ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE: First Cause is Impossible

Updated on February 18, 2014


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 even 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 not an object. Space is nothing. 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!


Just to be clear, the Scientific Definition of space is....

space: that which lacks shape




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

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “It didn't start at all? It just is? Or is it wrong to say that?”

    There is no right or wrong…..just rational or irrational. Matter just is. This is the default position…..and the only rational statement that can be made about matter. Creation is always a CLAIM that must be accompanied by a rational explanation. All claims have to do with some phenomenon or consummated event in the past. “Eternal Universe” is NOT a claim because there is no event or phenomenon that can make matter eternal from an alleged previous state of “non-eternal” (i.e. created). Do you see the contradictions and circularity there?

    As it turns out, an object cannot be created from nothing. There is no way that nothing (lacking shape) can magically acquire shape and morph into an object. This is a nice fairy tale we hear from the Bible, but it has nothing to do with Science. The Big Bang was specifically extrapolated by the Catholic priest Lemaintre so the church can prove that God created the Universe. This is the only reason. Only a naïve fool would think that Lemaintre had other intentions.

    “If I say that if anybody wants to know if my arm exists, he can go visit me and I'll gladly hit him with it”

    So existence is depended upon a human observer to see/touch the object? Lots of folks have hallucinations daily where they see/touch ghosts, Big Foot, aliens, dead relatives, God, Jesus, etc. Should we take this testimony as PROOF too…..or just give some special bias and special pleading to the testimony having to do with your arm? What would be the difference? What if you didn’t have an arm but the eyewitness hallucinated that he saw/touched an arm on you? Is that proof too?

    Clearly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything with the limited human sensory system. Existence is always a hypothesis which is used to explain a phenomenon.

    Example:

    Hypothesis: Let us assume God exists.

    Theory of Creation: Now I will explain how God created the Universe as follows……

    This is what the Scientific Method is about. Proof is for Religion, Mathematics and Insane Asylums alike….these nutcases prove tons of nonsense on a daily!

  • profile image

    Passerby 3 years ago

    I'm an amateur and a noob, but I think I agree with the article. The universe is eternal.

    I first considered about that when I read about 'the big crunch' way back then. I concluded something like what John said above:

    The universe expands from the big bang, then contracts back to a singularity, then big bang again, then expands again. Repeat. (Note that I don't have a heavy background in physics, so I may not know if what I'm saying is true or not.)

    When I tell other people about it, they say that, "Well, that is possible, but how do you suppose did it all start?" That question always stumps me. But thinking about it now, the answer to that question is suppose to be... ...It didn't start at all? It just is? Or is it wrong to say that?

    And on the right arm thing, how does one prove it anyways? If I say that if anybody wants to know if my arm exists, he can go visit me and I'll gladly hit him with it, would that be a mistake? Probably a stupid question, I know. Can you point me in the right direction? As said before, I'm an amateur and noob. =D

    Oh, and I think somewhat related to the arm thing?

    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/5

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    What brand of crack cocaine are you smoking, John?

    Reason I ask is because with the "street brand" I buy, I can never mumble the kind of incoherent gibberish you just uttered. And my dealer guarantees he has the best stuff. He's officially fired. Please tell me your source!

  • profile image

    John 3 years ago

    Universe is not eternal. Space is. There is a difference. A Universe will either expand further into space or contract back to a singularity then explode again. Yet everything in a Universe is eternal. Everything is eternal. Just like the number of Universes is infinite. Space is forever. Even space is something. Nothingness is the impossibility.

  • profile image

    Mackwho 3 years ago

    Well since I got no response on my previous page I thought I would again ask you this, howndonexplain these miracles if there is no God?

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

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

    http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com

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

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Munyit if you do not answer the questions I asked, you are outta here. This place is not your personal circus.

    For the last time, this is the DEFINITION of space...

    space: that which lacks shape

    The static distance between 2 objects is indeed space (i.e. nothing)....of course, it can't be something (i.e. an object) now can it? Of course not. That is a description of a scenario. But it's NOT the definition of the term space. I'm not gonna discuss the definition of space again unless you wish refute it. And you must refute MY definition, not YOUR STRAWMAN misrepresentation of my definition, understand?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Munyit.....if you can post a truth....any truth.....I promise to PayPal you $10,000 USD. I am on the record.

    You get one more chance to find a TRUTH....so make it a good one. I will not waste my time playing 20 questions with a bimbo who hasn't grasped the basics of education and reality.

    Make some cash real fast.....your last chance. Let's see if you can put my money where your mouth is and utter one....JUST ONE truth!

    What's the matter....SCARED?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Munyit, you refused to read and acknowledge what I posted to you and completely ignored it…..and furthermore,….. you refused to answer the 2 questions I asked you in my previous two posts because you know that your Religion is destroyed.

    Now let’s destroy your Religion of Truth right here and right now…..right before your very eyes….in a very brutal and shocking manner….

    “A triangle has 3 sides [is true]”

    Triangle is a term that is first and foremost DEFINED as a geometric shape with 3 sides because it is an abstract object with an unresolvable referent, meaning, it is a concept. All concepts are defined.

    Definitions have nothing to do with “truth”. Truth is empirical, definitions are conceptual. Triangles are not empirical, they don’t exist…..they are defined!

    “I am not omnipotent [is true]”

    “not omnipotent” is not an attribute of yourself. Negations are not attributes. All attributes are positively predicated to convey meaning…..Grammar 101. It’s impossible to test and verify a “supposedly” negated attribute. Your above statement is not amenable to ‘truth’ because it’s a Non-cognitive proposition as you can only claim what you are….not what are not.

    “The most distant object is the most distant object [is true]”

    “♪♫♪♫ A horse is a horse of course, of course ♪♫♪♫ and no one can talk to a horse a horse, of course of course... ♫♪”

    As my article explains, “A is A” is rhetoric, unsatisfiable as a proposition, meaningless and irrational. It’s gibberish uttered by mental patients as part of their therapy. Hopefully truth is meaningful and rational in your nutcase Religion, munyit!

    Here you go, enjoy: https://hubpages.com/education/Law-of-Identity-A-i...

    “A rock cannot be a rock and a non rock [is true]”

    R ^ ~R is a contradiction….not a truth because it’s an unsatisfiable statement. Such statements are not amenable to truth….Logic 101. Take the course sometime….

    Sounds like you need to go back to primary school and take introductory courses in Grammar 101, Philosophy 101, Logic 101 and Critical Thinking 101…. bimbo Munyit!

    If your parents can afford to get you a basic education in Philosophy 101 you will realize that truth always resolves to OPINION.

    Here you go, enjoy: https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-...

  • profile image

    Rob 3 years ago

    While I'm at it and since you made a point about it....there are things that ARE true...

    A triangle has 3 sides

    I am not omnipotent

    The most distant object is the most distant object

    A rock cannot be a rock and a non rock

    etc

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "If that is true"

    No, not true. It's a lie. Nothing is true. Science only has rational definitions, not truth.

    For the SECOND time, Munyit, here's the rational definition:

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

    Can there be shape beyond the border of your most distant object scenario....YES or NO? This is the only question you need to answer in your next post. Don't tell me anything else. Just answer the question so we can resolve what ills you in the most efficient manner possible.

  • profile image

    Rob 3 years ago

    You said this..."Object: that which has shape

    Space: that which doesn't have shape; the static distance between objects"

    The static distance between objects. So again...if we take the furthest object there is where there is nothing beyond it...how can there be space without a more distant object?

  • profile image

    Rob 3 years ago

    I may have to go back and find it but I'm almost certain that you stated that "space" was the static distance between objects.

    If that is true then I as my question again....since there is no object beyond the furthest object how can there be space beyond it?

    I will go try to find where I believed you said that

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Does that make sense, Munyit?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    That's not a definition. Here's the defn....

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

    Space has no border, for if it did, what would be on the other side...more space? And that's where that notion contradicts itself.

  • profile image

    Rob 3 years ago

    You stated that "space" is the static distance between objects...ok...suppose we have an object that is the most distant object and there are no other objects beyond this object...does space exist beyond this most distant object? How could it if there is no further object to create static distance between itself and that most distant object? Wouldn't the most distant object define the limit of space?

  • profile image

    nicholas 4 years ago

    fastfist,

    I am a practicing Roman Catholic in the process of interpreting Genesis One! What a crazy maze it has been and after three or four years I am led to your door! I like some of your stuff. I like your clarity. Based on your explanations, which are sound, no theologian should have ever used or continue to use Aristotle's Law of Causality to prove anything. Foolishness. I just looked up the Roman Catholic Magisterial teachings on creation and nowhere do they use uncaused cause.

  • Andy1995 profile image

    Andy1995 4 years ago

    Have you thought about it : That you have based your thoughts on logic and thinkings, and concluded that the the Universe happened without a cause? Allow some time for deep reflection.

    Are you just clinging on to your faith (Eternalism)?

  • Andy1995 profile image

    Andy1995 4 years ago

    Hi,

    I'm sorry my writing skills are so poor. D:

    I would love to seek your view on this 2 paragraphs:

    The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

    An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the molecule- are sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Andy,

    “This is why your eternalist view is considered to be wrong or false.”

    What is right/wrong, true/false, correct/incorrect, valid/invalid is only based on OPINION. In Science we justify our arguments with a rational Hypothesis and Theory without any contradictions. This is the only OBJECTIVE criterion. Opinions have nothing to do with Science.

    That the Universe is eternal is NOT a hypothesis nor a Theory. How can it possibly be???? There is nothing to hypothesize nor explain. It is the default position!

    It is CREATION which is “THE CLAIM” that needs a Hypothesis (i.e. there once was no space and no matter) and a Theory (i.e. explanation how no space and no matter morphed into space & matter).

    Do you understand WHY Creation is a claim (requiring explanation) and eternal Universe doesn’t?

    Regardless…..it is impossible to explain and justify any form of creation because nothing cannot acquire Length, Width and Height in ZERO-TIME and morph into an object (i.e. atom). If in frame 1 of the Universal Movie there is nothing….and in frame 2 there is something (i.e. atom or whatever…), then how did this magic happen? You are asserting that there is motion within a photograph (frame 1)….a movie within a photo! Clearly, this is impossible.

    Here, try this out: Go to the forest and take a photograph with your digital camera. When you get home, view the photo and tell me if you see any bears, deer, hawks, trees, grass or other objects move and materialize within that photo? This is what the claim of creation asserts….motion within a single frame!

    Creation cannot be justified with any argument. Think about it.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Andy,

    “Each and every of us have our own unique way of understanding how the universe operates.”

    Opinions have nothing to do with reality. Opinions are a penny a trillion….worthless! Understanding is not subjective. He who claims to understand the physical mechanism of light cannot bitch & complain that he can’t explain it to the audience. This is just another excuse to cover his lack of understanding. It is CONCEPTS that facilitate understanding. Our brains evolved with the capacity to understand anything…..nothing is beyond the understanding of any intelligent being in the Universe.

    “This understanding is only understanding, not truth.”

    Exactly….truth is naught but OPINION.

    You said: Truth - Noble wisdom; perfect knowledge; insight of how things work

    Wisdom, knowledge and insight are OPINIONS which cannot be justified or proven with certainty. What is knowledge….the words from an authority that one memorizes?? Where did your authority get knowledge from….another authority….and so on, and so on???

    Clearly, the term ‘knowledge’ is subjective and embodies a very obvious contradiction. Here, check out how Sye Ten makes fools out of anyone who claims ‘knowledge’. As Sye Ten shows….not a single idiot on this planet KNOWS whether they exist or not. Why? Because they can’t define the words ‘exist’ and ‘knowledge’ without contradictions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQbL-dhuuCA&fea...

    What is TRUE for you is a LIE to your neighbor. Understanding otoh is OBJECTIVE because what is understood can be explained rationally. With an irrational explanation there is no understanding to be had. Science is about rational explanations….not about subjective personal knowledge, wisdom, truth, proof, faith, belief, authority, popularity, eye-witnesses, arrogance.

    “The universe has to depend on something for its EXISTENCE.”

    It is impossible for you justify such a statement because it embodies an ontological contradiction.

    Universe is a CONCEPT, not an object. The Universe is not a standalone entity. The Universe is a RELATION. Universe does not have shape or a border/boundary….for if it did, then what is outside that alleged border? Contradiction! ‘The’ Universe does not exist. Only matter (real objects) exist.

    Universe: a concept that relates matter and space.

    You are still struggling with the ultra-basics of language because you don’t understand the diff between objects and concepts.

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

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

    Also, you defined ‘exist’ as:

    Exist - anything that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled

    Did the Moon not exist before life evolved here? After life goes extinct, will the Moon cease to exist? Same goes for the Sun or the rest of the objects in the Universe. Obviously you haven’t put much thought into your definitions.

    Existence is a static concept; an adjective that describes/relates an object. Only objects can possibly exist because they have a location. Object exist at an instant. That chair may exist now, but it won’t in the future when its atoms get recycled in the Universe.

    Exist: object with location

    Object: that which has shape

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

    There is a static distance between the Moon and your nose. Ergo, the Moon and your nose exist.

    “'Objects' in themselves have no reality, they are only imagined to BE”

    Exactly. Objecthood is a CONCEPT. Superman and ‘2018 Corvette’ are objects which don’t exist. They are objects because they have shape…..we can illustrate them. They don’t exist because they have NO location. Don’t CONFUSE ‘objecthood’ with ‘existence’…..they are different concepts.

    Object: that which has shape

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

    Exist: object with location

    “how can atoms be amassed to produce matter? This can be agreed by saying that there is NO substance which abides in time to hold them together”

    What anyone “agrees to” is an OPINION of popularity and is irrelevant in Science. In Science we only use the Sci Method (Hypothesis + Theory) to rationally explain a phenomenon. We don’t vote for opinions at the ballot box. Don’t confuse Science with Religion and Politics.

    “Has anyone seen an atom? NO.”

    Irrelevant what anyone SEES or TOUCHES with their extremely limited sensory system. Opinions are not part of Science. In Physics, we illustrate the atom in our Hypothesis….we hypothesize HOW this entity can look like for the purposes of mediating the phenomena of light, gravity, magnetism and electricity. Then our respective Theories will explain the physical mechanisms of said phenomena.

    You are confusing Science (hypothesize/explain) with Religion (touch/see/prove).

    “ATOMS are CONCEPTS, they are not OBJECTS.”

    So you are not comprised of objects? You are a mere concept….an illusion? Even if you concede this, then matter still exists because all concepts are relations between objects….it’s unavoidable. Your statement is therefore contradictory.

    If you have a surface, then your constituents (i.e. atoms have a surface). Hence atoms are objects with location…they exist.

    “The atom …. its PHYSICAL essence remains elusive.”

    ….only to folks who can’t reason out the basics! And there are plenty of them around who go by the names: Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, Theist, Mathematical Fizzicyst, solipsist, freethinker, bright, Atheist+, secularist, genius,…..

    These folks are intentionally divorced from reality because they choose to believe in human OPINIONS rather than use their brains to critically think, reason, define without contradiction, and rationally explain. Mysticism is a copout and insult to humanity. Just because ignorance is blissful with 99.99% of humans, doesn’t mean that everyone is ignorant. Sounds like you have some soul-searchin’ to do.

    “The very idea of existence implies a dwelling place”

    Yes, without a place/location, an object cannot be said to ‘exist’. You exist because you are located within all the objects in the universe.

    “a dwelling place, which is perceived to be external relative to our bodies”

    Irrelevant what a human ape perceives with their extremely limited sensory system. Opinions are divorced from reality. Matter exists outside the internals of your body….for if it didn’t, then it wouldn’t gravitationally attact/pull you towards it.

    “But nothing exists beyond the cognitive realm.”

    Obviously the Sun and Earth existed before life evolved here. For if they didn’t, you wouldn’t be making this statement right now because you wouldn’t be here. And since “cognitive realm” is a concept, it necessarily has to be mediated by objects (i.e. atoms)….it’s unavoidable. So these atoms are eternal because matter cannot be created or destroyed.

    “'Things' change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. “

    Of course. The Universe is the only conceptual perpetual motion recycling machine. All objects in the Universe will break down to their atomic or fundamental constituents and get recycled into new objects. And this process has been going on for eternity….and will continue forever.

    “we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. “

    Again….it is IRRELEVANT what a human ape can FIND/SEE/TOUCH/SMELL/TASTE with their extremely limited sensory system! We cannot find a planet in that galaxy which is 5000 Quadrillion light years away. Does mean that no planet exists in such a galaxy? Obviously the human ape is the most retarded of the Intelligent Alien species in the Universe because these Human Space Clowns are sooooo damn arrogant and think so damn highly of themselves…..in that IF they can’t FIND/SEE/TOUCH something….then they CONCLUDE with truth/proof that it ain’t there! Can you believe this nonsense?

    Don’t you see the obvious contradictions with your reasoning?

  • profile image

    Andy1995 4 years ago

    Hey Fatfist,

    I am disappointed that i was unable to convey where the meaning lies in my question.. But its fine with me..

    After reading through your hub again, i have to refute what you have "said" - that creation is impossible/ first cause is impossible.

    Truth - Noble wisdom; perfect knowledge; insight of how things work

    Exist - anything that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled

    Eternal - having existed without a cause, and a beginning

    Space - static distance between 2 "objects"

    Each and every of us have our own unique way of understanding how the universe operates. This understanding is only understanding, not truth. Your contention that the universe is ETERNAL (was always there) is basically groundless. The universe has to depend on something for its EXISTENCE. Your inverted views do not differ from that of those pious people.

    Let me explain where your inversion lies. Space is a concept. My topic sentence will be "WHY Space cannot be ETERNAL & WHY Matter cannot be ETERNAL". Your view of ETERNAL-ISM is false. Universe IS a concept, it IS NOT an object. You CANNOT assign attributes to it and state that it was ALWAYS THERE. 'Objects' in themselves have no reality, they are only imagined to BE. Consider this: Matter is composed of atoms and can be divided down into atoms, but how can atoms be amassed to produce matter? This can be agreed by saying that there is NO substance which abides in time to hold them together. Has anyone seen an atom? NO. Because ATOMS are CONCEPTS, they are not OBJECTS. The duality of subject and object must be abandoned. Objects exist due to discrimination. Fundamentally, its nature cannot be attributed to any causes nor to spontaneity. The atom is indeed empty of inherent existence and its PHYSICAL essence remains elusive.

    The very idea of existence implies a dwelling place, which is perceived to be external relative to our bodies. But nothing exists beyond the cognitive realm. You must know that existence is IMPERMANENT and the role of CAUSE and EFFECT cannot be denied. We must understand the' things' of this world as they truly are, and that we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. 'Things' change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyze 'things' into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why your eternalist view is considered to be wrong or false. In conclusion, the universe is a 'object' in a mundane sense and its realm cannot be located; it EXISTS due to causes and it is impermanent. Hence the universe is 'eternal'(no beginning and no end) because of its very non-eternality, which DOES NOT imply that the universe exists forever.

    However, the cause for the 'creation' of the universe is not an actual cause. It is just basically ignorance. Also consider how physical phenomena are ultimately false and cannot be verified. Why then investigate how physical phenomena (object) appear or disappear although they do appear or disappear ?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Andy,

    “is the image visualized by the brain really what we perceive outside our bodies.?”

    Nothing is ever 100%. Our eye has a blind spot where our retina is attached, so the brain fills-in the image in that area by interpolation. So no….it is not a 100% one-to-one mapping….but it is otherwise virtually identical to what we perceive with our retina.

    The retina of any living entity in the Universe has a very narrow….extremely limited bandwidth of response to light stimulus. For if it didn’t, then you wouldn’t be able to see anything…just a “whitewash”, like looking at a white screen on your monitor. Therefore, we had no choice but to evolve eyes that filtered out 99.99999999% of the EM spectrum….tis essential to survival of the species.

    “how the image visualized can actually be perceived as outside the body?”

    Because every object has shape. The brain conceptualizes space as a “filler-medium” in order to facilitate spatial separation. All objects you visualize are interpreted by your brain to have a conceptual background medium. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to discern objects. This doesn’t mean that space is a real medium….of course not, space lacks shape. But the brain has to fool us that it is a medium in order to discern objects from the background of the image we visualize.

  • profile image

    Andy1995 4 years ago

    Hi Fatfist,

    I'm sorry.. :-( I just realized much of you hubs are almost identical and in line with the Buddha's teachings.. Btw, i'm a Buddhist and we Buddhists do not believe in a supreme creator..

    I'm not very well acquainted with the mechanism of seeing but i want to ask is the image visualized by the brain really what we perceive outside our bodies.? And im confused about how the image visualized can actually be perceived as outside the body? if there are any sites that provide info on this, please list them down... :/

    Thanks

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Andy,

    “What i meant is that when i see something, is it just my perception or is it really the object in the world”

    You see something with your brain, not with your eyes. Your retina relays light torque signals to your brain which visualizes the image for you. But the human brain could create images without any input from the brain. We call this “visions” or “delusions” and it’s self-induced within the brain and results from one’s psyche. If you think you’re gonna see God in the middle of the night, then for sure your brain will create the image and God will look real. Similarly, if you think you’re gonna see a black hole, your brain will create one.....same for warped space, dilated time and flying photons.

    But back to reality….of course you see objects in the world, as only objects can relay light signals to your retina and ultimately to your brain. But what you see and what you interpret are two different things. Some claim to see atoms, photons, 0D particles, black holes, spirits, souls, God, waves, wavicles, Higgs Boson, etc. That's quite the imagination those folks have.

    The human sensory system has an extremely limited bandwidth. And the human brain is subject to lots of biases and interpretation of its input perceptions. This is why Science is not about gawking. Science is about Hypothesizing objects that mediate natural phenomena for the purposes of rationally explaining Theories. Science is about critical thinking, which has no limits or barriers or delusions.

  • profile image

    Andy1995 4 years ago

    Hi Fatfist,

    I read your comments and i think i got one of my questions misunderstood. Perhaps i write it again. What i meant is that when i see something, is it just my perception or is it really the object in the world..

    Thanks

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Andy,

    “ i hope you can resolve my doubts on some of my "beliefs"”

    I can certainly answer your questions….but I’m sorry….I cannot change your beliefs. Only Religionists like Priests, Atheists and Mathematicians are known to brainwash people. Science is not about brainwashing folks and forcing them to BELIEVE. Science is divorced from subjectivities, emotions, beliefs and other opinions. Science is OBJECTIVE….we use the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory) to objectively explain natural phenomena. Personal opinions/beliefs play no role in a Scientific explanation.

    “space has a cause for its "existence"”

    Before we chase our tails in circles….we first begin by defining the KEY terms of our argument: space & exist. This is what Science is about….unambiguous & non-contradictory definitions.

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

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

    Exist (i.e. real): an object with location

    Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

    Pursuant to the definition of ‘exist’, space has no shape….ergo, space does not exist. Makes sense because space is nothing…i.e. no thing!

    The Universe embodies either SOMETHING (with shape) or NOTHING (no shape)….there is no other option. This is how we critically reason what the Universe is comprised of. There are no magical spirits or souls in the Universe. Magic is not a part of Science.

    “We humans assign names to objects of perception and foolishly cling to their names and hence believe that words are "things"”

    Bingo!!!!!

    That’s why humans invent nonsense like spirits, souls, black holes, 0D particles, wavicles, warped space, dilated time, gravity waves, light waves, etc. All these are CONCEPTS; ie. Ideas! Concepts don’t exist….and they certainly can’t affect reality. Only real objects (i.e. with location) can possibly exist.

    A name is a noun of grammatical syntax, only. A NOUN OF REALITY is an actual real object out there….one that exists. 99% of people don’t understand the difference. It is all explained here in lots of detail:

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

    “For example, a carpenter renders a chair out of wood.”

    Of course…..he “renders” (i.e. assembles) the chair from pre-existing matter. Creation (from nothing) is impossible.

    “Therefore, the chair is in a sense, eternal?”

    No specific object can be eternal, whether a star, planet, chair, car, living entity, etc. Only the ingredients (i.e. atoms) from which those objects are assembled, are eternal.

    “[chair] came into being because of a cause - this cause(noun) may not necessarily be form, it can be associated with the mental realm??”

    Objects like chairs, humans, stars, planets, etc. don’t “come-into-existence”. Existence is a static concept, not a dynamic one. Existence is akin to a PHOTOGRAPH, not a MOVIE. An object exists at an instant. It’s a yes or no issue….either it exists or not. Matter can come together like Lego blocks and assemble to some object. At any stage of assembly (i.e. at any instant), some object exists…..and at that instant only. The end-result, may be a completely different object. For example, you are a different object now than the embryo in your mother’s womb. Existence is static. I explain this in detail several pages down in my Kalam hub:

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

    “are space and matter the same or are they different? “

    Read above….they are the antithesis of each other…..opposites. Something vs nothing…..shape vs no-shape.

    “I know that the atom is 99.99% empty”

    It’s not. In fact, this is a ridiculous and contradictory assumption proposed by Mathematicians who haven’t a clue about Physics and reality. These same clowns have proposed several different versions of the atom which all contradict each other:

    1. Thomson Berries (Plum Pudding)

    2. Rutherford Planetary Bead

    3. Bohr Planetary Bead

    4. Sommerfield’s Wavon which incorporates Relativity

    5. DeBroglie's Ribbon

    6. Schrödinger Wave

    7. Born's Electron Cloud

    8. Lewis Shell

    You do know that humans have proposed hundreds of models of the atom in the past 2500 years, right? Will the real atom please stand up?

    “If they were both distinct things and not compatible, then why is that matter occupy space? “

    Space is nothing. Space cannot be occupied like you occupy an object, like a car or a piece of land…..or like a fish occupies a lake or the ocean. Only objects can be occupied because they have SHAPE. Space is shapeless, colorless, matterless, boundless, perimeter-less, tasteless, un-occupyable, un-touchable, non-reacting, etc. All descriptions of space predicated in the negative because space is NO THING.

    Objects do not swim “through” space like a fish swims thru water…or like we can “swim” thru the air when dropped out of a plane. Water and air are objects with shape….space isn’t. You cannot go out in outer space and capture a PIECE of space in a hermetically sealed container….like you can cut a piece out of a cake. For if you could…..then WHAT would be left behind in that location? Nothing, more space? Do you see the contradiction here? Ergo, space is not something you can capture or occupy. Space doesn’t exist. Space is only a noun of grammatical syntax.

    “Feelings are abstract nouns”

    ….of grammatical SYNTAX only. Feelings are effects which are mediated by the atoms in our brain. Feelings are CONCEPTS (i.e. verbs, processes, the activity of our brain). ‘A’ feeling is not a thing. Feeling is what our brain does.

    “When i see phenomena, is the "seeing" really phenomena, or are they just my perception of them?”

    You can only SEE objects! You cannot see ‘a’ phenomenon. Phenomenon is a process….an activity performed by objects. Phenomenon is a MOVIE where the actors are objects in motion. Existence is STATIC; i.e. a snapshot/photograph or freeze-frame of that movie showing the objects that exist. That is what you actually see….the objects. But….you have memorized the previous locations of these objects. Hence your brain has strewn those individual frames together into a movie (i.e. phenomenon)…the process.

    “I know i can influence phenomena”

    You influence the objects participating in the mediation of that process. For example, you drive down the road and collide your car with another one. Now you have pushed the other car and deviated it from its intended path.

    “sorry, i'm only a secondary school student”

    It doesn’t matter. There are NO specially-gifted human or aliens in the Universe with superior intellect. Super-Intelligence is a myth and a contradiction. As long as you understand language and are able to communicate, you have what it takes to critically reason, understand and explain anything in reality. There is no age limit for a human to be able to think and reason. If you wanna score 250 on an IQ test, just study hard before you take it. This is all explained here:

    https://hubpages.com/education/What-is-INTELLIGENC...

    “Btw,nice hub!”

    Glad you enjoyed it….thanks :-)

  • Andy1995 profile image

    Andy1995 4 years ago

    Btw,nice hub!

  • profile image

    Andy 4 years ago

    Hi, Fatfist!

    I apologize if i write badly and make a circus show :-( I am very much impressed of your writing skills and exceptional intelligence.. But i would have to say with due respect, i am quite confused on some aspects of your hub here.. I both agree and disagree on them and therefore, i hope you can resolve my doubts on some of my "beliefs"..

    You mentioned space cannot be created nor destroyed and first cause is impossible.. But contrary to my belief, space has a cause for its "existence".. I totally agree with u that space can't be created nor destroyed, but since space is "nothing" - is it also a "thing"?? We humans assign names to objects of perception and foolishly cling to their names and hence believe that words are "things". For example, a carpenter renders a chair out of wood.

    The carpenter is the cause(mediator), the wood is the Target Object, whereas the chair is the Output.. The chair is still wood only that it has changed its appearance. But it is never created nor destroyed - the wood has only changed its shape. Therefore, the chair is in a sense, eternal? However, it came into being because of a cause - this cause(noun) may not necessarily be form, it can be associated with the mental realm?? I hope you can resolve my doubts ! ;-)

    Another question - are space and matter the same or are they different? I know that the atom is 99.99% empty (sorry, i'm only a secondary school student) and so does it mean it is made up of space ?

    If they were both distinct things and not compatible, then why is that matter occupy space? If they were the same and compatible, then why is that the occupied space reappears when i remove the matter?

    Is there any difference between the Void and space? Feelings are abstract nouns and they do not come from the space outside nor from within the brain. Do feelings emerge from the void or the space outside? What are feelings actually - Verbs or Nouns? When i see phenomena, is the "seeing" really phenomena, or are they just my perception of them? I know i can influence phenomena, but did i really influenced them? I am very troubled and i hope you can be a good Samaritan and help me!

    Thanks,

    Andy

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Or not!

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    So to summarize what FF's getting at; we can't "know" reality. This is lunacy and pretending to play or see god. People like that end up in the asylum. Math Klub and Philosophy Klub try to grasp at Absolute Truths, Perfect Equations, Complete and Beautiful Proven Theories, etc.

    All BULLSHIT! They're just clutching at invisible straws. We can't KNOW anything in science, like in the sense of godly omnipotence. We can only ASSUME (hypothesize) in order to explain events rationally (scene by scene, no voodoo!).

    We SEE the Moon, but we don't SEE atoms! We FEEL the air, but I can't FEEL the Moon! Math Klub PROVES zero-d particles and superstrings, but I only HEAR a load of crap.

    Shape is objective. Objects must have shape. Was Napoleon REALLY abdicated and then exiled to the Island of Elba? Are we going to get a time machine and VERFIY this in our lab?! No! Maybe it happened, maybe the whole thing's a big LIE! So we ASSUME that he MIGHT HAVE (i.e. it was possible that...) so we can explain certain events and "evidence" as part of our theory as to how/why he was poisoned/assassinated.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Does A=A remove the observer? No!

    But we can rationally conclude that the Moon exists despite our observation of it.

    Is there a probability of Planet X existing? No!

    Something exists, or it doesn't. On/off. This is objective, because it takes out human senses, data, empiricism, bullshitting & lies, truths & hallucinations, experiments, observations, egos, logic, guesswork etc, right out of the "equation".

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    @rational person,

    "Doesn't rationality necessarily introduce observer bias into the hypothesis?"

    How so? A Hypothesis is a proposal....an assumption. A hypothesis can either be rational or irrational. How can a Hypothesis possibly be biased?

    Is the Hypothesis of Christianity (God=Jesus=Father=Son=Holy Ghost) biased? It's merely a proposal.....and an irrational one to boot.

    "In the theory doesn't math (like probability distributions) remove the observer?"

    Oh, we all wish it did. You see, my dear friend, math is DESCRIPTIVE....it dynamically DESCRIBES what the stupid human ape (i.e. Mathematician) saw in his dream (i.e. singularity, black hole, white hole, ass hole, photon, muon, electron, proton, quark, energy, time, spacetime, ether/aether [Einstein saw those in his dream fore sure!!!], force, wave, wavicle, 0D particle, etc.)

    Math is a DESCRIPTIVE syntax which decrees as Gospel what a stupid moron (i.e. Math Fyzicyst) saw while he was wandering down the halls of the Insane Asylum....just like Godel, Cantor, Turing, and Boltzmann did back in the day. You should go on youtube and watch the DANGEROUS KNOWLEDGE series to understand what Math is all about.

    In the end....all the Mathematicians see God in their dreams....no doubt about it! But they may call Him under a different name....like singularity, black hole, while hole, ass hole.....

  • profile image

    rational person 5 years ago

    Doesn't rationality necessarily introduce observer bias into the hypothesis?

    In the theory doesn't math (like probability distributions) remove the observer?

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    But what about an "OBCEPT"!

    This third category PROVES there's a God... at LEAST 200%!

  • Spastic Ink profile image

    Spastic Ink 5 years ago

    Hello Fatfist. I had some spare 'time' today and the more I thought about the entire human language being resolved to concept and object, the more it makes sense to me that this is the DEFAULT position regarding arguments of 'creation' or design. Once we assume that ONE and only distinction between concept and object, no further assumptions are required (or even possible!). It's important we establish this so the theist knows upfront where we are coming from, BEFORE we can even coherently argue about the words 'god' or 'exist'. After we establish this, the theist cannot even begin to move from the corner she has herself inheritantly painted into. There can be no further bottomline, no further temporal argument for 'original' causation ('creation'). Consciousness becomes a mere concept itself. An aftereffect. And by 'aftereffect' I'm not invoking some temporal 'action' reified into an object. I'm just using the best language a monkey like me can, because by virtue of the workings of the brain, no matter how hard we monkeys try, we struggle to escape employing the concept of 'time' into our thinking and coversation.

    Am I making sense brother ... do I get an AMEN! ?

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    If you guys want a real laugh:

    .

    'You're conflating two issues, here. The evolution is deterministic in QM -- the state of a closed system at t1 evolves to a unique state at t2. It is the process of breaking up an entangled composite system ("observer" and "observed subsystem") that necessarily involves probabilities, due to the properties of quantum information. This is quite a subtle issue, but the distinction is quite important. It is not time evolution which is probabilistic in quantum mechanics -- it is the information which is available to the observer which is probabilistic.'

    .

    http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34264.as...

    .

    Hilarious gibberish!

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    On my own forum thread I inferred that a comment and Son of Sam were related. Hub Pages took exception. I guess I should have used a Christian mass murderer like Matthew Hopkins as a comparison and all would have been well.

    Meanwhile, the trolls eat for free.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Another one bites the dust!!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “you delete half of what I say. Your censorship...... you can continue to censor my comments”

    LOL.....the audience in the Physics Conference has absolutely NO sympathy for your lies, constantly crying for “wolf”, and pretending to be a battered woman so everyone can sympathize with your position. Your are perpetually going off in tangents as to avoid the issue which destroys your Religion.....that being....there is no such thing as energy, waves, truth, fact, proof, etc. These are dead self-refuting arguments which you desperately cling onto and perpetually parrot because you have NO arguments. You just HOPE that there are potato-heads out there who will sympathize with your position and send some comforting words your way.....pathetic!!

    “allowing you to answer my question”

    Allowing me to answer to YOUR claims??

    REMEMBER:

    1) This is YOUR claim.

    2) The onus is on YOU to explain to the audience how 2 concepts/ideas (waves, energy) COLLIDE (surface-to-surface contact) with each other.

    3) You don’t brush off YOUR claims to somebody else......know why?....because the other person will rationally explain why your claims are BUNK....then you will cry like a little woman who lost her skirt on the roller-coaster.

    emrldphx, grow up!!!

    “answer my question using your terms.”

    LOL....you are chasing strawmen with every statement.

    This has nothing to do with MY terms. The sci method could care less whose terms they are. They could come from your grandmother for all anyone cares. BUT...THEY HAD BETTER BE SCIENTIFIC (rational, observer-independent, consistent, non-contradictory). Reality does NOT depend on observers. This is an OBJECTIVE criterion, not a subjective one like you try to portray with your strawman statements. You fool no one!!

    “I apologize for using the question about light beams, so I changed it to a question about particles,”

    YOU FOOL NO ONE, emrldphx!!

    This is not an issue of apology....so please don’t apologize to me. All I ask of you is be a MAN and explain your claims, or ADMIT that you were wrong!!

    The issue here is that your God-like WAVES have been destroyed.....they don’t exist!! So you are desperately running like a chicken with your head cut off trying to figure out other avenues to save face. You are embarrassed that I DESTROYED your Religion, so now you are sidetracking to other unrelated issues which have nothing to do with your contradictory assertion of waves (i.e. ideas) colliding. This is an act of desperation.

    And what will you do when I show that your particle assertions are self-refuting and impossible as well? What will you do next to save face and your dignity? What other strawmen can you think of?

    You fool no one!!

    “I know you can 'rationally' prove”

    Too many errors!!!

    Argument from Ignorance! You don’t know jack-squat of what you are parroting.

    I haven’t “proven” anything....I make no such claims.....only YOU do.....this is YOUR strawman!!

    Proof = truth = fact = OPINION!!!

    All my statements are Scientific. I have provided you with rational non-contradictory definitions and rational explanations of WHY your CLAIMS are self-refuting....i.e. BUNK....i.e. IMPOSSIBLE in reality. All you do to repeat your same nonsense as if nothing was explained to you. You should stick to cleaning latrines.

    This is trolling. Your repetitions will be deleted instantly! You have repeated them PLENTY of times in the comments sections. Use your mouse and scroll to them so you can see your name in lights and take PRIDE in the contradictions you posted tens of times.

    “I can answer your question about 'waves'”

    You can’t answer anything. All you have is contradictory CLAIMS. Your claims are impossible! Deal with it. Perhaps a few sessions with your psychiatrist will cure your ills.

    You have NO scientific definitions for any of the irrational terms you parrot. You are FINISHED as far as definitions are concerned....so don’t complain anymore.

    But you still irrationally CLAIM that waves (ideas) collide. So the onus is on YOU to justify YOUR claim.

    Q: With the luxury of detail, please rationally explain how 2 waves (concepts/ideas) collide.

    If you can, I will PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice. Otherwise, concede that you can’t and that you were wrong.

    Only then will I give you ONE more chance at kicking my butt and embarrassing me to redeem yourself so you can be taken seriously by the audience in the Physics Conference. Only then can you throw 1 more CLAIM my way for DESTRUCTION....and make it a good one cause it will be your last. Embarrassing you once is good enough for me......embarrassing you TWICE....well that means that you are finished forever, and you have no clue of anything you post....nobody will ever listen to what you say.

    So... emrldphx.....STAY ON TOPIC.....do not go off in tangents because this is trolling and will be deleted.

    Are you scared to answer the Q of YOUR claim?

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

    Braud Boy most epic troll ever.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    @Winston.....clever is not a word you can use to describe emrldphx. Ohhhhhhoho no!!

    I haven't seen so many contradictions and arguments from ignorance ever since Braud Boy started posting here.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    “How can "cavitation" destroy a pump?”

    LOL....it is soooooo funny how potato heads like to come here and showcase their ignorance with their wild CLAIMS. Is “cavitiation” an object/thing in your Religion? Does your priest perform experiments with “cavitation” and “energy” and “waves”? Do you even know?

    “Where does this cavitaion come from”

    Ummmm......could it be from YOUR God? Why don’t YOU tell the audience? Are you gonna run away from this question too?

    “cavitaion.... is it air, or is it space (nothing)?”

    No, cavitation is NOT a noun or a subject in Scientific language.....only in YOUR Religious language! The nouns and subjects in science are the ACTORS which take part in a Theory. If you wish to do science and rationally Theorize how the inside material of the pump deteriorated and flushed out the bits with the water, then your actor must be an OBJECT. Your God and the spirits your worship, like ENERGY and GHOSTS, cannot come into surface-to-surface contact with the matter in the pump and chip it away. Only objects with shape can do that.

    You see, my feeble-minded friend.....cavitation is only a noun for the purposes of grammatical correctness in sentences....literature & and poetry. You cannot illustrate an object (noun of reality) which YOU irrationally term “caviation”. Cavitation is a CONCEPT only....and an irrational one to boot!!

    YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORDINARY SPEECH AND SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE! This is why you perpetually chase your tail in circles with contradictions. When you learn science and begin to live in reality with the rest of us, you won’t be scared of spirits, energy and ghosts grabbing your private parts in the middle of the night.

    In ordinary speech, you have reified the verb (action) “cavitate” to an object (noun) which is impossible to exist. Fallacy of Reification. Reality has nothing to do with YOUR poetry & metaphors and what comforts your inner spirit and soul. Science is objective. Your opinions & contradictions are believable by YOU and YOUR congregation only. Science is not your forte....you should stick to pushing the broom and moping the floors.

    Verbs/actions/concepts (energy, waves, cavitation) do not exist in reality.....only objects do....got it?

    “How can "nothing" destroy a pump?”

    Nothing is not an object and does not exist. Matterless motion is impossible. Nothing cannot perform actions.....much less chip away at the matter inside a pump case.

    Have you even bothered to read anything written in here?????

    Have you passed Junior Kindergarten or are you happy to come here and showcase your ignorance in front of the whole world???

    I mean, puhleazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....have some self-respect!! All you do is come here and shoot yourself in the face.

    You know what?......your IGNORANCE actually deserves a Nobel Prize. I would personally VOTE for you if you ever go on America’s Got Talent. You would be the BEST act bar none!!

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    Fatfist,

    On further review I am confident emfldphx is simply trolling as has no genuine beliefs other than in his own cleverness - tiresome and juvenile .

  • profile image

    Question or Two 5 years ago

    How can "cavitation" destroy a pump?

    Where does this cavitaion come from; is it air, or is it space (nothing)?

    How can "nothing" destroy a pump?

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Yes Fatfist, it is easy for you to say I have no arguments when you delete half of what I say. Your censorship about what you will allow and won't allow is astonishing.

    I gave you the courtesy of allowing you to answer my question using your terms. I apologize for using the question about light beams, so I changed it to a question about particles, since that idea is easier for you to grasp. You still haven't answered it.

    I know you can 'rationally' prove, using your own definitions, that two lasers can't be pointed at each other to create matter, but the fact is that it can be done in labs. I told you I can answer your question about 'waves' if you answer my question about particles colliding.

    Or, you can continue to censor my comments to fit your convenience.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    @Winston....emrldphx thinks that synonyms are actually definitions.

    @jomine....emrldphx has absolutely NO more arguments. All his posts are self-refuting. All his religious words, like "truth/fact/proof/evidence/energy" have nothing to do with science, much less reality. So the only argument he has now has to do with belly-aching about how I destroyed his Religion.

    I actually sympathize with him.....I was completely DEVASTATED when my friend explained to me why Santa Claus doesn't exist. Now I know how emrldphx feels about his gods which he calls "energy" and "wave"....and it's quite painful.

    @El Dude.....yeah, waves (ideas) actually do collide in emrldphx's Sunday School. His Pastor "proved" it to him.

    To anyone who sympathizes with emrldphx .....stop giving him emotional support and please help him get his $5000. This is the only cure for his belly-aches.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    He said that waves could collide?!

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    Fatfist,

    Perhaps this information can be of use to understand the necessity of precise definitions in scientific treatise:

    "An operational definition is generally designed to model a theoretical definition. The most operational definition is a process for identification of an object by distinguishing it from its background of empirical experience.

    The binary version produces either the result that the object exists, or that it doesn't, in the experiential field to which it is applied. The classifier version results in discrimination between what is part of the object and what is not part of it. This is also discussed in terms of semantics, pattern recognition, and operational techniques, such as regression."

    Without an operational definition, the distinction blurs between the nature of the object rock and the nature of the concept rock 'n roll. Both cannot be assumed real by the same standard.

  • profile image

    jomine 5 years ago

    Fatfist, I've to admire your patience, emrldphx is just posting the same stuff again and again, without ever bothering to understand. What I don't understand is, whether all religious people are just ignorant and idiotic or are they just feigning!

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    Einstein's equivalency equation does not suggest that matter can become energy or that energy can become matter, which would be the irrational assumption that ideas can transform into objects. Einstein only described a relationship between concepts: Energy and Mass.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “the subject on the table is my question”

    Absolutely NOT!!!

    I will not allow a circus atmosphere here. Everybody will be treated FAIRLY.

    You are not a happy camper when you post here. You are accusing me of “brushing” off your CLAIM as impossible.

    We will make sure that you are HAPPY, before engaging other topics. I want to make you right.

    I already settled your issues of: space, object, exist, energy, truth, proof, fact, evidence, Scientific Method...

    Now we will settle your burning issue of “waves colliding”.

    I answered your Q about waves and you are bellyaching......now the audience is waiting for you to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN your claim, like you said you can....you are on the record.

    REMEMBER: waves colliding is your claim!

    Do not post anything else here except YOUR rational explanation. All else will be swept into the bit bucket, so please stay on topic...thanks.

    P.S. If you can't, then just be honest about it....nothing to be embarrassed about.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Fatfist, the subject on the table is my question. I gave you the parameters last night.

    I can't answer your question about 'waves' until you deal with my question.

    You continue to demean and call me childish and say I'm bellyaching... just answer the question like you said you would. Then we can deal with the other topics.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    emrldphx,

    Don't elude your CLAIM any longer. You have been called out on your CLAIM. Grow up and be a MAN! I will PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice, charity, etc.

    I am on the RECORD!!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “This is why I can't pursue any arguments with you, other than one point at a time. “

    Exactly!! We will deal with ONE ISSUE AT A TIME and put it to REST, before raising other issues or questions....got it? You will not create a circus atmosphere here. My job is to methodically and rationally deal with your CLAIMS.....this is what science is about.

    If you want to act childish and bellyache all the time, then go get some emotional support in the Religion Forums...got it?

    emrldphx: “Wave question.....You brushed it off as impossible, even though it's been done.”

    emrldphx: “If I were speaking at a physics conference, I ABSOLUTELY could explain an experiment”

    Here is your chance to shine, emrldphx....put your money where your mouth is. Your audience is HERE and everywhere. I will reference THIS HUB to as many places as possible on the Internet so the whole world can see your rational scientific explanation....ok? I want EVERYONE to see that you can crush poor little fatfist, ok?

    One step at a time....

    PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW 2 WAVES, WHICH ARE CONCEPTS AND NOT OBJECTS....CAN PHYSICALLY COLLIDE WITH EACH OTHER.

    There you go!

    Do not elude this Q any further. We will deal with your burning issues one at a time until you are rationally SATISFIED.

    If you can rationally explain this, I promise to PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice. I am on the RECORD....I cannot turn back now. If I refuse to pay you, then I will be forced to take down all my hubs and delete my account out of sheer embarrassment.

    So let it be written.....so let it be done!

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    This is why I can't pursue any arguments with you, other than one point at a time. You did NOT answer my first question. You brushed it off as impossible, even though it's been done.

    So answer the same question, just phrased so you don't have a problem with it.

    Where does the matter come from in a particle accelerator when two particles collide at near-C speeds?

    You only show your true colors by continuing to avoid the issue. Where do the W+/W= bosons that appear in a particle accelerator come from when a positron and electron collide at near-C speeds?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi Winston,

    "These two notions should be enough to reject the idea of spacetime outright - instead, it has been bought as the neo-geocentric model - right as long as the Church of Ralativists says it is right."

    Of course, if people parrot what they memorized by rote from the Scriptures forced down their throats by their Priests,....no wonder they can't use their brains for critical thinking and Scientific analysis.

    They end up chasing their tails in circles and not understanding anything coming out of their mouths. We call this behavior: Speaking in Tongues!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    Now....your burning issue....

    “How can something that doesn't exist contour something?”

    Well you tell the crowd, emrldphx,....this is YOUR strawman!!

    Is space a ‘something’ to you?? Does space have borders, boundaries, perimeter, color, dimensions? Is space black?

    Something: that which has shape (synonym: object, particle, body, structure, thing, stuff....)

    I already defined Space: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing)

    REMEMBER: Space is the ONLY stand-alone term which is defined in negative terms....any other term for “nothing” is a synonym. As such, space does NOT exist. There is NO ‘thing’ which we can point to or illustrate or measure or displace or (insert ANY positive term)....and can call “space”!!!

    “How can something that doesn't exist contour something? Contouring is a verb”

    Indeed, countering is a VERB. Nothing (space, matterless, concepts, non-object) cannot perform events/actions/verbs. This makes sense and nobody can argue otherwise!!

    But....since “space” is a NEGATIVE term, and we must use it in a sentence in order to talk about it.....the sentence will never be textbook-grammatically correct.

    Ex. “I have nothing in my pocket”

    Q: Does that mean I have ‘something’??......No!

    Q: How can “nothing” be in my pocket?......’It’ cant!

    Anybody who pursues such childish arguments is just trolling with strawmans....and they know it!!

    emrldphx, you understand VERY WELL that a negative term causes textbook-grammar problems in every single sentence. This stand-alone negative term (space/nothing) must be used with verbs, nouns, and other constructs to build a sentence. But, we must explain the MEANING of this negative term.....and once we do....we can plug it into a sentence and understand full well the CONTEXT of the sentence based on the DEFINITION of this term. We don’t act like a child and quibble over the only stand-alone negative term in human language. We understand full well its implications and usage. We learn to deal with this term in Grammar School. Have you taken English grammar in university?

    Definitions precede all usage of terms. And this is the ONLY stand-alone term (there are prefixes too, like ‘a-‘, ‘im-‘, etc. but they are context-opposites) that causes grammatical problems, but yet it still IS a component of all languages. So I hope that your argument is that of ignorance, and not a childish strawman argument.

    Space (i.e., nothingness) is just another concept invented by Man. Nature does not “recognize” (euphemism) space...objects do NOT collide with space. Nature only recognizes objects.

    Nature deals with what is there (object with location) and not with what ain't there (has no location).

    Since space is a “place” (conceptual separation of objects), as opposed to an object, then an object cannot “displace” or “occupy” space, like a fish displaces water.

    And this is WHY it is IMPOSSIBLE for space to be created ....by Big Bang or by God. If God exists, He is imprisoned in space...He cannot escape space, like He can escape a prison cell, which has borders. Space cannot disappear or appear. Space was always there (again, remember context).

    The only reason this NEGATIVE term “space” can be treated differently than other terms is because we have to designate the “nothingness” that envelopes (ordinary speech) an object, that gives it contrast (ie. spatial separation). It's artificial. It can be used that way as long as we don't lose track of the CONTEXT OF ITS MEANING.

    “You already argued with me that things that don't exist can't perform actions, so how can space perform the action of contouring?”

    Yes, only ‘things’ can perform actions/events/verbs to other ‘things’... ONLY!!

    Space does NOT perform any action/event/verb. Space is the only stand-alone NEGATIVE term that we must use in a sentence. I already explained above how we deal with the grammatical limitations of this special stand-alone negative term “space”.

    No more strawman arguments about “space”!!!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “Fatfist. Are you going to even answer the question?”

    Your FIRST question was ANSWERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I will not play the game of 20 questions with you. I have better things to do than to EDUCATE you. I ALREADY answered one Q for you about waves....and it is IMPOSSIBLE for 2 waves (concepts) to collide with each other.

    So GROW UP, take it like a MAN, and don’t complain anymore!!

    We will deal with your immediate burning issues before you can ask any other questions for me to answer. And.....I will only answer ONE MORE question.....so TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT. If you FAIL this time to redeem yourself, then you cannot make it as a Scientist, and you should keep your discussions in the Religion Forums....ok? Deal?

    We will deal with your immediate burning issues before you can ask YOUR LAST question for me to answer.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    My impression is that neo-physicists reverse the scientific process in that the conjecture is assumed mathematically accurate and therefore it is reality which must be wrong. It is certainly unintuitive to think of Einstein's space-time as a warped sheet of plastic that makes planets hobble around bigger objects, but more that being unintuitive it is also unreasonable and irrational to make that assumption. And the reason it is unreasonable and irrational is due to the definitions we apply to space and time.

    Time is a scaler - a measurement.

    Space is the void that separates objects.

    How is it possible that either a measurement or a void can bend?

    These two notions should be enough to reject the idea of spacetime outright - instead, it has been bought as the neo-geocentric model - right as long as the Church of Ralativists says it is right.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    Fatfist,

    The only thing that matters is faith in the infallible sciences. "If two or more people are gathered together by gravity, there I will be also". - Alfred Einstein

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

    Is getting boring.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    I can't help it.

    You said "SPACE IS EVERYWHERE, contouring all objects (invisible or otherwise)".

    How can something that doesn't exist contour something? Contouring is a verb... it means the action of outlining. You already argued with me that things that don't exist can't perform actions, so how can space perform the action of contouring?

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Here is the question again, since you seem to have forgotten it:

    Where does the matter come from in a particle accelerator when two particles collide at near-C speeds?

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Fatfist. Are you going to even answer the question? I won't argue with you about anything else until you answer the question.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “The problem is, YOU are the one who constantly decides what is a KEY TERM “

    No!!!!

    If YOU CLAIM that “waves” collide, then by YOUR CLAIM, wave is a key term you MUST define or illustrate....got it? Grow up and stop bellyaching!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “If I were speaking at a physics conference, I ABSOLUTELY could explain”

    Great!

    Please explain how 2 waves collide? How do concepts collide?

    Think about it.....and I will respond tomorrow....see u later.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    The problem is, YOU are the one who constantly decides what is a KEY TERM which must be defined separately from the dictionary definition and what is 'ordinary speech'. I just asked if you are saying those experiments didn't happen, or if the results were fake.

    You still haven't answered, by the way. You keep going off on tangents about symantics, but you avoid so many of my questions. Please, answer the question. Then, if you feel like it, answer my questions about the experiments performed in particle accelerators.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    I read your response.

    If you think these experiments haven't taken place, why don't you take a field trip to a particle accelerator so you can actually watch the process?

    You can't just deny reality because it doesn't make sense to you. You are actually at the point where you are trying to rationally define reality. You say it can't happen... but it has happened... hundreds of times.

    If I were speaking at a physics conference, I ABSOLUTELY could explain an experiment, the parameters I setup, the methodology used, and the data collected. Then I would attempt to explain the data. You seem to think we can't use experimental data in science, even though that is the foundation of the scientific method.

    But before you argue with me over this, please answer the question.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “can we agree to understand that we each use different definitions for words? “

    Absolutely NOT! Science does not have multiple definitions for the key terms in order to please people’s personal tastes. Science is OBJECTIVE. Definitions are crisp and consistent across all contexts. This is what makes them scientific. And not because I say so....this is an objective criterion.

    If you don't like my defn...fine....I will accept your scientific ones, no problem!!!

    “We are arguing over semantics needlessly.”

    Scientific language is all about semantics. Definitions are crucial if they are to be used in an objective discipline such as science. Definitions had better be unambiguous and non-contradictory.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    emrldphx,

    You did not read my response to you.

    I SAID.....You can run any experiment you want. When you come to the Physics Conference, the onus in on YOU to explain to the audience your CLAIMS before you FORCE people to swallow them in an authoritative manner.

    You are making the claim. The onus is on YOU to explain it to the audience.

    If you INTERPRETED the results of your experiment erroneously...then I will show you where....just like I did in your WAVE COLLISION experiment. Waves are impossible to collide....they don't even exist. See how easy that was...

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    And please, for the future, can we agree to understand that we each use different definitions for words? It is safe to say when I ask if you deny something I am using the dictionary definition of ' to say that something is not true'.

    We are arguing over semantics needlessly.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    You are nitpicking over word choice. Are you saying that these experiments didn't happen? Are you saying the results are faked?

    In other words, all these particle accelerators we have, are you saying all the things they do with them, don't really happen?

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    One example of a collision

    1 - A Positron and an Electron. I can't show you a traditional picture because they are too small to see with visible light. Here is an illustration courtesy of NASA showing them conceptually: http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/image...

    2 - Positrons can be extracted from Neutrons via Positron Emmission(beta decay). The isotopes carbon-11, potassium-40, nitrogen-13, oxygen-15, fluorine-18, and iodine-121 all naturally decay and release these positrons. They are contained and controlled via electromagnetic fields. Positrons have a positive charge, so creating a negative electromagnetic field will suspend the positron. It's like floating a magnet above another magnet with the opposite charge. Electrons are similarly captured through beta-decay, from isotopes such as unstable hydrogen. Electrons are contained and controlled in the same way, just with an opposite charge.

    3 - Basically, with lots of magnets. Electromagnetic fields are generated and turned off in succession. This creates an effect of a moving electromagnetic field, and propels the positron and electron.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “Do you deny that the experiments of colliding light took place, or do you deny the results of matter appearing?”

    If I DENY God....will God vanish?

    If I DENY my right hand....will my right hand vanish this very second?

    Denial is an activity that is performed by atheists and theists.

    Denial/belief/disbelief/opinion are IRRELEVANT subjectivities. Nature could care less of our opinions. Nature can only be explained rationally.

    You can run any experiment you want. It does NOT mean that you have the faintest clue of what you are doing. Religionists run experiments every day, like praying, baptizing, speaking in tongues, bending space, stretching time, collide waves, measure beauty...etc.

    Experiments are SUBJECTIVE and observer-dependent on the person’s biases.

    You can run any experiment you want. When you come to the Physics Conference, the onus in on YOU to explain to the audience your CLAIMS before you FORCE people to swallow them in an authoritative manner.

    My job is to scientifically analyze your claims and rationally explain whether they are possible or impossible.....this is what the sci method is all about.

    REMEMBER: I am NOT making claims....YOU are.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Sure, I'll get the information for you. While I do that, do you want to address this question?

    Do you deny that the experiments of colliding light took place, or do you deny the results of matter appearing?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “What about when two particles collide? Can you answer that?”

    Particle is a synonym for object. Particles can indeed collide. Cars are particles which collide via surface-to-surface contact. I can illustrate a car.

    Emrldphx....can you please illustrate these alleged particles which you claim collide? Any online ref to an image will do.

    1) What kind of particles are these, do they have a name?

    2) Where did these particles come from?

    3) Were they loaded on some type of gun and shot in the accel chamber? If so, how were they handled if they are tiny...with micro-tweezers?

    I will gladly answer your question once I see a drawing of this particle on the blackboard.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Can you answer the other question then?

    I know now that you don't accept the results of experiments that don't make sense to you... fine.

    What about when two particles collide? Can you answer that?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Your CLAIM is IMPOSSIBLE, emrldphx.

    Furthermore, it is impossible for you or for anybody else to rationally explain (ie. theorize) how such an alleged event is even a REMOTE possibility in reality.

    Why? Because waves do NOT exist!

    You are committing the Fallacy of Reification. You are reifying the motion of an entity, to an OBJECT which can collide.

    Utter nonsense!

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Fatfist, I'm disappointed that you are avoiding the question.

    Can you answer this? Do you deny these experiments happened? Do you deny the results?

    Your disregard for science is utterly astounding.

    If I phrase the question as this, will you answer it?

    Where does the matter come from in a particle accelerator when two particles collide at near-C speeds?

    That doesn't have any words for energy, light, or waves in it... so can you answer that question?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    Remember emrldphx, ....any mention of energy or any mention of observer-dependent (unscientific) terms like truth/fact/proof/evidence....and your post will be purged in the bit bucket. You can re-edit it without those unscientific terms and re-post it (this is fair).

    Q: ((Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when radiation waves collide at extremely high energy levels?(they are both at speed of light). No matter was used in the collision, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.))

    Ok, so there is no matter at all in a chamber (part accel).

    But, emrldphx claims that “waves” collide. Let us analyze this claim scientifically....

    1) Collisions are events which require motion and surface-to-surface contact between at least 2 entities (ie. objects).

    2) Only objects can be in motion. Concepts cannot move. Love does not move mountains....bulldozers do! Without objects to change location, motion is not possible.

    3) Wave is a concept!! Wave is what something (ie. object) DOES. Wave is NOT what something IS. This is basic Kindergarten knowledge.

    4) Wave necessarily implies motion. The medium (object) undulates, like water, for example, moves vertically. We call this event which we conceive....wave!

    5) A medium (ie. object) is necessarily required to be set in motion, before we can call this phenomenon ‘wave’.

    6) Wave is a concept. Wave does not exist.

    Sorry emrldphx....but your CLAIM is irrational (unscientific). Perhaps in Religion waves, angels and spirits can collide....but not in reality.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    I will re-phrase the question to not include the word energy.

    Where does the matter come from that appears in a particle accelerator when two beams of light collide?

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    I never said energy is an object, but it doesn't matter. For the purposes of the question, you can use your definition of exist = object + location and energy=concept=doesn't exist.

    There is no reason for you to continue avoiding the question. Keep your word and answer it.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Fatfist, I am allowing you to answer the question with your definition of energy not existing.

    Why can't you answer the question? As soon as you do, I will show you why you are wrong about energy.

    Or, are you going to back down again and not answer it?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Please....somebody out there.....a PhD, a professor, a Nobel winner, anybody.....can you PLEASE define energy to show that it is an object that exists, even though it has units of kg x m^2/s^2??

    Somebody please help emrldphx!!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Stay on topic, emrldphx.

    Energy does NOT exist as I explained!

    It is irrational (unscientific) to CLAIM that concepts exist.

    If you don't agree, I cannot help you, and we cannot proceed. You cannot mention the word energy again in my hubs because it is not a mediator or actor which performs events/action/work/....any verb! If you agree, we can proceed.

    If not, then you will need to consult the professional services of an expert in the Religion Forums to help you deal with this devastating realization.

    Now you understand how I felt when my friend at school explained to me that Santa Claus does NOT exist.....I was DEVASTATED!!!!!!!!!!! My God...was I ever!!!

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Please understand, I am trying to encourage this discussion to continue for educational purposes. Even though I don't agree with you, I am letting you use your definitions for the terms energy and exist to answer my question.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Why won't you answer the question? I was just clarifying. I said you are allowed to use your definitions, but I never agreed that they are what I think is correct.

    Twice you have agreed to answer that question, and now you have backed down again. I can only assume that you can't come up with a reason other than

    A - The matter comes from nothing

    -or-

    B - The matter comes from energy

    But please! for the 14th time, answer the question and show why I'm wrong!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “ I never agreed that energy doesn't exist. “

    Fine, so we will settle this issue right here and now before discussing anything else.

    Since you cannot offer a SCIENTIFIC defn of exist, we will use exist=object+location. Your defn was observer-dependent which I instantly refuted.

    You said: “ENERGY: the ability to do work”

    Ergo, energy is a concept, a quantity with units (kg x m^2/s^2). Units do not do work. Units do not have abilities. Speed (km/h) does not do work. It is the car which does work .....it is OBJECTS which do work.....not speeds, not lengths, no hectares, not love, not energy. Basic stuff.

    Since energy is a concept, you cannot illustrate it on the blackboard for the audience in the Physics Conference. Thus, energy necessarily does NOT exist. We’re done!

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    "REMEMBER: You agreed that energy does not exist because energy is not an object!"

    I did no such thing. You deleted my comments, and now claim that I agree due to my 'silence'. Assuming an argument is won due to silence is a logical fallacy. I never agreed that energy doesn't exist. That's the point of this question. If energy doesn't exist, then these experiments create matter from nothing.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    "Please don’t ask me to look up stuff. Remember, this is your claim. All I want to see are your rational posts here. And no arguments from authority please."

    It's not an argument from authority. I'm referring you to one specific scientific experiment. I did not present any information based off of the authority of an expert.

    I refer you to an experiment because I don't happen to have a particle accelerator to show you for this discussion. So, I refer you to the results of one such test.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Really, I could ask the question either way. In some experiments only radiation energy is used. In others, particles are used. You can pick whichever one. I apologize for the confusion. Either way, the scientific explanation is that, utilizing E=mc^2, energy can be transformed into matter.

    Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when radiation waves collide at extremely high energy levels?(they are both at speed of light). No matter was used in the collision, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.

    There's your question. And no, we didn't agree on what energy is, you deleted my arguments about it. But I am allowing you to use your definition to explain where the matter comes from.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi emrldphx,

    “In case you are interested, one example you can look at”

    Please don’t ask me to look up stuff. Remember, this is your claim. All I want to see are your rational posts here. And no arguments from authority please. You should be able to explain your own claims....and you can get info from wherever you want, but you cannot claim proof/truth as this is unscientific....you can only explain. The scientific method is all about rational explanation....where you get this explanation from is irrelevant.

    “Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when two particles collide at 'near-speed-of-light' speeds?..... no matter was used in the collision. It was strictly radiation that was collided into itself”

    To eliminate confusion, we must restate your statement as you intend it to be....

    ((Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when radiation waves collide at 'near-speed-of-light' speeds? No matter was used in the collision, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.))

    Please confirm that this is the Q you like to ask me, or modify it the way you like. Thanks.

    “Where did the extra matter come from if it wasn't energy turning into matter?”

    Again...we already agreed that energy is an abstract dynamic concept (kg x m^2/s^2) which describes the motion of an object. It is impossible for concepts like energy/love/justice/belief/elation to turn into matter,.... just like speed (120 km/h) cannot turn into matter. This makes sense.

    REMEMBER: You agreed that energy does not exist because energy is not an object!

    So let’s just deal with one Q at a time.....the one (()) above.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Also, I want to clarify that in the case of the Stanford experiment, no matter was used in the collision. It was strictly radiation that was collided into itself, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Ok Fatfist. You promised to answer this before, and I have asked over a dozen times, but here goes.

    Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when two particles collide at 'near-speed-of-light' speeds?

    You can use your own definitions you have provided for the terms exist and energy.

    In case you are interested, one example you can look at is from September 16, 1997, at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California.

    Where did the extra matter come from if it wasn't energy turning into matter?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Please ask one Q for now, emrldphx,....stay on topic....and please provide the details to your question. I will scientifically analyze your Q, so I may need to ask a thing or two from you in order to understand it, before I can answer....deal?

  • emrldphx profile image

    emrldphx 5 years ago from USA

    Fatfist. There is no problem with you answering my questions using your definitions. You are dodging the issue because you would have to contradict yourself to answer either of them.

    Do you want to show me that I'm wrong? Then answer them.

    You go on and on about the same topics, while not addressing my points. To do so is logically fallacious.

  • Timothy Donnelly profile image

    Timothy Donnelly 5 years ago from Ontario, Canada

    @ AKA Winston, In a court of law, before judgement is made, all testimonies are considered. The infamous killer's testimony was considered, as it surely should have been; whether it was accepted as fact is another matter. BTW, truth and fact can be different realities; in other words, for the psychopath, their "truth" probably is not fact in reality, except in their own reality, of course.

    When applying the scientific method for establishing truth and fact, with repeatable results, reality can be reliably established for the person who so applies the test. It is not rocket science, it is faith science.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi Timothy,

    “google "scientific method to test faith"

    In science we don’t test concepts like faith/love/justice/sadness/comfort/etc. In science we identify the objects (God) of our Hypothesis, define the KEY terms (object, exist, etc.) so the audience understands what we say.....and proceed to the Theory where we use the ACTORS in our Hypothesis i.e. God, to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN the alleged event (claim) of Creation. Understand?

    If you wish to pay somebody to test how strong is your FAITH in your current relationship, by all means be my guest. But such subjective activities do not concern science. Science is predicated on objectivity.

  • Timothy Donnelly profile image

    Timothy Donnelly 5 years ago from Ontario, Canada

    fatfist, google "scientific method to test faith", then read the article and see if Step 3 and 4 specifically may be acceptable (like it is in the established scientific community) to your consideration of whether there is a God (a Supreme Creator of the Universe - as we understand it) or not; it is just another way to perhaps establish your own position, or it is simply a different approach look at things.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    (From this point, however, it definitely IS worth considering people's "Testimonies")

    Yes, Timothy, so we should also definitely consider the "testimony" of David Berkowicz, AKA Son of San, who testified under oath that the neighbor's dog had ordered him to kill.

    And as emrldphx has so wisely pointed out, science has never disproved that this particular neighbor's dog cannot talk, and talking dogs may well be the norm if we only uncovered the "talking dog energy" that allows them to speak.

    With so many realms of possibility open, I vote for letting the son-of-a-bitch out of jail immediately. After all, who could have said "No" to a Rotweiller?