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

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

Updated on June 3, 2014

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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



WHAT IS GOD?

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

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

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

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

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

Object: that which has shape.

Exist: an object having location.

Location: the set of distances to all other objects.

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

Whether God is....

· Invisible

· Untouchable

· Unknowable

· Undetectable

· Untestable

· Hidden

· Mysterious

· Almighty

· Complex

· Not able to be scientifically analyzed and evidenced

· Etc.....

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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



WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST?

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

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

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

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

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

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



CONCLUSION

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

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

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    "what separates object from space?"

    Space is nothing. An object is something. There is no provision for "separating" an object from nothing because it ain't something.

    space: that which lacks shape; syn: nothing, void, vacuum

    object: that which has shape.

    Space and object are the antithesis of each other. The term "separate" doesn't even apply in this context.

  • profile image

    sekharpal 2 years ago

    Object is separated from space. But what separates object from space? Is it another object? Or, is it some more space? What I mean to say is this: if object is separated from space, then what is in between object and space? Because if nothing is in between object and space, then object and space are not in reality separated from each other.

  • profile image

    Ryan 2 years ago

    Good stuff, man. Enjoyed the article.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

  • profile image

    Leo 2 years ago

    I see the hole.

    I'm pumping a vacuum into this box.

  • profile image

    Leo 2 years ago

    What is the definition of shape?

    Also, what is the definition of definition? I'm not sure if these are trick questions. Let me know if they are and why?

    Wait...how could something be a trick question...according to what authority?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

    Now I'm really confused. Evangelist Kevin O'Brien says that God told him He uses evolution on a daily. And he's not alone, there are many Theistic Evolutionists.

    Guess you can't trust Christians to tell you the truth.

  • profile image

    LoverOfGod 2 years ago

    What makes evolution more real than Creation? Evolution is just a theory, not the truth. Also if you think about it, Creation makes more sense than evolution. I think a non-believer should still at least give God a chance and get to know Him. God still loves you and he wants you to know Him and accept Him in your heart so that you can go to Heaven. God thinks YOU are the best person in the world, and is hoping every second that you will get to know Him. So give God a chance and give evolution a break.

  • profile image

    Believer 2 years ago

    Evolution makes as much sense as unicorns. The big false bang makes no sense either. You can't just have something and explode it and get living organisms out of it. Then those organisms 'evolve' and eventually comes to a man. Fact 1 that evolution is stupid: Darwin's Finches. Apparently there beaks get larger and that's a sign of evolution. The pictures of beaks getting larger is called adaptation. Those little birdies are just adapting to their environment. Fact 2 that evolution is stupid: Scientists think we're evolving and gaining more knowledge. That is called human progress. We humans are just progressively getting smarter and learning new things. Fact 3 that evolution is stupid (this one you can do at home!) : Go buy something that explodes and explode it. You see that when it explodes that all of the sudden you create an universe. Actually no, a universe isn't created, just some fire and mabye chaos if you did it in public. Fact 4 that evolution is stupid: Look at the Earth. The big freaking bang just so happened to make our Earth at a perfect distance away from the Sun so we don't freeze and die or overheat and die. So that means when the Earth was there and we were evolving, we were in the perfect temperature to live. That shows us there had to be a Creator and position the Earth for us. Then there were people that actually went to heaven and back. And they couldn't have been dreaming beacause they were dead. Go on ahead and post something that says Creation is dumb. Or what you could do is know God. But if you don't want to, then hey, let satan torture you in Hell, I did try to help you. There is so much evidence pointing to Christianity than evolution. But remember that you have a choice and God is waiting for you to make that choice. Right now you should make that choice, because you may die tomorrow or today, or mabye your reading this at your dying breath. Take a chance with God. If you die and nothing happens, then you were right. But if you die and go to Heaven or Hell, then you'll know that I was right. Believe in God.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

    Krillco, you are talking to yourself again. Better take your meds!

  • krillco profile image

    William E Krill Jr 2 years ago from Hollidaysburg, PA

    Since you do not exist, I shall not respond.

  • Jethu262 profile image

    Jethu262 2 years ago from Cincinatti

    Lol, that Righteousdefender post made my night. So much emotion. Drama. Anger.

    I love it when people mention the crucifixion of Heyzus. They sit with a straight face- and I don't think they even read into this deeply- and tell you about how god sent himself to earth, preached his own word, sacrificed himself- to himself, so that he would forgive you of your sins- which HE determined to be sins, to save you from the hell that HE created. Wow! I've never understood why people believe this bullshit!

    fatfist, I hated you after reading one or two of your articles, but after five or six I began to love you. No one can convincingly refute anything you say, which makes for good internet times. Keep up the good work my friend, stir up more shit and get these numbskulls to think a bit more about the dumbassery they assert as "truth".

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Korrect, krillco. It's impossible to prove anything. Proof is an anthropocentric concept that always resolves to OPINION.

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

    If you cannot refute a simple movie, then you have no business talking about reality.

    Science is about EXPLAINING, not opining!

  • krillco profile image

    William E Krill Jr 2 years ago from Hollidaysburg, PA

    I declare that fatfist does not exist, and no one can prove h/she does.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    " ‘love’ or ‘nothing’ are just concepts"

    Exactly!

    concept: a relation between objects.

    object: that which has shape.

    Stay on topic, be a man, grab the bull by the horns and address the issues directly without going off in tangents. This place is not for preaching your beliefs and unjustifiable claims. You can try an Atheist forum for your Religious drivel, those clowns eat it up. This is your last warning.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

    HahA! That's some selfritcheousdefender wall of shameonyou right thar!

  • profile image

    Righteousdefender 2 years ago

    How bold a claim that you do make my friend. One that is substantiated by your very mind with its sensory boundaries and lack of sight. You claim that things like ‘love’, ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ are just concepts. That is what you believe and that is how you live your life. Then you say that because of this, because you cannot see nor touch them, that they are only figments of the imagination or mental constructs. This is your grounds base on your limited senses. Is the air no real because I cannot touch it. Does me believing that it is a concept make it any less of a thing? Has history not happened because I was not there? Was it just a concept and a mental concept that we all agreed to believe? Or is it real? Who are you to judge and to take away the choice from both others and yourself base on what you can see and touch and rationalize. How petty are the rationalities of a man without knowledge, or a man who is puffed up in what he does know, which is woefully little. You have the answers to the universe my friend, I am assuming. You have been to every point and time to give a testament to the fact that your words actually were created and are therefore things and not just a concept which will make all that you say valid. No, you were not. You were not there to see the creation of everything and even if you were, who would believe you? Why is belief even necessary? Because truly, all we have, is right now. You can neither look backwards into the past nor see forward into the future. All you have right this instant is the belief that you still are and have been from a certain date. Then you have others to tell you that this is the truth. What do you know? I claim to know only Christ and Him crucified and resurrected, but you claim that there can be no God. How does the clay know the potter exists or the computer realize that humans are what created unless it has faith. Where does your boldness come and why is it here. Was it always there or did you facilitate and create it? You try to answer battle against something that always was and always will be, and you do not realize that you are lost in the futility of your own perception because you judge only by what you can see, and touch, and taste. Not by what is told to you as truth and life based on faith which is the only thing you have in this world right now. Faith and that ever powerful choice to believe or to not. So do not strip those who are weak in mind and in strength of this beautiful choice. How can you? Do you make yourself the god of your own religion in which people take your word as doctrine? Then you are a hypocrite. You wish to free the people of an imagined bondage but do not realize that you put on your own chains as you write. Leave the people with a choice because you have no right to take it from them. It is useless quibbles and vanity that the lives of men consist of. All that we know is that there is good and evil, right and wrong. Because without that knowledge, there would be no room for you to talk because you will have already been killed by someone who didn’t like what you had to say and I would not be able to speak as I would because there would be no reason to. We are meant to love, I know this. Time and time again love prevails. Love is God. Not the petty emotion or passionate feelings but the unrelenting sacrifice that love truly is. It is okay for you to be adored or left alone in your want and in your misery but do not cast the darkness and futility of your mind where it is not wanted. Cast your lot with that hopeless group that has not faith enough to even believe that they have a brain in their head and air in their lungs because they cannot see it, touch it, feel it, or taste it. Go and be lost in the futility of your senses but do not weigh heavy your anchors of apathy and godlessness on us. Leave us with a choice. Leave me with a choice, and I shall leave you with yours. Speak when spoken to for your words lack wisdom and therefore you should only open your mouth out of necessity.

  • profile image

    Sandibear764 2 years ago

    Enjoyed this article. I would like, however, to suggest that "God" is possibly both a concept and an object. I come to this perspective after reading "A History of God." A well researched and well thought out book that explains the evolution of how we came to the current view of God over time through the construction of what is now called the Bible. The concept of a one and only God that many Christians believe in, was not the original God of the Old Testament. Rather, people began worshipping many gods. Though these many gods have essentially been relegated to mere myth, it was through the belief and worship of these many gods that a one and only God Creator began to be constructed.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    " If the hypothesis is explained"

    Science doesn't explain hypotheses. A hypothesis is an assumption used to explain an event in a theory, like theory of creation. And there is no certainty as that requires proof, and proof always resolves to opinion. So certainty = OPINION. Educate yourself.

    "God, defined by certain theologians"

    God is an object. Objects are illustrated and named by humans before they are referenced in a sentence. Only concepts can possibly be defined. Objects are impossible to define.

    idiot Razi: "You briefly address God as a concept in this article:"

    fat: "Those who claim that God is a concept like love, truth or intelligence, will summarily have excluded God from existence."

    Razi, it's quite obvious that you are dumber than a sack of rotting potatoes since you haven't a clue about Science, hypothesis, theory, etc. and keep chasing your tail in contradictions. But LYING will not be tolerated. Cease and desist the lying or your fanny will be booted, comprende? You can go lie somewhere else.

  • profile image

    Razi Alaster 2 years ago

    I need to make one correction: "God, in this hypothesis, resolves to an object because it is hypothesized to have form, but the referent is rationally explained to be impossible.

  • profile image

    Razi Alaster 2 years ago

    The referent is uncertain. At best, we can hypothesis an object and rationally explain the possibility or impossibility of the referent. If the hypothesis is explained to be impossible, the hypothesis is discarded, the referent is explained to be impossible. Science does not deal with the referents, but only hypotheses that can be rationally explained to be possible.

    What we say in ordinary speech (shorthand) is irrelevant. This article is a rational argument and saying "rock is an object" is not the same as saying "rock is a hypothesized object." One infers certainty, the other possibility. Science deals only in possibilities, not certainties.

    In this article, you are addressing a hypothesized object, God, defined by certain theologians (see "What is God" above). God, in this hypothesis, resolves to an object because it performs actions and the referent is rationally explained to be impossible.

    Any critical thinker will critically think about the entire article. You briefly address God as a concept in this article:

    "Those who claim that God is a concept like love, truth or intelligence, will summarily have excluded God from existence."

    Concepts are not claimed, concepts are only defined. A concept cannot be defined as an object because concepts do not exist.

    Where is my confusion?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Razi, you are talking in riddles because you still don't understand the difference between objects and concepts.

    All words in all languages are concepts. Even the words 'rock', 'car' and 'object' are concepts....linguistic concepts or more succinctly, lexical concepts.

    If the referent of a term resolves to that which has shape, then we say that term refers to an OBJECT. In shorthand we say: rock is an object. And we are NOT referring to the lexical concept 'rock', but its referent.

    Same with God. Please have a look at that pic of God again. He's an object. We can point to Him. We can make a statue of Him and bring it to the Physics Conference to attempt to explain the Theory of Creation.

    The term God necessarily refers to an object. It has to because God performs ACTIONS. Concepts cannot perform actions.

    Don't confuse the lexical term/concept with its referent, like Mathematicians & Atheists do.

    Here's a quick and short tutorial explaining these issues in detail:

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

  • profile image

    Razi Alaster 2 years ago

    fatfist,

    God is not an object. God is an English word (concept) defined to hypothesize an object by certain theologians (i.e. the Bible) as presented by you.

    This article addresses this specific hypothesis. There is nothing to argue here.

    I highlighted an unanswered question, I don't offer any answers, as God defined as a concept is necessary and entirely different than God hypothesized as an object. If you simply claim to assert that God is the only non-hypothesized (certain) object in the universe, you are just as hypocritical as the rest of us.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Razi,

    God is an object. He performs actions, like listening to your prayers. He created the Universe. He became a burning bush. He wrote the 10 Commandments. Concepts can't do that.

    Here, look at God for yourself. He's an object. He has shape:

    http://brandonvogt.com/wp-content/uploads/Angry-Go...

    Where is the difficulty?

  • profile image

    Razi Alaster 2 years ago

    I get it. Nothing to argue with here.

    God is defined unambiguously as an object. The source for this definition are the theologians who hypothesized such an object (enough said).

    This hypothesis, rationally explained through the definitions of Physics (this is important, as nouns according to physics and nouns in ordinary speech are different), is shown to be irrational and impossible. Therefore, God cannot be an object.

    Those who assert that God is a concept are surrendering God's existence by the virtue of a concept. Therefore, God as a concept must necessarily be non-existent.

    To be clear, the argument states that God cannot be an object, can be a concept, but one must surrender its existence if a concept.

    So, as fatfist likes to say ... whether you like it or not, according to the Science of Existence, it is impossible for any God (object or concept) to exist.

    That is the article. Nothing really to say there.

    Some comments that pertain more to the comment section.

    Though concepts don't exist, they can be necessary to rationally explain relationships, i.e. A dog (object) chases (concept) a cat (object). The nouns (concept) of Physics (concept) are objects (concept).

    In the comments, fatfist clarifies this nicely illustrating the necessity of space (concept) to explain the relationship (motion) of objects, even though space does not exist.

    "Space necessarily 'wraps' all existing objects and gives them spatial separation, which is the pre-condition to motion. Since objects are separated by space, one object can move and collide with another."

    If one is encourage to question everything, then the only question left by the article concerning the topic of God, is whether God, as a concept, is necessary to explain any relationships? Physics cannot answer this question as the Science of Existence is not concerned with the non-existent, whether you like it or not.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    tt,

    What do you mean by...

    time:_____

    energy:____

    dimension:___

    Please define and explain what these terms have to do with reality.

    .

    “I completely missed your logic leading to your conclusion.”

    I would certainly hope so. Logic has nothing to do with reality or Physics. Please educate yourself on what logic is because you are begging to sound like an Atheist after a night of binge drinking at a Feminist rally.

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

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

  • profile image

    tt 2 years ago

    sorry... your argument is pretty bad. I agree that the Bible claims God is an object, but you ignore time, energy, and multidimensionality. I completely missed your logic leading to your conclusion.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Thank God for disagreements!

  • SAQIB6608 profile image

    SAQIB 2 years ago from HYDERABAD PAKISTAN

    Well I disagree fatfist, God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent. God is in our minds and hearts. GOD really exists. Just thank God if grantes happiness and ask God,in any trouble.

    God is the creator indeed.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    That's proof enough for me, thanks!

  • profile image

    Dan Bruce 2 years ago

    New Book

    Proof of God: Hard Evidence for 21st Century Skeptics

    If you are skeptical about the reality of the God of the Bible, but open to the possibility that his existence can be proven to your satisfaction if there is real evidence that you can verify for yourself, this book is for you. Using an ancient prophecy and its modern fulfillment spanning more than two millennia in history—the only passage in the Bible that actually proves God is alive and well and active in the affairs of Mankind today—the evidence is laid out for you to verify for yourself. No faith is required to see the evidence of God’s existence. All you need is the ability to think and reason logically as an open-minded skeptical inquirer

    Read preview on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O2OON6M#reader_B00O2OO...

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 3 years ago from Heaven

    But what you think started everything”

    Ummm….Intergalactic….did you even read the article? Creation or beginning to matter is IMPOSSIBLE.

    love it

    Theosophy seems to agreed with fatfist.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “So if matter cannot be created: where did matter come from?”

    Too many basic, childish, Kindergarten errors! Do you see the contradictory question you asked? No?

    Here, let me give you some more examples on top of the one you already gave. Maybe you can understand the irrationality of your question….

    1) So if pigs don’t fly: where did pigs learn to fly?

    2) So if a feather isn’t heavier than a car: why is the feather heavier than the car?

    3) So if a cat can’t be both dead and alive: why is a cat both dead and alive?

    4) So if you can’t hit more than 100% of the targets: how is it that you can hit more than 100% of the targets?

    Do you see the fallacy in your reasoning?

    .

    “I understand you believe…”

    Clearly you’ve understood NOTHING….NADA….ZIP…..INFINITE NOTHING…..THE RECIPROCAL OF INFINITY!

    No where in any of my articles do I state any BELIEFS. I always EXPLAIN what I say…..and I do so rationally….without contradictions. Nobody cares what people’s beliefs are. Beliefs are OPINIONS…are subjective and have nothing to do with reality.

    When you come to the Physics Conference and stand up on the podium and handed the microphone….you had better EXPLAIN rationally whatever it is you are going to say about Creation from nothing. If you can’t….then the audience will throw eggs at you….storm onto the podium, attack you, remove your clothes, hang you upside down from the ceiling and everyone will take turns whipping your white pasty anemic buttocks with their belts. Got it?

    .

    “But what you think started everything”

    Ummm….Intergalactic….did you even read the article? Creation or beginning to matter is IMPOSSIBLE. The default position is that matter is eternal. It is up to the morons who assert otherwise to explain in detail how nothing (i.e. no shape) magically morphs into something (an object with shape).

    Understand?

  • profile image

    Intergalactic Rube 3 years ago

    So if matter cannot be created: where did matter come from? I understand you believe it has always been. But what you think started everything. I.e. Not the big bang or an all powerful being.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Time must exist before matter can be created”

    Whoa! Come again? You have too many errors in your reasoning as I will explain…..

    Time is a concept, not an object. Only objects can possibly exist. Concepts are relations between objects. That’s why time doesn’t exist.

    Object: that which has shape

    Concept: a relation between objects

    Exist: an object having a location

    Time is a scalar quantity used for quantifying motion.

    Time: A scalar quantity established by an observer to relate the relative motion between two objects, where one object’s motion is referenced as a pre-established agreed-upon standard (i.e. seconds, days, years).

    For example, when the hand (objet 1) on your watch moves a second, the Earth (object 2) moved approximately 30 km on its orbit, and a cesium atom waved (i.e. oscillated) 9 billion times. You are comparing the distance traveled by the hand on your watch (or the oscillation of an atom) against a distance traveled by another object.

    As you can see, my dear John….the concept of ‘time’ necessarily requires a MINIMUM of 2 objects to exist before it can be conceived. This means that matter HAS TO EXIST before you can conceive of time.

    Therefore, matter is eternal. There was no Creation….and certainly no Creator God.

  • profile image

    John Berbatis 3 years ago

    Logical proof of Monotheism.

    Theos – The Supreme Good

    Time must exist before matter can be created and only an animate entity can conceive of space-time; time must be a stabilized and uniform condition before matter can form, thus monotheism is a Truth.

    The universe consists of space-time, which is functionally active, stable and growing; and these characteristics combined are indicative of a living entity, thus Pantheism is a reality. As a consequence, all mortals’ behaviour and attitudes become conspicuous by our Creator.

    If all electrical particles were in different time zones, matter would not form, thus, time is controlled electromagnetic radiation (energy) E = mc2 To be perfect, one must know the past, present and future; there is only one, the one that created time.

    John Berbatis,

    Perth, Australia

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “But to be technical, who said that God ever created space? I certainly didn't.”

    Nobody cares if you do. It is the Theologian’s Theory that God created space, matter, time, evil, etc. Just read some Theology and Philosophy over the past 2000 years and you will see these claims.

    Regardless, you concede that God did not create space and that He is an object, which necessarily has the background of space. If God did not create space, then God did not create the Universe as Theologians allege.

    .

    “However we don't know if matter even always existed, it's just a man-made theory, right?”

    This is not an issue of knowing. Knowledge is your OPINION and nothing more. Science has NO knowledge or other opinions. Science only explains Theories rationally.

    And no….that “matter is eternal” is NOT a Theory. Eternal Universe is the default position.

    Why?

    Because 'Eternal Universe' can never be a Theory. You cannot explain a mechanism that made the Universe eternal....I mean, was it non-eternal (created) prior to being eternal? Contradiction! Eternal Universe is not a phenomenon…..not a Theory....no explanation is even possible.

    It is basic reasoning such as this which the trolls of Mathematical Fizzics (especially Atheists) will never understand. Hence why they come here to post strawman & emotional arguments.

    Creation is a proposal….a claim of an alleged phenomenon ….a process….an event. Such a claim is obviously conceived by a human. A human cannot possibly conceive of a “claim” for an eternal Universe….there is no such possible claim to be made. Eternal matter is the default position, understand?

    Creation is a claim that necessarily requires a mechanism explaining the process. If the proponent of Creation has no explanation, then all they have is irrational belief and nothing else. And those who are familiar with the reasoning behind it, will understand why Creation is ontologically impossible.

    Try to understand the reasoning here without letting your emotions get the best of you. We are talking Physics here, not Religion.

    .

    “I personally believe that everything in this world has a beginning as well as an end”

    ‘Things’ don’t have beginnings or endings. You need to understand what you speak of here because you’re contradicting yourself.

    Physical ‘things’ (i.e. objects) do not have a beginning. The terms ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ refer to time metrics….to verbs….to processes. Not to objects, like stars, planets, chairs, humans, etc.

    Only processes (i.e. verbs), like running, jumping, eating, farting, etc. can have a beginning and an end. Objects like stars and planets don’t. There is no micro-second tick of a clock when a non-planet all of a sudden BEGINS to be a planet….nor is there a specific time when a planet ENDS being a planet. Matter is eternal. Objects are ASSEMBLED from eternal matter.

    .

    “What is the matter that you are referring to”

    The fundamental unit of matter (just call it FUM for argument’s sake) which everything is comprised from, even the very atoms themselves. This matter is irreducible…..cannot be split….cannot be destroyed and morphed into nothing….nor can be created (i.e. space morphing into matter).

    .

    “how do we know that matter had always existed and will exist unless we find out the answer ourselves?”

    Knowledge = Opinion! What one claims to ‘know’ is what’s dear & sweet to their heart.

    In Physics we don’t preoccupy ourselves with such nonsense. In Physics we grab the bull by the horns and use our critical thinking skills (i.e. the brain God gave us) to reason our statements without contradictions. This is how….

    Objects cannot be created from nothing. Objects can only be ASSEMBLED from pre-existing objects, like atoms, molecules, etc.

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

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

    No matter how powerful you claim God to be, the Almighty cannot morph nothing (i.e. no shape) into something (i.e. with shape). There is NO ‘thing’ there to morph or convert. Morph/convert/create/assemble are VERBS. ALL verbs are concepts and necessarily require a MINIMUM of 2 objects that already EXIST in order for the verb/action to be mediated by an entity (i.e. God). We learn this in Grammar 101.

    Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

    So God needs to exist beside matter (i.e. atoms) before He can use matter to assemble a planet.

    For example: God all alone in space cannot perform any action (i.e. morph/convert/create/assemble/etc.) on nothing. It is IMPOSSIBLE to perform any action on nothing…..impossible! Matter is eternal, understand?

    Makes perfect sense. An assembler God must exist alongside eternal matter before He can assemble a barn out of that pre-existing matter. We can call this assembler God a carpenter if you like.

    .

    “that because matter cannot be destroyed or created, that God couldn't possibly have created the Universe?”

    Exactly! The term “God” refers to “THE CREATOR OF SPACE AND MATTER” in accordance with Theology. Since space & matter cannot be created, then obviously a creator God is impossible. You can worship Lady Gaga as your God if you like (as many actually do)….but she’s no Creator. Humans have evolved to worship. They have this innate desire to worship authorities, gods, celebrities, etc.

    “You say that since space has no border, it is impossible for God to transcend space. I would ask "I thought you said he was all-powerful? So wouldn't God be able to find some way to break that rule?"

    What rule? There are no rules in reality. Rules are invented by man to brainwash the masses and control them.

    It all boils down to critical thinking and elementary reasoning, regardless of any rules someone can force down your throat with a gun to your head. Dictatorship is not part of Physics. Physics is about critical thinking and rational explanations without contradictions.

    Space: that which lacks shape

    The term ‘space’ refers to nothing. Nothing has no shape, no borders, no boundaries. Hence, nothing there to cross or transcend. It’s that simple. Elementary reasoning.

    .

    “You'll have to forgive me, I am a person who tries to look at the world past my human intellect, and I often question is there more to the world than just what we see now.,,,, Before I go... I would like to apologize for my earlier comment ”

    Yes, you need to question what people are trying to shove down your throat. But at the same time, you need to use your brain for reasoning and making sure you understand what you are trying to push forward to others. Because if you don’t understand it, then someday, someone will find the contradictions in your reasoning. This is how we learn…by making mistakes and FIXING them. There is no other way to move forward in life. And no need to apologize for anything. I don’t want people feeling like they need to apologize here. The only requirement is to talk rationally, no contradictions, define your terms objectively and justify what you say with a rational explanation. This is what Science is all about. If you wish to BELIEVE in God, this is your right, keep it to yourself. But please…..don’t come here and push your beliefs as Science. Belief is divorced from Science.

  • profile image

    EnigmaoftheNorth 3 years ago

    Oh, I'm sorry for being so hasty to deny the points in your article. I'll start over. You say 1st:

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

    Number 1: That doesn't disprove the existence of God, anyone and everyone learns that space is the absence of substance, so of course it can't be created, not even by God. Space can only be filled by something. It doesn't show how God doesn't exist. But to be technical, who said that God ever created space? I certainly didn't.

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

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

    Yep... we already know this from science class. However we don't know if matter even always existed, it's just a man-made theory, right? There is no evidence of matter always existing and personally, I think the Big Bang theory is idiotic. I will agree with you though, space has, and will always exist, and you're right about another point. A random explosion just doesn't come out of nowhere and it doesn't have the capacity to form or create, only destroy, as explosion are only destructive forces. However there's still my question: "What does this have to do with proving whether or not God exists?" I personally believe that everything in this world has a beginning as well as an end... or wait. You could have a point. Still I don't see how you equate this to God's nonexistence, or are you trying to say that because matter cannot be destroyed or created, that God couldn't possibly have created the Universe? If you are... I would like to ask: What is the matter that you are referring to, the raw elements themselves or the man-made items we see everyday, and how do we know that matter had always existed and will exist unless we find out the answer ourselves? I usually perceive it as the latter (Man made inventions), which is why I often see the "Matter can not be created or destroyed" argument as moot.

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

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

    Aahh okay, let me see... again I don't think anyone ever said that God created space. It's impossible. It was only stated (at least in the Holy Bible and other texts) that he created Heaven and Earth... no one said anything (to my knowledge) about God creating space... so where did you get your assumption?

    Next point: You say that since space has no border, it is impossible for God to transcend space. I would ask "I thought you said he was all-powerful? So wouldn't God be able to find some way to break that rule?" but it would only make me sound like an idiot. You did in fact stump me on this. I guess in the end though it's all a matter on our own perception when it comes to the wonders of something like space. What you perceive as an endless void, I may see as simply one realm that could be explored.

    You'll have to forgive me, I am a person who tries to look at the world past my human intellect, and I often question is there more to the world than just what we see now.

    Before I go... I would like to apologize for my earlier comment about the argument. I will admit, I acted rashly and immaturely the first time. I will however say that it still wasn't very fair to say those things about the theists and atheists and act all smug, but still I am very sorry for acting so childish, and I ask your forgiveness.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "You're sitting there saying that God doesn't exist = which is your CLAIM"

    A 'claim' is an assertion without an explanation. This article explains with luxurious detail why God cannot possibly exist. You just contradicted yourself. That's why the rest of your rambling goes in the trash!

    And the fact that you came here to troll EXPLAINS why you didn't read or comprehend the article. No wonder you can't refute it.....never ever!

  • profile image

    EnigmafromtheNorth 3 years ago

    I personally have to laugh at you, Fatfist. You're sitting there saying that God doesn't exist = which is your CLAIM, not necessarily fact. Then you have the nerve to say that concepts should not exist simply cause they are not OBJECTS. Then you say you hate God and try so hard to argue he does not exist, but still find time to pull quotes from the Bible out your butt. Way to go buddy! Oh and not to mention you also have the tendency to automatically assume that people who try to refute your arguments are zealots who come from religious upbringings, that their claims are fabricated and that they need to be reeducated simply because they try to defend their views on the matter. By the way, your logic that for something to exist has to be an option and have location is nothing more than an subjective assertion. Why am I here? To call you out as a Hypocrite and call you out on your biased, bigoted and absurd assumptions, and yes your claims, as that what they are. You sir, are no better than the Atheist/Theist Fanatics, trying to project their views onto others; and here I thought I'd find someone with a grain of intelligence and actually provide some worthwhile evidence on why God could not possibly exist; explains why I'm here right? Right. Sorry for wasting my time and yours. With that, I am done ranting. See ya later.

  • profile image

    Lipstick Lesbian 3 years ago

    It is hard to believe that other people still believe the BuyBull is inerrant. Even science has flaws but fundies would never say their BuyBull has flaws.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Agreed. He's an Ex-Cyst! No wonder He has cretin fans like you.

  • profile image

    SHAUN 3 years ago

    HE DOES EXSIST

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “ A object must exist is relation to something else.”

    Yes, and God exists in relation to the Singularity. This satisfies the Big Bang theory with flying colors. Just ask professional atheist Tim Brooks and other pros out there.

    “God has contradictory properties. It cannot exist.”

    Nope! There is nothing contradictory about an OBJECT…..otherwise apples, tables, cars, planets, etc. wouldn’t exist either, as per your claim.

    Object: that which has shape.

    No contradiction there. That’s why you cannot justify your claims.

    Enough claims. You are nothing but a Religionist who just posts CLAIMS without a rational argument to justify them. This is your last warning. Stop trolling here like a Religionist with claim after claim. If you post another claim you will be banned. Your next post had better justify WHY God is not an object even though an object forms the Hypothesis of the Scientific Method.

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    A creator god would be all that exists and an object cannot be all that exists. A object must exist is relation to something else. What does it matter if it's hypothetical?

    God has contradictory properties. It cannot exist.

    If you have some conception of a god that does not have contradictory properties then fine but it's not really "God".

    There are no gods.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “God cannot be such an object.”

    Please justify your nonsensical CLAIM. In case you haven’t noticed, Mr. Judge…..this place ain’t the Atheist Experience show where a bunch of brain-dead Religious Nutcases calling themselves “Atheists” come here making delusional claims and asserting them as absolute truths, even though the ‘absolute’ is a Religious term that is contradictory as I explained to you in the other article. It’s definitely NOT “business as usual” here for the illiterate, uneducated, unthinking and brain-dead Atheist. Here you are expected to USE YOUR BRAIN and JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM…..and to DEFINE but NEVER WHINE.

    God is a HYPOTHESIZED OBJECT. God has shape. God is an entity in the Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method. Go take a Science 101 course.

    A Hypothesized object “cannot be” (as you claim)…. ONLY IF YOU CAN SHOW IT TO BE CONTRADICTORY WITH A JUSTIFIABLE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. What is contradictory about God being an OBJECT, Bimbo Judge??

    .

    “He would be everything.”

    No! This is YOUR strawman attempt to modify MY Hypothesis. You can’t do that. God is an OBJECT with shape. God is not everything. The term ‘everything’ alludes to a concept, not an object. God is not a concept.

    Object: that which has shape

    There is NO provision for ‘everything’ in the definition of object. Go to primary school to learn how to read, comprehend and what a DEFINITION is versus an irrelevant strawman assertion such as “He would be everything.”

    You have NO arguments against God!

    .

    God created the Big Bang from the Singularity. Even your idiot bimbos of the Atheist Experience show acknowledge this much.

    Here’s PROFESSIONAL ATHEIST Tim Brooks to set you straight on this issue, so listen to a Professional:

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

    See video comments @ 1:01:00

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

    A foolish brain-dead Atheist CANNOT PROVE there is no God. In fact, the caca-head claims that God could possibly exist and created the Big Bang. Of course!!!! The Big Bang needs an entity to mediate this event. The only entity that can possibly do this is God!

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    God cannot be such an object. He would be everything. How could he be an object and be everything?

    There's no god.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “God has logically contradictory properties like a square-circle.”

    Nope! God is not a square-circle! God is an object that created space and matter. Here, have a look at the Almighty….use your glasses this time….there is no square or circle there!

    http://brandonvogt.com/wp-content/uploads/Angry-Go...

    God created the Universe in the Big Bang. God exists!

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    God has logically contradictory properties like a square-circle. Those can't exist.

    It is absolutely true that god does not exist.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Judge,

    “There's no god”

    Is that true, Judge? Please prove your CLAIM otherwise your whole post is summarily reduced to an unjustifiable claim! Claims are a dime a billion…..everybody and their flatulent aunt has one.

    .

    “acceptance of absolute truth”

    Absolute Truth is the Hallmark of Religion. Only a Religionist like YOU who has NO clue about the Philosophical antagonistic concepts of the Relative vs Absolute would make such a self-refuting ludicrous claim as I explained to you in this article:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/ABSOLUTE-...

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    There's no god but saying it's impossible is the acceptance of absolute truth.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Anybody wanna help out poor Tamas? Seems a 0D cat without L, W and H ate his tongue.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    You gotta justify your claim, Tamas. I get a million claims posted here by everybody and their flatulent aunt.

    Please explain the process by which nothing surreptitiously acquires L, W + H and morphs into an object in zero time (i.e. in a single frame). I'm all ears.

  • profile image

    Tamas 3 years ago

    You've got 1) wrong, fatfist. Matter IS created and destroyed, and constantly.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Neo is just a Copper-toxic, Estrogen-charged specimen from the Religion of Atheism whose paranoia and cowardice got the best of her. That's why she won't participate in any debate. Scared chicken!

    Don't worry, Neo.....even though God doesn't exist in reality, you can still think about Him daily through your DISBELIEF. That I can never take away from you.

    Physics is the Science of Existence....not of Belief. You've confused your Religion of Atheism with Physics, that's why you're crying!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    @Neo.....if you have any argument that contradicts this article (and I hope you do)....please copy/paste what you think is a contradiction and please explain for the audience why it is so. All you need to show is one and it invalidates this article and YOUR God can go back to "existing" once again.

    Only then will you be able to start sleeping at night. Don't be a coward and suffer in such agony.....just do it!

    What's the matter....are you SCARED to debate me on such a simple issue? Like a typical Atheist, you must fear me more than God. Tell you what.....just show one contradiction and God will exist again for you.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Arthur: “He [God] is a necessary, timeless entity”

    Time is a CONCEPT, not an entity, like alcohol. You can have an alcohol-less beverage because BOTH alcohol and beverage are entities….but it’s impossible to have a timeless entity because as a concept, time cannot be removed/departed/omitted from an entity because time CANNOT POSSIBLY be within ANY entity….IMPOSSIBLE! Physics 101.

    As a corollary, no entity can be outside of a concept. Entities can only be outside of objects. For example, God can be outside of His house, since His house has shape which necessarily implies a border. And since God is indeed an entity as you correctly stated, He can only be outside other entities. There are NO timeless entities. We learn this in elementary school.

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

  • profile image

    Arthur 3 years ago

    "If you want to convert me with your meta-physical hullabaloo, then you must explain to me, rationally, how your "God" came into existence himself."

    That's the wrong question. Pretty much the whole point is that God did not 'come into existence', He is a necessary, timeless entity who always existed. That's part of the reason why He's posited as an explanation for the universe, which *did* 'come into existence' at the Big Bang.

    I'm sure there are plenty of other objections you could raise, but this one implies that you haven't been paying attention to what mainstream monotheism has to say.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    @Demarcus,

    We have reached the pinnacle of human critical thought. We finally have the Scientific rigor, objective definitions and rational explanations to justify WHY the Universe is eternal, just like Aristotle did 2300 years ago, but without the subtle ambiguities. And it is impossible for our critically reasoned argument to be contradicted, just like Aristotle's. Eternal Universe is the default position....not the claim. A claim is predicated on an event....the event of alleged "creation", which is what we have CONTRADICTED.

    This means that Atheism is nothing but a boring Religion....no different than all the flavors of Theism.

    Congratulate yourself for having the ambition to get up to speed with these concepts.

  • profile image

    Demarcus J. 3 years ago

    @Fatfist - this is a wonderful article you have composed. I think your article has terrific points of insight and reflection. Thank you. I consider myself an atheist, but I also adhere to what I call "a scientfic attitude". My profession is that of an assistant professor of psychology. I pride myself on my proficient understanding and/or high respect fof science and its methodology. As a psychologist, I know that reality is "created" in our brains. The so-called real world is only "real" according our subjective brains' perception of the world and the universe. Tell me if I am wrong, but I conceive of science as merely a sophisticated tool to aid humans at discerning reality for what it REALLY is...outside of our subjective views. To this end, I revere science for allowing me to get at the real world as accurately as humanly possible. I appreciate how you breakdown the phrase "Does god exist?" and I think you do a very good job, at least, in provoking reflection.

    So, should I continue to call myself an athiest? I honestly do not believe in god or gods. I just don't. But am I a "religionist" instead??? I also, for the record, do not support religion or any organized faith.

    oh...and by the way, I have greatly enjoyed your replies to the many comments here, especially to some of the trolls here like Philanthropy.

  • Jethu262 profile image

    Jethu262 3 years ago from Cincinatti

    Travis-

    Your argument could be summed up with the 2 logical fallacies I outlined.

    1.- You cannot prove that something does not exist.

    2.- A magic sky-fairy was invented thousands of years ago because of people's unwillingness to admit that the universe JUST IS. There is no creator necessary. They concluded that he had to be the Creator-Who-Was-Not-Created.

    Unless you want to go round and round in a never ending cycle of regress, the entire "God did it" worldview must by necessity assume that "God" is the uncaused cause. Otherwise you will infinitely fall back on "God's Creator", and "The Creator of God's Creator" before him, on and on, for eternity.

    If you want to convert me with your meta-physical hullabaloo, then you must explain to me, rationally, how your "God" came into existence himself, and what materials he used to build the universe.

    There are serious problems with "the eternal universe theory has been scientifically proven wrong". Quantum Physics has major problems, GR has major problems, even judging distances with telescopes has problems. The CMB is a joke. Don't tell me there is undeniable proof that the universe is finite, when mere mortals can't make any sense of the "proof" mainstream scientists spoonfeed the public. Good science is simple enough for any of us to understand.

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    Jethu, you say that my argument hinges on two points, and then you say that the first point is.... my argument?.... Also, I never said that in order for anything to exist there has to be some sort of non-created creator who always existed. Maybe you should go back and read it over. To address your other comment "You may as well just cut out the middle man and say that EVERYTHING "always" existed."......... saying the universe always existed is the only way that atheists, physicists, etc could EVER challenge the idea of a creator God. But as I said before the eternal universe theory has been scientifically proven wrong, therefore it is impossible to disprove a creator God... Your comment was complete ignorance from start to finish. I'm sorry, it just was.

  • Jethu262 profile image

    Jethu262 3 years ago from Cincinatti

    Ouch, the previous several comments were like ramming my face repeatedly into a brick wall covered in glass shards.

    It's always disappointing when a well spoken, "rational", "intelligent", pupil of the theological establishment tries so hard to convert non-believers with the same, tired shtick that's been used for centuries.

    His entire argument, which fails terribly from the very start, hinges on two major points which have long ago been proven irrational, contradictory arguments at best:

    LOGICAL FALLACY #1- You cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

    You also cannot prove that I don't have a magnificent invisible unicorn living in my garage. Fails right from the very start.

    LOGICAL FALLACY #2- Basically WLC's tired argument. "The Uncaused Cause", in order for ANYTHING to exist (LOL), there had to be some sort of non-created Creator, who "always" existed (which is a fatal contradiction).

    This argument is utter rubbish. You may as well just cut the middle man out and say that EVERYTHING "always" existed. It's the last gasp of people who fear death, desperately clinging to any kind of hope for an afterlife.

    Same lackluster, unconvincing "arguments" that haven't led to anything notable. Unless of course you are already a knuckle dragging bible-thumper. In which case you probably think they are the best arguments for God currently available.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Of course,.... the Theist, the Atheist and the Mathematician begin to hold their hands in a circle, while they stand in awe with their jaws to the floor after they realize that they've NEVER heard these non-contradictory arguments refuting God & Creation before. They have ZERO responses....nada! All they can do now is to emotionally comfort each other by cheering:

    "God can possibly exist....and so can His Creation!"

    "God can possibly exist....and so can His Creation!"

    "God can possibly exist....and so can His Creation!"

    .

    .

    Their Religion of Creation has finally been buried forever without any chance of revival and without any chance of even a debate. It's finally over!

    No Atheist-Theist debates.

    No Second Coming of Krauss, telling us that a Mathematical Deistic God Created the Universe.

    No Absolute Truth.

    Their only recourse is to make some final emotional comeback as follows: "Boo hoo....you're a big bad bully, Fatfist. You hurt my feelings you insensitive monster. There should be a LAW against people like you!"

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

    To the theologically challenged, reality, rationality and critical thinking is all you have, Fattie! HA HA HA HA HA!

    That had to be the funniest exchange I have ever read. Thanx!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “a claim is contradicted”

    A contradiction (P and not-P) always tells you what is impossible…..always….without exception! That’s why a claim that is contradicted is necessarily IMPOSSIBLE. Your God as the Creator claim has been contradicted and hence impossible!

    Pay attention (for the FOURTH and last time), Bimbo Travis…..

    An object cannot be both a sphere and a cube at the same time.

    Just like an action (i.e. create) necessitates a minimum of TWO entities to be performed, not one….since all verbs/actions are concepts which relate two. One entity always performs an action on another entity. Impossible to have it any other way (i.e. 0 or 1 entity verb/action) and NO exception can ever be shown….NEVER!

    Just like any entity (i.e. God) is necessarily surrounded by space/nothing in order to have FORM and be defined as an entity (that which has shape/form). Remember….FORM is a concept that relates two. Real entities can never have form without a background of space. Impossible to have it any other way and NO exception can ever be shown….NEVER!

    That’s why it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create space & matter.

    These arguments have brought your down to your knees for the very first time in your life. This is why you are so pissed and running around like a chicken with his head cut off not knowing what to do. You have ZERO counterarguments. Why? Because it is impossible to argue against what is shown to be impossible in the realm of rationality and reality.

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    Just because a claim is contradicted does not mean it is proven wrong. I stand on my thesis, because it is true, and it cannot be proven wrong using rational thinking. You can whine and cry and dance around it all you want but you have lost. That is why you are so upset. Your pride is hurt. Your ego is bruised. You cannot admit defeat. Either that or your ego is so enormous its able to do these gymnastics to make you actually believe you have won. It is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Period. You can choose to believe that He does not exist, just like I can choose to believe that He does; but we certainly cannot prove that He doesn't exist, and the chances are slim that science will ever prove that He does.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Travis repeats: “IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD, HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER, SPACE….”

    God is an entity with shape/form as outlined everywhere in the Bible. This is how Theologians hypothesized God as something (an entity) rather than nothing. Read it and weep….sorry it destroys your Religion.

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

    1) As an entity with shape, God is NECESSARILY surrounded by space. Without space, God cannot possibly have form as demanded by the DEFINITION of form. The background of God is space/nothing. Ergo, God did NOT create space. How can God or anybody create nothing? I mean, wtf is there to create? LOL, this is impossible. Nothingness is eternal and surrounds all entities.

    2) God did not create matter from His background of nothingness as explained above. Read it again.

    Creation is impossible….no Big Bang, no magic, no hocus pocus. The Universe is eternal as explained here and in 10 other articles in my profile. Check them out…..read them and cry rivers!

    And stop repeating claims that have been already CONTRADICTED as shown above. This is spamming! The only reason you spam is because you have NO counter-arguments because it is impossible to contradict my response to you. Repetition and whining is not an argument. If you can contradict what I posted, please do so…..but any further spamming will be purged!

    “scripture when you have no idea what it means”

    Exactly, you don’t! That’s why you couldn’t respond to the scripture I posted because you haven’t a clue what the term FORM means and why all entities NECESSARILY have form and real entities are surrounded by space. What a turd!

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    And please don't quote scripture when you have no idea what it means its incredibly insulting.

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER SPACE CONCEPTS ETC THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE DISPROVED USING ANY OF THESE BECAUSE HE EXISTED PRIOR TO AND SEPARATE FROM THEM. Whether you can understand it or not that spells checkmate for you bud. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with logic. Case closed.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “I can see this isn't going anywhere”

    Of course YOU are going nowhere because you contradicted yourself as I explained above. You now realize why creation is IMPOSSIBLE….a minimum of 2 objects are required to mediate verbs/actions like ‘create’. Therefore, it is impossible for God to create anything….only to ASSEMBLE from pre-existing eternal matter. The Universe is eternal. This is reality. You can disagree all you want….nobody gives a rat’s ass about your OPINION on this issue. Reality is rationally explained WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS (and doesn’t give a shit about your opinions) just as I did for you before your very eyes. Now you are SHOCKED!

    So now you decide to cower and concede defeat and run like a coward with your tail between your legs. You finally realized you cannot contradict rationality. So take your emotional BS and Religious beliefs and run back to your church…..here we do Physics, not Religion…..here we talk Reality, not Fantasy…..here we JUSTIFY our arguments with critical thinking, not ASSERT them and twist your arm to BELIEVE them. Beliefs are for brain-dead losers!

    “IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD, HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER, SPACE”

    God is an entity with shape/form as outlined everywhere in the Bible. This is how Theologians hypothesized God as something (an entity) rather than nothing. Read it and weep….sorry it destroys your Religion.

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

    1) As an entity with shape, God is NECESSARILY surrounded by space. Without space, God cannot possibly have form as demanded by the DEFINITION of form. The background of God is space/nothing. Ergo, God did NOT create space. How can God or anybody create nothing? I mean, wtf is there to create? LOL, this is impossible. Nothingness is eternal and surrounds all entities.

    2) God did not create matter from His background of nothingness as explained above. Read it again.

    Creation is impossible….no Big Bang, no magic, no hocus pocus. The Universe is eternal as explained here and in 10 other articles in my profile. Check them out…..read them and cry rivers!

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    I can see this isn't going anywhere so we're going to have to agree to disagree. You're whole argument rests on the idea that all matter has always existed and will always exist; this hasn't been proven and is simply not true. The universe had a beginning, and it will have an end, no matter how uncomfortable that makes some scientists/physicists. I could keep on repeating my thesis but it's clear that you don't understand it, or you would have given up by now. I could take each one of your attempts at making a point and tear them apart individually, but I don't have to. All I have to do is point you back to my thesis and you're entire foolish argument is toast, regardless if you comprehend it. You took my statement " a creator God must exist before the creation of any object" completely out of context. It's most certainly not contradictory, you just failed to understand it. Basic theology says that a creator God would have to exist before anything in the universe ever existed. IF THERE IS A CREATOR GOD, HE EXISTED BEFORE ALL MATTER, SPACE, CONCEPTS ETC., THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE DISPROVED USING ANY OF THESE, BECAUSE HE EXISTED PRIOR TO AND SEPARATE FROM THEM. "No matter how powerful you claim God to be, He cannot morph nothing into something". HA! It's not about how powerful I claim God to be, it's about how powerful God would have to be to be God. But you can't understand this because you're theologically challenged. Physics and its concepts may be able to prove God exists eventually, but they cannot disprove God in any way shape or form. You cannot disprove God until you prove that the universe has always existed, and you can't. Actually it's been proven that it's 13.8 billion years old.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Travis: “"objects must exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept", is a contradictory”

    It is YOU who contradicted yourself by reiterating the above statement Here…

    Travis: “I say objects must exist prior to anyone conceiving (proper grammar; lol!) of a concept”

    “but this has nothing to do with God”

    It has everything to do with God since He can relate objects too….so can a cat, snake, ant, etc. The point is that God must relate objects – i.e. the very objects referenced in the 10 Laws – before He even conceives of these Laws. Pay attention.

    “a creator God must exist before the creation of any object”

    Now this is a perfect example of a contradictory statement. Objects cannot be created from nothing. Objects can only be ASSEMBLED from pre-existing objects, like atoms, molecules, etc.

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

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

    No matter how powerful you claim God to be, the Almighty cannot morph nothing (i.e. no shape) into something (i.e. with shape). There is NO thing there to morph or convert. Morph/convert/create/assemble are VERBS. ALL verbs necessarily require a MINIMUM of 2 objects that already EXIST in order for the verb/action to be mediated by an entity (i.e. God). We learn this in Grammar 101.

    So God needs to exist beside matter (i.e. atoms) before He can use matter to assemble a baseball bat to whack you over the head for being so ignorant of the Kindergarten basics!

    For example: God all alone in space cannot perform any action (i.e. morph/convert/create/assemble/etc.) on nothing. It is IMPOSSIBLE to perform any action on nothing…..impossible! Matter is eternal.

    So the correct statement is: “an assembler God must exist before the assembling of any object”.

    Makes perfect sense. An assembler God must exist before he can assemble a barn out of pre-existing matter. We call this assembler God a CARPENTER outside the circles of your church. We have plenty of Gods you can worship on this planet....just choose.

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    You can insult me all you want. I'll do this all day. I have truth on my side, and rational theological theorizing. I don't want to disparage you, and I especially don't need to insult you. In fact because of God I can forgive you and have nothing but love for you. What I said in my previous posts still stands. I've just started studying theology, but I know enough that I can tell you your argument refuting God's existence is vacuous at best. Basically all of the things you are saying are true, but you are confused as to how they relate to God. The term "law" is a concept; this is true. Concepts are conceived not created; this is true. All concepts are relationships between objects; this is true as well. However "objects must exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept", is a contradictory, redundant statement. I'll go back to the main point of my previous posts. By definition, a creator God must exist before the creation of any object. This is why I believe physics is effectively useless when discussing the existence of God. You say "objects must exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept", I say objects must exist prior to anyone conceiving (proper grammar; lol!) of a concept, but this has nothing to do with God. Also, there is no concrete scientific evidence that matter is eternal. In fact, any real scientist would say that everything points to a beginning (big bang), and that the universe is still expanding. This is what I believe, and in no way does it interfere with my belief in the God of the Bible. I hate to sound like a broken record, but please allow me to restate my thesis a bit more clearly. When discussing a Creator, logic dictates that said Creator would have been in existence before the Creation of any space, matter, objects, concepts etc. Therefore, His existence cannot be proven or refuted using these things, because his existence would not be dependent on them. I guess I could go into more detail but I'm not sure it would make my point any more transparent. The fundamental difference between us is very simple: I'm using theology combined with rational, logical thinking, which is what you need in order to discuss God's existence, while you are not. You're understanding of theology seems to be virtually nonexistent, and until that changes, you will never be able to effectively negate my arguments when I assert that God exists. Anyway I wish you the best and I'll be praying for you. If you want to learn about the existence of God and the theology involved (physics will do very little to help you), Ravi Zacharias is a terrific theologian and public speaker. My offer still stands, if you would like a relationship with God through his Son, Jesus Christ, I would be honored to help you. May God bless you.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Travis: “creator … the physical laws of what he created”

    The term “law” is a concept, not an object. Concepts are CONCEIVED, not created. All concepts are relations between objects. This means that objects MUST exist prior to anyone (including God) to conceive of a concept, such as a ‘law’. And of course, this is what God did when He conceived of the 10 Commandment Laws!! He related objects in EACH AND EVERY ONE of those 10 laws....go read them again and educate yourself on OBJECTS vs CONCEPTS….it’s all in the Bible.

    At BEST you can “claim” that God created objects, like atoms…..but the Almighty is totally handicapped to perform such a magical feat because He cannot convert nothing (no shape) into something (shape). God can only take the pre-existing ETERNAL matter/atoms and build a chair, a table or even a baseball bat and whack you over your empty head with it!

    Learn basic English and Grammar skills before coming here to showcase your ignorance,…you pathetic uneducated, unread, unReligious, unworldly, un-God-fearing, un-Bible-read, insignificant Bimbo! And please....lay off that crack pipe so you can talk rationally without contradictions.

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    I read the article. It was a complete waste of your time to write it. I already explained why. You cannot prove the existence of a creator using the physical laws of what he created. The minute you even entertain the idea of a creator, you have to acknowledge that He would not be ruled by physical law; HE CREATED IT... I thought I was "addressing the issue presented here"; the existence of God (it's in the title). If "this is the place" to "talk objectively and rationally about the Physics of God" then I suggest you change the title to "The Physics of God". It would cause less confusion among people who are actually serious about discussing Gods existence, not physics, which is completely useless to us. May God bless you.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "Is that your rebuttal? "

    I was gonna say the same about your first post here. But then I realized that it couldn't possibly be a rebuttal because you didn't even read the article. For if you did, you would address the issue presented by the article which you see as contradictory and show your refutation. Instead, you go off in a cocaine-induced rant about Religious irrelevancies in an attempt to pretend you said something. You said nothing!

    If you wish to talk about your BELIEFS, go talk to some Atheists. Those Bimbos have even MORE beliefs than you.

    If you wish to talk objectively and rationally about the Physics of God and the creation of space and matter, this is the THE place! But you'd better address the issue presented here and show where the contradiction is without posting irrelevant static. Got it?

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    Is that your rebuttal? I thought so. Next time you write an article like this make sure you at least have a basic understanding of the topic and the concepts involved. Do some research, and don't accuse someone of cocaine abuse just because you get smoked in the comment section.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Travis, did you buy your crack cocaine from a street dealer? You were fooled...it wasn't pure. No amount of pure crack cocaine can make anyone spew such nonsense and contradictions as you did in that post.

    When you sober up you can try to actually read the article instead of just the title. And while you're at it....read the comments as all your garbage has been beaten to death before.

    Smoke responsibly and only buy from reputable sources.

  • profile image

    Travis 3 years ago

    WOW. This is a really poor attempt at disproving the existence of God. You're using physical laws in most of your arguments, like when you say that God has to be a static distance between God and your nose. This is your biggest (and definitely not your only) mistake. What you have to understand is that God (the God of the Bible, my God) is outside of space, time, matter, etc. He created these things, and is infinitely bigger than them and what they represent. You cannot disprove his existence with laws that He created for the physical realm in which we live (there is spiritual realm, most people cannot sense it). He is outside of this universe, but also permeates every part of it. The scriptures you referred to in your argument that God has a specific form were only instances in which God chose to take a form or at least create a form of some sort to communicate with humans. The truth is that He is formless as far as we can understand His"form". Let me explain. Everything that we can sense with the senses He gave us came from Him and is being kept in existence and held together by Him. He is present in everything. This article is like the worm in the apple trying to deny the existence of the tree. You're trying to use your human understanding of physical laws (which, frankly, seems to be very limited in the first place) to disprove truths that involve but are completely beyond the physical, and must take into consideration spiritual truths (existence in its entirety). You made other mistakes but I think this covers the majority of them. My advice to you: visit a church, ask for a Bible, pray for forgiveness. If you need help or advice I'd be glad to help. May God bless you.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "howndonexplain these miracles if there is no God?"

    The existence of God is not a matter of IF or of belief/faith or of remote possibility. It is impossible for God to exist as rationally explained in this article.

    Having said that.....anyone who thinks that the clouds, the blue sky and flying birds are miracles, obviously hasn't made it past high school or wasn't paying attention in class or playing hooky. These are elementary questions of Science which are extremely easy to answer. We are not here to play 20 questions.....you can easily educate yourself just like anyone else. This discussion is about the existence of God. Stay in context please.

  • 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

    “If the universe does not exist, then does it mean that it is not there at all?”

    sek, you ask these basic questions because you still don’t understand the difference between an object and a concept. You still don’t know whether Bertrand Russell was a mystic or a rational thinker…..whether Mickey Mouse exists or not…….whether a spirit or a soul is an object or a concept……whether a shadow or an effect is an object or a concept.

    You cannot continue living like this……believing in Gods, ghosts, goblins, wizards, the unexpected and being scared to live your life in peace with reality.

    The term Universe is a concept. Concepts don’t exist, only objects may exist IF they have location. There are only objects in reality: stars, planets, comets, humans, trees, etc.

    There are no CONCEPTS in reality, like time, mass, energy, force, field, charge, warped space, spacetime, 0D particle, black hole, singularity, Big Bang, dark matter, photons, electrons, gravitons, phonons, tachyons, chronons, solitons, muons, pions, Higgs, Bosons, Bozos, neutrinos, 1D strings, etc.

    If you don’t understand the reason why…..then how can you possibly look at yourself in the mirror and say that you live in reality? Anyway….join our facebook group “Rational Scientific Method” if you need further understanding and start asking questions.

  • profile image

    sekharpal 3 years ago

    May I ask some more questions? This is because I want to learn. If the universe does not exist, then does it mean that it is not there at all? But if it is not there at all, then how does it embody matter and space?

    Maybe these are all foolish questions, but I will have to clear my doubts.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Of course the Universe doesn't exist! What sense does it make to say that a concept such as love, justice, surfing, Universe, etc...exists? Only in Religion do Priests claim that concepts exists.

    A Scientist defines the terms that make or break his argument....

    Exist: object having location

    object: that which has shape

    location: the set of distances to all other objects

    An object MUST have shape. If an object wants to 'exist', it MUST have location in addition. If a term does not meet and resolve these 2 requirements, then that term cannot be said to resolve to "something" that exists.

    These definitions are Scientific NOT because I say so....they are Scientific because they are objective and can be used consistently in Physics. They are impossible to contradict.

    This is how we do things in Science....we "MAN UP" and define our terms. We aren't little "sissies" who whine and hide under our momma's dresses so we don't get put in the spotlight to justify our terms and our arguments because we are scared the audience will see thru our bull$hit.

  • profile image

    sekharpal 3 years ago

    "Universe: a concept that embodies matter and space."

    If the universe is a concept, and not an object, then can it be said that it exists?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Someone needs to ask God or the Wizard of Oz for a brain.

  • profile image

    joe cakes 3 years ago

    Someone needs a hug from god!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    All terms in all languages will either resolve to an object or a concept….there is no other option.

    Object: that which has shape

    Concept: a relation between objects

    Universe: a concept that embodies matter and space.

    Although the Universe is a noun for the purposes of grammar, it cannot be treated as a noun in the course of a scientific presentation. It is not a noun of Reality. There is no object you can illustrate or imagine that can be called “Universe”.

    An atom can certainly move wrt another one. But when space or “the Universe” starts moving or expanding,…OMG, watch out...Jezus Christ….either you had too much to drink, your are high on drugs, or your wife hit you over the head with a frying pan.

  • profile image

    sekharpal 3 years ago

    I have one question: is the universe an object, or a concept?

  • profile image

    Anne Curtis 3 years ago

    Thank you for the explanation to why God does not exist. I'm not so good with words these days. So I'm very happy to find that I'm not a complete idiot believing that God does not exist. I believe in Jesus because he was a man who people followed. Mind you if he were to reappear today he would most definitely receive the same treatment. God however is nothing but a figment of these believers imagination. It's a great way for them to do all sorts if bad wrong things knowing and believing that God will forgive them. I try to live my life as a reasonably good person but I'm not perfect I make mistakes like everyone does. If you believe in God you might as well worship the sun. We can see it and feel it and it gives us so much. Nuff said. x

  • profile image

    My amens 3 years ago

    @fatfist The Romans were very skilled at killing people. They loved to invent ways to kill men. A large gathering of people watched a rabbi get crucified and they all saw what the Romans did to him. He was beaten, with Cat O' Nine tails, and the amount of blood he lost caused him to go in hypovolemic shock. This causes water to gather around the lungs and the heart. So when the soldier pierced Jesus and water flowed out of the wound it's safe to say he death was upon him. Also when your are being hung on a cross it is very difficult to breath.

  • profile image

    edcat 3 years ago

    I got tired of reading this, but figured that anyone who reads all the way to the end might as well see some sense. I am an agnostic meaning since you oddly require definitions and then disregard them that I do not claim to know whether or not God exists.

    The reason we use definitions from dictionaries is because people created words and have subjective interpretations of words. If you intend to disregard the dictionary definitions of words you need to create your own definitions of words which will be impossible without using previously defined words. We have to cave to the conventions and traditions of our language in order to communicate because that is the only way to understand each other.

    The statements that God does not exist and that it is impossible for God to exist are claims. This is because they are assertions of the truth of something that is in doubt. These statements are in doubt because people like me doubt them. Hence, they are claims and will remain so until you or someone else proves them to the satisfaction of your entire audience which you appear to have made people on the internet since that is who your statements are open to.

    If I used words that you have not yet invented scientific definitions for yet I am sorry. I tried to limit my vocabulary to the kinds of words that you seem to understand based on your post. I have however almost certainly failed because it is very easy to overwhelm the vocabulary of someone who is strangely convinced that word's meanings must be scientifically proved and have an absolute definition that can be reached.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    You didn't comprehend what I wrote, my amens....it was a trick. Even animals play dead and come back to life, like goats, dogs, cats, birds, ants, etc. So if some hippy played dead for a bunch of idiots 2000 years ago....and was able to convince them it was real....it just goes to show you that people are no smarter today. Besides, there were hundreds of hippies back then who did these popular tricks.....and yes, they all called themselves the Messiah. You need to expand your knowledge base and make it more "worldly".

    Hope you didn't have trouble comprehending that, my amens. Autism is indeed an epidemic today, but this stuff ain't rocket science.

  • profile image

    My amens 3 years ago

    So you believe he actually did die and rose again. @fatfist

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    David Copperfield does much better tricks, 'My amens'. Even the iPhone can do better tricks than cheesy Jezzus.

  • profile image

    Eferg 3 years ago

    I just can't believe someone was trying to argue that air is not an object because it isn't tangible. Tangible means perceptible to touch. Blow on your arm you can feel air.

  • profile image

    My amens 3 years ago

    Yo fatfist. I get everything you are saying. But how do you disprove Jesus dying on a cross and then on the third day he reappears to over 500 people? (During the early church Christians were considered Atheist. A-theist)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Hey anony....you forgot another possibility in your worthless rant. That I HATE God!! How could you miss that one? It would at least put more weight behind your argument than that other BS you posted.

    I mean, I did hate my high school teacher when she refused my sexual advances back in the day. She was a hot milf. But after I hated her....she ceased to exist! Perhaps this is the killer argument you really wanted to present about God and against my article, huh?

    You are such a simpleton, anony. Governments love sheep like you!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Wow Analmouse, way to miss the boat, the pier and the water!

    Exist has nothing to do with believing.

    Fattie is NOT an Atheist.

    Science doesn't solve anything. The intellect conceives and the rational mind explains phenomena with objects. Then each individual can decide for themselves: possible or not?

    Logic is a man made system. One simply follows the premises to it's prefabbed conclusion.

    No one 'knows' anything.

    Next time, try reading through some of the Fist's material before posting ill-informed rants.