessarily precedes something? You can't have something without space....but you can have a Universe of just space without something. Elementary stuff...

    "He is all powerful then what says space and time control Him?"

    Because space is MORE powerful than God. God is a prisoner in nothing. God is powerless to escape space, create it or make it disappear. Funny isn't? God can sure use a stiff drink right now....and you should join Him!

    " how did we get brains"

    Perhaps your mother got your brain from the Dollar Store. That explains your posts.

    "For a brain requires a creator"

    Creation is impossible. Read the article again.....but first you gotta ask yo momma to get you a brain from the maternity ward. All matter, including brains are assembled from pre-existing eternal matter. Yo momma didn't create you.....she assembled you from food! Just pray to God she didn't eat any junk food.

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Also, you yourself admitted that God can be all powerful thus, if He is all powerful then what says space and time control Him? Also, may I ask you how did we get brains like we did and form a conscience? For a brain requires a creator and a creator must be eternal, also they require that something more powerful then the brain itself must exists, thus there is only one explanation God for space and time cannot think thus they could not create the brain! Nor could space and time because they do not think!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Okay, then we're did space come from? For if space is nothing then how can it be eternal, for it does not exist and naturally if something doesn't exist them it can't go on in time for it does not exists...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Space is nothing. How do you even create nothing or something for that matter? Matter and space are eternal.

    God can be as powerful as you like Him to be. The Almighty still can't create space or matter. He is naught but another petty prisoner in this borderless Universe of ours who is pulled all over the place by gravitation.

    The poor Lord is a prisoner to space and a puppet to the gravitational pull of matter. I think He could use a nice stiff drink right now....

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Also may I add you are talking like God isn't all powerful, like what he has said isn't word some things we can't rap our minds around... And we never be able to!

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    I have a quick question I haven't really read all of this but how did space and time come to be? It just didn't come from nothing...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "ever been to a pub and tried drinking a beer ? .... you will find you have a right arm!"

    You could be at a pub telling us about all the beers you are drinking with your right arm.... and all the barmaid butts you are spanking with your left. These assertions still haven't "proven" you have a right or a left arm. Nor do they "prove" you were in a pub. Merely stating something ain't proof.....only mere assertion. That's the point I was making in my comments above because everyone and their aunt comes here making assertions and then put a gun to my head forcing me to take their claims as proof. Things don't quite work that way.....

  • profile image

    MartyB 3 years ago

    PS forgot to say great site - lots of fun.

    Certainly makes people think about their answers if they are trying to find an answer to life, the universe and everything.

    Possibly useless for providing the resources for everyday physical living but great mental stimulation!!!

    cheers again

  • profile image

    MartyB 3 years ago

    Re 'right arm existing':- ever been to a pub and tried drinking a beer ? Unless you are left handed, have a prosthetic right arm or use some other unorthodox method of getting glass/bottle to your lips you will find you have a right arm! cheers.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    Fatfist wrote;

    Those who claim to transcend reality have put themselves into a delusional state of mental disconnection....not physical. When the mind plays tricks on you, it always messes you up.

    Wayne wrote;

    I agree with you Whole Heartedly.

    In responding to your Post the first time my intent was to discuss the existence of the Reality of First Cause, as used in reference to the Physical, Material Universe.

    Not to bore you to death, but I need to repeat a couple of conjectures.

    In the Theory of the Big Band, the Theorist were logically required to begin with a Singularity, a Big Bang (Explosion defined as being a rapid expansion of Heat and Gases) which resulted an Expanding Universe, the coalition of particles forming the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the Physical, Materiality World of Reality, Objects, things that are measurable as to location and momentum as they move through out the Emptiness of Space; Which I say is Hog Wash, except for the coalition, Gravitation, caused by the gravity of Motion.

    This is the most complete thought on the subject to date, which means that statement is subject to change.

    I have always believed that the Theory of the Big Bang and an Expanding Universe was nothing but Blasphemy, the word Blasphemy better describing the passion of my thoughts than "How Wash."

    When you make statement about Sacred, Secret, things, things that are not Readily Apparent, that are Hidden, not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time then the statement is False, at best a half-truth, a Lie, a Misconception of the Truth; you have missed the Mark, the Point, the Statement is Blasphemous.

    Back to Transcending Physical Reality of the Material World.

    “Those who claim to transcend reality have put themselves into a delusional state of mental disconnection....not physical. When the mind plays tricks on you, it always messes you up.”

    Wayne wrote;

    Language is just no much Babel because language is built upon Metaphors.

    Medusa, Pandora, and Eve (each said to be the First Woman), have very much in common with Diana, Goddess of the Moon, Medusa being referred to as Beautiful Evil, Di as in Dianna meaning two, the Silvery Light of the Moon playing second fiddle to Golden Light of the Sun, First Light; Moon Light being an Illusion, being a mere reflection of Light of Day, without being the Light of Day itself, being the Second Light of the Sun, Twice Light; Twilight being the second Great Light that was separated out from in between Night and Day, after the Day was First separated from the Night, the Darkness.

    .

    Of course we all know that Moon Light drives men Crazy, Wild, but not as much so as does Feminine Wile, Will.

    Sin; the Akkadian god of the moon: the counterpart of the Sumerian Nanna.

    Sine, Abbr. Sin.

    Geom. (originally) a perpendicular line drawn from one extremity of an arc of a circle to the diameter that passes through its other extremity.

    Getting to the point.

    Eve, the cause of the down fall of Man, that which has substance, the physical Reality of the Material World.

    I know, you think that I am playing tricks on my own Mind!

    Just about ready to rap it up.

    OK, here is the deal.

    Logic, is used to understand the Physical World of Reality, to define, give a Name to the Physical Reality of the Material World, Objects; is used to deal with the Objective world of Reality.

    Men are more logical than women, but Women make up for the lack of Logic with Woman’s intuition, Reason, Rationalizations, Man being to Pig Headed to listen to reason.

    Reason is used to give names, to give definition to Concepts.

    OK, here it is;

    Man, born of the dust of the ground, is a Material, Physical Being.

    Woman not being Man is not born of the dust of the ground, is not a Physical Material Being, is Immaterial; Eve as a creation was born of the Air,

    born of the clear blue sky, came from somewhere out in left field, was born of Nothingness, has no substance, worth, the Great Femininity being a Creation, born of the Air, is immaterial, a Spiritual Being.

    The Fruit of a Single Source of Knowledge is the source of Knowledge having a dual quality, is the greatest cause of all suffering; Absolutely Bad Knowledge being born of speculation, theory, Reason, Rationalization, being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge; Knowledge having a dual quality, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Thoughts, Ideas, Concepts, Speculation, Theory, conjecture as to the existence of Reality that does not exist in the material sense of the word, that does not exist independent of the Mind, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistake to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, Knowledge of a Reality mistaken to exist as an Objective Reality.

    Fatfist wrote;

    “Those who claim to transcend reality have put themselves into a delusional state of mental disconnection....not physical. When the mind plays tricks on you, it always messes you up.”

    Wayne wrote;

    One more Pearl of Wisdom, conjecture, about something that is not readily apparent.

    The would be savior of Man, the Christ himself, not being born of Man, although a Male child, Man being logical rather than Rational, would have to die in the Flesh, his Physical Body, Being, Spirit, placed the grave, laid to rest, so as his Spirit might rise up to the Heavens, Transcend the Physical Reality of the Material Word, becoming a Spiritual Being.

    That however is not the end of the story.

    Once, having risen up to the Heavens in his Spiritual Body, the Spiritual Body to return and enter his Flesh Body, so as to walk the Earth having both a Physical Body and a Spiritual Body; that which is above being the same as that which is below, the Fractal of Man being reduce to the lowest common denominator, the Two becoming One-1, the Whole of a Single Reality.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "Transcending the Physical Reality of the Material Word does not mean that you loose Touch with Reality"

    This is where you contradict yourself. You cannot transcend reality/existence. There are no hidden dimensions or back doors to sneak out. You can at best transcend objects, like your home for example.

    Those who claim to transcend reality have put themselves into a delusional state of mental disconnection....not physical. When the mind plays tricks on you, it always messes you up.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    As above so below.

    The Numerator being greater than the denominator results in a Fractal, the Two that are One, being an Improper Fraction.

    The Two that are One must be reduced to the lowest common denominator in order to be a proper Fractal, Fraction.

    I have come to the conclusion that I should have said that Man must live well rather than live the Good Life in order to find a meaning to Life; the meaning of the good life to a Materialist being exaggerated by most, while living well is a more modest form, gives meaning to life without going to the extreme of

    totally rejecting, dismissing, ignoring, the Phyical Reality of the Material World.

    The Materialist living life in the exterme ends up being heavey hearted, not light hearted.

    Transcending the Physical Reality of the Material Word does not mean that you loose Touch with Reality; Rationalization, leads to Irrationality.

    If thin Single Eye be filled with darkness how great

    then is the Evil within.

    I see myself as being a Rational Empiricist.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Wayne,

    “I understand completely, your Objective sense of Reality”

    Reality is OBJECTIVE regardless of my “sense” or anyone else’s “sense”. Senses are personal and subjective. Reality is impersonal and objective. They are mutually exclusive…no matter how much effort human apes put into merging them. In the end, human apes are just fooling themselves.

    The only way you can ever hope to understand reality is to refrain from relentlessly trying to “force” your personal senses and opinions into its domain. You can’t do it. But you can sure as hell CONVINCE yourself that you did. And that’s when you’ve entered into the world of Religion…be it Christianity, Islam, Hare Krishna, Mathematics, Relativity, Zoroastrianism, Quantum Mechanics, Multiverse, Scientology, Astrology & Predictions, Levitating Gurus, etc…..

    “Man in order to find a meaning to life must Live Well; being able to live the Good Life requiring Man to be Light Hearted”

    Makes sense! I couldn’t agree more!

    “which requires Man to Transcend the Physical Reality of the Material World.”

    Unfortunately, it requires 2 bottles of Russian Standard Vodka or 10 lines of cocaine to accomplish such a feat. And many of our human apes accomplish this on a daily basis. It doesn’t take a happy human with a “good life” to CRAVE and SEEK this……it takes a very MISERABLE and DEPRESSED one.

    So you really need to re-assess this so-called “meaning of life” you espouse. Living a delusion for the purposes of escaping reality and its associated pains….is NOT living a good happy “meaningful” life.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    I understand completely, your Objective sense of Reality, However.

    Man in order to find a meaning to life must Live Well; being able to live the Good Life requiring Man to be Light Hearted, which requires Man to Transcend the Physical Reality of the Material World.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “all numbers are Transcendental; that natural, real, whole, numbers exist without being subject to existing in the physical sense of the word.”

    There is only ONE definition for ‘exist’: something somewhere (object with location).

    Only a ‘something’ can exist only if it has location.

    Something: that which has shape; synonym: object, thing, entity, stuff, substance, …

    Numbers are verbs; CONCEPTS; i.e. relations. They don’t exist in and of themselves. There are no numbers in heaven, like Plato believed.

    Furthermore, “transcendental” is contradictory when applied to concepts. You can perhaps transcend an object like your house, your car or your wife. But you cannot transcend concepts like love, justice, running, 5, 0, 1, etc.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    You pointed something out to me, but not on purpose.

    Instead of saying that Zero-O is Transcendental, I should have said all numbers are Transcendental; that natural, real, whole, numbers exist without being subject to existing in the physical sense of the word.

    No doubt numbers do not exist but what they add up to does; for instance like when you said,

    “without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible”; Real, Whole, Natural Numbers even though they do not exist in the physical sense of the word, are used in reference to Objects that exist.

    True numbers have no physical present however in order for a object to exist it must be readily apparent; said object must be measurable as to location and moment; measurement requiring the use of numbers to give definition to Motion, Location, Momentum.

    displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.

    “We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    wayne,

    Fat: “So YOUR singularity hypothesis is an object, not a concept.”

    Wayne: “Not exactly!!!”

    Every single word that you can conceive of either resolves to an object (with shape) or a concept (no shape; i.e. a relation). There is no other option…..there is no in-between.

    “in the Physical sense of the word, must have relative, a numerical value of One-1”

    There are NO numerical values or numbers in the Universe. Numbers are not physical; they aren’t objects. Man invented numbers and Math.

    Number: to count

    The number 7 is merely a symbol that represents how many times the Mathematician moved his legs from the center of the room to reach the padded wall in the Insane Asylum. The number 7 has no significance without its relation to other numbers; of course, since all concepts are relations. The symbol 7 has relevance only for its conceptual value – it necessarily requires an observer! The concept ‘7’ is not an object and cannot possibly exist. A number is the result of something you counted, and is a concept (a relation) in and of itself.

    While a number is a noun of grammar, it is actually predicated on the verb “count”. The layman has unwittingly converted the VERB 'to count' into the NOUN 'number'. Thus, mathematicians talk about 'infinite numbers' when they are actually referring to 'incessant counting'. This is nothing but Reification, and yet we are taught by the physics professor that it has to do with reality. It’s ingrained in us since childhood and for most people, it becomes an intellectual stumbling block for the rest of their lives.

    The mathematician treats concepts as physical objects, moving numbers from one 'position' to another and subtracting them from 0 (i.e., nothing). They do this all day long at the Math Funny Farm as part of their rehabilitation therapy.

    So numbers (i.e., concepts) can never be 'real' (i.e., cannot be said to exist). Not in reality! In reality, a dog, a table, a tree, a rock, the Sun can be said to exist. Never love, justice, energy, force, mass, gravity, wave-packets, time, charge, field, numbers or Universes.

    “Zero-O existing”

    Mathematicians are not interested in the physical world. They are just interested in counting for counting's sake! They mix apples with oranges and continue counting. The problem with zero anything is that we cannot distinguish it from anything else. All quantities are relations that can be compared. Zero is not a relation in the context of numbers. So even though the arrogant Mathematician claims that 0 is a “numerical quantity”, he cannot justify his claim because he cannot account for the relational issue of the verb to count. As soon as you move your finger, you have at least counted up to one.

    There is no such thing as counting up to 0 (i.e. nothing) as some folks believe. As soon as the Mathematician claims that counting includes the counting of nothing, he will be required to define counting! Any attempt at such a definition is contradictory because counting is an action he must perform. Any action has already signified the conceptual quantity of at least ‘1’. You can never count to 0. Mathematics is a tautology that has nothing to do with reality.

    Your arguments are done, Wayne. Give it up! Stop chasing your tail in circles.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    You poor tormented soul! Please take your meds today!

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    First, Thank You for you response.

    I find myself coming to all kinds of new conclusion,

    Thank You!

    Fastfist wrote;

    “I think the supposed properties of Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are imaginary. “

    This is one of the tactics I use to get people thinking. Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are PROPOSALS which are first and foremost, objects.

    Object: that which has shape.

    Wayne wrote;

    The problem is, that to give a name to, to speak of, to give definition to any Sacred, Secret, Hidden, Entity, any Reality, the existence of a Singularity having no relative numerical value, the existence of which (existence in the physical sense of the word) is Uncertain, that is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, is Blasphemous; “Knowledge” of the existence (existence in the Physical sense of the word) of any Hidden Reality, is Absolutely Bad Knowledge (is guileful, deceptive, duplicitous, erroneous, has a dual quality); Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge.

    Fatfist wrote;

    SCENARIO 3 – Causality on Nothing

    We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!

    @wayne,

    "A Singularity of One-1 has material worth, quantity, mass, does not exist as a concept."

    Fatfist wrote;

    Great! So YOUR singularity hypothesis is an object, not a concept.

    Wayne wrote;

    Not exactly!!!

    A Singularity in order to exist as an object, in the Physical sense of the word, must have relative, a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity of One-1 existing in part, as part of a greater whole, a plurality, existing as one of two or more actors, as the first in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the First, the beginning, of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.

    A Singularity of Zero-O being a Transcendental Singularity, not having relative, a numerical value of One-1, not existing in part, as part of a greater whole, a plurality, not existing as one of two or more actors, as the first in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, not being the First, the beginning, of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, a Singularity of One-1 coming in between the Transcendental Singularity of Zero-O and the number Two; a Singularity of One-1 following a Singularity of Zero-O and preceding a plurality, the number Two; a Transcendent Singularity of Zero-O existing without the need to exist in the Physical sense of the Word.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    wayne,

    “God has no boundary”

    Impossible! The term “God” is the subject of your sentence which alludes to SOMETHING rather than NOTHING. Either your subject God is something or nothing….there is no other conceivable option.

    Something: that which has shape; (synonym: object, entity, thing,…)

    Nothing: that which lacks shape; (synonym: void, vacuum, space)

    If you decree your term God resolves to that which has no shape, no boundary, no border,….then your term resolves to NOTHING.

    “it must be infinite”

    Impossible! Nothing can possibly be infinite. The term infinite is contradictory because it is an adjective (opposite of finite) that necessarily describes an object that is incessantly growing in size in ZERO-TIME. Nothing can possibly do that because the void cannot acquire shape and magically create matter to facilitate a dynamically growing entity in one frame of the Universal Movie.

    Since an adjective describes an object…..it is impossible for the object to be decreed as “infinite” because it would lack shape. Well, if you say that it’s growing dynamically from one frame to the next, then it obviously is NOT infinite yet! Reasoning 101.

    Here is what the experts (who push this bogus term ‘infinity’ to the masses) have to say:

    “Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” -- David Hilbert (Mathematician Extraordinaire), On The Infinite

    “the infinite certainly doesn’t exist in the same sense that we say ‘There are fish in the sea.’” -- Kasner & Newman (Mathematicians Extraordinaire), Mathematics and the Imagination

    The word ‘infinite’ is a contradictory term invented by Religionists and adopted Mathematicians – same thing!

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    fatfist, It is not my intent to win an argument; your posts due however present an augment, the argument being that your concepts are not proven fact, are uncertain.

    fastfist wrote;

    Surely you jest. You claim God is “nothing” and that ‘it’ fills the “emptiness”. Is “emptiness” like a glass you can fill? Does it have a border/boundary like a glass? If so, then what is outside this boundary? If not, then it ain’t a container of sorts. Don’t you see your contradiction?

    `Wayne wrote;

    I do not see were I used the word container.

    I do not see a contradiction!!!!!

    Fatfist; If you would please be critical of the following Post, However could you be more specific as to my contradictions.

    I am an atheist that believe in God, the True God, not the God of Blasphemers, the True God not being an Object, person, place or thing, God not being readily apparent, not being measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, God being Omnipresent, Infinite, God being Nameless, can not be spoken, God not being a Materiality, being Immaterial, a Spiritual Being, State or Condition; the Reality of Everything existing as a Transcendental Steady State of Quantum Singularity, to included the Singularity of Time, the Singularity of Space, the Singularity of Motion, prior to the Creation, the spontaneous generation of the first singularity to have relative value, to have a numerical value of One-1; En, the Reality of First Cause being the direct cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

    I am going to explain my use of the word Blasphemy even though it is used mostly in reference to God, I use Blasphemy in reference to things spoken of that sacred, Secret, Hidden, Things, things that the Blasphemer knows nothing about; anyone speaking the name of God, that speaks of God as being a person, place or thing, as being an Object that occupies Space, being a Blasphemer.

    Fatfist wrote;

    It is impossible for a being like God to create space, when God necessarily requires space in order to be something. Without space, God has no shape/form and is nothing. No Theologist has ever proposed God to be nothing…..so I can’t see you doing it either. God is necessarily SOMETHING instead of nothing….there is NO other option!

    Wayne wrote;

    God has no boundary; in order for God, the Source of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything to exist it must be infinite, Omnipresent, God would have to exist as the State or Condition of the Reality of Everything, rather that being an Object, Something; God filling the Emptiness of Undifferentiated Time and Space prior to the transfiguration of a random Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O; a Singularity of One-1 being Spontaneously generated; the conversion of something of no relative, numerical value, a Singularity having a numerical value of Zero-O, being reborn, Transfigured, spontaneously converted into a Singularity having greater numerical value than Zero-O, Nada, Zip, Nothing, Zilch, into a Singularity having relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity in order to have relative, a Numerical value of One-1, must be the first in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.

    An Individuality, a Singularity, must be Indivisible, Undifferentiated; The Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity existing as an Untold number of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical, value.

    Reality, existence, in the material sense of the word, requires that an something be readily apparent, be measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time; existence, in the material sense of the word requires that an object have motion, motion having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.

  • profile image

    El Dude 4 years ago

    I can only apologize for my blasphemy -- 10 lashes and 3 bloody marys for me.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Anything to do with Relativity, Quantum, Big Bang and essentially ALL of Mathematical Fizzics has been thoroughly debunked. I hope Wayne does some research and understands the issues. I know it's very frustrating for people to come here with what they think are valid arguments from the mainstream....only to be shown where they fail.

    My hubs are not a place to win or lose arguments, although we do get some people here who are into pissing contests. The objective of any argument is first and foremost intellectually honesty. The argument has to be rational and non-contradictory.

  • profile image

    El Dude 4 years ago

    "Yes, God is something just as Nothingness is something; Nothingness not being nothing, Empty Space.

    Nothingness existing as a Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity, in which no Individual, infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, in which Nothing was readily apparent, nothing being measurable as to ..."

    ----

    Holy shitting thunderbolts! I need me some of that Quantum LSD they give you when you collect your PhD. Yeah I'll basically swallow ANYTHING at this point, even Carl Sagan's astronomical COCK, if I can only get as stoned as this guy!

  • profile image

    El Dude 4 years ago

    "Our Knowledge of the existence of the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, like Gravity is Uncertain; our sense of Time, Space, Motion, and Gravity being dependent upon our observation of the affect of the relativity of Time, Space and Motion, Differentiated Time, Space and Motion, displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction."

    Well fuck me sideways, that's a STUNNING conclusion! If only I had done 20+ years of math and shagging goats, maybe then I'd understand this DIVINE WISDOM.

    Apparently, we don't know shit about any fucking thing. And at the same time, it's all proven and fact and truth and ACCURATE -- God help us it's ACCURATE! -- so we can all go fuck a monkey!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Wayne: “I do not see were I used the word container. I do not see a contradiction!!!!!”

    Right here: “God, that occupies the Emptiness of Space…. God, being Omnipresent, is the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion,”

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

    Space cannot be “filled”….not by God, not by a star, not by a planet, not by water….not by anything. Only a container with a definitive border/boundary (i.e. has shape) can be filled. Space cannot be displaced like a fish displaces water in the ocean. There is literally NOTHING to displace, nothing to fill. To say that you can FILL space is a contradiction….not just linguistically, but ontologically, understand?

    Also…if God is “nothingness”, then God is nothing. Hence, God cannot exist. Therefore…God cannot possibly be ‘nothing/space’. God is the subject of a Theory….an actor who performs events. God is necessarily something; an entity.

    Furthermore…time, space and motion are concepts, not entities. They are NOT ‘something’. Hence, they are not subject to differentiation nor un-differentiation. This term ‘differentiation’ is out-of-context and hence contradictory when applied in the context of these 3 concepts.

    “ I think you are smart, intelligent”

    I am just a regular Joe! Everyone has intelligence…..but more importantly, everyone has the capability to be just as intelligent as anyone else. Super-intelligence is a myth. I even wrote an article explaining why.

    Anyway…the issue here is not intelligence. The issue is understanding. And in order to understand, you need to have an explanation that is rational. What is rational?

    We say that an explanation is RATIONAL, when it meets all of the following criteria:

    1. The theory follows directly from the hypothesis and the facts of the case, without contradicting them.

    2. It does not reify concepts into objects and it only moves objects instead of concepts.

    3. It can be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen without any missing frames (very important).

    4. It uses definitions consistently.

    If somebody claims that their God Theory is RATIONAL, then they had better know what they’re talking about. If they cannot visualize their own theory, and make a movie out of it, then they have NO clue of what they are talking about. They do not have a ‘rational explanation’ by any stretch of the imagination.

    Treating space, time and motion like entities commits the Fallacy of Reification. This is irrational and contradictory.

    “your declaration of the Non-existence of God and the Reality of First Cause is very profound.”

    Irrelevant. I am not here to be profound nor to shock people, especially theists & atheists. I don’t care about the theist-atheist debates….they have to do with emotion rather than Physics. Emotion, persuasion, convincing people and other subjectivities play no role in Physics.

    I am only here to present rational arguments about Physics, which is the study of existence. Since God is hypothesized by Theologians to be an entity that exists, then for sure God is the subject of Physics.

    “ my only hope being for a few to understand what I am saying.”

    Well this is my point of contention. I just pointed out only a couple of sentences where nobody can understand you because you treat space/nothing as an object by referring to it as “empty”. Space is a concept. Space doesn’t exist. Space can neither be empty nor full…..only objects can.

    If your sentences don’t make sense…..then I will raise my hand and complain about them and justify my argument. Atheists typically never complain about this stuff because they haven't bothered to critically reason it. They prefer to argue over Biblical verses, good vs evil, morals vs sin, and other subjectivities.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    Fatfist wrote;

    Don't get offended.

    Wayne wrote:

    I am not offended; this was the most polite response you have made to one of my posts.

    Fastfist wrote;

    Wayne. When you present your argument it has to make sense. You have to define your terms and use them consistently.

    Here is an example: “That which is believed to be God, being Omnipresent, is the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion”

    wayne wrote;

    It is my belief that Time and Space were undifferentiated prior to the Moment that Time and Space because Relative because of the Transfiguration of the Motion of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O, a Singularity of Zero-O being reborn a Singularity of One, having a relative numerical value of One-1, En being the direct material cause of the Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word.

    fastfist wrote;

    Surely you jest. You claim God is “nothing” and that ‘it’ fills the “emptiness”. Is “emptiness” like a glass you can fill? Does it have a border/boundary like a glass? If so, then what is outside this boundary? If not, then it ain’t a container of sorts. Don’t you see your contradiction?

    Wayne wrote;

    I do not see were I used the word container.

    I do not see a contradiction!!!!!

    Yes, God is something just as Nothingness is something; Nothingness not being nothing, Empty Space.

    Nothingness existing as a Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity, in which no Individual, infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, in which Nothing was readily apparent, nothing being measurable as to location or speed within the Emptiness of Undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion, the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness being meaningless, existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction, an individual, infinitely finite indivisible singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero, Nada, Nothing, Zip, Zilch.

    If God is Nothingness and God is omnipresent, Infinite, Boundless, Immeasurable, Infinite, then so is Nothingness; God, Nothingness being omnipresent, Infinite, fills the Emptiness of Undifferentiated Time and Space.

    Time Space and Motion not being relative until after the transfiguration of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O, not until the spontaneous generation of a singularity having relative, a numerical value you of One-1.

    The existence of God, Nothingness, being Uncertain, existing within undifferentiated Time and Space, not being relative; God, Nothingness, having no border/boundary like a Glass, is not a container; the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion being Infinite, Immeasurable.

    Our Knowledge of the existence of the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, like Gravity is Uncertain; our sense of Time, Space, Motion, and Gravity being dependent upon our observation of the affect of the relativity of Time, Space and Motion, Differentiated Time, Space and Motion, displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.

    Fastfist wrote:

    And time, space, Gmotion are concepts. They are not entities. In fact….there are NO entities to mediate these concepts because the initial scene you proposed is nothingness. So all you did was contradict yourself again in the same sentence.

    Wayne wrote;

    I do not see a contradiction!!!!!

    Fatfist wrote;

    So please…..try to understand what you propose before you post it. Being offended is fruitless. Spend your time to try and understand objects & concepts so you can communicate meaningful ideas to others.

    You really can't expect people to converse with you and take you seriously when even you haven't a clue what you're saying. I shouldn't even have to mention this to you.

    Wayne wrote;

    Thank you for the recognition!

    I had no expectation of you, as smart, Intelligent, as you are, to understand a thing that I said.

    I did not say that because I was offended. I think you are smart, intelligent; your declaration of the Non-existence of God and the Reality of First Cause is very profound.

    It is not my expectation that people converse with me; my only hope being for a few to understand what I am saying.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Don't get offended, wayne. When you present your argument it has to make sense. You have to define your terms and use them consistently.

    Here is an example: “That which is believed to be God, being Omnipresent, is the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion”

    Surely you jest. You claim God is “nothing” and that ‘it’ fills the “emptiness”. Is “emptiness” like a glass you can fill? Does it have a border/boundary like a glass? If so, then what is outside this boundary? If not, then it ain’t a container of sorts. Don’t you see your contradiction?

    And time, space, motion are concepts. They are not entities. In fact….there are NO entities to mediate these concepts because the initial scene you proposed is nothingness. So all you did was contradict yourself again in the same sentence.

    So please…..try to understand what you propose before you post it. Being offended is fruitless. Spend your time to try and understand objects & concepts so you can communicate meaningful ideas to others.

    You really can't expect people to converse with you and take you seriously when even you haven't a clue what you're saying. I shouldn't even have to mention this to you.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    fatfist you are correct, a real compliment.

    Thank you for the recognition!

    I had no expectation of you, as smart, Intelligent, as your are, to understand a thing that I said.

    No doubt, everything that I said was just so much gibberish to you monkeymind.

    Hermes Trismegistus; Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail----O.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Wayne discovered how to Speak in Tongues a while ago. He comes here every so often to practice his skills and keep 'em fresh.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Man that was a mouthful, Wayne. I think I read that on the side of a candle, or was that Dr. Bonner's Soap?

  • profile image

    wayne92587 4 years ago

    “God created the heaven(Space)”

    Wayne wrote;

    “Heaven” is not Space, The Heavens and the Earth is used in reference to the Mass of Objects, the Reality of Everything to included that which is interpreted to be God, that occupies the Emptiness of Space.

    A Singularity, in order to have a numerical value of One-1 must exist as the First in, the Beginning of, a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process; A Singularity having no relative, Numerical value having a Numerical value of Zero-O, Nada, Zip, Nothing, Zilch.

    The Existence of Nothingness thought to be nothing more than hype, a big ballyhoo, does exist but not as an object that is readily apparent, measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space, Space-Time; Nothingness, not existing in the Material sense of the Word, is Immaterial, a Spiritual Reality.

    Nothingness, existing an Immaterial, a Spiritual, Reality, as the Transcendental Quantum Steady State of Singularity having no relative, numerical value, the Emptiness of Space being Filled with an untold number of Individualities, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities with none having relative, numerical value, the Reality of Everything having a Numerical value of Zero-O, nada, zip, nothing, zilch; Nothing being readily apparent, nothing being measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space, the Existence or Non-Existence of Nothingness being Uncertain.

    The Reality of First Cause burst onto the seen as a result of the Spontaneous Generation of Singularity of One-1, the existence of a Singularity of One-1 being the result of the Transfiguration of a random Singularity having not relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O.

    The Reality of Everything prior to the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the transfiguration of a random Singularity of Zero-O that resulted in the creation of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, existed as, a Mass, an unknown quantities of Infinitely Finite Individual Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value; Mass prior to the moment of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, existing as a Transcendental Quantum State of Singularity; Time, Space and Motion each existing as an Individuality, as an Indivisible Singularity, Time, Space and Motion not being relative, cause and effect not in existence prior the moment of the spontaneous generation, the Creation, of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1; En being the direct material cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

    The Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity existing as a Mass, an Untold number of of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero, Nada, Zip, Nothing, Zilch; the motion of the untold number of Singularities having no relative numerical values being meaningless, existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction, the Motion of the Reality of First Cause having displacement, angular momentum, veloctity of speed and direction.-

    Not existing prior to the Creation, the spontaneous generation of the First Singularity to have relative, a Numerical value of One-1, a Singularity of Zero-O being the place holder, the space preceding a Singularity of One- being left blank, being void of relative numerical value. Having numerical Value of Zero-O, Nada, Nothing, Zip, Zilch.

    If you were able to look upon the face of God it would seem as though had been made Blind, for you would see nothing.

    Man is not to speak of God; to speak of meaning to give a name to, Names being reserved for objects, a person, place or thing; objects being readily apparent, measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, being subject to the relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time.

    The Only option is that which is perceived to be God exists as the Nothingness, as a Transcendental Steady State of Quantum Singularity, the State or Condition of the Reality of Everything, the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of Space, Time; Motion existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction.

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

    fatfist wrote;

    It is impossible for a being like God to create space, when God necessarily requires space in order to be something. Without space, God has no shape/form and is nothing. No Theologist has ever proposed God to be nothing…..so I can’t see you doing it either. God is necessarily SOMETHING instead of nothing….there is NO other option!

    Something: that which has shape. Synonym: object, entity, thing, body, figure, essence…

    Space: that which lacks shape

    God is 'something' instead of nothing because God necessarily has shape/form. Here, read your Bible for a change:

    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?”

    An object without the background of space is linguistic oxymoron AND an ontological contradiction….Linguistics 101 & Physics 101.

    Since God needs space in order to be something….space preceded God….space is more powerful than God! It is impossible for God to create space (nothing/void). Ergo, it is impossible for God to create the Universe.

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

    Wayne wrote;

    That which is believed to be God, being Omnipresent, is the Nothingness that filled the Emptiness of undifferentiated Time, Space and Motion, prior to the Moment of the Creation, the spontaneous transfiguration of a Random Singularity having no relative numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O that preceded the First Singularity to have a numerical value of One-1, the first in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process; The Emptiness of Space being the place holder of the Reality of Everything, the Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    David,

    “ Your laws came from where?”

    My laws? Personal subjectivities have no bearing on reality. I don’t enact any laws. 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 of natural phenomena, not laws. Laws means that YOU adopted someone’s asserted dogma as YOUR personal truth. That doesn't concern Science in the least.

    You should take an introductory course in Science.

    “Matter came from where? “

    Matter is eternal. Here, educate yourself:

    https://hubpages.com/education/CREATION-is-IMPOSSI...

    ‘Nothing’ cannot acquire Length, Width and Height in a single frame of the Universal Movie and magically morph into matter. In fact, ‘nothing’ cannot even move….so how can ‘nothing’ acquire motion to mediate an event like Creation? Impossible!

    “Space? Time? Information? Intelligence? Order?? Where did all this come from? It created itself?”

    These are concepts…..concepts cannot be created from materials. Concepts are relations conceived by sentient beings. Every single word in any language either falls into the category of OBJECT or CONCEPT. Apparently this is news to you. It’s never too late….you can always educate yourself:

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

    https://hubpages.com/education/What-is-an-Object

    “More religious speak!”

    Indeed! Once you are able to define your terms and learn the difference between OBJECTS and CONCEPTS, you’ll stop speaking in Tongues!

    “In the beginning (Time)”

    There is no beginning nor time. What was BEFORE ‘the’ beginning which you decree? The Universe is eternal. Time is a concept invented by humans and is defined by change, or cause & effect. Time is a verb. No physical object is subject to time. Time is a figment of the imagination of a living entity and nothing more. Time is NOT a part of Physics or of Science. It belongs exclusively to religions, both traditional & contemporary.

    Time is a scalar quantity….the metric of an object’s motion. As a metric, time requires an observer to measure and catalogue it. Time necessarily requires an observer to relate previous data: time = motion + memory

    Time cannot be CONCEIVED without objects in motion. The difference is that time absolutely requires MEMORY (i.e., an observer)! An observer has to make a comparison (before, after, early, late, etc).

    “God created the heaven(Space)”

    It is impossible for a being like God to create space, when God necessarily requires space in order to be something. Without space, God has no shape/form and is nothing. No Theologist has ever proposed God to be nothing…..so I can’t see you doing it either. God is necessarily SOMETHING instead of nothing….there is NO other option!

    Something: that which has shape. Synonym: object, entity, thing, body, figure, essence…

    Space: that which lacks shape

    God is 'something' instead of nothing because God necessarily has shape/form. Here, read your Bible for a change:

    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?”

    An object without the background of space is linguistic oxymoron AND an ontological contradiction….Linguistics 101 & Physics 101.

    Since God needs space in order to be something….space preceded God….space is more powerful than God! It is impossible for God to create space (nothing/void). Ergo, it is impossible for God to create the Universe.

    Here, educate yourself on the basics of God & the Universe:

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

    See…when you can’t define your terms, all you are left with is Religious Speak, as you conceded earlier.

    “God is outside of our puny laws-he created them.”

    ‘he’??

    Poor God if He's got fans like you, Christ! You cheapen your deity by carelessly treating Him as an improper noun (i.e. ‘he’). That's not a way to treat a deity! Even a lady doesn’t like to be treated with such disrespect. You should be more careful. I'm not going to let you off the hook, and I don't assume anything more than what is there before me. If you say ‘he’, I will assume that you are talking about another of the gods, perhaps one on Mt. Olympus. Got it? Now if we're going to talk about God, let's put 'Him' in 'His' rightful place. Respect! Okay?

    But back to the main point: If God conceived of laws (see above) and wrote them down on scrolls….or whispered them into some stupid human ape’s ear….then obviously God did NOT create the Universe. In this context, God is just another living being who evolved in the Universe along with us petty human apes. Perhaps God was the Jew who first conceived of the Bible. Or perhaps God is my neighbor’s beautiful blonde wife with the sexy legs and silicone implants. You are free to choose your own God! Who is God to you is your personal OPINION….and nobody cares.

    “Where did God come from? Don't know.”

    Irrelevant! The issue of God has nothing to do with knowledge, wisdom, observation, evidence, Bibles & Scriptures, eye-witnesses, testimony, truth, proof, opinion, faith, believer or haters.

    The existence of God is an issue that has to do with Physics and falls squarely on the Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method. The Theologian has proposed/hypothesized an entity he calls “God” who is the Creator of space & matter. Here is how it is done Scientifically….

    Hypothesis: I propose that God is an entity that exists.

    Theory of Creation: I will now rationally explain how God created space and matter as follows_____

    Fill in the blanks. If you can rationally explain your Theory of how God created space & matter, even though He needs space to be an ‘entity’,….then you will have shown that it is possible for God to exist and be the Creator. If you can’t, then you concede that you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about.

    “It's a religious question!”

    Indeed, “where God came from” IS a Religious question! You confuse Religion with Science. You need to learn the Scientific Method (hypo + theory). Perhaps you should take an introductory course in Science so you don’t chase your tail in circles with Religious arguments.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Another person, who very obviously DID NOT even bother to read before commenting.

  • profile image

    David Buzulak 4 years ago

    Pure fantasy. Your laws came from where? Matter came from where? Space? Time? Information? Intelligence? Order?? Where did all this come from? It created itself? More religious speak!

    In the beginning (Time) God created the heaven(Space) and the earth (matter). God is outside of our puny laws-he created them. And they point to a Creator. Where did God come from? Don't know. Where did your universe come from? You don't know. It's a religious question!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Wayne, the point is that we have to come to the realization that 'mass' is not a thing. A person does not have mass like he has coins in his pocket. We can chop off a man's arm....but we are not literally "removing" mass from him. We only removed atoms.

    Mass is a concept....a petty unit of measure. We measure mass using a pre-calibrated scale. We don't COUNT mass like we count the coins in a person's pocket...or the number of limbs he has left on his body.

    Consequently, mass is a concept which is necessarily measured with respect to the gravitational PULL of another related object....like the Earth.

    What the stupid morons of Mathematical Fizzics don't realize, is that the effect of gravity cannot be blocked. It goes through all objects. Many factors can influence our measure of mass. For example....if we align thousands of distant stellar objects with the Earth, whatever is on the Earth will have a greater mass. If those stellar objects move, the mass of our objects on Earth decreases.

    mass = weight = concept

    matter = atoms = object

    Mass is a dynamic concept, and an extrinsic property of objects. If the Universe was comprised of only discrete (unconnected) objects, then gravity would not be possible and neither would mass. This is a scenario where no object in the Universe could ever have mass....but they would certainly have atoms.

    The clowns of mathematics will NEVER understand this basic primary school-type of reasoning. They are too overwhelmed with all the spirits and souls they believe in.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 5 years ago

    Perhaps the Earth's Magnetic Field has a minute effect upon the weight of some objects.i

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Yes wayne, they had to make copies in case the one lonely kilo was stolen or damaged. Then we wouldn't know what our standard was.

    But those who claim that MASS is a property of objects, have this "showstopper" of an issue to explain to the audience:

    Why did the kilogram standard or its copies lose mass?

    Did a mouse come at night and nibble some off?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    COPIES

  • profile image

    wayne92587 5 years ago

    fatfist wrote;

    Try to follow.....there is only ONE kilogram!

    Wayne wrote;

    I follow everything but your statement that there is only ONE kilogram.

    Fatfist wrote;

    This is THE standard or reference by which we compare our body against when we stand on a scale to get a measurement of our weight. The scale is calibrated to relate to this standard sitting under a glass jar in France.

    From the internet;

    the international prototype of the kilogram that resides in Sèvres, France that was found not to weigh a Kilogram any more, as compared with its official copies.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    “calling theists "parrots?" That turned me off.”

    If the least little thing turns you off, no wonder you believe that “nothing” self-created the universe....no wonder you believe in magical spirits which YOUR Priests call energy, waves, wavicles, black holes, 0D quantum particles, dilated time, warped space, fields, mass, dark matter,love,soul......need I go on?

    Do you think that these Scientific Articles are here to rub your hairy tush and warm up the cockles of your heart?

    “Ad Hominem attack, then you lose the argument.”

    You don’t even have the slightest clue what the argument is....you brainless carrot!

    PROOF:

    An Ad-Hom argument is of the form: ”The theists, atheists and their Priests are parrots, therefore we rationally conclude that First Cause is impossible!”

    ....and NOT of the form: “The theists, atheists and their Priests are parrots, therefore, no conclusion!”

    Didn’t your Priest teach you the difference when you sat on his lap to ask for his autograph?

    J.I.....before time runs out for you or becomes infinitely dilated.....go ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a brain!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    If you don't know what an Ad Hominem is then there is no sense in posting. BaaaCACAAAWK! Polly wanna cracker?

  • profile image

    J. I. 5 years ago

    I started reading this, and stopped. Why is this article calling theists "parrots?" That turned me off. If you're going to make an Ad Hominem attack, then you lose the argument.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Wayne,

    Try to follow.....there is only ONE kilogram! This is THE standard or reference by which we compare our body against when we stand on a scale to get a measurement of our weight. The scale is calibrated to relate to this standard sitting under a glass jar in France.

    Weight = mass. They are both synonyms! They are both RELATIONS to the standard in France. When the kilo in France loses weight with respect to itself....i.e. when we put it on a scale that was calibrated to itself....then we have a HUGE problem. Nothing weighs a kilogram as it did before. The kilogram has changed....so all weight and mass of every object we can measure in the universe has changed. It is unavoidable.

    And to make matters worse....we have stupid morons on this planet who irrationally CLAIM that mass is a count of the amount of atoms in an object. These folks are on the crack pipe!

  • profile image

    wayne92587 5 years ago

    Measures;

    fatfist wrote;

    We are? talking about what an object IS as opposed to what it DOES. Weight is a MEASURE of how many atoms comprise an object. We determine this measure by MEASURING, not by counting atoms. We still don't know how many atoms comprise the kilogram standard sitting in France.

    In fact, the kilogram doesn't weigh a kilogram any more even though it hasn't moved significantly...

    Is it that the kilogram doesn't weigh a kilogram any more or is it the international prototype of the kilogram that resides in Sèvres, France doesn't weigh a kilogram any more?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Boris,

    Thank you for coming back to discuss these issues. The purpose of my previous response was to get you to think about what you said, and come back to explain it.

    “I think the supposed properties of Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are imaginary. “

    This is one of the tactics I use to get people thinking. Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are PROPOSALS which are first and foremost, objects.

    Object: that which has shape

    This is the first stage of our scientific analysis. Can you illustrate these nouns or make a mock-up statue of them? If so, they are objects. It is irrelevant if they exist “out there” at this stage of our analysis. It doesn’t matter if they are imaginary....the atom is imaginary too, as nobody has ever seen one. But imaginary is not the right term. The proper term in our scientific context is HYPOTHESIS. The atom, Allah, ferries and Pegasus are all objects of our hypothesis. We need to ASSUME they exist for the purposes of understanding our Theory.

    Theory is simply a rational explanation of an event. In our Theory of Creation, we will use Allah (hypothesized object) as an actor to rationally explain how He created space and matter. If we can do this, then this Theory is said to be rational. This means that Allah is POSSIBLE to exist. If it is irrational, then Allah is IMPOSSIBLE to exist. That’s it....there is no other option or conclusion we can draw from a Scientific Theory. Same analysis goes for the atom. We assume the atom exists, illustrate it....and rationally explain the phenomenon of light using the atom and/or other objects as actors in our Theory of Light.

    For further details, see my article:

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

    “I think the properties of space are real”

    The universe is a concept which relates space and matter. There is nothing else....no spirits, no souls, no ghosts, no unfathomable “stuff” we cannot understand,....and certainly NO magic.

    Matter: the totality of all existing objects

    Object: that which has shape. Synonym: thing, something, body, particle, architecture, entity, etc.

    Space: that which lacks shape

    The universe is binary.....there is either something (object) or nothing (space). There is no other option or in-between these two.

    Why is space the void, vacuum, nothing? Why is space not an ‘it’...not a ‘thing’...not a noun of reality (i.e. not an object)?

    Because if space was ‘something’, then it would have shape, and a border/boundary. Even God has shape and a border/boundary. Otherwise God would be nothing, and not a noun that can be used in a sentence.

    Q: What is outside this alleged border of this space entity? Is it more space? It is God?

    Obviously this is a contradiction. Space cannot be an object. Impossible!

    Furthermore, if space was a ‘thing’, then there would be no VOID in the universe. Without a void, motion would be impossible. If you are buried in the sand, you need to DISPLACE the sand objects in order to move. You need to push the sand particles between your body and the surface, in order to make voids in the sand below so you can move upwards. This is what a fish does as it moves through water....it displaces water.

    Without a void (nothing), displacement and thus motion, is impossible.

    If space=matter, then the universe would be one infinite solid block of matter. Motion and life would be impossible. Furthermore, anything INFINITE is impossible because it necessarily means that it is growing in real-time forever and ever and creating matter.

    But WHERE is this matter created from? Other matter? No, this makes no sense. Is matter created from the VOID? If so, then there has to be a void. But nonetheless, creation from nothing is impossible.

    So you see, Boris, alleging that space is SOMETHING, is an exercise in futility. It is contradictory at best. It fails at all levels of inquiry.

    “Do you think that space can be bent, collapsed, stretched or inverted?”

    You can easily answer this question now. It is impossible to bend that which has no shape. You cannot bend or create ‘nothing’...i.e. no thing.

    “Do you think the universe is expanding or rather is the distance between the galaxies increasing?”

    Neither! And this is not an issue of what I or anyone “thinks”. Opinion plays no role here. Science is about strict objectivity. The mathematician who is claiming such a scenario, is tasked with rationally justifying his case. If he cannot do so, then he was bluffing all along.

    Universe is a concept....a convenient word we use to encompass the relation of space & matter. Universe does not exist. Only matter exists. As for space....obviously it does NOT expand....obviously!

    Every single object in the universe is moving.....even a conglomerate of objects we call ‘galaxy’. Everything is in perpetual motion in the direction which the net effect of gravity pulls it (tug of war)....and/or as a result of an event (i.e. collision, explosion, implosion, etc.). There is NO other option for motion.

  • profile image

    Boris 5 years ago

    I’m an atheist and so I don’t have any priests. I’m not interested in trying to prove or disprove anything. I don’t disagree with your theory of the universe or whatever it is. I’m trying to understand it more clearly. Apparently we disagree on the definition of the word “nothing”. I think the supposed properties of Allah, Ferries and Pegasus are imaginary. However I think the properties of space are real. Do you think that space can be bent, collapsed, stretched or inverted? Light is a transverse wave and transverse waves only occur in solids. So wouldn’t that make space an object? If space were really nothing at all why would it take any time at all for light to travel through space? Do you think the universe is expanding or rather is the distance between the galaxies increasing?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    @wayne,

    "A Singularity of One-1 has material worth, quantity, mass, does not exist as a concept."

    Great! So YOUR singularity hypothesis is an object, not a concept.

    1) Please illustrate this singularity object for the audience, as part of the exhibits phase of your hypothesis....and it better be 0D, as all singularities are 0D!!! An internet link will do.

    2) How can this hypothesized singularity object of yours have mass when it is alleged to be the ONLY OBJECT IN THE UNIVERSE? Mass is a scalar quantity that we MEASURE, not count! Mass is a concept, not a thing!

    mass: the quantity of matter as determined from its weight

    Mass is OBSERVER-DEPENDENT. Without an observer, there is no standard (i.e. Kilogram Standard in France) by which to compare & relate the singularity object to and determine how may kilos it has. Got it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

    We're talking about weight. Weight is LOCATION specific, and location is a static concept. Weight is valid only for a given location.

    Guess what??

    A lone singularity object has NO location and NO weight and NO mass!!

    We are? talking about what an object IS as opposed to what it DOES. Weight is a MEASURE of how many atoms comprise an object. We determine this measure by MEASURING, not by counting atoms. We still don't know how many atoms comprise the kilogram standard sitting in France.

    In fact, the kilogram doesn't weigh a kilogram any more even though it hasn't moved significantly...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/world/europe/13k...

    The standard against which the weight of the electron and proton are measured goes on a diet every month. The kilogram loses atoms every time it takes a bath. We don't know how many atoms.? We just know that it weighs less kilograms.

    We have no idea what? the quantity of matter is before or after the kilogram loses weight.

    If you believe that mass is the 'amount of matter', again this has nothing to do with acceleration or with force. It has to do with an intrinsic property of the object in question. How much matter is a static concept. We determine 'how much matter' by counting atoms and this amount has nothing to do with motion.

    The problem is that the clowns of math fizzics are lazy. They want to determine 'how much? matter' a rock has by MEASURING it thru weight. Then they get confused and think that the weight changes with location whereas the mass doesn't when it is clear that they will again have to MEASURE the 'mass' by weighing!

    Weight depends on the shape of an object. For example, you will always weigh differently depending where you are located on the Earth, as it is on oblate spheroid, not a perfect sphere.

    The weight changed, but so did its mass because we determine mass thru weight. Is mass a MEASURE of the amount of matter? Yes, because weight is also a MEASURE of the amount of matter. We still have no idea how much matter. All we know is how much it weighs.

    Again, in case you missed it: A lone singularity object has NO location and NO weight and NO mass!!

  • profile image

    wayne92587 5 years ago

    fatfist wrote;

    space = matter = singularity = Allah!!

    I will bet you $5000 that you cannot disprove that!

    Wayne wrote;

    I could not disprove, "space = matter = singularity = Allah!!

    If I wanted to, which I do not.

    I do not have any need to dispove anything in your posts; In fact I am empressed with you Knowledge.

    Before I can understand what you are saying you will have to give me your definitions of space = matter = singularity = Allah!!

  • profile image

    wayne92587 5 years ago

    There were numerous errors in my previous post that you are talking about, which confused the point I was trying to make.

    After re-reading my post I found it to be confusing even to me.

    This Post has nothing to do with zero-O, Allah.

    This post does reference a Singularity having relative, numerical, value, having a numerical value of One-1.

    A Singularity of One-1 attains its relativity, numerical value by being the First Singularity, Number, in a series, the beginning of a continuum, a process.

    A Singularity of One-1 has material worth, quantity, mass, does not exist as a concept.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    wayne.....we already discussed this before:

    space = matter = singularity = Allah!!

    I will bet you $5000 that you cannot disprove that!

    Don't think so? Just try and see!

  • profile image

    wayne92587 5 years ago

    The Reality of First Cause does not exist as a concept; the Reality of First Cause being a Singularity having relative value, having a numerical value of One-1, is material to the beginning a series events, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.

    The Reality of First Cause being the First in a Series of events, being the direct cause of the System of Chaos that has resulted in the Manifest Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, of the Reality of Everything; The Reality of First Cause being the direct Material cause of the Law of Cause and Effect.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Boris.....perhaps you'd like to send one of your Priests to come here and argue this one out for you. You don't seem to have the brain capacity or the courage to stand behind your claim.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    That's a nice assertion, Boris. I can make tons of them too:

    Allah is not nothing. He has properties which make Him something.

    Ferries are not nothing. They have properties which make them something.

    Pegasus is not nothing. It has properties which make it something.

    Allah is space, and space is Allah!

    See, we are both right. No matter what any human says, he is right!!

    You cannot "disprove" what I said.

  • profile image

    Boris 5 years ago

    Space is not nothing. It has properties which makes it something.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    What is the point, Eddie? When a person doesn't understand the difference between an object and a concept......between Hypothesis and Theory, then how can you have a meaningful discussion?

    When a person has been brainwashed to talk about TRUTHS and PROOFS, and think these concepts have something to do with science or reality.....even though NOBODY on this planet understands what these 2 words mean, then how can you have a meaningful discussion with such an individual? Even so-called "Philosophers" will get offended and run away when you ask them to define TRUTH and PROOF.....just like the Christian will get offended when you ask them what God is?

    I could just as well go talk to a Priest. He will have the same vocabulary and the same way of thinking.

    Is any of this sinking in, Eddie?

  • profile image

    Eddie 5 years ago

    Fatfist,

    I am very happy to talk ONLY about the atom. Would you like to start the discussion?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Eddie,

    It is your approach to the Scientific Method which is wrong. We don't do science like we do religion....with truths and proofs and bs like that.

    All you need is a hypothesis and a theory...nothing else....don't even talk about anything else. Your hypothesis must illustrate all the ACTORS which will partake in your theory. In your case, the actor=atom. The theory is a rational explanation of a natural phenomenon...be it light, gravity, etc.

    There is nothing more to it than that. When you make it more complicated than that, then nobody can help you.

  • profile image

    Eddie 5 years ago

    OK :)

    One question which requires only a YES or NO answer:

    Is everything I say wrong?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    “In that case we are all as dumb as each other and neither you nor I have any authority to make any claims of truth”

    Actually, Eddie, only YOU are the dumb one here. What is TRUE to a slow-witted monkey like you, is a LIE to your neighbor. The first rule of Physics is: TRUTH = OPINION. We clean our butts with your claims of truths, proofs and lies.

    Second....there are no authorities in the universe. The 10 Commandments were written by ignorant apes like yourself. When you can’t sell them here as “snake oil” cure-alls, you end up putting your own foot in your mouth. You have shut your own mouth. Now your magical shrinking atom is actually IMPOSSIBLE because a clown like you doesn’t even know how your hypothesized object looks like. It was just a STUPID FANTASY after all. Too funny!!!

    You can’t differentiate between Religion and Science, Eddie.... this is why you chase your tail in circles. Nice.

  • profile image

    Eddie 5 years ago

    In that case we are all as dumb as each other and neither you nor I have any authority to make any claims of truth over any other!

    That's all I needed to know.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Eddie,

    “If you can do the math and dismiss the 'shrinking atom' theory”

    There is no math involved here. Mother Nature never went to school. She is not wise in the math garbage that humans invented.

    Atoms contract and expand. This is called a Quantum Jump. Is this what your shrinking atom theory alludes to?

    Nonetheless, like I said previously.....before you can shrink an atom, you had better be able to tell the audience what YOUR atom looks like. What is YOUR Hypothesis of the atom? A 0D proton surrounded by 0D electrons?

    You cannot shrink an invisible spirit which you can’t even illustrate to yourself. In order for the audience to take you seriously, you must illustrate the actor of your Hypothesis....namely, the atom. Understand?

    “then I will admit defeat”

    I didn’t know we had a contest going.

    “It is POSSIBLE that atoms shrink”

    You are right, this is how it works in the church. Why, just last Sunday my Pastor told me that it’s possible that Jesus will get re-crucified when he comes back to Earth. I was forced to believe him or face 100 belt lashes on my butt.

    Unfortunately for you, my dear Eddie....this is not how things are done in science. The Scientific Method demands that the proponent (i.e. YOU) illustrate the actors of their hypothesis (i.e. atoms). Then the proponent must rationally explain a natural phenomenon with their shrinking atom....i.e. why light curves around corners, why speed of light is constant, why a pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling, etc.

    Once you do this, then you can boast that YOUR hypothesized atom shrinks in order to perform these elusive activities which we call light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc. Got it??

    “So, would you accept this as a possibility, or impossible?”

    Neither! Need more info!

    You must first illustrate your hypothesized atom. Then rationally explain how light and gravity do their tricks with this shrinking atom of yours. Only then can we justify if it is possible or impossible.

    You still have plenty of work to do.

  • profile image

    Eddie 5 years ago

    "Fine....then please cut & paste anybody’s comment who has explained why creation or first cause is possible. If it is possible, then I wouldn’t be able to contradict their statements...right??"

    I was actually talking about ALL comments - not just comments relating to first cause.

    You could give a bit more thought to the idea that atoms might shrink, which I posted a while ago. If you can do the math and dismiss the 'shrinking atom' theory, then I will admit defeat!

    One thing you CANNOT say, is that atoms do not shrink! It is POSSIBLE that atoms shrink, unless you can PROVE otherwise.

    I am not claiming atoms DO shrink, but the theory should stand up to scrutiny as a viable alternative to string theory.

    So, would you accept this as a possibility, or impossible?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Lawrence Krauss is the High Priest of Atheism. Let's all bow down to him so he can fondle us....

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    Eddie-

    You bet your bippy I close the door on utter garbage like this:

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

    Reading the adulatory comments of St. Krauss' flock is comedy gold. They are mesmerized with the incantations of "virtual particles," and "expansion" all in the complete faith Krauss knows exactly what he's saying and that they understand Krauss.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi Eddie,

    “Your approach to debate is to close the door on all possibilities. “

    You’ve misread and misunderstood these articles. What is POSSIBLE is what can be the case....is what could have happened or could happen. We cannot dismiss what is possible.....only what is impossible, right?

    Q: Can a ball be at a specific location and not at that location at the same time?

    A: No. This is a case of what is IMPOSSIBLE because it ontologically contradicts itself. You cannot have a scenario of shape and no-shape at the same time. Mother Nature works in mysterious ways....but not in delirious ways.

    “When it comes to facts it does not matter one iota if they're all wrong or we are interpreting the observations incorrectly - what matters is they are facts”

    Well here lies your problem. There is no correct or incorrect observation. This is a contradiction in terms. All observations are SUBJECTIVE because they are necessarily predicated on the extremely limited human sensory system. We cannot SEE the mediators of light, gravity, magnetism, electricity....but they are certainly there performing their work 24/7. So then WHAT is light? A little foton ball? A long wave stretching from the Sun to the Earth? A combination of both? Who has SEEN and confirmed these alleged facts??

    The reality of the matter is that there are no facts which are predicated solely on observations. If this was the case, then we must succumb to the facts that Jesus did indeed go to Heaven to live with his Dad, and that Allah is indeed the real God.....and that only Americans are abducted by Aliens.....

    “you yourself sound like a preacher who closes the door on debate”

    Clearly, this isn’t the case. I welcome anybody to come here for an intellectual conversation. This means that the proponent must rationally explain their theory to justify that it is indeed possible. What is rational is what is POSSIBLE. Try to understand that.

    But your problem is quite simple: Creation or first cause is impossible by definition.

    “Fatfist, I have no idea what your beliefs are”

    ....and you never will. Belief has nothing to do with reality....only with Cinderella, flying unicorns, Superheroes and fantasies. It doesn’t even make sense to say that you believe in X (where X = God, creation, Big Bang, black hole, foton, wave, ghost, etc). It only makes sense to rationally justify X. Only then can X be possible.

    “I am prepared to accept what you say about First Cause”

    ....and it would be foolish of you to do that. It is IRRELEVANT what I say for the purpose of just being “believed” or “accepted” without justification. You should only try to understand what I say.....or challenge me on it and try to contradict it. It doesn’t make any sense to “believe” what I say. Then only way you can understand reality is to seek for explanations rather than “beliefs”.

    “I don't think you understand a lot of what has been said to you by others who have placed comments here.”

    Fine....then please cut & paste anybody’s comment who has explained why creation or first cause is possible. If it is possible, then I wouldn’t be able to contradict their statements...right??

  • profile image

    Eddie 5 years ago

    Hello again Fatfist,

    Your approach to debate is to close the door on all possibilities. 'Go home folks, there's nothing to see here!'

    When it comes to facts it does not matter one iota if they're all wrong or we are interpreting the observations incorrectly - what matters is they are facts in the sense that we can rely on them to predict the effect of a cause (for instance).

    Really, you yourself sound like a preacher who closes the door on debate by pointing out that no one can know the true answer. This is true, but then the preacher is just as helpless as the rest of us and cannot himself know the true answer.

    Fatfist, I have no idea what your beliefs are and I am simply far too confused by all your comments in this hub to come to any kind of conclusion. I am prepared to accept what you say about First Cause, but it would be silly for me to stop the search here and just have 'faith' that you are right.

    I don't think you understand a lot of what has been said to you by others who have placed comments here. Either that or you are blinded by your own determination not to be shown to be wrong in any part.

    It's easy to put a coat on and protect yourself fom the rain, but that doesn't mean it isn't raining!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    The sci method has no facts. A fact is a term that is used only in ordinary speech as a synonym for a "truth" i.e. opinion!

    The sci method only has "The Statement of the Facts". These are the assumptions which form the Hypothesis. Then the Theory uses the statement of the facts as a starting point to rationally explain a consummated event.

    FOR EXAMPLE...

    1) Ordinary Speech: It is a FACT that God created space and matter with a 0D singularity which exploded like a vest bomb on a terrorist. There is NO explanation offered....just a dogmatic decree of TRUTH. And if you refuse to accept this, then you are an Evil-Doer and part of the Axis of Evil, as dictated by G.W. Bush and his Republican Religion.

    2) Scientific Method: The perpetual attraction of atoms is the statement of the facts in the Gravity Hypothesis. Then the Gravity Theory can rationally explain WHY the ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    I thought facts were assumptions and not synonymous with opinions? Or am I confusing a fact with a statement of fact?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Wayne,

    “...however proving an argument in favor of the existence of the Reality of First cause to be, a bad, an invalid argument, does not proven your argument against the existence of the Reality of First Cause to be a good...”

    You have absolutely no clue, do you?

    You come here spewing a bunch of nonsense, while you can’t even define ‘cause’. I already explained to you the Law of Causality and the meanings of all the terms....and you still come here to post your already DEBUNKED arguments. You have ZERO thinking ability, don’t you?

    And you don’t even understand that this hub has NO proofs, truths, facts or lies. PROOF is what your Priest rammed up your ass.

    “...is simply the First Singularity ....”

    There was NO singularity. A singularity is an imaginary idea of an alleged 0D entity which is impossible to exist.

    SINGULARITY = NOTHING!!

    I explained this to you over 10 times, yet a stupid monkey like you still comes here to parrot your nonsense in the hopes of getting people to believe in your FAITH.

    You are FINISHED, Wayne. Your trolling is over.

    Don’t come back until you can post a rational argument as all your trolling crap will be deleted from now on.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    Mathematics is god? Then man is above god as mathematics is an invention of man.

  • profile image

    wayne92587 5 years ago

    Wayne wrote;

    Say what you will, I still find value in your criticism, your Hubb; Thank you for your responses.

    I still have not read your complete Hubb.

    I agree that you have a good Argument against a large number of erroneous arguments in favor of the eistence of the Reality of First Cause, however proving an argument in favor of the existence of the Reality of First cause to be, a bad, an invalid argument, does not proven your argument against the existence of the Reality of First Cause to be a good, valid, argument, you only having proven an Absolutely Bad argument to be invalid.

    Fastfist wrote;

    Wayne wrote;

    at the very beginning of your Hubb you wrote.

    This article will explain:

    1) Exactly WHY Christianity’s beloved First Cause Argument is in complete violation of the Law of Causality. Whoever uses the Law of Causality in the context of “First Cause” or “Creation from Nothing”, is either embarrassingly foolish, or intellectually dishonest.

    Wayne wrote;

    The Reality of First Cause is not God, the Reality of First Cause is simply the First Singularity to have relative value, to have a numerical value of One; The initial space, Place e in a series being reserve for a Singularity having relative value, a

    numerical value of One, another singularity being added to each space, place, that follows in the series, the continuum, the process; the Space, Place before the Space, Place, reserved for a Singularity of One being left Empty, Blank, being reserved for a Real Whole Indivisible Number, a Number having no relative, nada, nothing, zip, having no numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero,--O.

    The decimal numeral system (also called base ten or occasionally denary) has ten as its base. It is the numerical base most widely used by modern civilizations, an empty space, place, before the First in a Series, the beginning of a Continuum, a Process being left Blank, Empty, void, being reserved for Zero—O, a real Whole indivisible Singularity have no relative, numerical, value.

    The equation representing the numerical base most widely used by modern civilizations, the decimal system; being O/1(n)