CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE: First Cause is Impossible
72
INTRODUCTION
THEISTS say that God is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.
ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.
AGNOSTICS say that we are limited beings, and can never “know” who or what created the Universe.
Q: So who is right? Who makes sense? Which position is the rational one?
A: NONE! They already decided for ALL of us that the Universe was created. And they made this decision by merely converting a contradictory CLAIM into a fact.
Most people are conditioned to accept irrational claims like, Creation, as 100% proven certainty; and meaningless terms, such as, Uncaused First Cause and Infinite Regress, as absolute unquestionable “knowledge”. Such folks need to understand that a CLAIM is any “positive assertion” which deviates from the default position of ‘existence’. Since the proponents of Creationism wish to deviate from this default position, the onus is on them to provide an analysis which rationally explains that the “creation” of space & matter at some instant in the past, is a VIABLE option. Proofs, truths, facts, certainties, evidence and authorities are the hallmarks of Religion. The only objective criterion is a rational explanation.
Q: So what does this gibberish, “Uncaused First Cause”, even mean?
A: Absolutely NONE of the parrots of the First Cause Argument can even tell you what ‘a’ cause, ‘an’ effect, ‘an’ event, or even an object is; never mind ‘an’ Uncaused First Cause. They don’t even understand what the word “infinite” means or whether it’s applicable in any context. They have been spoon-fed these breathtaking contradictory arguments from their favourite authoritative celebrities who don’t even understand the arguments themselves.
This article will explain:
1) Exactly WHY Christianity’s beloved First Cause Argument is in complete violation of the Law of Causality. Whoever uses the Law of Causality in the context of “First Cause” or “Creation from Nothing”, is either embarrassingly foolish, or intellectually dishonest.
2) Exactly how the sleight of hand conversions of concepts, verbs, and “nothing”, into imaginary objects, are deceiving the audience into accepting the First Cause Argument.
3) The ontological contradictions hidden within all First Cause Arguments.
4) Exactly WHY the Universe (space & matter) is IMPOSSIBLE to “CREATE”, whether under the guise of a God, a Singularity, out of nothingness/void, or by any other conceivable means.
5) The 4 possible Creation scenarios asserted by humans throughout millennia. The application of the Law of Causality to ANY Creation “claim” will easily explain why the Universe is eternal – it had no beginning and will have no end.
We will explain why space is omnipresent and precedes God, and why God cannot perform “causal actions” without the existence of Target objects. This means that space and matter were already there BEFORE the alleged creation event. The Universe is indeed eternal.
The FIRST CAUSE argument is the “bread & butter” for Christianity’s God hypothesis - the eternal creator. You will be surprised to understand why it doesn’t have a leg or limb to stand on. It’s Game Over for the Uncaused Creator!
THE LAW OF CAUSALITY
Describing nature with the concept of Causality goes back to at least Aristotle where we have its first formal documentation. Aristotle formalized a theory of causality for the first time in human thought, which brought together elements of various thinkers of his time. Aristotle first introduced his theory of causality as a way of understanding the human experience of physical nature. His theory was instantly accepted in the known world by philosophers and theologians who used it as a tool for structuring their arguments, and demonstrating the reasoning behind their claims.
From a Scientific perspective, the Law of Causality pertains to the Physics of nature itself, rather than to any subjective or biased experience of it. In nature, causal actions occur between objects: mediators and targets. And causal actions occur whether an observer is there to make them evident or not. Absolutely ALL causal actions occur between objects. Causal actions do NOT occur between concepts. Whether the objects are invisible to a human observer is IRRELEVANT to the issue of Causality. All objects, whether invisible or not, have an inherent being or structure. All objects are entities which have the intrinsic property of shape – they have form! This is the only property that allows objects to be spatially separated from their background.
Even God cannot elude His objecthood and structure to His being, which gives Him shape. Those who disagree that all entities/objects have shape/form, whether invisible or not, including God Himself, have a LOT of explaining to do! God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘something’, God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being.
Even the God of the Bible is not stupid. God knows that absolutely all entities MUST have shape. And He goes out of His way to tell us so in no uncertain terms:
Deuteronomy 4:16 “so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman”
Numbers 12:8 “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.”
And God goes a step further by disclosing to us that ALL invisible entities, like light, air, and even God Himself, absolutely have shape (form):
Job 4:15-17 “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light”
Amos 4:13 “He who forms the mountains, creates the wind”
So the Law of Causality is absolutely applicable to ALL entities/objects whether they are visible, invisible, made of flesh, inanimate, living, dead, and even if the object is God Himself!!!!!!
Aristotle’s Law of Causality is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B)
Its specific application in the context of Creation is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B). At even consummation, there is a resulting Output (object C)
For example:
Aristotle uses the example of a builder creating a house to describe the Causality of Creation.
“A builder (object A) is using material (object B), to create a house (object C)”
All the concepts pertaining to the Creation event are:
Cause: The “act” of imparting action (surface-to-surface contact) with the material (object B), as performed by the builder. Synonym: “causal action” (a verb).
Effect: The “change” realized by the material (object B) during the duration of the “causal action” imparted by the builder (object A). Synonym: “change effect”.
Event: The phenomenon of Creation (house built) from initiation of Creation, to termination of Creation. An event is always consummated.
The ACTORS participating in the Creation event are:
Object A: The MEDIATOR object (builder) imparting “causal action”.
Object B: The TARGET object (material) undergoing “change effect”.
Object C: The OUTPUT object (house) resulting from the consummated event.
Cause, effect, and event are all concepts, and not actors participating in the Creation event. The actors participating in the Creation event are the following objects: A (the Mediator), B (the Target), and C (the Output).
We must not forget that the crucial ACTORS to any causality argument are the objects, like A, B, and C, shown above. Without a minimum of TWO “actor objects”, there is absolutely NO causality argument that can be established.
So what do these elusive terms, “CAUSE” and “EFFECT”, mean?
a) “Cause” and “effect” are VERBS. They are concepts, and not objects. There is NO such thing as ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event; ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event does NOT exist. Only objects, like Mediators and Targets exist!
b) “Cause” is what something DOES (i.e. action), not what something IS. Specifically, “cause”, is the action that object A (the mediator) DOES to object B (the target) while interacting with the target.
c) “Effect” is what something DOES (i.e. changes), not what something IS. Specifically, “effect”, is the change in object B (the target) while interacting with object A (the mediator).
d) Object A (the Mediator) and object B (the Target) must BOTH exist, BEFORE the Mediator can perform “causal actions”, and BEFORE any “change effect” can be said to have been realized.
So what does the MEDIATOR (object A) do to the TARGET (object B)?
1) At event initiation, the Mediator moves toward the Target object and imparts surface-to-surface contact with the Target.
2) At this stage, the Mediator object has imparted “causal action” to the Target object.
3) Simultaneously with 2, “change effect” is realized by the Target object while interacting with the Mediator.
4) At event termination, the phenomenon is formally termed: Consummated Event.
The details of the “causal action” stemming from the Mediator, and the details of the “change effect” realized by the Target are issues which MUST be critically analyzed and explained in the Theory stage of one’s “claim” (i.e. Theory of Creation). The proponent of Creation MUST rationally explain to the audience all the WHY’s and all the HOW’s of the Physics and ontological details associated with the claim.
a) If the explanation has no contradictions, then we say that the Theory is “rational”, and hence the “claim” is viable (i.e. the event “could” have possibly happened as specified by the claim). Consummated events cannot be proven. Certainty plays no role in consummated events; they are only “claimed” to have happened in the past.
b) If the explanation has a single contradiction, then it will elucidate the Theory as irrational, and hence render the “claim” IMPOSSIBLE.
Remember: A contradiction always tells us what cannot be the case; i.e. what is impossible!
HISTORY OF THE LAW OF CAUSALITY & ITS REINTERPRETATION BY CHRISTIANITY
The monotheistic religions have regarded Aristotle's Metaphysics with both appreciation and hostility. Christian, Islamic, and Jewish theologians generally approved of his well-ordered, teleological world in which the Law of Causality describes how natural processes are directed toward the fulfillment of particular ends. Yet Aristotle’s philosophy was viewed as hostile to newly established Christian tenants in the late 2nd century. These included the doctrines that God is the “ultimate cause” of the existence of the Universe, the resurrection of the body, and the full immortality of the soul.
In Book Eight of his Physics, Aristotle describes what he calls the "Unmoved Mover" or "Prime Mover," which is the ultimate source of motion in the Universe, but is itself unmoved. For Aristotle this is an abstract conception of an impersonal god, who dwells at the edge of the universe and causes object motion. Although the Unmoved Mover was regarded by many as a god, it did not create the Universe. Aristotle reasoned why the Universe was uncreated in his philosophical argument for the eternal universe (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3).
Even though the monotheistic religions loved the idea of a prime Godhead overlooking the Universe, they hated the idea of an impersonal God who didn’t create all of existence, and who was not personally connected into the cultural and emotional aspects of human existence. In Aristotle’s eternal world there is no room for miracles, for providence, for reward and punishment either, and thus the basis of religion is totally shattered. So as Christianity progressed through the centuries, it was particularly compelled to repudiate Aristotle. Theologians thus tended to reject or reinterpret what they took to be Aristotle's offensive philosophical works. They even went as far as reinterpreting and rewriting Aristotle’s inconvenient laws of logic and inconvenient causality laws in order to suit their personal tastes and objectives within the Christian movement.
Contrary to Aristotle’s Law of Causality, in the thirteenth century, most Christian philosophers tried to reconcile Aristotle's logic and causality with the Christian idea that God created the world out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo). As a consequence, Aristotle's “unmoved mover” which set all objects in motion, was transformed into a “creating cause of existence”. More generally, the Liber de Causis (a Neo-Platonic Arabic work of the ninth century, translated into Latin in the twelfth century) had a decisive influence on the concept of causality. Christian theologians and philosophers reinterpreted and modified portions of Aristotle’s works in order to make them fit within Christian dogma. These actions resulted in making the Law of Causality inapplicable to the new dogma of Christian Creationism, “creation from nothing”.
Aristotle reasoned that “creation”, in the sense of matter surreptitiously appearing from “nothingness”, is contradictory and hence, impossible. Aristotle’s Law of Causality could not be reconciled with “matterless motion”, as all causes, without exception, are verbs that are mediated by a “mediating” object to a “target” object. Whereas Christianity’s dogmatic paradigm asserted “Creation from Nothing”, which meant that matterless “nothingness” will somehow acquire motion and participate in causality; specifically, it will be imparted with causal action from a mediating God, and result in an effectual output of matter and space (nothingness).
But space (nothingness) was ALREADY there! How is it possible to create space, when space is already “nothing”?
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that such contradictions are akin to arguing that “married bachelors smell like triangular square circles”. It doesn’t make any sense to claim that causality can be imparted on “nothing”. The only “nothing” in the Universe is SPACE. Although space is our conception of nothing, it is not artificial in the sense that we invented it as a concept. Concepts are artificially invented by humans. But space was “discovered” by humans. Space is not a WHAT. Space is a WHERE. It is the static distance between all objects. So as “nothing”, space can only be described via negative predication. Space is non-causal and not caused. It does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges for a mediator to “grab” on to and perform causal actions on it. We’re done!
THEOLOGIANS REINTERPRETED “CAUSALITY” TO PROTECT THEIR RELIGION
Not only was Aristotle’s Law of Causality changed in order to facilitate the irrational Christian dogma that the Universe was “created from nothing”, but it was also covertly REIFIED with DUALITIES by future theologians and philosophers, such as, St. Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig, just to name a few. Through the past 1400 years of mindless philosophical arguments which were used by theologians to convince the uneducated masses of Creation,..... theologians used ambiguities to convert the terms ‘cause’, ‘effect’, and ‘event’ from VERBS (concepts) into NOUNS (real objects). Today, these 3 terms are used interchangeably with the term ‘object’, as shown in the examples below:
- ‘The’ cause is ‘the’ event that made it happen. (cause and event = objects)
- God is ‘an’ uncaused fist cause for all of existence. (God and cause = objects)
- Humans are ‘the’ effect of God. (Humans, God and effect = objects)
- God set the event in motion that caused us to exist. (God and event = objects)
Is there no ontological difference between ‘cause’ and an ‘object’?
Is there no ontological difference between ‘God’ and ‘cause’?
Is there no ontological difference between ‘effect’, ‘event’, and an ‘object’?
Can God make ‘causes’, ‘effects’, and ‘events’?
Can God set ‘events’ or ‘causes’ in motion?
Do people even understand what they are saying? Have people lost their brains?
Yes, there is a difference. And God cannot make ‘causes’, ‘effects’, or ‘events’; neither can He move them! God can only build ‘objects’. Causes are actions or verbs which are MEDIATED by God upon other objects.
Remember: The Law of Causality necessarily requires a minimum of 2 objects:
1) The mediator (God).
2) The target object of the mediator’s causal action. The mediator will necessarily impart “causal action” on the target object, which will realize “change effect”.
** And in the special case of Creation, there is a resulting “output object” from the consummated event.
And no, people who mindlessly parrot such nonsense do not understand what they are saying. But no, people have not lost their brains; they just REFUSE to use them. People will mindlessly parrot whatever terms their favourite celebrity (authority) uses in their presentations. And they will happily do this without so much as blinking, and without even understanding the basics. Then they will go to Internet forums in order to defend a concept which they haven’t a clue about. But that issue is of no significance to them. They prefer to instead defend an irrational idea because they watched a YouTube video of their favourite celebrity defending it. That is all they’re interested in doing!!
But why is this issue I’m raising so relevant? Why am I nitpicking on petty semantics? I mean, we all understand the usage of these terms, right?
WRONG! Such terms which embody concepts cannot be used as ACTORS in any argument, presentation, or theory; especially in physics or in any context of reality. Love does not swim. Justice does not run. Beauty does not fly. Not in reality! If you are going to be clear for the sake of understanding, then you must be clear. Otherwise, your claim that “God is ‘an’ uncaused first cause” is pure baloney. It is irrational and has no meaning whatsoever. So this is not semantic nitpicking. People have been accustomed take too much for granted. And theologians count on that in order to easily PROVE their arguments and have them readily accepted. The theologian has to specify exactly what he means when he gives a scientific presentation on Causality and Creation. No euphemisms, figures of speech or ambiguities are allowed when understanding is at stake. Especially when understanding has the capability to influence people’s beliefs, and ultimately their lives. Theologians and philosophers don't like to use rigorous, unambiguous, and scientific terms because such consistencies destroy their arguments, if not their Religions. There is no other reason for a presenter of Causality and Creation to fall back on such wishy washy notions.
The buck stops here. When it comes to issues of ontological existence (reality), and the existence of God, there is no room for.....”nudge nudge, wink wink, you KNOW what I mean!”
Q: What benefits do theologians and philosophers obtain when introducing DUALITIES into their arguments?
1) They eliminate crucial problems which are DAMAGING to their arguments, because dualities allow them to COVERTLY make use of MATTERLESS MOTION. This novel idea allowed them to use the expression, ‘a’ CAUSE (irrational notion), in a very deceptive way that made it seem that “cause” was a noun (an object), specifically, the object God! So they conveniently eliminated the troubling objects B and C from Aristotle’s Law of Causality. And now, ‘the’ EFFECT is an object (irrational notion) which didn’t exist before, but now has magically resulted directly from God in the appearance of the Universe from nothing. In this irrational interpretation, there is only ONE object, God, which is synonymous with CAUSE. So there is no motion or causal action imparted by God to “create”. But then the EFFECT is the Universe, which magically appears out of nowhere! Only fools will swallow such concocted nonsense!
2) Now they established a situation where ‘a’ cause, which is a concept or “nothing”, is also treated as God (duality). So “nothing” now performs actions, specifically “creation”, and it is irrationally associated with the object God. This allowed them to convolute the Law of Causality and conveniently eliminate from their analysis the TARGET (object B), which the “causal action” was directed to. It is this TARGET object which was the source of heartaches and sleepless nights for many theologians and philosophers. Now that it has been ELIMINATED from Aristotle’s Law of Causality, the phrase, ‘a’ cause, is synonymous with God, and axiomatically made God the ONLY NECESSARY OBJECT in the Theologian’s new irrational Law of Causality. How convenient is that? This allowed them to easily FOOL people into thinking that God is the one and only, Uncaused First Cause. How could people miss such underhanded trickery? To borrow from a Capitalist slogan: “A fool is born every minute of the day!”
3) This reification and alteration to the Law of Causality also made their arguments SHORTER, because uneducated people back then could not follow an argument that was more than 3 lines long. And it made their arguments more convincing (believable). The audience now “believed” these arguments as PROVEN fact! How could they not believe them? I mean, God was now a magical creator and ‘a’ CAUSE; specifically, ‘an’ UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, even though this was contradictory to the Law of Causality. Now they have a spoon-fed argument which they THINK they understand, so they swallow it a face value without so much as blinking. Duh, but it sounds convincing to me!!
In fact, to this day, almost everyone and their brother considers the following terms as synonyms: cause, effect, event, and object. And the scary part is that they haven’t a clue how to distinguish between them. And that’s why these First Cause arguments are geared towards such folks; which sadly comprise the majority of the population.
Today, theologians, apologists, theists, naturalists, spiritualists, atheists, philosophers, logicians, and even mathematical physicists, have mindlessly inherited this SAME tradition from theologians of the past. They are now parroting this breathtaking knowledge as if they know what they are talking about.
WELL THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! And they shouldn’t be able to fool anyone with half a brain. Causality necessarily requires 2 objects: the mediator (object A) and the target (object B). Only if the mediator performs a causal action on itself, can we disregard the secondary target object. But even in this case, the mediator must be mereologically comprised of at least 2 component objects; otherwise it cannot impart causal action onto itself.
As demonstrated by the societal appeal of Religion, Einstein’s Relativity, Quantum, and the Big Bang Theory, many people harbour preconceived notions that consider matterless motion and creation from nothing to be logical possibilities. In fact, some even consider such notions as absolute proven certainty!
Today, people are unable to understand the ontological contradictions in the following list of impossibilities:
- Theologians ascribe motion to ‘a’ CAUSE, which is already a verb (i.e. nothing!!) that must be mediated by a mediator A to a target object B. Then they say that God is this CAUSE, by using reification. And they conveniently eliminate object B in order to make their arguments work.
- Theologians ascribe motion and causal actions to “nothing”.
- Relativity ascribes motion to 0D particles, space, black holes, and concepts such as ‘length’, ‘mass’, ‘time’.
- Quantum ascribes motion to 0D particles, space (quantum fluctuations), concepts such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and the various Standard Model particles.
- String Theory ascribes motion to 1D strings.
But isn’t ironic, that theists and atheists accuse each other of believing in Creation from Nothing, when in fact, they are both creationists who clearly believe in Creation from Nothing and matterless motion?
In summary, I hope the reader now understands how Aristotle’s Law of Causality was reinterpreted by the monotheistic religions in order to dogmatically and covertly allow the IRRATIONAL notions of:
1) Creation from nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).
2) Matterless motion.
3) The reification of concepts (nothing) into objects. Specifically, the conversion of ‘cause’, ‘effect’, and ‘event’ into gratuitous spur-of-the-moment OBJECTS that can be used to suit any argument.
APPLYING THE “UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE” TO THE CLAIM OF CREATION
In the next section we will analyze “creation” from BOTH the theistic (God) and atheistic (Singularity) perspectives. But before we begin, let’s establish our rational approach to the ontology of creation so that we understand what creation entails:
1) Do you agree that “creation” is a verb, an act that necessitates the motion of a MEDIATOR entity which always existed? Yes or No?
2) Do you agree that the act of “creation” necessitates “causal action” from the MEDIATOR? Yes or No?
3) Do you agree that “causal action” CANNOT be imparted on “nothing”? Yes or No?
If you are not in agreement with the above 3 points, then you are practicing one of the worst Religions imaginable: a religion which asserts ontological contradictions as facts. Your religion is not based on “faith”. It is instead based on the worship of “contradictions/impossibilities”.
I will now do what every atheist fears: I will grant the theist and theologian the premise that God is the Uncaused First Cause.
This is the atheist’s worst nightmare! Atheists prefer to attack God and immediately dethrone Him from His asserted beginningless existence. There is no reason to attack God and it is very unscientific to do so. We don’t attack objects in science, we use them to either explain the viability people’s claims, or to explain their contradictions.
Since creation is the theist’s “claim”, I will use their own Causality argument for an Uncaused Creator to determine if their claim has any merit, validity, or viability. And in order to do so, the claim of creation must NOT have any ontological contradictions. The same analysis will apply to the Big Bang Theory’s assumption of the Singularity.
Since mathematical physics posits that the Singularity is 0D (shapeless), has no width, no height, no length, then it is NOTHING, and the Big Bang creation theory FAILS right here and now! Creation from nothing is impossible. The Big Bang is absolutely NO different than Religion. It is absolutely EQUIVALENT to the doctrine of an Uncaused Creator God!
But, just to give these atheists a fighting chance against the theists, for argument’s sake, let’s assume the Singularity is a real object with shape.
Let’s use the notation, “object A”, as a convention to refer to an object with no beginning, that is, either God or the Singularity. So object A will be the MEDIATOR in the foregoing analysis.
Now we are able to analyze the act of “creation” from an ontological perspective with no bald premises, no logical semantics, no proofs, no assertions, no opinions, no biased observers, no subjective evidence and no BS!
In the foregoing analysis we will ACCEPT the Theistic and Big Bang assumption that either God or the Singularity is the Uncaused First Cause: The Creator. We will use the Scientific Method to determine the viability of this assumption at the conceptual level. We will critically analyze the process of creation and rationally explain WHY an Uncaused Creator, can or cannot, impart “causal actions” through all the creation scenarios that are ontologically possible. There are only 3 scenarios which are ontologically possible for an Uncaused Creator, and we will exhaustively analyze all 3 of them. If any of them lead to contradictions, then we will have rationally explained WHY that particular creation scenario is not viable and is ontologically impossible.
For the purposes of this analysis, we will use object A as a moniker for either ‘God’ or the ‘Singularity’; it is synonymous with either of them. Hence we will assume that object A is a real object that always existed (it was not created).
So let’s analyze the 3 possible ontological scenarios for the Causality of Creation:
SCENARIO 1 – Causality on Something
This is an example of creation out of something (Creatio ex Materia).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon another object, B, which always existed without cause, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). This scenario is an example of Causality on Something, because TWO “actor objects”, the Creator (object A) and the material (object B) have always existed without being caused. The result of the event of Causality on Something mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.
1) Before the causal action of “creation” can begin, do you agree that an object, call it object A (God or Singularity), is necessarily required to have always existed (without cause or beginning), in order to perform this CREATION action we call, “cause”? Yes or No? If No, go to 3.
2) From 1, if Yes, then do you agree that “at least” another object, call it B, MUST exist in order to have causal action performed on it by object A, so that object A can “create” something from it? Yes or No? If No, go to 4. Absolutely ALL creation actions require a physical Creator object A, to mediate its “creation” causal action upon a Target object B, in order to create object C. This means that existence is an ontological necessity and it precedes any cause/action. Before a causal action can occur, AT LEAST 2 OBJECTS MUST ALWAYS EXIST, object A and object B. In the context of “creation”, object A will impart causal action on object B, in order to “create” object C from it. Both objects A and B have no beginning – they were never created! They necessarily ALWAYS existed! But object C was ASSEMBLED from at least object B. It was not created from nothing! It is impossible to realize any scenario where object A imparts a causal action, without at least one Target object, namely B, having always existed. Any notion suggesting otherwise, is either an ontological impossibility, or object A has to perform a causal action on “itself” or on “nothing” (see 4). Go to 5.
3) From 1, if No, then you are SERIOUSLY in trouble! You will need to rationally explain how causal action can be performed without an object to mediate the action. You are positing a state of nothingness. How does “nothing” perform causal actions? Go to “SCENARIO 4”.
4) From 2, if No, then do you agree that object A must impart causal action on itself, and SACRIFICE ITSELF in order to “create” something? Yes or No? If Yes, then go to “SCENARIO 2”. If No, then go to “SCENARIO 3”.
5) From 2, since object A and “at least” another object, B, must have always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour these objects and allow them to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothingness), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Space precedes causes; it necessarily precedes motion. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
6) From 5, we have rationally explained that space, object A, and “at least” one or more objects, namely, object B, were ALWAYS present and could not have been created. Since SPACE WAS NEVER CREATED, and necessarily is the background for all objects, then space is necessarily OMNIPRESENT. SPACE IS EVERYWHERE, contouring all objects (invisible or otherwise). Space has no boundaries or borders to cross. Space is “nothing”. Only objects have boundaries (i.e. shape), not space. There is no “outside of space”. Therefore space cannot be “transcended”. No object, including God, can do that magic trick – no matter how much they kick, scream, and shout!
Conclusion from Scenario 1:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.
Space is “nothing”; it has no shape and is therefore neither finite nor infinite. Space is unbounded and borderless. Therefore space is ETERNAL because it cannot be created or destroyed. Since space must necessarily enclose and contour God, this makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The Uncaused Cause Argument assumes God to be eternal, but space is already OMNIPRESENT AND ETERNAL. God is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space! There is no other way about it. Space is there without God, but God cannot exist without space. Space is IMPOSSIBLE to create as its omnipresence necessarily wraps all objects. God must be IN space in order to move and perform causal actions, like “create”.
Similarly, one or more objects (B, B1, B2,...Bn) always HAD to exist as targets in order to facilitate the causality of “creation” from either God or the Singularity. These objects are matter (atoms). And since matter cannot be created or destroyed (converted into nothing), therefore matter has no beginning and no end. This necessarily implies that the amount of matter (atoms) in the Universe is constant. No new matter can ever be created. Therefore God is not omnipotent; He is not able to do whatever He wants. God cannot defeat nor contradict the omnipotence of “nothingness” and “matter”.
Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter in this scenario of Causality on Something, this means that object A was just another matter object (atoms) in the possible constant amount of matter in the Universe: A, B, B1, B2,...Bn.
This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. Space and matter were already there. They were always present with no beginning or cause, at least in the form of objects A and B.
So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one’s self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 2 – Self-Causality
This is an example of creation out of the being of God (Creatio ex Deo).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon itself, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible. So in this particular case, object A must necessarily consist of at least two component parts, and not a single continuous indivisible finite piece. Only then can object A, as a whole, impart causality upon itself, that is; upon its component parts. The result of the event of Self-Causality mediated by object A upon itself is intended to be the Universe.
1) Object A will impart “causal action” upon itself, and sacrifice its component parts in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).
2) From 1, since object A has always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). And space necessarily contours all the component parts of object A in order to allow them to move when imparted by causal actions. Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
3) From 1, it necessarily follows that object A is made up of matter (atoms), and breaks pieces of matter from itself and distributes them in the Universe. Since space is omnipresent, it necessarily contours all the matter (atoms) in the Universe, even before they were dismembered from object A.
Conclusion from Scenario 2:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). They can only distribute atoms which they already have. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! In this Self-Causality scenario, God is necessarily made up of matter and would have to sacrifice His own matter in order to disperse it in space. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe. If anything, God can only build it from pre-existing matter.
If God dismembers Himself to distribute matter, then what becomes of God? Isn’t God a living being? How much matter can God afford to lose before He stops living?
But of course, since space necessarily contours all of God’s matter (atoms), why would God need to disperse these atoms in space? They are already IN space. Their distance of separation is meaningless and irrelevant as to whether the matter currently in the Universe comprises God’s being or not. If we conceptualize and visualize all the matter in the Universe from a “bird’s eye” perspective, we could easily “join all the dots” to outline an object and claim that this object is indeed God. So what then is the difference about how the Universe is NOW, versus at the alleged moment of Creation? The only difference is in the ‘location’ of the matter (atoms); there is no other difference.
Well, the Devil’s advocate may say that God is still alive because He still has matter connecting and comprising His being,.... even though the rest of the matter in the Universe is disconnected from God and therefore comprises OUR “separate existence”. After all, God is outside of space and matter.
But the Devil’s advocate would be DEAD WRONG! Absolutely every single atom in the Universe is gravitationally bound to every other atom. This means that all the atoms in the Universe are physically interconnected with each other! So if God’s being consists of atoms (and it MUST be if He sacrificed his matter), then God is incapable of having his own SEPARATE existence from the rest of the matter in the Universe, including us. If we are capable of having a beginning and an end to our life, then obviously God MUST have a beginning and an end to His life, because after all, He consists of atoms. Only matter is eternal, life is not, because life is NOT an object, life is a concept. Life is not what something IS; life is what a collection of atoms DO!
Life consists of a collection of atoms, which come together under gravitational attraction in specific configurations, to form an object that is able to move of its own volition against gravity. If crucial configurations of these atoms dislocate from the object, or if other atoms combine with the object to alter these crucial configurations, it is said that the object has come to the end of its “service life”. And since the atoms of God are necessarily gravitationally bound to all other atoms in the Universe, then God’s atoms are influenced in the same way our atoms are influenced. This means that if God did exist, and did have life, and sacrificed his matter to distribute it in space, then God’s life has either come to an end, or it will come to an end. There is no escaping it. God can be as omnipotent as he wants in this scenario of Self-Causality, but even He is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space & atoms. Since God necessarily consists of atoms wrapped by space in this scenario, then He is powerless to them.
So God cannot have it both ways. God cannot say that He sacrificed Himself by dispersing matter all over space, and yet have the capability to be a separate discrete entity, because absolutely ALL matter is interconnected. All matter is attracted to each other via gravity. There are NO discrete entities which are separate from matter; all entities are interconnected at the atomic level. God cannot be OUTSIDE of matter anymore or any less than He can be OUTSIDE of space. There is no such “outside” context when it comes to the ontological primacy of existence. Space has no borders to cross and thus cannot be transcended. All of matter is interconnected at the atomic level, so God cannot sever these eternal interconnections, for if He could, He would destroy His atoms and His being. Therefore God cannot transcend matter. In this scenario of Self-Causality, God is necessarily all of matter......whether He likes it or not!
Q: So then, what did God create, build, assemble, or organize in this Self-Causality scenario?
A: Nothing that wasn’t already there! To posit that a God exists who simply increased the distance between portions of his matter to enable our existence to “assemble”, is an irrational and ludicrous notion. All the matter was already there! And it was already interconnected! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL!
Regardless, the quantity of matter in the Universe is constant; it cannot be created or destroyed. If the universe was composed by an unlimited quantity of matter, the Universe would be a single infinite solid block of matter, and there wouldn’t be any space at all. Such a scenario would not permit motion, life, let alone a God.
The BEST that proponents of creation can do in this scenario is to use the words ‘God’ or ‘Singularity’ as synonyms for “matter”. It is obvious that if ‘God’ or the ‘Singularity’ existed, they MUST have necessarily been composed of matter (atoms). Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter, this means that it can be conceived to be a conglomerate of matter (atoms), which comprise a constant amount of matter in the Universe (i.e. objects: B, B1, B2,...Bn). The Universe would be no different back then, than it already is today; other than for the locality of matter. There is no other option!
This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one’s self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!
If theists, atheists, or other creationists wish to refer to all the matter in the Universe as ‘God’ or ‘Singularity’, then more power to them, as that would make them Pantheists. Synonyms are no substitute for a rational explanation to the contradictory claim of creation.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 3 – Causality on Nothing
This is an example of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon “nothing”, which was always around without cause, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). In other words, object A will perform “Creation from Nothing”. Object A must necessarily impart causal action upon space (nothingness), since no other medium is available to create from. The result of the event of Causality on Nothing mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.
BUT....
We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!
This scenario defies the Law of Causality! An Uncaused First Cause is IMPOSSIBLE in the context of Creatio ex Nihilo!
1) Object A will impart “causal action” upon “nothing” in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).
2) From 1, since object A must impart causal action on “nothing”, and since space is “nothing”, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
3) Since object A will attempt to impart “causal action” upon space (nothing), it will absolutely FAIL to perform any causal actions. Why? Because space is nothing. Space is non-causal, not caused, shapeless, structureless, boundless, and incorporeal and it is not a Target actor in causality. Only objects can possibly be “actors” in causality. Causality necessarily requires SURFACE-TO-SURFACE CONTACT between TWO objects, A and B. Since object A is the only object assumed to always exist, it is impossible for it to impart causal action on its background medium of nothingness, space. Space is the necessary background medium giving form and contour to object A. Space is what gives spatial separation to object A, thus enabling it to be an entity, and giving it the ability to move against the background. God cannot rub elbows with space (nothing) and cause actions on it. All the objects in the Universe are constantly moving in space. If we deem this motion as “causal action”, then WHY aren’t they “creating” new matter in the process? The creation of matter from space is indeed impossible!
Conclusion from Scenario 3:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms) from nothing. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. In this scenario, object A is indeed a conglomerate comprised of all the atoms in the Universe. Creatio ex nihilo is impossible! Causal actions cannot be imparted on the nothingness of space. Therefore, in the scenario of Causality on Nothing, it is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.
So whoever posits the scenario of Causality on Nothing, has to understand that object A is ALREADY representative of all the matter in the Universe. All the matter was already there! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL! You can call it God if you wish, but that is completely irrelevant.
The ramifications of this scenario are similar to that of scenario 2, Self-Causality, and so are its conclusions about object A and its component parts being equivalent to all the matter in the Universe.
But the most important issue here is that Causality on Nothing VIOLATES THE LAW OF CAUSALITY! There is absolutely NO causal action. Causal actions necessarily require the motion of at minimum, TWO objects. This means that object A must act as the Mediator of causal action to a Target object, say, object B. So object A will be in motion and impart causal action via surface-to-surface contact of another object, B, which will necessarily impart motion to object B. God cannot rub elbows with nothingness, and cannot impart motion or “causal action” on it.
This scenario of Causality on Nothing posits the irrational idea of “matterless motion”, which is completely IMPOSSIBLE because it is an ontological contradiction. Space cannot have motion imparted on it because it has no shape, no structure, and no boundary or surface to contact. Only objects can have motion imparted upon them.
So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space. But it was unable to impart a causal action on space, as space is motionless and non-causal. Thus it was unable to create matter from nothing. Such a magic trick is indeed impossible under any context!
The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals with a dishonest agenda to push.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 4 – Causality out of Total Nothingness
This is another variation of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo), where there is no mediator or any object present. Even space is said not to be present in such a scenario. So it is a case of Self-Creatio ex Nihilo.
This is an irrational creation scenario posited by those fools who claim to believe in a “Creator-less Creation from Nothing”, where nothingness is the “mediator” imparting causal action on itself to create a real “output” object”.
The fools who posit this scenario are no different than those who posit any variation of Creation from Nothing. We already settled this issue before. Nothingness is non-causal and not caused. Nothingness does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges. Hence, as a MEDIATOR, it cannot come in contact with itself in order to perform causal actions on itself. We’re done!
And I can’t wait for the proponents of this scenario to explain to me with the luxury of detail, exactly how ‘nothingness’ is different from ‘space’. I will crack open a bottle of champagne just to hear that explanation. I will not give such fools the time of day by discussing this scenario further in this article, as there is NOTHING to analyze! If there was such a scenario as total nothingness, then we wouldn’t be here discussing it.
The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no MEDIATOR or no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
AN “UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE” IS ONTOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!
Of course, “Causality on Nothing” is the most popular causality scenario posited by theologians. They covertly treat ‘a’ cause as a noun (object) and make it synonymous with God, as in: “God is ‘the’ cause of the Universe”.
So we have a situation where the Law of Causality is contradicted because a minimum of 2 objects are required for causality, the MEDIATOR and the TARGET. But there is NO target object, even though the unsuspecting audience is under the impression that the target is the Universe, it is in fact the word “cause” which confused them and threw them off course because it is treated as an object. So the audience interpreted this ambiguous sentence as: God imparted ‘a’ cause, which seems to be the “causal action” (but it is not), and the effect or outcome was the Universe (but it wasn’t).
It is easy to understand that there was NO “causal action”!!
Q: What was the target object on which the “causal action” was imparted upon?
A: There is no target object. And the Universe is not the target object because it is the end result of the event of creation.
By treating verbs/concepts as NOUNS in a sentence, the unsuspecting audience thinks the sentence is about REAL ‘things’; i.e. things which exist. But it’s not the case. The ontology of Causality deals ONLY in real objects, not concepts or missing objects. Concepts don’t exist; they require a conscious observer to conceive them. Objects precede all concepts. Objects were around before humans arrived to conceive of “causes” and “effects”, and decide whether the ‘mediator’, ‘target’, or ‘output’ objects are representative of “causes” or “effects”.
It’s no wonder why such “fast and loose” ambiguous language with metaphors and euphemisms to drive home the point is HIGHLY DESIREABLE by theologians and philosophers. It has to be, as they have no legitimate and rational means of rounding up mindless followers to join their Religion. But their party hasn’t stopped there. They have managed to brainwash the mindless atheists and mathematicians to parrot the same irrationalities without having a clue of what they are talking about. But there is no surprise there, as most atheists are ex-Religionists and most mathematicians are Religionists.
Without understanding the underlying principles of ontology and Causality, people cannot even begin to comprehend the fatality that is hidden within ALL First Cause Arguments. People are used to going on the Internet and YouTube to educate themselves on this contradictory First Cause Argument, without so much understanding the basics. Then they will parrot this nonsense to others like it’s some Nobel Prize winning knowledge. Even Stephen Hawking is a clueless victim to this SCAM as is evident in his presentations on physics, causality and the Universe.
As you can see, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE SLEIGHT OF HAND which 99.99% of all people fall victims to, no matter what their level of education. The human brain is first and foremost a “pattern recognition machine”, and this is the most efficient job that it does most of the time. And in this mode, the human brain automatically fills-in the missing ‘target’ object in the Uncaused First Cause scenario. And it fills it in with the reified object noun “cause”. And the unsuspecting observer swallows up the argument as absolute fact without even using a neuron to think about it.
So naturally, it is almost impossible for most of us to spot such contradictions as missing target objects in the above example. Most of us prefer to BELIEVE what we are told by “perceived” authorities. Humans are extremely LAZY creatures. They prefer to have their “knowledge” spoon-fed to them from a decorated authority, rather than spending a few minutes of critical thought to figure things out for themselves. And this is the primary reason why we have beliefs in Gods, creation of existence, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, black holes, warped space, time dilation, time travel, 0D particles & singularities, particle accelerators, ghosts, spirits, monsters, etc. It’s business as usual here on Earth!
Here is another popular example that is often asserted by theists:
“Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call God.”
And if we replace the word ‘God’ with ‘Singularity’, we will get the breathtaking atheistic version of the First Cause argument. So I guess that one is proven fact too, huh?
Homework: Can you spot the 3 ontological contradictions (reification of ‘cause’, matterless motion, creation from nothing), in the above statement?
If you have ever debated a Christian, you will inevitably see them choose arguments that allow them to play on both sides of the fence.
Christianity’s bread and butter is Aristotle’s Law of Causality in its application to the First Cause argument for the creation of the Universe. Christian philosophers often claim that:
“Nothing exists without a cause; and the uncaused first cause of the Universe is God.”
Isn’t it ironic, that theologians, philosophers, and theists use Aristotle’s Law of Causality to attempt to prove their claim of creation, when in fact, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at MINIMUM, the existence of 2 objects: the MEDIATOR (object A) and the TARGET (object B).
And in the specific application of Creation, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at minimum, one OUTPUT object from the consummated event. Under the ontology of Causality, Creation in any form, under any mediator, under any context, is completely impossible!
THE LAW OF CAUSALITY DOESN’T EVEN APPLY TO SUCH CONTRADICTORY FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENTS WITH MISSING OBJECTS.
Why is this basic concept so difficult for people to understand?
1) If God is going to perform a “causal action” for Creation, then it rationally follows that He will perform this action on a TARGET, right? Otherwise, what is it that He is going to perform?
2) And it rationally follows that the result of that consummated event will have an OUTPUT that stemmed directly from the TARGET, right? Otherwise, where is the OUTPUT object going to stem from, nothing?
3) So BEFORE Creation, there must have been at minimum 2 objects always existing: God and the Target, right? This means that matter is necessarily ETERNAL!
4) And AFTER Creation, there must have been at minimum 3 objects existing: God, the Target object, and the Output, right?
I mean, this is straight forward stuff. There is no reason for somebody to use deception and dishonesty to make their argument acceptable, right?
It is painfully obvious that:
THE PROPONENTS OF CREATION CANNOT USE THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS THE LAW OF CAUSALITY.
As I explained in my analysis of the 4 possible scenarios for Creation, “creation from nothing” contradicts Causality and is thus ontologically impossible. Anybody who attempts to use First Cause Argument to account for the claim of Creation, is either a VERY ignorant person, or a charlatan!
C’mon people.....God must have given you a brain. Use it for a change. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
But don’t get me wrong. I am not here to pick on theists, as atheists, logicians, philosophers, mathematicians, and mathematical physicists are no different when it comes to understanding the ontology of Causality. They have all been taught to parrot this nonsense by Religionists. So let’s pick on them for a change, shall we?
One of the many disturbing examples out there can be found in the writings of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the eminent British logician and philosopher of the 20th century. Russell, an atheist himself, once claimed that:
“If everything must have ‘a’ cause, then God must have ‘a’ cause. If there can be anything without ‘a’ cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.....There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without ‘a’ cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about ‘the’ First Cause.” -- Bertrand Russell (Why I am not a Christian)
It’s obvious that the Law of Causality as applied to Creation even eluded the much praised Bertrand Russell. Even Russell, a famous mathematician and logician, did NOT understand the basics of Causality and ontology. For if he did, he would not have made such a silly childish argument against God being ‘the’ First Cause. He was blind to these fatal ontological contradictions in his above remarks:
1) He did not notice that he is reifying ‘a’ cause and ‘the’ First Cause, from a verb, into an object.
2) In his statement, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without ‘a’ cause”, HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! If say, for argument’s sake, that it is possible for the Universe to come into being (which is impossible), then that event MUST ABSOLUTELY be mediated by a MEDIATOR that imparted “causal action” upon a TARGET. To say, like Russell did, that a consummated event does need to be caused by a mediator, not only violates ontological existence and Physics and logic, but is TOTAL LUNACY!
3) He did not notice the implicit necessity of matterless motion in the First Cause Argument.
4) He did not notice the necessity of “creation from nothing” in the First Cause Argument.
Such a smart person should have pointed out that Causality requires at minimum 2 objects: the mediator and the target. And from this he should have concluded that creation under any context is impossible. So Russell was indeed WRONG in his conclusion....he should have spent a lot more time thinking about and understanding the Law of Causality. He gets a failing grade.
If God cannot create space and matter, especially when matter was ALREADY present in the 3 Causality Scenarios I outlined earlier, then what makes theologians, philosophers, and logicians think that God can create “out of nothing”?
How is that even a possibility?
Why would any logician attempt to use childish emotional arguments to attempt to discount Christianity’s “creation from nothing” myth?
Are these people on drugs or something?
Creation from nothing, or any sort of creation of space and matter, under any context, is easily shown to be completely IMPOSSIBLE via the Law of Causality. An Uncaused First Cause is instantly shown to be impossible because it is an ontological contradiction.
Should we accept as fact, or believe in, or have faith in the possibility of a triangular-square circle?
Can God be omnipotent and not-omnipotent?
Can God make parallel lines intersect, while still maintaining their parallel nature?
If you are a human being with HALF A BRAIN, you must concede that there are things which a God CANNOT do, no matter if His life dependent on it. In fact, many Christian apologists and logicians (William Lane Craig and Matt Slick come to mind) will explicitly tell you in no uncertain terms, that God CANNOT defy the laws of logic, and God CANNOT defy the ontology of nature.
It takes the worst kind of Religion imaginable to base its beliefs in pure contradictions. It takes the most dishonest and heinous Religion imaginable to teach its followers to worship and base their lives on pure contradictions. An honest and real Religion bases its epistemology on what is rational and reasonable. And it bases its faith and belief system on the UNKNOWN and UNEXPLAINABLE, which it attributes to God. Unfortunately, Christianity is no such Religion, as it bases its epistemology on impossibilities which are easily explained to be impossible!
People can make up all the excuses they want in order to protect their ignorance, their emotional biases, or their Religion. But one thing is a definite 100% certainty: All irrational claims and excuses have inherent contradictions which are easily unravelled, .....not by logical proofs, observations or evidence, .....but by critical thinking and analysis. Intellectual dishonesty never prevails, especially in Creation Arguments, whether in support of God, or of the Singularity and Big Bang.
No matter how you approach the First Cause Argument, and no matter what the context, when you critically analyze the ontology of Creation, you always reach the same conclusion: THAT MATTER WAS ALWAYS THERE. Even if God was there, matter was necessarily with Him, whether as another object, or in the composition of His being – whether He likes it or not. But the ultimate death blow to Creation is that space necessarily precedes God. God cannot exist without space contouring Him and allowing Him the free-will to move. Space reduces God’s free will. Space is MORE formidable than God!
Therefore, God is not omnipotent, not omnipresent, and does not have ultimate free-will,......and if God is said to exist.....then God is necessarily comprised of matter (atoms), just as we are. God would be just another being, maybe much bigger and more power than us, just as the dinosaurs were, or maybe even bigger.
THE DEVIL HAS MANY ADVOCATES
The Devil has his career to think about. Without God to set some authoritative standard, there would be no authoritative negated standard and no Devil; and vice versa. If there was no God the Devil would have to pack it in; he would have to shut down his business; he would be run out of town. That’s why the Devil has sent his advocates to tell me that I have it all wrong. The Devil’s advocates have their stake in “creation”. They have put all their eggs in that basket. Without creation from God, the Devil and all the other characters in the mythical story vanish in an instant!
The Devil often sends his advocates to beat me up with their arguments from ignorance. Here are some responses I’ve received in my exchanges with theists and atheists:
“Hey, how do you KNOW with certainty that God is an object? How do you KNOW that God has shape/form? Our Lord is not like you or me. He is not visible, He has no structure. You cannot SEE my Lord in order to prove your claims. God is immaterial. Take your trash elsewhere. You are a pathetic simple-minded clown making wild claims you have no evidence for!”
How do I “know” that God has shape? How do I “know” that God is an object?
BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO, THAT’S HOW!!!!!!!!!!
Job 4:15-17 “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light”
God tells us that ALL objects have shape/form. God tells us that He has shape/form, even though He is invisible. Absolutely ALL invisible objects have shape/form, even the mediator object for light, and even God Himself. God cannot defy the ontology of nature – no exceptions!
"God said it....I believe it.....that settles it."
So who is the pathetic simple-minded clown??
Whatever God or any authority tells us is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Neither I, you, God, nor anyone else can claim to KNOW anything to be 100% true, or even 1% true. There is no objective way to resolve such biased observer-dependent claims. And my analysis does not go down the irrational path of truths, proofs, facts, knowledge, wisdom or faith. We only need to think critically in order to explain why God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’.
God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity; a being. It is taken on faith that God exists. So if God is an entity, if God is something rather than nothing, then God necessarily has some type of intrinsic structure; God necessarily has shape! Therefore God is indeed an object (that which has shape). The specifics of God’s shape are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The point is that God is ‘something’. God can most certainly be invisible, just like the invisible mediators for light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc., which are objects. But like all these invisible ‘things’ which mediate those phenomena, God has ‘shape’ as well.
Nobody needs to SEE God in order to critically reason that God is an object. Nobody needs to see the physical mediating mechanism for gravity in order to reason that it is a physical object which is in contact with all matter. The existence of objects is observer-independent. The Sun is an object whether or not you were born to SEE it. Even a blind person can reason that the Sun is an object. So if God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’, then God is necessarily an object! And there is no such anything as “immaterial”. Anything that is negatively predicated is actually referring to nothing. Only space is immaterial. Only space can be negatively predicated. If God is said to be immaterial, then obviously, God is nothing.
“Dude, how can you tell us that you KNOW exactly what happened at the moment of Creation? Were you there to actually SEE God fail at creating the universe? Can you PROVE what you are saying? What is your evidence?”
Claims regarding God, ontology, creation, or any claims for that matter, have nothing to do with what we can know, prove, see, or have evidence for. Any such claims can be hypothesized, conceptualized, visualized, and critically reasoned in order to reach an objective conclusion of whether they do or don’t have merit, validity, or viability. This is the only objective, observer-independent, and unbiased method we can use to assess claims made by humans. All it takes is a single ontological contradiction to demonstrate a claim to be IMPOSSIBLE.
So let me ask this of the Devil’s advocate: “Do you objectively KNOW, can you objectively make EVIDENT, and can you objectively PROVE that your right arm ‘exists’? Are you sure that you can handle such a formidable ontological challenge?”
For those who disagree; for those who would like to “prove” me wrong; for those who want to make ME look foolish....here is YOUR chance:
I am officially on the record as challenging anybody to objectively prove that their right arm exists. They are free to post their “proof” in the comments section so they can tell the audience how they intend to go about proving their claim. That should be an easy task, right? Well, they can try.....but only then will they be able to realize how the words KNOW, EVIDENCE, PROOF and CERTAINTY humble even the most intelligent of logicians. If the reader still doesn’t understand why claims of KNOWLEDGE, EVIDENCE and PROOF are the hallmarks of FANTASY, LUNACY and IRRATIONALITY, then I am willing to sweeten the pot for them in the hopes that they GET IT! If the reader can prove that their right arm exists, I will PayPal them $1000 US so they can donate it to their favourite charity. Any takers? Nope, I don’t see any! ”Truthers”, “Provers”, and “Logicians” always RUN from a challenge rather than admit to their ignorance.
So to answer the Devil’s question: there is nothing to “know” about the moment of creation. The issue at hand has nothing to do with knowledge. The issue has to do with a critical analysis and understanding of the claim that is posited by theologians. Creation is a CLAIM, remember? The “moment of creation” is a supposed consummated event that is THEORIZED by theologians.
We don’t need to “SEE” God attempting to “create” in order to understand whether it is possible for Him to do so. Knowledge, truth, fact, proof, or evidence plays absolutely NO role here! The only way to assess this claim of creation is to take it at FACE VALUE and critically analyze all the details surrounding the claim. If there are ontological contradictions, the claim is instantly discarded as it has been rationally explained to be IMPOSSIBLE.
“You don’t know everything. You have to accept that there are limitations to human intuition, and that common sense is not always applicable. We are not gods. Some things we cannot KNOW for sure, like God or Creation for example.”
Oh, really? But yet you KNOW that what you just said is true? So what is the objective criterion for deciding what is “common sense” and what isn’t? Should I ask for my mailman’s opinion, Oprah’s opinion, Lady Gaga’s opinion, Pat Robertson’s opinion, Stephen Hawking’s opinion, or Einstein’s opinion? Whose opinion would be better? In fact, the opinion of a “mouse” carries the SAME weight, as far as opinions go.
We resolve these matters objectively by reasoning them through, and identifying any inherent contradictions. And if we destroy the belief systems of celebrities such as Pat Robertson and Stephen Hawking, then that would fall under the category of: TOO BAD!!
What does subjective “knowledge” have to do with anything? We can never “know” that claims of consummated events are the case. We can only explain whether they are rational and viable, or contradictory and impossible. The issue before us an objective one: Are we gonna wait around for some authority to spoon-feed us what we are supposed to KNOW or BELIEVE, or are we gonna grab the bull by the horns and use our brains to think for a change?
Only fools will make such wishy-washy excuses as limited knowledge and intuition because they don’t have the balls to admit that they don’t understand the difference between an object & a concept, the difference between existence & nothingness, the difference between rational & irrational, and the difference between reality & delusion. These fools went to University for 4+ years just so they could warm up a seat and get a certificate of attendance!
For those who want to nitpick on the terms ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’, I am 10 steps ahead of you! I explain the difference between rational & irrational in detail in my hub: Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED.
This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a very long time. St. Augustine was famous for routinely using such tactics to win his religious arguments and instantly prove that his God exists in any situation.
St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we can NEVER KNOW God:
“If you understood him, it would not be God.” (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663)
Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can use it to win BOTH sides of the argument. He argues that if you don’t KNOW God, then you are a really stupid idiot:
“Those who say these things do not as yet understand Thee, O Thou Wisdom of God, Thou light of souls; not as yet do they understand how these things be made which are made by and in Thee.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)
And by using this antidote, St. Augustine claimed to KNOW EXACTLY what God was up to before the Creation of the Universe; even though he unwittingly implicated himself to damnation with this knowledge! He argued that God was of course preparing Hell for those who wanted to KNOW God:
“Behold, I answer to him who asks, ‘What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?’ He was preparing hell, saith he, for those who pry into mysteries." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12)
Unfortunately, St. Augustine’s stupid circus show is still prevalent in all sectors of society, especially in Theology, Atheism, and Mathematical Physics. People always fall back on lame EXCUSES in order to protect their biased arguments and beliefs from being destroyed by rational explanations.
Enough of this lunacy!
All these fools can take their excuses about Limited Intuition, Knowledge, Evidence, Truth, Proof, etc. and shove them!!
Let me repeat it again in case it didn’t sink in: If a claim, any claim, is critically analyzed and explained to be contradictory, then whatever the claim posits to be the case, is an impossibility!
Whoever thinks they can refute my case is welcomed to post in the comments section a rational explanation of how it could be possible that there was no space and no matter in the past. They will need to explain HOW God can go about creating space, when space was ALREADY there preceding God. The will need to explain HOW God can go about creating matter, when matter was ALREADY there as one of the ACTORS in the Law of Causality. Without matter being always present, causal actions are impossible! If God is powerless in creating space from nothing, then how can he possibly create matter from nothing? These are magic tricks which man speaks of God. God is clearly humbled by the incredible omnipotence of space and matter.
In summary, here is how we rationally put ALL Creationist arguments to rest:
1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.
2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.
3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
4) Space is formless, shapeless, unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing! It is the void.
5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object. Existence without space is impossible!
6) There is NO object that can occupy all of space, or enclose space - including a supposed “Universe object”.
7) Matter cannot escape or “transcend” space, because space has no boundary. There is no structure, surface, or edge to cross. We are all trapped in “here” (space) for eternity.
8) The Creationist claimed scenario where there once was no matter AND no space is inconceivable and ontologically impossible. Causes don’t exist; especially an “Uncaused First Cause”. Only objects exist.
9) If there is a God, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even He can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of and NO cracks to slip through. So He'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Formless & borderless space humbles the most arrogant of gods, even the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – it’s impossible! We have “free will” because God does not, as even ‘He’ cannot escape this prison ‘He’ is credited for building. So if God exists, He is just another insignificant being that satisfies the human involuntary compulsion to worship....He may very well be Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, or some Hollywood Celebrity. Mindless beings are obsessed with worshipping conceptually-important (authoritative, celebrity, idol) characters.
Therefore, we rationally conclude that matter & space are ETERNAL. God and the Singularity are Hypotheses that die at inception!
a) The God Hypothesis of the big 3 monotheistic religions is invalid not only because it leads to absurdities and contradictions, but because it is ontologically impossible for it to be used in a Theory to rationally account for the Creation of space and matter.
b) The Religion of the Big Bang is absolutely NO different than that of God’s Creation, sans the intelligent being. The Big Bang hypothesizes a 0D singularity having no Length, Width, or Height, and definitely no background to contour it and give it form and existence. This 0D singularity supposedly created not only space and matter, but an artificial concept known as ‘spacetime’. So it is even MORE surrealistic and irrational than any Hypothesis that has ever been conceived by any religion!
The nonsense of Creation under the guise of God, the singularity, or by ANY other mechanism has been put to rest. It is impossible. We’re done!
Nature had no beginning and will have no end. Rocks, gases, stars and atoms recognize no past or future, which are conceptions of a human brain. Nature only functions in PRESENT MODE, the NOW, and as such, nature is effectively the only perpetual recycling machine – it is non-entropic! Atoms have no ability to rub their elbows against space, grind to a stop, and die. They float in space and gravitationally interact with each other forever. God cannot create atoms from scratch. And as such, even He cannot alter the eternal activity of atoms.
THEISTS AND ATHEISTS HAVE A LOT MORE IN COMMON THAN THEY CARE TO ADMIT
Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre wanted to prove that God created the Universe. So he found ways to conjure up the Big Bang for the science department in the Vatican. And of course almost everyone accepted his theory; most of the members in the scientific community were theists themselves.
1) Christians like to argue that their position is NOT “Creation from nothing” because it was God who created the Universe. Atheists do the same, but say it was the Singularity that created the Universe when it exploded, and expanded.
2) Christians allege that they don’t know what happened BEFORE creation, although St. Augustine claimed to have KNOWN that God was preparing HELL for those who pry into such mysteries (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12). Atheists do the same, and tell you that it is unscientific to ask such questions (pry into such mysteries), because it’s like asking what is north of the North Pole, i.e. like asking where HELL is.
3) Christians want the Universe to begin AFTER God created the heavens and the Earth and said “Let there be light!” They will do anything to AVOID such questions as “Where did God come from?” Atheists do the same. They want the Universe to begin AFTER the Singularity exploded and started expanding (Let there be BANG!). They will do anything to AVOID such questions as “Where did the Singularity come from?” They both claim that such questions are meaningless because time did not exist back then. Little do these mindless clowns realize, is that TIME DOESN’T EVEN EXIST NOW! Time is a concept invented by man.
If you are ever accused of murder, tell the judge and jury that it’s MEANINGLESS to ask such questions as: “Where were you and what were you doing the days leading up to the murder, and the day of the murder?”
Tell the judge and jury that it’s like asking: “What is north of the North Pole?”
Tell the judge and jury that TIME only began at the INSTANT the murder occurred (t=0), and that anything before that is MEANINGLESS and must be SUPPRESSED in order to PROTECT you from inquiry and scrutiny, and allow you to walk out the courtroom having PROVEN your case of “not guilty”.
What is so SPECIAL about the God Hypothesis and the Singularity Hypothesis that compel their proponents to enforce biased rules and regulations so as to prevent public inquiry and “snooping around”?
Why don’t we do this in court cases?
Isn’t the hypothesis that YOU were at the crime scene before the murder took place?
Isn’t the hypothesis that God or the Singularity were at the crime scene before the Universe began?
Isn’t the theory that YOU made prior preparations to commit the murder, and committed it in the manner the prosecutor outlines in his explanation?
Isn’t the theory that God or the Singularity created the Universe because of some prior events leading up to “creation”, and it happened in the manner the Christian Apologist or the Big Bang Apologist outlines in his explanation?
Can you believe how accustomed we’ve become to letting such clowns get away with murder? Aren’t we incredibly stupid to let such contradictions walk out the door and declare victory that they’ve PROVEN their case?
CONCLUSION
Causal “creation” can take on the 3 possible scenarios which we explained: Causality on Something, Self-Causality, and Causality on Nothing. There are no other options.
We rationally explained why all 3 scenarios lead to ontological contradictions where God or the Singularity cannot create space and matter. We explained why in all 3 scenarios, matter was necessarily pre-existing; it had no beginning of creation – IT WAS ALREADY THERE!
Indeed, that which is necessary must also be eternal, for if something is necessary it can never begin to exist or cease to exist, but must have always existed. Since matter and space are not contingent, they are not necessitated by any “external” causal action. That which is not contingent is by definition necessary and thus never had the potential to not exist, let alone the potential to be created via “external” causal actions mediated by some God entity.
And besides, there are NO causal actions that are “external” to the Universe. There is no “outside” to the Universe. The Universe cannot be transcended. The Universe encompasses all of space and matter. Space is omnipresent – it is everywhere, and has no borders to transcend. All matter, invisible or otherwise, is gravitationally interconnected at the atomic level and hence no entity, including a God, can transcend and escape the interconnectivity of matter.
Existence is the default situation as existence obviously exists. Existence is not a claim. Existence was already there. Only “inexistence” and “creation” are claims. And they are CONTRADICTORY claims. Creation of existence under any context is impossible, as explained.
If there is a God, then God was definitely assembled “within” space. This means that matter necessarily preceded God. It had to, because space forbids God from being ‘eternal’; and ontological causality forbids God from being a ‘creator’. So if God is assumed to exist, then it follows that God was naturally ASSEMBLED by matter, and is subject to death, just like any other living being in the Universe. This means that matter is indeed eternal......and as for God.....He would just be a simple being, either like us, or some other life form. But God’s ontology is irrelevant. The key issue is that it is impossible for God to be an “eternal being” or a “creator”.
Therefore we conclude that the claim of Creation, whether via a God, a Singularity, or in any other context, in not only irrational, but also, completely IMPOSSIBLE!
The Universe is eternal; it cannot be created or destroyed.
CommentsLoading...
Braudboy,
Thanks for dropping by. I hope we can have a rational discussion. So let’s try to address each issue individually, rather than injecting concurrent issues into the discussion and losing track of our arguments.
“the assumption that matter was already there.”
I have never assumed that matter was already there. If you could copy/paste where you read such a statement in my hubs, I’d appreciate it, as I would like to correct such a profound error.
Let’s review what an assumption is.....
An assumption is a statement made by the one who uses it as a hypothesis for which to base thier CLAIM (i.e. theory). For example:
Theists and atheists alike assume that space & matter was not around at some instant in the past. This is their hypothesis.
The Theist’s CLAIM or theory, is that God somehow created space & matter.
The Atheist’s CLAIM or theory, is that a dimensionless 0D singularity created space & matter.
Are we clear on that now?
So......I come along and say to both of these “creationists” that their claims are irrational & impossible because:
1) It is impossible for space to be created because space is nothing. It has no shape/form, border, or internal structure. Nobody can create that which lacks shape.....not even God or a Singularity.
2) It is impossible to create matter (atoms) because “create” is a VERB. In order to mediate this verb, matter has to ALREADY exist and acquire motion. This is the create action. So matter was already there, since “create” is a concept (verb) and all concepts are necessarily preceded by OBJECTS (that which has shape, i.e. existence).
Therefore, that matter was ALREADY there, follows directly from the critical analysis which explains the impossibility posited by the camp who asserts “creation”.
I am not assuming anything. I am only explaining. Understand?
“how did that car come to be”
The same way that planet, star, comet, human, bacteria, virus, etc. did. None were created. All were ASSEMBLED from pre-existing atoms, as explained above. Matter is eternal.
“How did it get there?????”
Such a question is ASSUMING creation. You are asking WHO put matter there!
So please.....I will only ask a very simple question of you. I will not ask you to justify God or Jesus like atheists do.
I will only ask you to explain whether “creation” is even a remote possibility.
If you can give a rational explanation showing that it is, then you will have DEBUNKED my hubs. And I promise to take them all down immediately!
Deal?
YOU state that things are impossible from your limited viewpoint. You want to assume that you have ultimate authority and intellect, therefore because you cannot understand what has happened, you write it off. I can just easily turn your logic around on you. You have no proof or truth on your side that matter has always existed. Therefore, I can conclude that since you cannot prove this, that there must have been a creation to begin this process. You are too caught up in the whole space, universe details. For the sake of arguement, I will say that it is possible that matter existed and space existed and that God had material to work with in the "so called" beginning. What is more important is the creation of man. This did not happen from some accident. There is a design and a purpose that is evident. We are God's creation. Life is very complex and there is definite design and purpose assigned to it. I hope you discover this in your lifetime and accept Jesus as your Savior.
Braudboy,
“YOU state that things are impossible from your limited viewpoint.”
Your, mine, God’s, the Devil’s, your Pastor’s, etc. viewpoint are irrelevant and of no concern to reality.
I rationally explained to you in my previous comment (points 1 & 2) exactly WHY creation is impossible. YOUR idea of “creation” is based upon ontological contradictions which violate reality. It has nothing to do with opinion or viewpoint. It has to do with understanding human communication.
Your irrational assumed “creation” is divorced from reality and even you cannot understand what you are asserting.....for if you did.....you would have answered my questions and put me in my place a long time ago.
“you cannot understand what has happened”
Please EXPLAIN what you allege happened, since YOU understand your assertions. This is YOUR claim of an alleged consummated event you call “creation”. Can you make a movie out of it, or refer to a movie online so we can understand?
For example, your God Theory would have to show in frame #1 of the movie, God with his magic wand, existing in nothing; i.e. no space, no matter, no void. In frame #2 and later frames, the movie would have to show how God creates space. We cannot just have space magically appear in frame #2. How did God do it? But as it turns out, it is impossible for God to exist without space because He would have no form. He would be nothing!
Similarly, in say frame #100, the movie would have to show how God created the first bit of matter. It is irrational to just have matter appear in frame #100, when it didn’t even exist in frame #99. The movie is supposed to explain all these issues by showing how no-shape can surreptitiously acquire Length, Width, and Height, and turn into shape/form with internal structure to form an atom.
Braudboy.....be honest......even YOU cannot understand the wild claims which you are spewing. That’s why you cannot answer a single question posed to you.
“You have no proof or truth on your side that matter has always existed.”
Hopefully I don’t!!!
I’d be a clown if I claimed that my hubs were based on my OPINION.
What is ‘proof’ and ‘truth’, and what do these opinions have to do with reality? If you cannot explain, then you’ve said nothing. Got it?
I already explained WHY creation is IMPOSSIBLE. Hence matter is eternal. Which part of “impossible” didn’t you understand?
“For the sake of arguement, I will say that it is possible that matter existed and space existed”
It took a while, but you finally succumbed to your irrationality. But it’s not “possible” as you state....eternal matter is the DEFAULT position.
Why?
Because existence exists. If you want matter to not exist in the past, you have to explain your deviation from existence. But it’s irrelevant because “creation” is rationally explained to be impossible. Therefore matter is eternal by definition! Which part of “definition” didn’t you understand?
“and that God had material to work with in the "so called" beginning.”
Yeah, I heard he was a carpenter who used pre-existing eternal matter to build some stuff, just like monkeys do every day. Why anybody would worship a monkey is beyond comprehension!
I worship Cheryl Ladd....she’s a Goddess and a milf!!!
“There is a design and a purpose that is evident.”
Design & purpose are fallacious notions because they already presuppose a creator....which is impossible, as I rationally explained. Besides, design & purpose are opinions concluded by the eye of the beholder. They are a LIE to your mailman, to your Liberal Congressman, and to tons of others. You are certainly outvoted by popular opinion. Opinions vary.
Anyway...... Braudboy......are you ever going to rationally explain whether the alleged “creation” of matter is even a remote possibility?
If you can’t, it’s ok. Don’t sweat it. Your beliefs don’t concern me or reality. Only explanations do.
Just be honest with your fellow man for once in your life.....you only have FAITH in “creation”, but NO explanation, right??
Even though you are a theist, I still regard you as a friend and wish you well. And I do expect some basic level of honesty from you.
fatfist- All you did was explain your viewpoint that you think creation is impossible. Because you are egotistical, and god-hating, you have assigned yourself as ultimate authority. You have assumed that man's limited viewpoint and scope is the ultimate power. YOu have assumed that if you cannot understand it, it cannot be so. YOu try to assign yourself some unbiased, scientific, above all of the prejudices of beliefs position, and, therefore your calculations are correct and above dispute. All you have is a belief, just like other religions, but yours is a belief in no god. It is a belief that man is the ultimate authority, and if man can not calculate and understand it, it cannot be so. YOU say I have a faith in creation, but no explanation. Wrong! The explanation is GOD! No more or less of an explanation than yours which is "no God". If you open your eyes, you should be able to see how lame of an explanation for all of the beauty, order, and complexity of our surroundings and say it all happened by accident and without design. Then to say the even more complex and beautiful features of life, the reproductive and renewing capabilities, and how man is certainly above all of the other animals, and say this was all an accident. Some evolution from apes and what not. Under scrutiny and examination, I tell you those theories are ridiculous. You are quite a character, speaking as the ultimate authority and you do come off as a fool. I am only trying to save you from yourself. Remember that man has faults. Dont sell your soul to the scientific research and conclusions on this subject. They are only men such as yourself, with limited scope and understanding, and with many faults.
Braudboy,
“All you did was explain.... creation is impossible”
Exactly!
That’s the only thing humans can do when another lesser-evolved ape creature posits an irrational CLAIM, like that of creation. I EXPLAINED exactly WHY it is impossible, irrespective of anybody’s opinion. For if there was my opinion injected into the explanation, one would easily point it out. Nobody can!
Which part of “impossible” didn’t you understand?
“egotistical, and god-hating....lame....fool”
You are too predictable, boy. You have NO argument or refutation so you spew off your anger... , the last resort of those who have no valid explanations for the crap they spew.
Keep arguing with the mirror. If you punch it hard enough, the object that is troubling you might go away. That object is YOURSELF. You are angry at YOUR ignorance! I woke you up and reality has bitten you in the ass and you are protesting in anger. Have fun arguing with yourself.
Fatfist: “You have no explanation for how matter can be created and acquire shape from nothing. You only have FAITH”
Braudboy: “Wrong! The explanation is GOD!”
Erm..... Braudboy.....can I ask you a personal question? Please don’t take it the wrong way... no disrespect intended whatsoever.....and my apologies in advance for asking.......but....was your mother ever a prostitute, by any chance? The reason I ask such an obviously private family question is not to offend you, so please don’t take it the wrong way. It’s just that, the last time I conversed with someone who posted such a retarded statement, he flat out confessed to me that his mother was prostituting during during his conception. I’m just curious as to the source of your incoherent & contradictory statements.....you think your dad could have been a sailor?
Listen up, you ignorant religious ape.......God is a Hypothesis. You ASSUME God is an object with shape/form, just like your Bible told you. A hypothesized (assumed) object can never be an ‘explanation’. Only a THEORY can be an explanation. Your explanation must use God to EXPLAIN how the void (nothing) can acquire Length, Width, Height in ZERO TIME and form into an object with shape/form and internal 3D structure. You haven’t done that. You only uttered your ignorance in basic English linguistics & comprehension.
Do you love posting your nonsense and showcasing your sheer ignorance of ultra-basic level communication? Do you love making a fool of yourself in front of the public scene?
No wonder you believe in nothing!
Braudboy,
“If you open your eyes, you should be able to see how lame of an explanation”
Yes, we agree 100% here. Open your eyes, go and re-read the drivel you posted and maybe....just maybe....you might have some grey matter in that rusted tin can of yours which will get you to realize that you have NO explanation whatsoever. Maybe you can ask God for one.
And God would certainly tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to convert nothing (no shape) into something (atoms with shape) in zero time. And He would also tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to exist without the background of space which gives Him form and being.
God is just another monkey in the biggest prison never built: SPACE.
Not even God can cross over and escape that which has no boundaries! 'He' is trapped here together with the rest of us. “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even “He” can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of. 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, including the God of the Bible.
Nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – that is impossible! We have “free will” because God does not, as even ‘He’ cannot escape this prison which His ignorant apes have credited Him for building.
Anyways, boy, your anger in not being able to offer any explanation has got the best of you. You keep repeating your failed argumentative emotional nonsense which I have thoroughly debunked.
If you have nothing new to offer by your next post, then you are done! I have given you ample opportunity to talk rationally and exemplify your position.
I thought you could teach me a thing or two, and make me change my immoral & evil ways which torment my life. But I was wrong about you....and deeply saddened at the same time. You are just another Benny Hinn in disguise.....a wolf in sheep's clothing....who is looking to brainwash my young tender mind.
You sound angry and dimented as you ramble on and insist that your theories are supreme. In your limited thought process, you assume that if your lesser mind cannot conceive or calculate it, then it cannot be true. In your deranged state, you have claimed ultimate authority and cannot conceive of a greater authority that can achieve beyond the human experience. It is understandable that you tremble at anyone pointing out the possibility of God's existence, as it does put you in a precarious situation. I can teach you nothing because you think you know it all.
boy,
"insist that your theories are supreme"
There is your PROOF & TRUTH that you are a monkey who hasn’t fully evolved.
I haven't posted a single hypothesis or theory in here. I have only objectively DEBUNKED your God Hypothesis AND your Theory of Creation. But in your brain-dead comatosed state of existence you have no way of discerning that.
You are an extremely ignorant monkey who doesn't understand the difference between a CLAIM and the "debunking" of a claim. Too funny!
Sawdust, my friend...just sawdust! You should stick to pushing the broom, cleaning toilets & latrines.
Objective reality is really over your head. You'll never get it.
Kindergarten-level communication skills elude you. Perhaps when Buddha reincarnates you as a SNAIL, you’ll have greater brain capacity!
You need to get out more and get in touch with reality. You're a hermit arguing with the mirror.
You're not cut out for this sort of thing. You should continue going to your church on Sundays and pray to your non-existing God, and stroking your Pastor's ego!
But watch out for your atheist Pastor when you kneel before him. I heard in the news that he likes gullible, tender, old & wrinkled boys...like you!
Your responses are a perfect example of what is defined as the workings of a primitive, not fully evolved, and not fully functioning monkey brain. I will add you to my list of primitive thinkers, like Mickey Mouse, who offer nothing of value to consider. Done!
Fatfist,
The act gets stale and right quickly, doesn't it? Braudboy is a candidate to be the next contestant on the hottest new game show on the "net" - Trolling For Christ!
Yeah, Winston, you're right. Boy is just another trite follower of the mythologies invented by his monkey-brained predecessors.
He could not save my pernicious life from temptation, sin and damnation.
He is but another disingenuous trolling con-artist looking to round-up more troops for his cult.
I do enjoy a good debate, but I can see that you boys only enjoy being patted on the back and told how brilliant you are. I suppose your mamas told you that you were golden boys and would grow up to rule the world. She also forgot to bring you to church. Anyway, I have been monkeying around with fatfist and have had fun poking holes in his superiority.
braudboy,
Braudboy : “I can see that you boys only enjoy being patted on the back and told how brilliant you are.”
Braudboy: “and have had fun poking holes in his superiority.”
You've just unwittingly patted YOURSELF on the back without justification, monkey! Why do you always contradict yourself? Didn’t the Wizard of Oz give you a brain yet?
You thought this was just another “atheist” hub where you could come here and expect to argue in circles about morals, evil, intelligent design, complexity, order, and opinionated crap like that, huh?
But you got the shock of your life when it was rationally explained to you WHY your God Assumption is bunk and your Creation Theory is impossible. Now you understand full well why it is impossible for a God to exist.
I mean, just look at your comments.....you even conceded that space is impossible to create, and that it is possible for matter to be eternal, but you don’t like it being so. That is good progress. I’m proud of you!
And then what do you do? Well.....you throw childish fits of anger and name-calling because you now realized your Santa is an impossibility. Welcome to reality and get used to it.
You’ve completely lost your FAITH, boy! I mean, you can’t even give a single argument to defend your religion even if your life depended on it.
I'm tellin' your Pastor on you...LOL.
Th only shock I got was witnessing just how obscenely ignorant you are in your stubborn views. You have signed on to religion and dont even recognize it. Oh, and I never concede anything, I only opened the possibility to get you unstuck in your limited thinking. What you miss is that God is not limited by the laws of man and nature. You try to do experiments and evaluations based on mans limited scope and reasoning, and you miss the wonder of knowing God.
Braudboy,
“God is not limited by the laws of man and nature.”
Of course not! I gotta hand it to you, boy....you are slowly learnin’.
Laws are rules made by man. Nature has no laws, no rules, and no authorities.
God is limited only by YOUR claims, which are as follows:
a) The definition of ‘object’ (that which has shape) in YOUR hypothesis.
and,
b) The definition of the verb ‘create’ in YOUR theory.
LOL....it is YOU, the theist, who has set the LIMITS of your God claim. Ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a brain so you can finally wake up and understand your ludicrous claims.
Do you get your kicks by constantly making a fool out of yourself in public?
OMG...is this ape boy for real?
Nature either has SOMETHING (with shape i.e. atoms), or NOTHING (lacking shape i.e. space). There is NO other option....ever!
What? You disagree? Ohhhhhh....I was hoping you would! Please explain another option.
God is a hypothesized object (with shape/form) posited by the Jewish monotheists in the Torah, and was blindly adopted by Christianity and Islam.
1) As an object, the alleged God is necessarily preceded by space. Without space, God has no spatial separation from the background, and is nothing! God cannot exist without space because He would not have His most precious superpower: FORM!
2) Therefore, it is impossible for God to create space. Like us, God is stuck in the largest prison never built...SPACE! He is but another powerless prisoner, just like us.
3) Omnipresent & omnipotent space forces God to bow down to His knees before it, and beg for existence!!
In other words.....your God is a ‘synonym’ for eternal ‘matter’. You are nothing but a Naturalist & Pantheist, my dear braudboy.
And all this time you thought you were a Christian Creationist Fundie. Too funny :-)
Do yourself a favor, braudboy....ask the Wiz of Oz for a brain!
Fatfist,
This guy reminds me of the "Black Knight" in Monty Python's Holy Grail movie who could never seem to grasp that he was outmatched.
It's nothing. Only a scratch.
Scratch? Your bloody arm's cut off.
I've had worse.
@Winston....LOL!
braudboy,
Bored again today?
Perhaps you should put that free monthly pension income you receive from hard-working taxpayers towards a good cause......like enrolling in Junior Kindergarten and learning the meaning of object, concept, space, claim, event, and other basic language skills.
I can't believe Uncle Sam is robbing money from starving children's mouths in order to feed your obsessive compulsion to perpetually showcase your primate idiocy over the Internet.
That alone is your "proof" & "truth" that there is no God! My hubs are just "icing" on the cake.
You might wanna take lone77star's advice on this issue of God. You should know that lone77star claims to be a Christian Scientist/Physicist, and even he conceded that CREATION is an alleged claim that is irrational, and cannot be explained or accounted for. Therefore it is BUNK and belongs in the TRASH!
Do yourself a favor....consult with your Christian EXPERTS, like lone77star, on this issue, and wake the hell up already.
Anyway....I'll just grab some popcorn and watch you to showcase your ignorance and stupidity over your moronic claims, while continuing to make even a bigger fool out of yourself.
fatfist- Just as you completely blew it and wrongly deduced the origins of God's creation, you are completely wrong on the ASSumption that I get some pension or check from the government. If 77star claims to be a Christian, then he knows better. You are still stuck on trying to make an all powerful God fit into your limited knowledge and calculations. I am sure it has you confused.
braudbody,
"I get some pension or check from the government."
Busted, huh? You are free to rant & rave all you want. Your innate display of Christian Anger is most welcome here!!
But let me ask you for a favor, boy.....could you please put away $300/month from those government checks in a special fund for your granddaughter? She will need it to pay for perpetual psychiatric sessions in about 10 years time. Sorry to be so forward, but we already know that you don’t give a rat’s ass about her!
I am willing to bet that she will even need a good chunk of money so she can be institutionalized in a calm white-padded cell in the insane asylum, where she can’t hurt herself.
There.....you see how caring I am? And I’m not even a theist nor an atheist.
“If 77star claims to be a Christian, then he knows better”
Actually, he knows more than you! And he has decided to take the vow of SILENCE in order save face. You can even talk to 77star yourself, or even to Fred Allen, my very good Christian buddy. They will both tell you that creation is IMPOSSIBLE, as they have NO possible explanation for such a wild claim.
Here, let me do ya BIG a favour, boy.....because I really care about that little girl on your lap who will have so many damn mental problems in the future.......I am willing to deposit $20,000 US into a fund in her name at your local bank, if either:
1) YOU
Or
2) 77star
Or
3) Fred Allen
Or
4) Anybody else on the planet
.....can post a reply explaining whether the alleged claim of creation of space & matter is even the REMOTEST of remote possibilities. There, I’ve made it even easier for ya! I am on the record for this FREE offer to that little girl with the future mental & suicidal problems.
Can ya do such a simple task without any more double-talk?
Fatfist,
I think if we could get the pastor to sign off on the authenticity of a newly-discovered ancient-appearing Christian scroll - fake or real - that held out not the Islamic promise of 72 virgins but a promise of "one more night with mom and sis like that one night when dad was on the road and mom took too much cough medicine", well, we could quite possibly have right here in our midst the makings of the world's very first Christian jihadist.
I think you can only wind yourself so tight before you have to explode.
Not my law, Daniel. Nature's law. Learn walk first, then fly. Learn reason, else BOOM!
The act gets stale and right quickly, doesn't it? Braudboy is a candidate to be the next contestant on the hottest new game show on the "net" - Trolling For The Tiara!
AKA Chaos
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahaha
@braudboy......$20,000, do you want it....yes or no?
Unlike yourself, I'm a man of my word. I'm on the record, I can't turn back now.
Here you go, explain.
It's POSSIBLE to create space & matter as follows ___________
fill in the blanks and you get $20K, which is a lot more than Uncle Sam pays you to troll the net.
It's POSSIBLE to create space & matter as follows __God_________
Were is my money.
braudboy i am in your side we will kill heretic Aka Wiston, Fatfist ideology they think they know everything, but can never rationally explain there nosense make believe science. I believe space can be created lol. And here is my proof. I believe. lol
braudboy,
"here it is....being GOD!"
But you didn't tell the audience what "God" is for the purposes of YOUR claim. So let's get YOUR version.
"stuck trying to assign God limited capabilities"
EXACTLY! That's what you are stuck doing regarding YOUR claim. So please tell us then...
Q: According to YOU, is God an OBJECT with shape/form, just like the Bible asserts? Or is "God" a concept?
Which is it, braudboy....OBJECT or CONCEPT?
If anybody wants to step in and give poor old braudboy some help with this Q, please feel free...
Well, looks like you haven't a clue regarding this irrational word "God" you are parroting, braudboy! You've been dodging all the questions and just trolling.
Besides, you are on your OWN with your nonsense. No other Christian on the planet dares come here to rescue you from your nonsense....not even alleged theists like 77star, Fred Allen, or Pollyannanella. You have one tough life, don't you?
Have fun chasing your tail in circles..LOL.
If you are going to talk about God who created even space and time,then you can as well say that such an idea is ridiculus. You are correct, though I know that God exist christians need some thorough debunking if they claim that God created time and space. If there was no before big bang, then time is an event like a football match. This is laughable. And saying that God was there 'before time,' is like saying somebody leave in houses that do not exist in the first place. 'Before time' and 'outside space' are indead very ridiculus. It is better for someone to keep his own beleivs to himself instead of offering such explanations. But I think I should leave you with a question; consider when you are dreaming, aren't you creating that space in the dream? Are morden physicists saying that may be we are all dreaming? But they should admit this.
Kirui,
“It is better for someone to keep his own beleivs to himself instead of offering such explanations.”
Of course, but even still, “braudboy” hasn’t offered any explanation. He has only offered his personal OPINION (belief). When somebody like braudboy comes along and makes contradictory claims, he knows full well that he blowing smoke from his orifice.
All people like him ever do, is say that: “parallel lines always intersect, and this is 100% true”.
When you ask them for an explanation, their response is: “Ha! Your limited mind cannot understand the power of intersecting parallel lines. Therefore it is true.”
You cannot have a conversation with anyone who is BRAIN-DEAD! Such people belong behind the padded walls of the insane asylum where they must be electro-shocked on an hourly basis.
“consider when you are dreaming, aren't you creating that space in the dream?”
Space is nothing. You cannot create space. Any sort of creation is impossible.....not because I say so.....but because of the “definition” of the word ‘create’. It is the person who claims creation, who has made his own assertion impossible. I am just pointing it out to him. Don’t shoot the messenger.
A dream is a concept. If you cannot “create” space & objects, what make you think you can create concepts? All concepts result from the motion of atoms in the brain. They are necessarily mediated by pre-existing objects i.e. atoms. This is what consciousness is....brain activity which boils down to atomic motion & communication. To use the Thread Theory model, atoms undergo e-shell expansion/contraction (quantum jump) and torque the ropes interconnecting the other atoms in the brain. Depending on which “region” of the brain this occurs, we interpret it as a “dream”, “love”, “happiness”, “sadness”, “delusion”, “fear”, “sight”, “smell”, etc.
“Are morden physicists saying that may be we are all dreaming?”
No, not physicists.....only the mathematicians who are divorced from reality assert this nonsense. They claim to detest Religion, God and Jesus....but have spun off their own authoritative Religion which followed in the same footsteps of Christianity....just like Christianity followed the footsteps of the pagans with Mithras, Horus, and the whole motley crew of characters.
The clowns of mathematics now have the following:
Genesis is now called Big Bang.
Revelations is called Big Crunch or Oscillating Universe.
The Pentateuch is now known as Solvay 5.
The Acts of the Apostles has now been replaced by the new minstrels: Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, and Hawking.
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -- N. Bohr
Can you believe this clown? How can this primitive monkey make such blanket assertions without even explaining why? Just because this monkey doesn’t understand reality, doesn’t mean that a rational human cannot understand it and offer explanations.
Bohr and Heisenberg are at loss to explain a single phenomenon in nature. They don’t have a single physical object in their Hypothesis. This is why they have taken the stance that nothing exists and all is a dream/delusion. These mathematical clowns are nothing but philosophers who sit around the cafe and argue that we are just a brain or spirit in a vat.
This guy could answer a simple question may you answer it for me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM&feature
And also
Why does gravity only pull?
All the other forces in nature have opposites – so what makes gravity different?
The big bang should have created matter and antimatter in equal amounts – so why didn't the universe disappear in a puff of self-annihilation?
Thank you for your time great one.
Prometheus,
Ha Ha, what a clown! This Feynman character will do anything to avoid answering a simple WHY question. He is no different than a Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist.
He can’t offer a single explanation for any phenomenon in nature.....whether it is for magnetic attraction, or even why water expands when it freezes......dumber than dumb!
He uses the word FORCE like the fundamentalist uses the word SPIRIT. Nice use of gibberish talk to avoid answering the question, Fenyman....very nice!
So why do 2 objects that we call ‘magnets’ attract each other?
The only way for a magnet to attract another object is through a “physical intermediary”....not via forces, spirits, ghosts, or God.
The resolution of the “why” question is definitely rooted to the architecture of these physical substances we call ‘magnets’. The hypothesis for matter is that every atom is interconnected to all others via EM ropes. Light consists of torsion along these ropes (i.e., the infamous EM 'wave').
The cause of magnetism is due to the divergence of the threads in the EM rope, which results from the architectural alignment of atoms in certain substances. The threads are swinging in the same direction, and this in turn is the result of atoms and/or molecules being aligned within the substance. Extrinsic swinging threads can induce the atoms of paramagnetic substances like metals, to align. If strong enough (i.e. many), swinging threads from an external source can momentarily overrule this arrangement and get the metal atoms to fall in line and make their threads spin in the same direction. When this happens, we say that the metal is ‘magnetized’. However, once you remove this influence, the atoms in the material revert to their original state, or may stay in some intermediary state....in which case we need to ‘demagnetize’ this metal. So once the external threads stop swinging around the material, the metal atoms are pulled back out of alignment by the interconnecting EM ropes.
The EM rope does not spin during magnetism. What spins is the magnetic thread. Gazillions of magnetic threads spin in situ and sweep thru the molecules comprising iron filings or the threads from another magnet. The threads spin because the atoms spin and swing them around themselves. The alignment of atoms ensures that the threads spin in unison. The more aligned the molecules of a magnet, the greater its magnetic strength.
“All the other forces in nature have opposites”
Forces? Have opposites? What could this gibberish even mean?
Just what the hell is ‘a’ force....and how is it any different than ‘a’ spirit??
“so what makes gravity different?”
You tell me, Prometheus. I explained magnetism to you. Now I would like for you to explain gravity. Go do some research and please post whether gravity is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. Which is it?
a) How can 2 objects, like a CHRISTIAN and a MUSLIM, be perpetually attracted to each other whether they like it or not?
b) After they die, how can the atoms of a CHRISTIAN and a MUSLIM be attracted together and form a being we call....CHRISTOMUSLIM? This is what the future holds for Sarah Palin!!!
I got some gravity on my shoe the other day - it smells just like dog poop.
Prometheus,
"Gravity concept"
Of course. Gravity doesn't exist!
There is this one called energy and mass, I think relativist no longer know the meaning of equal sign! Perhaps they should have said; 'AMOUNT OF energy stored in an object...' is equal to the ,amount of mass...in the object.' Newton could have framed it proberly but physicists of nowadays take it to mean energy is mass and even further, it is object.When they say it all begun as negative and positive energy, it look like things came out of nothing! I often wonder how people conceive vibrations prior to objects.
Kirrui,
"I think relativist no longer know the meaning of equal sign!"
Yes, but we can go even further than that. There is hardly any mathematician on the planet today who understands the meaning (definition) of:
1) the equal sign
2) zero
3) a number
4) a line
5) a point
6) a plane
7) a surface
8) length
9) distance
and....get ready for this one...
10) mathematics
“Perhaps they should have said; 'AMOUNT OF energy stored in an object.”
Mathematicians are barred from using the term “object”. This term exclusively belongs to physics, the study of reality (existence).
Mathematics is the study of DESCRIPTION & ABSTRACTION. Math studies dynamic concepts, like quantities, magnitudes, scalars, verbs, adverbs.....and their abstract relations.
Mathematics becomes a Religion when the mathematicians go beyond the call of duty and attempt to “move” the dynamic concepts which I listed above, or attempt to REIFY them into real objects in nature. That’s when they deserve to be called: Priests.
The alleged ‘object’ of mathematics is actually an “abstract relation” which is impossible to exist, because it is represented by either an abstract quantity, an abstract relation, or encapsulated by an equation. There is nothing objective or real here which we can use to identify in nature.
Physics deals with real objects, which are out there in nature. I’m sure you have discussed these issues with Bill G.
“but physicists of nowadays take it to mean energy is mass and even further, it is object.”
Yes, there are only objects out there in the real world. Anybody who uses the terms ‘energy’ or ‘mass’ doesn’t have the slightest clue of what they are talking about. These terms only deal with dynamic concepts, and nothing “real”. All concepts are predicated upon pre-existing objects,.... except of course, for the concept of space. This means, that without objects and a sentient observer to “measure” or “describe” them, there can be no concepts.
There is no energy or mass. There are only objects.
Even the God of the Bible is an object with shape/form:
Job 4:15-17 “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A **FORM** stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
Fascinating discussion. Bookmarked to come back to - mostly likely a few times!
Thanks for this really intersting Hub.
Love and peace
Tony
You are welcome, Tony. And thanks for stopping by.
Absolutely superb article, great writing. Blew my mind!
Thanks Robotix. I really appreciate it when people spend the time to actually read these articles.
Sorry, I didn't have time to really read through the whole thing (that's annoying I know, sorry) so you very well may have answered my questions in the post. Do you distinguish between things that are likely to be true based off of evidence and things that are not likely to be true? I try to investigate the actual studies that are within my grasp (of comprehending). However, I tend to trust scientific discoveries even when they are over my head due to the extremely non-authoritarian methodology of scientists; peer review, repeated experimentation, observations of highly specific predictions and so on. Scientific inquiry also seems less prone to pre-suppositions and bias then other types of inquiry. For example you would think even moderate Christians would want put there weight behind "intelligent design" yet most scientist in relevant fields in the U.S. (who are also mostly Christians) don't seem in support "intelligent design" as a science (they may support it philosophically though). I think that disciplines in science are the best representation of reality because it is open to being wrong (science is open to changing) and is organized precisely to reduce the kinds of errors that fallible people are prone to making (confirmation bias, arguments from ignorance, etc). Thus while currently explanations aren't absolutely certain (I think the idea of absolutely certainty is useless though) they are "best explanations" and more correct then the outdated explanations such as those offered by classical physics (not that newton was completely wrong or anything). I'm pretty sure that the big bang theory makes predictions that can be tested for. I know that the relativistic nature of time has been tested by comparing atomic clock time's from objects (space shuttles, even planes) that are fast moving relative to the earth to times from grounded objects. The time difference matches Einsteins mathematical predictions (symbols are extremely useful in this case). The casmir (is that how you spell it) effect was predicted by the hypothesis of virtual particles in a vacuum. I wish I knew how relativism of length and mass are tested (maybe you know). Reality can contain apparent contradictions if it is (truly random not pseudo-random) probabilistic, which I think it probably is (no pun intended). I think that it is certainly possible to test for indeterminacy if the theories in question make highly specific predictions based off of (truly) probabilistic equations which are then confirmed. Repeated testing of new posteriori prediction's (which are specific) from the hypothesis and theories makes something much more likely to be true. That's my understanding of inductive reasoning anyway. That being said,I don't think the singularity isn't proposed as an explanation for a beginning, although some people represent it as such, it is just another theory that is tested. Sometimes an eternal past is criticized as "starting" (time starting seems incoherent to me) an infinite time ago which doesn't sound right to people but when its rephrased as the universe never having a beginning then it sounds better. Honestly, non-space, non-time doesn't make any sense to me. Seeing as how most people accept the idea of infinite future events, they should accept the idea of an infinite past. A half-line makes about just as much sense as a line really. Eternal matter, energy, and time are likely in my opinion. Reality could have contradictions or be in conflict with common philosophical principles as reality is not dependent on logical systems (thus empericiscm checked by reliable, self-correcting methodology is preferable). Sorry. I really like your posts and argumentation and had some reflections I wanted to bounce off you. In my ignorance I'm going to make mistakes in my reasoning but I can only try to work with what I have. I try my best to be rational (I suppose everybody does). Sorry for the long post, I wish my ideas were more focused. I really want to read through the whole post when I have time.
Oh and I want to thank you for responding to my comments. I think that is really cool. Taking an opinion of say Einstein or Halwking too seriously is definitely not good. Scientific understanding does and will progress beyond Newton, Hawking, and Einstein with further investigation. Would you trust scientific consensus though (such as considerable support for quantum mechanics)? I do. I trust plumber consensus, engineering consensus and so on. I try to evaluate the evidence and claims as best I can when I can. Science certainly isn't an atheistic endeavor, it doesn't even address the question of a god. An appropriate response to the cosmological argument (instead of pointing out that causality breaks down at the quantum level) would just be to point out that the argument conclusion contradicts its own premise (its special pleading) although I like that you granted the premise, that was cool. I recognize I'm not telling you anything you don't already know or have heard of before.
Man, I'm being so annoying.
Crap. Damn my long content-less comments! I'm not used to commenting on websites. I'm being so inefficient.
I came to this article via AKA Winston's 'why do we believe what we believe' and I am still reading this article so I amy miss things with this question, but. . .
regarding the following:
"We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!"
Given this, where is the actor object that causes neuron's to fire? We can trace all human motion cognitive activity to neural impulses, but what and where is the causitive agent of the neural impulse?
Since will, mind, consciousness and the like are at best activities or concepts, where is the actor object that cause the neuron to respond. Certainly some neuron's respond to other neurons, but where is the original cause?
The terms and concepts you discuss here are extremely well reasoned and for the most part I think I understand and accept the reasoning, for what that is worth. The question above is just my attempt to apply it, and granted I may have missed something critical here, but would appreciate your thoughts.
cheers
And now that I more fully read the article, I realize the question ought to be phrased differently.
Is it reasonable then to claim that the instance of the human neuron firing has a causitive agent outside the human body? (the causitive agent connected to the neuron by the invisible 'EM' fillaments that conduct other affects like light and gravity) I'm trying to think of a way to refute the claim, based on what I've read here. I haven't yet.
cheers
"To use the Thread Theory model, atoms undergo e-shell expansion/contraction (quantum jump) and torque the ropes interconnecting the other atoms in the brain."
Interesting hub. I mostly agree with it, except for some small details. But this thread model you are talking about in one of your comments wouldn't happen to be Bill Gaede's hypothesis would it?
Do you happen to know how he solves the problem of physical strings tangling? As far as I can tell his hypothesis is unworkable.
Do you know anything more about it?
Anton,
“Is it reasonable then to claim that the instance of the human neuron firing has a causitive agent outside the human body?”
I hope you realize that this is not an issue of “knowing” or “proving”. The issue surrounding your question is predicated solely upon the Hypothesis of what an atom is....AND...a rational Theory explaining brain activity (events) and the brain’s interaction with the stimulation stemming from external objects. This the best we can ever hope to accomplish from a scientific perspective.
So IF we use our hypothesis that every atom is interconnected with every other atom.....which explains WHY 2 atoms can attract each other......then it is rational to say that the atoms comprising the Sun must have physical effects on the atoms in your brain. Not only do they attract the atoms in your brain, inducing lateral motion, but they also “torque” them to induce rotational/vibrational motion. Light affects the motion of every single atom in your body!
Ultimately, all activity in your brain or body stems from atoms,...not spirits....right? There has to be an object there, and it must be in motion (changing locations). All verbs are mediated by objects. Matterless motion or action is impossible, right?
“I'm trying to think of a way to refute the claim, based on what I've read here.”
Then the task before you is to reason WHY individual atoms do not attract each other, but instead, their “aggregate” objects, like planets, do. Also, on WHAT superhighway does the signal of light travel on....ie. what is the medium?
Thanks for your question.
Slarty,
"Do you happen to know how he solves the problem of physical strings tangling?"
Yes, there is only one Thread Theory, and it’s Gaede's.
He solves this problem as part of his Hypothesis of what constitutes the EM rope and what its fundamental behavior is. And this works in conjunction with all his theories on light, gravity and magnetism. He has over 30 pages in his book devoted to these light-on-light issues, thread architecture, tangling, how atoms move in this interconnected web, what is “touch”, do atoms touch?, do ropes touch?, do individual threads touch?,...etc.
I hope you realize that I cannot post all these solutions here. There is not a single cure-all answer to your question. This is an architectural issue dealt with in the hypothesis, specifically:
1) What is the fundamental constituent of matter, what “touch” means, and does it touch?
2) What constitutes atoms, what “touch” means, and do atoms touch?
“how he solves the problem of physical strings tangling?”
It wouldn’t be the “threads” which you think would tangle......it would be the EM rope.
You cannot deal with this issue like mathematicians do with the alleged particle model of the atom where 0D photons go right thru each other and right thru air, glass, and water molecules.....but yet, they will grind away at a polished surface and generate electric current.
fatfist.
Thanks for the reponse. I was attempting to see if I was understanding your reasoning correctly. Certainly not an issue of knowing or proving, but possibly the most rationale discussion I have encountered.
I don't think it would be nearly as engaging if we 'knew' the answer.
cheers
That is great, Anton.
I am glad that you have a better understanding of the issue at hand. Most people haven't a clue what science and physics is about. They think its about making observations, calculations, and then proving things with certainty. And when someone challenges their certainty and explains why it is only an OPINION....then the mathematicians sprinkle some magical DARK MATTER/ENERGY dust on it to make calculations work again. This bullshit is Religion...not science.
And we need to understand that as humans with extremely limited sensory systems...we will NEVER know the exact answer as to how Mother Nature does these invisible tricks of light, gravity, etc. No amount of technology can provide us with certainty.
That is why the scientific method is not about certainty....it is about rationally explaining. And if the Theory is rational....then the objects proposed in the Hypothesis (ie. EM rope, etc.) are POSSIBLE to exist.....never 100% certain.
Thanks for your input
First...excellent hub. Second: Since the success of the Manhattan Project, mankind has tried to unlock the remaining secrets pertaining to the creation of the universe. We have built super-colliders, I believe the largest is the Cern super-collider, wherein the scientists involved shoot different atoms from the periodic table at each other to cause them to crash into each other, in hopes that they will be able to "see" a reaction comparable to that which occurred at the precise moment of the Big Bang. What if that is how our universe was created in the first place...somebody in a galaxy far, far away, in a time long, long ago fiddlin' around, crashing atoms together. We could even be stuck in an infinite loop. Food for thought. Voting this up.
Druid,
Thanks for your post.
But, before you can collide particles in a super-collider, you must first be able to somehow illustrate these alleged discrete particles. If the idiots who run these colliders cannot use crayons to draw a basic Kindergarten-Level image of their ALLEGED partricles,....then just WHAT the hell is it that they are colliding?
Well, as it turns out...these alleged particles are actually 0D (zero-dimensional) mathematical abstractions which are plugged into the variables of equations. These are not real existing objects, but rather....IMAGINED entities. They are not even hypothesized entities because they don't even have a valid hypothesis which can be applied to the Scientific Method.
"What if that is how our universe was created in the first place"
You really need to think about this statement. If indeed this is HOW the universe is allegedly "created"....then there actually WAS something which existed prior. So, my friend....why isn't this "something", the Universe itself?
You see, any which way you try to rationalize this problem, you always end up with an ontological contradiction. The universe is eternal...
"a) “Cause” and “effect” are VERBS. They are concepts, and not objects. There is NO such thing as ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event; ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event does NOT exist. Only objects, like Mediators and Targets exist!"
Based on that logic, here are some things that do not exist:
1. Your thoughts,
2. Baseball,
3. An airline flight, and
4. A software program.
nicomp,
Ummmm......a BASEBALL does not exist??
Then what do you propose the bat comes in contact with....a thought, a flight, a software program??
Does a baseball have shape....yes or no?
Of course thoughts, flights, and programs do NOT exist....they have no shape. They are all concepts!
If you disagree, please FedEx me any of those alleged objects.
I didn't sat "a baseball." I said "baseball."
Anyway, the obvious flaw in your logic is the assumption that THE LAW OF CAUSALITY is sacrosanct. You provide no proof for such a leap aside from "a lot of people believe it", which is pretty mush the mantra of every amateur evolutionist.
nicomp,
What logic are you talking about? I don't make use of any systems of logic, Classical or otherwise. You obviously did not read this hub at all, else you wouldn't make such an irrelevant comment.
And I am not "assuming" anything. Everything is explained here with the luxury of detail. Do you understand the difference between an "assumption" and an "explanation"??
Regardless, at least you now understand that a baseball is an object, but thoughts, flights and programs are concepts and impossible to exist.
"Aristotle first introduced his theory of causality as a way of understanding the human experience of physical nature. His theory was instantly accepted in the known world by philosophers and theologians who used it as a tool for structuring their arguments, and demonstrating the reasoning behind their claims."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
nicomp,
What is your point? Your gibberish becomes less and less with every post. Do you even understand what you are posting?
Is the alleged CLAIM of creation of space & matter even viable or remotely possible? If so, can you explain how?
C'mon man, don't be shy...bark!!
What is matter? What is space? If they are existing for eternal time why not god? How can I believe that everything I see is not created without prior designing? Who is the designer behind all these? You are good and I'm bad or vice versa. Should I be good when you are bad? Why should I accept your explanation as the ultimate explanation? Where you were when billions of people are passed away? What is guarantee you'll not alter your explanation some day? So, stop trying to feed those rubbish.
ummmmmm, this has nothing to do with this hub, nor have i even read it, but just a valid point: Fatfist is a half-minded asshole who "self-proclaims" his views a "correct"
justa simple message to you fatfist, dont have to show as a comment, but u really are a dicks vagina bag
@mantis, thank you for changing your id to 'justa' so that the audience can see that you have MORE people standing behind you with your pointless drivel.
Carry on with your ignorance.....
Upal,
“What is matter?”
All the atoms or existing objects in the universe.
Object: that which has shape
“What is space?”
Space: that which lacks shape. Synonym: nothing.
“why not god?”
Before you can ask any WHY question about this linguistic term ‘God”, you had better be able to tell the audience what this term alludes to.
a) Is God an object?
b) Is God a concept?
Which is it upal??
“How can I believe that....”
Who gives a shit WHAT you believe? Do you honestly think that anybody gives a rat’s ass about what YOU believe???
The only thing that a fellow human being cares about is what you can rationally explain to them without any contradictions.
Can you handle the heat?? Let’s go!
“So, stop trying to feed those rubbish.”
Exactly!!!!
So stop feeding the audience with your stupid beliefs and BS if you don’t understand anything of what you are talking about....got it?
(Anyway, the obvious flaw in your logic is the assumption that THE LAW OF CAUSALITY is sacrosanct)
Nicomp,
I don't understand this claim as Fatfist clearly explained how objects interact while the only alternative to this explanation is a non-warranted claim of a magical cause.
If anybody is making an unwarranted claim, it is the one who asserts magical causation.
("Aristotle first introduced his theory of causality....Post hoc ergo propter hoc.)
I don't follow this criticism. Fatfist does not offer a claim that Aristotle's introduction of the theory was a causative factor. In fact, he clearly states that Aristotle's theory was an explanation of nature, showing that nature's actions preceded the theory, so an assertion of the post hoc fallacy is capricious and misguided.
Hey Winny, when you deign to debate with me on your hubs rather than hit and run on other people's hubs, then we'll talk and I'll be happy to set you straight. 'til then, have a nice day.
"Aristotle’s Law of Causality is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B)"
In the interest of logic chopping, this 'law' has more holes than the defensive line of the 2008 Detroit Lions. It cannot possibly be proven to be universally correct unless, as some scientists prefer, the assumption is made that everything can be explained naturally. As stated, it hardly rises to the level of a 'law': perhaps a tenet, a corollary, or even a surmise would be apt, but anointing it as a law is intellectually lazy - it can't be proven in a laboratory, modeled mathematically, or even consistently analogized without massive underlying assumptions.
Shucks, as stated it's not even encompassing. Was Aristotle saying that *all* Mediators impart *all* causal actions to *all* Target objects, always? He obviously leaves the philosophical door open for other stuff to be causing causal actions, since he excludes no other means of causal causing.
To the gathered throng,
I really don't need to debate someone who cannot comprehend written language. The following seems to have been particularly troubling for some to understand:
(From a Scientific perspective, the Law of Causality pertains to the Physics of nature itself, rather than to any subjective or biased experience of it. In nature, causal actions occur between objects: mediators and targets)
If one had the ability to reason and analyze critically instead of parroting one's pastor, he would not, after reading the above, make such a meaningless statement as:
(It cannot possibly be proven to be universally correct unless, as some scientists prefer, the assumption is made that everything can be explained naturally)
"proven to be universally correct" - this is wording from a closet creationist. How is The Discovery Institute doing these days? What, pray tell, does proof have to do with the scientific method and science itself? Where does science ever make a claim that something is "universally correct"? In fact, when does science ever make a claim that anything is "correct"?
These are words used by one's high priest to make claims, but not used by science or scientists.
This one is hysterical: "as some scientists prefer, the assumption is made that everything can be explained naturally".
Does someone who makes such a statement have any clue as to what science does? Some scientists is inaccurate - make that ALL scientists, as the only thing science can study is nature and nature's actions.
Some simply cannot help but chase their tail - or tales.
(.)Y(.)
nicomp,
You should realize by now that only Religionists like yourself call this a ‘law’. So this hub only pays lip service to Religionists so we can understand each other. Aristotle never called it a ‘law’. It was the Christian Philosophers who first called it a ‘law’ in their unwitted half-assed attempt to apply it to their imaginary God.
“Was Aristotle saying that *all* Mediators impart *all* causal actions to *all* Target objects, always?”
It is completely IRRELEVANT what Aristotle said. This is an objective issue, not an issue of anybody’s claims.
Can you identify a situation where an object acting as a mediator cannot impart causal action on another object when it comes into contact with it??
“It cannot possibly be proven ....it can't be proven in a laboratory”
Oh, can you please tell us what PROOF is?? How is it any different than one’s OPINION??
Can you prove to me that you have a left arm? How do you propose that you are going to accomplish such a formidable task without injecting opinions and subjectivities into the issue, hence making proof an impossibility?
"It is completely IRRELEVANT what Aristotle said. This is an objective issue, not an issue of anybody’s claims."
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: "There you go again." Declaring something objective does not make it so.
"Can you identify a situation where an object acting as a mediator cannot impart causal action on another object when it comes into contact with it??"
Now you're changing the rules... you've introduced 'contact' to the argument. And no, I can't identify such a situation but that proves nothing. You still have not addressed all the combinations and permutations of Aristotle's law-that-is-not-really-a-law-but-you-call-it-a-law-when-it-suits-you
"Oh, can you please tell us what PROOF is?? How is it any different than one’s OPINION??"
I can tell what proof is not... it is not your invocation of a so-called law that collapses upon itself when you try to justify it by claiming that Aristotle thought it up and a bunch of other folks agreed with him.
"Can you prove to me that you have a left arm? "
Yes, I typed this thoughtful response with fingers that would otherwise be floating freely unless tethered to my left arm.
nicomp,
Yes it is completely irrelevant what Aristotle, God, your pastor, or even I say. What is relevant is what is rational. Got it?
"Now you're changing the rules"
What rules? Rules are for religionists to follow. Reality can only be explained rationally.
Here is your chance to shine: please explain how object A can impart a causal action on object B WITHOUT contact.
There you go...all your permutations and combinations are now covered....first you complained about 'contact', so the only other option is NO contact.....are you gonna complain about that too??
Now bark out your explanation!
"I can tell what proof is not"
Hillarious! What we have here is a classic NOTTER. You cannot tell me what something is, by telling me what it's not.
Ohhhhhhh....you THINK you can??? Here you go....I have something in my pocket right now and it is NOT a car.....please tell the audience EXACTLY what it is!!!
You are too funny dude....you can't comprehend basic language and grammar.
fatfist: "Can you prove to me that you have a left arm? "
nicomp: "Yes, I typed this thoughtful response with fingers"
Hold on....let me ask my next door neighbor to verify your CLAIM......sorry, but my neighbor told me that your comment was made by voice recognition software on your pc.
Whom should we believe...you or my neighbor?
See....you just showcased 'proof' to be nothing more than OPINION!
nicomp,
Why are you having so much difficulty PROVING that you have a left arm? Wanna try again??
If you cannot even prove that you have a left arm....then why should anybody BELIEVE anything that is posted by your id here?
This is a very thoughtful and thought provoking hub. I cannot say I entirely follow it without reading it again. I must say that the comments here are the mot entertaining i have read in a long time. Thank you for attempting to enlighten me!
fatfist,
I believe in god. I also believe it that everything is part of god. The space, the matter and what others there are or not. Most of the world population believes in god except some. So, what you told about me is wrong. God is god, no matter no concept. I also believe it that no human being has ultimate knowledge to know god completely. If there is no logical prove for god’s existence then I’ll say there is error in logic. If there were no religion on this earth there should be the concept of god. In fact, there are religions. Most people are religious. Among the religions, people believing only one god, are right in believing. There are clear threats on unbelievers in religions. So, unbelievers are fooled by their fashionable thinking. It is so silly simple that if I’m going to die why I don’t believe in god when god is threatening that unbelievers will be punished severely. Why I endanger my after death life? What is the cost in believing? Have I not found the god’s verse that saying, ‘I’ve created everything not for nothing, I have created you to examine it that who and who believes me without seeing me.’
‘I’m the god, I do whatever I will. I’ll fill the hell with human beings.’
I don’t need to know what your id means nor do you. We are not here for that.
Hey, fisty, I proved beyond a doubt that my left arm exists: I deduced it from the extant activities of the digits on my left hand, manifested by typing.
Anyway, I'm having trouble with this Aristotle guy... did he even exist? Has anyone seen him? Are there photos of him or recordings of his speeches?
I checked Wikipedia, which is hardly ever wrong about this kind of stuff... according to them: "It is during this period in Athens from 335 to 323 BC when Aristotle is believed to have composed many of his works."
So, we don't even have a consensus on whether or not this guy even did anything. Perhaps he is made up by the atheists to justify their faith. I'm jus' sayin' ....
Gypsy Willow,
You are welcome. If you think the comments are entertaining, then stick around for some more laughs as people try to get away with murder without defining the key terms of their argument.
Upal,
“Most of the world population believes in god”
You are making an argument from popularity. Just 150 years ago it was popular belief to beat black people and kill them. Why aren’t we still doing that today? Just 2000 years ago it was popular belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth....why isn’t that still the case today?
I already told you....your beliefs are your own OPINIONS and are irrelevant to reality. Your argument from popularity fails miserably! You are too funny.
“God is god, no matter no concept.”
So God is NOT an object and NOT a concept, huh? You are a classic NOTTER. You do not know the basics of language and human communication. That’s why you are chasing your tail in circles without understanding anything you say.
BEGIN GRAMMAR LESSON 101 FOR UPAL ----------------
You cannot define any word in language with negative predication. Saying that X is not Y is not saying what X is.
You disagree? Good! I have something in my pocket which is NOT a car. Please tell the audience EXACTLY what it is! Can you do that???
Go learn the Junior Kindergarten basics of human communication before arguing with the mirror.
END GRAMMAR LESSON 101 FOR UPAL ----------------
So when you say that God is NOT an object and NOT a concept.....you are actually saying that God is an abstract concept. You are actually saying that God is NOTHING. Learn the basics of language so that you can understand what you write, and not parrot the mistakes of others, ok?
Nicomp,
“I proved beyond a doubt that my left arm exists: I deduced it...”
All you did was give me your opinion on the matter. My neighbour who has a Ph.D. in Computer Science deduced that your comments were in fact posted by voice recognition software.
You have demonstrated that PROOF = OPINION.
“Anyway, I'm having trouble with this Aristotle guy.... did he even exist?.... So, we don't even have a consensus on whether or not this guy even did anything”
Irrelevant to your argument!! You are arguing that an object A can impart causal action on an object B without ‘contact’.....yet you are unable to offer any explanation on this impossible claim.
Your half-assed attempt to sway the conversation away from your failing argument indicates that you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about.
You can’t even prove your left arm exists. All you offer is petty opinions.
Hey, fasty, correct me if I'm wrong, but your epistemology hinges on the veracity of Aristotle... should we surmise that he exists only in the minds of those who endorse his position, perhaps this supposed 'Law' of causality previously attributed to him, and 'proven' by you based on the 'fact' that a bunch of other deep thinkers (who also may or may not have existed) may have figurative feet of clay.
So, therefore, the existence or non-existence of either of my arms pales in comparison the the necessity of Aristotle's sandal-prints in the dusty streets of Greece or Rome or wherever he ostensibly tread. To continue, I can introduce you to numerous extant sentient individuals who would quickly attest to the physical properties of my left arm because I blocked their shots on the hardwood, or my right arm, because I struck them out on the diamond. Sadly, we cannot conjure up humans of any make or model that bear witness to the activities of your so-called Aristotle. The dude may be a figment, a wisp, a myth that was thunk up by insecure Grecians craving equivalent intellectual footing with the nomadic tribes that sold them blankets packaged with free philosophical tracts.
Yea?
Nicomp,
“but your epistemology hinges”
Again nicomp, you are veering off into irrelevant tangents because you really don’t understand the issue you are arguing. You are only parroting the Religious Party Line.
Reality has NO dependency with one’s epistemology, knowledge, belief, truth, lies, proof, observation, wisdom, opinion, authority, deduction, induction, etc. These are all subjective opinions of an observer’s limited sensory system. Reality is objective and observer-independent....as such...it can only be rationally explained, and never dogmatically asserted, as you are trying to do.
For the LAST time....reality has no bearing on authority figures, whether they be God, Jesus, Allah, Noah, Abraham, Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Aristotle, Einstein, Hawking, you, me, or anybody else......reality can only be explained rationally. Which part are you having difficulty with????
So I am still waiting for your explanation of:
a) How matter and space can be created from nothing.
b) How object A can impart causal actions on object B without surface-to-surface contact.
If you cannot explain, then please be honest and say that you only have BELIEF in your assertions. Nothing wrong with that. Honesty is always the best policy.
“I can introduce you to numerous extant sentient individuals who would quickly attest to the physical properties of my left arm”
If you can introduce me to N individuals who will support your statement about having a left arm.....then I can introduce you to at least N+1 individuals who will attest that you don’t have a left arm. So according to your logic.....majority rules and I have PROVEN that you don’t have a left arm.
Nicomp.....let me give you some advice: All your arguments are failing miserably because you have not sat down to think about what you say BEFORE you say it. You are only parroting the mistakes and irrational conclusions of others. If you actually sit down and define the crucial term which makes or breaks your argument, that being PROOF....you will see that this term will only resolve to one’s OPINION.....always!
But.....you can continue these childish games about your arm.....bottom line is.....I can always get N+1 professionals who will attest that you don’t have a left arm. You see, you sucked yourself into this circus show because you haven’t the faintest clue what the term PROOF actually means.
"Yea?"
Yeah! Let's assume Aristotle NEVER lived. Please be my guest and explain a) and b) above....
And remember...Harold Camping has already PROVEN that the end of the world would come May 21, 2011. I just quit my job today and I am eagerly awaiting this cataclysmic event.
Somebody please post a message here and tell me if the world is still around, ok?
"All your arguments are failing miserably because you have not sat down to think about what you say BEFORE you say it."
fisty, I can assert with all confidence that I have been sitting down for every keystroke that you see before you. I am not sufficiently adept to execute this logic from a standing position.
When you run into Aristotle, we'll get together for a Bar-b-cue. I like Laura's Lean Beef and American Cheese. And Frito's.
It will be great to hear his 'law' from his own aged lips, instead of filtered through Wikipedia, which is hardly ever wrong about this kind of stuff.
{partially typed with fingers attached to my most assuredly extant left arm.)
That's fine, nicomp.....choose stubborness over honesty and continue to elude all issues posed to you....this is the only way you can redeem yourself. But at least have the decency to not waste people's time with your senseless drivel. Enough is enough.
Hallo f.f.it has been a long time. I have been spying relativists to see if your claims are correct You see, you ask a relativist what is it that vibrates to give rise to em waves. He says nothing, nothing we have a completely empty space (SR). Or they are 'fields' needless to tell you, abstract mathematical concepts. Now, he tells you the space is expanding. You ask, how can emptiness expand? He now tell you what we call nothing is something. The story now begine, there was nothing. Not even space! Due to random quantum flactuations, something poped. So, what flactuated when there was nothing and nowhere to do so? Meanwhile, they say their theorisers are 'thought leaders' in Physics!
What is funny is that you here these explanations in a debate between a relativist and a christian. If i am not wrong, the relativist reveals himself as the greater fool! For a fool knows that for something to make itself, it must be there before it is there. The christian is busy saing God exists outside space! Can there be more idiotic concept than 'outside space?' I am relatively new to the internete and i never knew how foolish some people can get. I am not antireligionist but i give the devil his due. If my religion speak nonsense, it burns my borns if i keep quiteYou feel like getting out of a house and kicking all asses outside out of outside i.e space!
Fatsy, senseless drivel seems to be the order of the day, 'specially in this neighborhood. My honesty knows no bounds, as such it is by definition 'boundless'. It has a cause (me), therefore it adheres strictly to Aristotle's Famous Law. It transcends my dishonesty even on my dishonesty's best day.
Let's get together again soon, digitally, to ruminate over the great truths secreted by Our Friend Aristotle. He may not have ever existed, but he fills a hole in my head.
Aw shoot, all your hard work toppled by six little words in the Gospel of Luke, "For nothing is impossible with God." Oh well. Better luck next time Fatfist.
"For nothing is impossible with God."
Aw shoot, jreuter.....you are another babbling ape who is no different than nicomp. You don't have the slightest faintest clue of any of the foolish words you parrot.
Tell the audience, choir boy jreuter: What is God???
Is God an OBJECT (i.e. something) or a CONCEPT (i.e. nothing)?
Do you even know, choir boy?
A sucker is born every minute!
Dammm jreuter is back.
God, in the view of Pythagoras, was ONE, a single substance, whose continuous parts extended throught all the Universe, without separation, difference, or inequality, like the soul in the human body. He denied the doctrine of the spiritualists, who had severed the Divinity from the Universe, making Him exist apart from the Universal, which thus became no more than a material work, on which acted the Abstract Cause, a God, isolated from it. The Ancient Theology did not so separate God from the Universe. This Eusebus attests, In saying that but a small number of wise men, like Moses, had sought for God or the Cause of all, outside of that all; while the Philosophers of Egypt and Phoenicia, real authors of all the old Cosmogonies, had placed the Supreme Cause in the Universe itselt, and in its parts, so that, in their view, the world and all its parts are in God.
The Kid 4:32
"Aw shoot, jreuter.....you are another babbling ape who is no different than nicomp. You don't have the slightest faintest clue of any of the foolish words you parrot."
HEY! I resemble that remark! I have a slight faint clue of some of the words I parrot. Parrots evolved from other parrots, BTW.
I can make a true or a false claim. To say that a claim is true is just to say that the substance of the claim corresponds to reality.
Aristotle argued for an unmoved mover. Today, the concept of an "unmoved mover" is implicit to the cosmological argument, which argues for the existence of a First Cause. Plato, Aquinas -- and others -- used similar formulations.
Artifacts, by definition, have makers. When I see a car, I know that it had a maker. Some extrapolate that all things have makers. I don't find this logically defensible. Those who advance the cosmological argument are essentially saying, "In my experience, everything that exists has a maker. Therefore, all things have makers."
The flaw to this argument is contained in the words "in my experience." In order for this argument to be reasonable, the claimant would need to be an eyewitness of all time and space.
If we knew that there indisputably existed an eyewitness of all time and space, it is unlikely that anyone would be having this debate.
Chasuk, what is really funny about Religionists like nicomp who come here to argue with themselves.....is that their WHOLE Religion of Christianity is based 99% on the teachings of Aristotle.
If nicomp reads this hub, he will understand that the only thing the Christians didn't like about Aristotle's teachings is the eternalness of matter and space. So being the morons that they are, the Christians went AGAINST Jewish teachings in the Old Testament, AND AGAINST YAHWEH.....and blindly asserted that Jesus created space and matter from non-space and non-matter. What idiots!!!
First they follow Aristotle's teachings and use his logic et all to construct their irrational Cosmological Arguments....then they TURN THE OTHER CHEEK and claim that Aristotle NEVER even existed/lived. Dumber than dumb...stupider than stupid!
(To say that a claim is true is just to say that the substance of the claim corresponds to reality.)
Chasuk,
I think you can only say this in an inductive argument, and hence there is always the unspoken "as far as we know" at the end, so even though it may be considered truth it is not a 100% gold-plated guarantee.
Truth can be 100% expressed in deductive reasoning, though, but it does not necessarily correspond to reality. In dedution, truth is the logical resolution of the true/false dichotomy presented - it is truly only logical necessity, but we call it truth.
(The flaw to this argument is contained in the words "in my experience.")
This whole comment you made is so impressively expressed and quite accurate. I venture to say we should name this fallacy the watchmaker fallacy, or perhaps the Intelligent Design fallacy, as it is at its basis another example of humans searching for and finding false correlations.
"then they TURN THE OTHER CHEEK and claim that Aristotle NEVER even existed/lived"
Whoa Nelly? I didn't claim Ari never existed... I merely posited that no eye witnesses or recordings of his activities can be found on the Internet. Ergo, I must bow to Wikipedia, which is hardly ever wrong about this kind of stuff.
All we have is a horde of learned folks claiming to have knowledge of Ari and his 'laws.' They assert that he existed because people wrote about him after his death and transcribed his stuff.
I'm jus' sayin' ...
@nicompoop,
"no eye witnesses or recordings of his [Aristotle] activities can be found"
No eye witness or recordings of activities can be found of Hitler, Carl Sagan, Michael Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Osama Bin Laden....or of any person who dies this very second! You CANNOT PROVE that any of these alleged folks even existed/lived, nor that they even recorded anything.
Get this through your head ---> There are NO truths or proofs of events/objects relating to the past. Truth & proof necessarily requires a CURRENT OBSERVER to observe an event IN PROGRESS, or a LIVE object, and make a subjective claim about it....got it??
Just WHO is currently observing Michael Jackson or Ronald Reagan? How can you PROVE that they existed/lived or recorded anything? How can anybody possibly do that, feeble-minded nicomp, when they can't even prove that they CURRENTLY have a left arm?
You are arguing with yourself and chasing your tail in circles because you don't understand a single word you spew. You are nothing but a parrot for your priests.
And you are shamelessly showcasing your ignorance and idiocy because you do not understand, nor can define the crucial words of your irrational argument: God, truth, proof, exist, lived, space, object.
@nicompoop,
"I didn't claim Ari never existed"
Hey Ballerina girl....go and re-read your posts instead dancing around all my questions which destroy your Religion.
1) You cannot explain how space or matter could possibly be created.
2) You cannot even tell the audience what this God word even means.
3) You cannot prove that you have any arms.
4) You cannot tell the audience what TRUTH or PROOF even mean.
...so what do you do?
You go off on irrelevant tangents and unwittingly try to attack this hub by making claims to doubt that Aristotle ever lived. This results in YOU attacking YOUR ARGUMENT and chasing your tail in circles.
And when I sided with you and said that it is IRRELEVANT whether Aristotle lived or wrote anything, what do you do?? You continue your Ballerina dance and attack YOUR OWN arguments because you cannot answer a single question posed to you!
"3) You cannot prove that you have any arms."
Indeed, I proved that I have both arms... because you don't understand my proof or don't care to follow my logic or disagree with my findings because they run contrary to your faith framework, that's on you.
"1) You cannot explain how space or matter could possibly be created."
Pointless. This is a precursor for Argument from Incredulity. I don't understand how a nuclear power plant works either, but I happily consume the electricity that emanates from it. I believe it exists.
@nicompoop,
"I proved that I have both arms"
What you brainwashed YOURSELF to believe is subjective to YOU, and at best, only an OPINION!!
fatfist: "prove that you have any arms"
nicompoop: "Duh...um...duh...I typed my posts with my arms, that is proof!"
fatfist: "you could have used voice recognition software on your PC to generate the posts, as done by people without arms!"
You have not proved to anyone, without any doubt, that you OBJECTIVELY and with 100% absolute certainty, have any arms.
"This is a precursor for Argument from Incredulity."
Not quite....ALL of your arguments are Arguments from IGNORANCE!
If you cannot explain your CLAIM that space and matter are created....then all you have is a CLAIM OF FAITH, and not a claim of belief....much less a rational explanation of reality. Learn the difference between FAITH and BELIEF and REALITY before coming here to showcase more of your ignorance!
Fatfist,
Putting aside the definition of exist, the argument for arms being a product of the action of fingers is an inductive argument that can never be said to be more than some degree of probability of being valid.
It is up to the observer (or jurist) to determine how much weight to give that evidence. Hence, proof and evidence is always based on opinion.
nicomp you mad bro?
Fatfist and Aka Winston used to be Tiara followers but when they got older they realized how corrupted it was. Fatfist and AKA have a crusade to open other peoples eyes they will become the saviors of today's generation. Nicomp you will be slayed in the name of Fatfist and AKA.
Prophecy of the kid
@PrometheusKid : Interesting! Winny won't allow me on his hubs anymore because I deconstructed his logic, reducing him to responding with insults. My logic trumped his emotion.
Fisty will catch on eventually... he seems obsessed with my left arm, but refuses to honor my incontrovertible evidence of its existence. Just between me and you, he doesn't understand that achieving disprovement of specific non-metaphysical instances, such as my left arm, cannot be reached through contrived references to my next-door neighbor, especially since I keep the shades drawn 24X7 and rarely answer the door save to accept delivery of luscious pizza pies.
nicomp,
"he seems obsessed with my left arm"
You cannot PROVE that you have a left arm, but yet you claim that you have proven "this" and "that"....too funny.
You cannot even explain whether YOU exist or not!
"my incontrovertible evidence of its existence"
Oh, what do YOU mean by "exist"??
Does the existence of the moon and the sun depend on someone's alleged EVIDENCE? Didn't the moon and sun exist before humans were around to give their OPINION about the issue?
After you define EXIST, please explain what the hell your definition has to do with evidence. Oh, this will be good...
Pizza Hut is the best specially with the Buffalo wings.
@PrometheusKid: I agree. Their thin crust would I give my left arm for, if I had one.
"Most people are conditioned to accept irrational claims like, Creation, as 100% proven certainty". Who are these people that are conditioned this way? Most people who believe in creationism believe in faith and faith is not based on 100% certainty--that would make it perfect knowledge and faith would be moot. There is a difference.
I appreciate all of your work,however,something gave you the ability to read, write and convey your thoughts on the pages you have written. Was its origin from a single celled amoeba that developed over the eons to become a man, or was this ability created over time with a purpose in the mind of your creator? I think we have a creator in this life with the intent to develop us into doubters and therefore we may use our inconclusiveness to seek more knowledge. You seem to have sought a lot of knowledge and I applaud you for your hard work. Keep searching.
@whonunuwho
“something gave you the ability to read, write and convey your thoughts on the pages you have written.”
Matter is in eternal motion. There is nothing that can give an atom the “ability” or “permission” to move. Atoms are in eternal motion.
“Was its origin from a single celled amoeba that developed over the eons to become a man”
Hopefully there were ATOMS before amoebas came into the scene. If I am missing something here please set me straight.
“or was this ability created over time”
Abilities are created???
Are you sure about this?
I thought “ability” is an action. An action is what an object does to ANOTHER object. An action is a concept....it is not ‘something’. Regardless.....even objects cannot be created. Matter is eternal. All objects are assembled from pre-existing objects....atoms and their fundamental constituent of matter.
"Matter is eternal. "
Prove it.
nicomp,
"Prove it"
Oh, what is "proof", nicomp?
Is it an opinion?
Is this what your priest forced you to believe when you kneeled before him in the confession box...in people's opinions?
Regardless, you cannot prove to anyone that you even have an arm or a leg....how pathetic of you.
I wish I could write like you.
"The Atheist’s CLAIM or theory, is that a dimensionless 0D singularity created space & matter."
That may be true in regards to some of those who have this mysterious desire to label themselves 'atheist', but sans getting into round-and-round arguments over definitions of the word atheism; in general terms I do not reckon that someone's not buying into the dross of theism entails that they claim or theorize that a dimensionless 0D singularity created space & matter.
Spastic,
"in general terms I do not reckon that someone's not buying into the dross of theism entails that they claim or theorize that a dimensionless 0D singularity created space & matter."
Well they have to support their position, regardless of what is written in this article.
The point is, that the majority of atheists are CREATIONISTS. They are Old Earth Creationists, as opposed to Young Earth Creationists. They believe that matter, space and time were created 13 Billion years ago, rather than 6000 years ago.
The question they must answer is: what object created space, matter and time?
Only objects can move and performs actions (verbs) like "create". Matterless motion is impossible.
"Well they have to support their position, regardless of what is written in this article."
Irrelevant to my post. Call me old fashioned but I'm sticking to the topic and addressing the article.
Since you didn't pick up on it the first time or perhaps misunderstood me I'll elaborate for you;
fatfist: "THEISTS say that God is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe."
Agreed.
fatfist: "ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe."
Fallacy of faulty generalization.
fatfist: "AGNOSTICS say that we are limited beings, and can never “know” who or what created the Universe."
Fallacy of faulty generalization.
fatfist: "The point is, that the majority of atheists are CREATIONISTS."
Not only is this shifting the goal post, it reveals a second fallacy in your sentence "ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe", that being the fallacy of concealed quantification.
My first post still stands. Your hub needs amending.
Spastic,
"Your hub needs amending”
Ummmmmm....on what basis, spastic?
Do atheists believe that matter and space was created...yes or no?
a) If YES, then WHO or WHAT created space and matter? You see, “creation” is a VERB. Something has to BEGIN to move and perform this action. So.......WHAT began to move from the atheist’s opinion?
b) If NO, then why are they calling themselves "atheists"? What are they denying....God? What is God? Can the atheist please stand up and tell us??
“Fallacy of faulty generalization....shifting the goal post...”
Just answer either a) or b). Then EVERYONE will know whether there are fallacies and unethical goal-shifting going on here. Let’s see if you can score inside the goal posts which you have set up!!
Spastic doesn't quite get that both atheism and agnosticism are equally as irrational. He is learning though.
Sorry for my tardiness fatfist. I've been too busy for the web lately.
"Ummmmmm....on what basis, spastic?"
On the basis of "ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe" and "AGNOSTICS say that we are limited beings, and can never “know” who or what created the Universe" being fallacies of false generalization. You went on to concede as much by dropping it down a notch to "The point is, that the **majority** of atheists ARE creationists".
I take it you have no problem with my original post.
"Do atheists believe that matter and space was created...yes or no?"
Now your getting my point. Ask THEM and see if they all concur that "the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe" or that their "CLAIM or theory, is that a dimensionless 0D singularity created space & matter" then see if it's not akin to saying "Atheists wear black shoes."
"What are they denying....?"
While a very good question on the surface the problem is that the word "denying" used in that context is loaded. Not all who call themselves atheist would use that terminology. An object must first exist in order for it's existence to be denied. Many atheists will understand this.
Anyway, this is hardly worth getting mired in a miasma of minutae over, seeing as in nature there are no such things as atheists.
Best regards.
“You went on to concede as much by dropping it down a notch to "The point is, that the **majority** of atheists ARE creationists".
Nothing was dropped down a notch. Not all atheists buy into the creation fable of the Big Bang. Some are able to reason thru that nonsense and point out its contradictions. You can see them voicing their concerns in forums everywhere. But sadly, they are the minority within this movement and they certainly argue with their peers over these issues. Atheism is the religion of mathematics. Atheists attempt to use the arguments which come out of mathematical physics in order to apply them to God.
This is why atheists have an irrational stand on the issue of existence. Existence is a hypothesis (assumption), never a theory (explanation). It is irrational to believe that God exists, not believe that God exists, lack belief that God exists,....etc. There is no provision for belief or lack of belief in the definition of exist. The atheists who do understand this issue, almost always denounce the religion of atheism.
“Ask THEM and see if they all concur that "the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe"
It doesn’t matter if they all do. Atheism is a movement which preaches mathematical physics. The proponents of this movement use the ideas of mainstream science to attempt to debunk the theist’s proposal. Their whole arguments are based on belief or lack of belief. Such arguments are moot on the issue of existence. Atheists are playing into the hands of the theist. Atheists are “trapped” into these arguments and argue in circles with the theist without even realizing it. This is why atheists and theists have been arguing over the existence of God for the past 2000 years and nothing is settled.
A rational human can settle the issue of God right here and right now. A rational human can explain why it is impossible for a God to exist.
“An object must first exist in order for it's existence to be denied.”
Huh? An object must EXIST for its existence to be denied???
This irrational statement fits in with what I said above. The word EXIST has no provision for belief, denial, knowledge, wisdom, faith, truth, lies, proof, observation, testimony, evidence, experiment, authority.....or lack of.
An objects exists by definition only. We need to give meaning to the word exist....otherwise we don’t understand what we are talking about.
“Many atheists will understand this.”
And that’s why they are part of a religion known as atheism......which is EQUALLY as irrational as theism.
“in nature there are no such things as atheists.”
...and no such thing as theists either. There are only humans....some are rational....and the rest are....well.....I don’t wanna say.
Spastic,
I think it was you who asked me about Matt Slick a few weeks ago. Did you notice that he dropped in my hub on absolutes? I wonder who told him to drop in here. If it was you, thanks for finally getting him in here.
Anyway, he ran away from the argument because he could not define any of the crucial terms in his argument. I defined them for him, but he didn't object to my definitions.
It is funny how his argument fails so easily, but even the morons at the Atheist Experience couldn't even debunk his argument. Matt Dilahunty even went so far to make the most religiously stupid statement ever made by an atheist....that there are not only objects and concepts, but also a MAGICAL THIRD OPTION: non-objects AND non-concepts. What a moron!!!!!
I did enjoy reading your hub fatfist. I didn't mean to offend you with my discussion with someone else in the forums. I would like to discuss some things with you here.
1 - I always prefer to go back to the written word, rather than any particular person's(church's) interpretation of it. So while some Theist preach that God was the uncaused first cause, not all do. I understand that is the topic for this hub, but I want to make it clear that this doesn't apply to all views of creationism.
2 - "They already decided for ALL of us that the Universe was created", again, not true of all Christians, let alone all Theists.
3 - "Since the proponents of Creationism wish to deviate from this default position, the onus is on them to provide an analysis which rationally explains that the “creation” of space & matter at some instant in the past, is a VIABLE option." This only applies if someone presents creationism as a logical argument, aka, trying to prove it. For personal beliefs, there is no burden of proof. You are correct, when something is presented as objective truth, burden of proof applies to the one who makes the claim.
This causes most problems, in my opinion. Too many people try to debate things which can't be proven or disproven objectively. It is better to discuss and share ideas, accepting that they are just personal ideas, not external truths.
4 - "Exactly WHY the Universe (space & matter) is IMPOSSIBLE to “CREATE”, whether under the guise of a God, a Singularity, out of nothingness/void, or by any other conceivable means." In the Big Bang theory, the singularity that started everything off is described as a tiny point of almost infinite energy. There is no claim of anything being created from nothing. The energy changed into basic particles, which eventually formed the material for stars, which in death, create the rest of the basic matter on all planets. The Big Bang doesn't address where the singularity came from, or what happened before.
5 - "We will explain why space is omnipresent and precedes God, and why God cannot perform “causal actions” without the existence of Target objects." If the universe at one point did exist as a singularity, there would have been no empty space in the entire universe. Empty space isn't anything, it's not a thing. So, you're right that it can't be created, but it's because it doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist can't be said to precede God.
It's like saying shadows are something. They're not something, they are a lack of a thing. Shadow is just a concept, it's not a real thing that exists.
For the rest of your hub, specific to first cause, I won't address here, because that's not how all Creationists view things, and it's not how I view it either. So it doesn't really matter if we disagree on any of the logic presented.
6 - "a) Do you agree that “creation” is a verb, an act that necessitates the motion of a MEDIATOR entity which always existed? Yes or No?"
I agree that creation is a verb which necessitates the motion of a mediator, but not necessarily one that always existed. Only one that existed before the event of creation.
"b) Do you agree that the act of “creation” necessitates “causal action” from the MEDIATOR? Yes or No?
Yes
c) Do you agree that “causal action” CANNOT be imparted on “nothing”? Yes or No?"
Yes
7 - Scenario 1 - From 1 and 5. There is another option. In the case of the Big Bang theory, God could have created the universe from energy, by condensing it and letting it loose. Energy is another option that fulfills the need for an object. This assumes that there is another place from which to get this energy, and another place for God to have been before = multiple universes.
Of course, the underlying laws of... something, could replace God as the mediator, so this idea can work for Theists and for Atheists.
I'll continue with more later.
I just want to make sure this point is clear. If you define space as nothingness, then by definition, it doesn't exist. Rather, it is the lack of existence. Just as a shadow isn't a real thing. You can't measure, touch, or do anything with either.
Hi emrldphx,
I will address your points one by one....
1 & 2)-----“Theist preach that God was the uncaused first cause, not all do.”
You are right....I can go to any church and ask members of the congregation if they believe what the Pastor is preaching, or even if they believe all that is said in the Bible. There are people who will say “No”. But this is irrelevant. The issue I am raising has to do with the doctrine of Religion (namely Christianity in this context), and not what its followers believe.
But let’s analyze this issue. The concept of God refers to a “creator”. Specifically, a creator of the universe (matter and space). Does it not? If not, then what does the concept of God refer to?
Remember, the new concept of “Creation from Nothing” was first expounded by Theophilus of Antioch (185 CE) and later by Augustine, and it was thereafter mostly accepted in the churches, although it was NOT included in their creeds. It was formulated dogmatically at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) who pronounced “Creatio ex Nihilo” as an “official teaching”, and reaffirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870.
Today, Christians are taught that the Universe was created by God, in ‘time’ and ‘out-of-nothing’. The Protestants are with the Catholics on this issue, and so are the Orthodox.
3) -----“For personal beliefs, there is no burden of proof.”
Sure, but I am not raising any issues regarding “beliefs” or “proofs”. What people believe and prove is subjective, and is their personal business. But when Religions, like Protestant and Catholic claim that “creation” is scientific, and they publish many journals or arguments trying to explain why....then they have knowingly or inadvertently encroached into the realm of physics. And this is where I step in and respond to their claims.
In science, we use the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory) to rationally explain all claims of alleged consummated events in nature, like “creation” for example. This is the only objective means which can demonstrate whether a claim is possible or impossible. So you see, science does not deal with truths or proofs....science only deals with the sci method.
4) -----“the singularity that started everything off is described as a tiny point of almost infinite energy.”
Too many errors....
A singularity is a mathematical abstraction (a concept) that is modelled by a 0D particle of no shape, no L, W and H, and no matter. A singularity is a variable mathematicians use to model their equations. It is nothing real in nature. There are no singularities in the universe.
A “point” is a 2D figure like this ( . )
2D points do not exist. You can say that the ink or paper exists, but not ‘a’ point. A point is a concept....our conception of a 2D shape when viewing the paper and the ink.
Using the word “infinite” in any sentence is irrational. Infinite is an irrational adjective, the opposite of finite. Please see my hub “INFINITE REGRESS Argument for Creation” where I explain this in detail.
Energy is a concept, not an object. As a concept, it is QUANTITATIVE and has units of kg x m^2/s^2. So you cannot even begin to qualify it with an adjective. There is no meaning to your above sentence. There are no infinite objects or concepts. See my hub above which explains why.
5) -----“If the universe at one point did exist as a singularity, there would have been no empty space in the entire universe.”
As explained above, singularities do not exist.
Exist = physical presence = object + location
The physical invokes an object. Presence invokes a location.
An object is that which has shape.
Singularities do not have shape and most certainly do not exist. They are mathematical abstractions used in equations. If you disagree, then please illustrate your “hypothesized” singularity, or refer to one on the internet. The sci method demands all actors (objects) of a theory to be illustrated. It is objects which perform actions (like expansion or explosion) in physics.....not concepts.
6) -----“I agree that creation is a verb which necessitates the motion of a mediator, but not necessarily one that always existed. Only one that existed before the event of creation.”
Then HOW did the mediator come into existence? How can “nothing” magically acquire L, W and H and morph into a mediator (i.e. object)? Please explain in detail.
It is irrational to claim that nothing existed prior to a mediator. Existence is eternal. Either the mediator existed, or the matter which the mediator was comprised of, always existed. There is no other option. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. And neither can space, because space is “nothing”.
7) -----“God could have created the universe from energy, by condensing it and letting it loose. “
Sorry, but you do not understand what the concept of ‘energy’ is about.
Energy is scalar quantity with units of kg x m^2/s^2. It is a concept which QUANTIFIES the ACTION which is performed by an object weighing so many ‘kilograms’ and having moved so many ‘meters’ in a period of so many ‘seconds’. It describes what an observer conceives and quantifies as ‘energy’ when he SEES an object move within a span of time. Understand?
Energy is a concept which quantifies an action, a verb.
Energy is NOT a thing. Energy is an IDEA which is conceived by a sentient observer. Energy describes the MOVIE the observer saw.
Energy cannot be conceived from a photograph or a single frame in nature’s Universal Movie. Energy can only be conceived by watching a movie of an object.
Energy necessarily requires an observer. Without an observer, there is no concept of energy!
Energy does NOT exist. Only the object can be said to exist.
It is impossible for God to create anything from a concept like energy. You are necessarily implying that God created the universe from matter (object) which already existed. Your statements alludes that matter is indeed eternal.
7) -----“Energy is another option that fulfills the need for an object. “
Indeed! Energy is a concept which cannot even be conceived without taking measurements of an object, and describing those measurements with kg x m^2/s^2. See how easy that was? Energy does not exist....only objects exist.
“If you define space as nothingness, then by definition, it doesn't exist. “
Of course! Space is a concept. This word alludes to our conception of the separation or gap between objects. Space is nothing. All objects in the universe are separated by space. Without space, the universe would be one solid block of matter, and there would be no motion. It is the nothingness of space which allows an object to move from one location to another.
1 - As a Christian, I wasn't taught that God created the universe out of nothing. I was taught that matter cannot be destroyed nor created. Certainly it can change forms(energy to matter and vice versa). That's why I go back to the original source, the Bible. The Hebrew word that we translate to create is Bara 'to create, shape, form'. It is possible God formed a point of nearly-infinite energy, using existing energy, and unleashed that to create the universe through a Big Bang.
Since the Bible doesn't state creation from nothing, I don't believe it. I also don't think it's fair to say that by creating matter you also create emptiness between the matter. In other words, he created matter, not 'matter and nothingness'. (Even the 'nothingness' between matter we now think contains matter and energy anyway).
3 - Absolutely, I don't think anybody can claim scientific proof either for or against God or creationism. To do so is ignorant of the nature of science. As it stands today, we have no technology nor method to try and prove one way or the other. It is completely in the realm of personal thinking.
But, just for someone to believe in it, they don't have a burden of proof, and that can't be used as an argument against someone's personal beliefs. I think we agree on this, just a misunderstanding.
4 - We use the term singularity because we don't have anything to explain it. For ease of argument I just said what I said... I don't think any scientist claims to know exactly what the first moments of a big bang would be like, since we have no way to test even near those levels of heat.
I disagree about energy, it is more than a concept. Light, heat, sound, x-rays, gamma-rays, are all energy. They can be measured. Since we can measure, for instance, differing light levels, it is possible to say that a nearly-infinite level of light(which just means the math behind it is so big as to be indescribable).
I didn't say infinite energy or infinite mass. Just nearly infinite. It's a means of convenience when a quantity is too large to easily write out or explain. I guess I could go for something like 10^80, but it's just a term of convenience.
5 - You say singularities do not exist. In the form of inifinite energy taking up no space, that is probably correct, but that's not what I described. The Big Bang theory allows for the thought of a nearly-infinitely small point containing nearly-infinite energy(again, just a convenient way of trying to describe what would happen if you packed the entire universe into a pinhead). I don't see how you can disprove that possibility.
I think it's interesting you use the same definition of exist as Mikel posts in the forums... object + location. That's not the actual definition of the world. "Exist: to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood.". By your definition, not even space exists, so you can't say it precedes God.
I'm sorry for using the term singularity, I only use it because the math involved in compacting the universe to a point smaller than a pinhead doesn't work to the best of my knowledge. We can only try and extrapolate to it as closely as we can, but beyond certain temperatures and densities we don't know how things work.
6 - I never claimed nothing existed before the mediator. I only said the mediator only needed to exist before the event.
The mediator, in the case of God, could have been created just as the universe was, at any point before, by another mediator. And remember, I use the word create in the sense of forming or shaping... like organization. Not something from nothing.
7 - Energy doesn't exist? X-rays, light, gamma rays, radio waves, none of these exist? Energy can be converted into matter, and vice versa. In particle accelerators, when two particles collide, new particles are made from the energy in the collision.
I'm afraid you have an incorrect idea about what energy is. It absolutely exists without an observer.
7 - Again, do some research on energy and energy - mass conversion.
Space is a concept. By your own reasoning, concepts require an observer to exist. So with no observers, the universe would no longer have space and collapse in on itself? You say space makes motion possible... attributing the possibility of motion to the existence of something that doesn't exist is absurd, backward thinking. That emptiness 'exists' because the matter isn't next to other matter. You are saying that the matter isn't next to other matter because the 'nothingness' exists. It's backwards.
I hope you can look into what energy is a little more, so we can continue talking about Big-Bang style creationism, and how it fits your model of mediator-object-event
Hi emrldphx,
“As a Christian, I wasn't taught that God created the universe out of nothing. I was taught that matter cannot be destroyed nor created.”
Ok, so by your statement above....matter is eternal.
So, now the natural question to ask is: What is God?
Is God an ‘object’ or a ‘concept’?
“In other words, he created matter, not 'matter and nothingness'.”
Hold on......you previously stated that matter cannot be created. You are contradicting yourself by now claiming that God created matter. You can’t have it both ways.
“ I don't think anybody can claim scientific proof either for or against God or creationism. “
You don’t understand the scientific method. In science we don’t ‘prove’. Proof is the hallmark of religion. Science will have no part of it. Proof means that you convinced yourself. What is proof and truth and evidence to one, is a lie and blasphemy and obscurity to another. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. The word “proof” resolves to none other than OPINION. Proof means that someone has already decided for everyone else, it’s a done deal, forever and ever amen! That's religion in a nutshell for you.
There is no provision for truth or proof in the sci method. In science we only hypothesize objects, and use them as actors to explain consummated events.....and we do so rationally, unambiguously, and without contradiction.
“But, just for someone to believe in it....”
Beliefs are irrelevant and don’t concern reality. Reality can only be explained rationally using the sci method. We don’t care what people believe in.
“We use the term singularity because we don't have anything to explain it.”
You can’t explain it? This is not science!
The sci method DEMANDS that you:
1) Illustrate absolutely ALL the actors (objects) which will take part in your theory.
2) Define all your terms consistently and unambiguously i.e. scientifically.
3) Set the initial scene before you rationally explain your theory.
“I don't think any scientist claims to know exactly what the first moments of a big bang would be like”
Then the Big Bang is NOT science! If you cannot hypothesize the initial scene and illustrate on the blackboard ‘a’ singularity for the audience, then you are doing Religion...not science. Science is about having a VALID hypothesis and a RATIONAL theory (explanation). Science is not about contradictory assertions.
Space and matter cannot be created. The universe is eternal.
“energy, it is more than a concept”
Huh? What does that even mean???
Is energy an object? If so, please illustrate it or reference an image of it online.
Object: that which has shape
Concept: that which lacks shape
Every single word in the human dictionary resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT....there is no other option.
The universe is composed of matter (objects) wrapped by space (nothing; a concept). There is either something (object) or nothing (space). This is a white or black issue....on or off....yes or no......there is no other option.
If you disagree, then please name your other option and define it rationally.
Energy is a concept...it requires an observer to conceive it, define it, and quantify it with units of measurement.
“They can be measured.”
What we measure is objects.....not concepts. Concepts are the numeric values and units of measurement we use to describe behaviour (actions). This is basic stuff. There are NO concepts in the universe. Concepts do not exist.....they are nothing. And concepts do no perform events or actions. Understand?
“I didn't say infinite energy or infinite mass. Just nearly infinite. “
Your sentence has no meaning. Infinite is an adjective. I already explained why it impossible to use the word infinite in any sentence....you didn’t read my hub on Infinite Regress.
“The Big Bang theory allows for the thought of a nearly-infinitely small point containing nearly-infinite energy(again, just a convenient way of trying to describe what would happen if you packed the entire universe into a pinhead).”
BB allows for the “thought”?? Who cares about thoughts.....this is an objective issue....opinions play no role here.
The word INFINITE is an adjective which cannot be rationally used in any human sentence. There are NO infinite objects...ever!
And I already explained that ‘energy’ is a concept.....it does not exist.
So your statement makes no sense.
“I don't see how you can disprove that possibility.”
There is no provision for ‘proof’ or ‘disproof’ in the sci method. You have confused Science with Religion. What is ‘proof’ to you, is a LIE to someone else. What is ‘disproof’ to you, is ‘true’ to someone else. Proof is a word that resolves to none other than OPINION. Science is about rational explanations....not opinions/beliefs.
Religion is the hallmark of proving & disproving to your audience....these are amusing activities perform by ignoramuses.
“"Exist: to be”
Circular synonyms....be=exist. You haven’t DEFINED what it means to exist.
“have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood."
Before life on Earth, the Moon and Earth was not known, recognized or understood by anyone. So YOUR definition tells us that the Earth and Moon did NOT exist before life was here. Fascinating!!
So all you provided were synonyms (circularities) and contradictions. You have not defined 'exist', and I have doubts you can. No one has been able to define 'exist' in the last 10,000 years, what make you think you can by merely copying defs from the dictionary?
You see....that’s what happens when you blindly copy definitions from the dictionary, which was written by English students, and not Scientists! In science we define all our terms OBJECTIVELY (without invoking observers) and RATIONALLY (consistently, unambiguously, without contradiction).
Exist = object + location
The moon is an object....it has shape without any observers present to give an OPINION about the issue. Furthermore, the moon ‘exists’ because in addition to shape, it has location. Observers and their OPINIONS play no role in existence. Existence is objective.
Only objects can exist. Energy and singularities are abstract concepts which do not exist. If you want them to exist, please illustrate them in YOUR hypothesis, and then use them to explain YOUR theory. This is how science is done!
You need to learn the Scientific Method before you can engage in Scientific discussions.
“By your definition, not even space exists, so you can't say it precedes God.”
Space does NOT exist....what are you having trouble with? How can “nothing” possibly exist? Please explain.
Space cannot even be “created”. Space is not an object. Space is OMNIPRESENT. This means that space has no shape, no borders or boundaries to cross.....space is the nothingness that is everywhere and encapsulates all objects. Space is not a ‘what’.....space is a ‘where’ (a concept). Understand?
This means that it is impossible for God to create space. Space is more powerful than God. Space cannot be created or destroyed. Space cannot be crossed or be transcended. Even the Almighty God is a prisoner in the biggest prison never built.....space!
“The mediator, in the case of God, could have been created just as the universe was, at any point before, by another mediator.”
The universe was created? Are you sure about this?
Please explain how SPACE was created. How do you create nothing? I already explained (above) that this is impossible.
Sorry, but your statement contradicts itself.
Cont......
“And remember, I use the word create in the sense of forming or shaping... like organization. Not something from nothing.”
Aha! So the universe was not created. Space and matter was already there!!
Universe: A concept that embodies matter and space.
The creation of matter and space is impossible. Ergo....God is NOT a creator. God did not create anything.
Matter has the natural ability to FORM and SHAPE itself. We call this behavior: GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION
Matter is eternal.
A God who “sculpted” eternal matter in Art Class is a fantasy that is irrelevant to science and reality. Any 2-yr old can do that.
“Energy doesn't exist? X-rays, light, gamma rays, radio waves, none of these exist?”
Energy is a concept, as explained to you before. You have offered anything else but SYNONYMS (x-rays, light, etc.) to support your argument.
All you have said is: “Energy is X and Y and Z....”
This is a circular argument, as you are using a concept (energy) and equate it with other terms.
“Energy can be converted into matter”
Do you also convert LOVE into a “box of chocolates”?
Does JUSTICE also convert into a “jail cell”?
How can you possibly convert a CONCEPT (nothing) into an OBJECT? Do you wave a magic wand?
Your statement is meaningless. Do you understand your errors in grammar and physics?
Energy is a VERB as it unequivocally invokes TIME (motion) in its units: kg x m^2/s^2......verbs are concepts.....concepts do NOT perform actions.....do you understand this basic stuff which we learn in Junior Kindergarten?
Please go tell a Junior Kindergartener that “bouncing” or “energy” has an effect on his ball. He will laugh at you. Bounce & energy is what the ball DOES....bounce & energy is NOT what ‘something’ IS. Bounce & energy IS the EFFECT. Bounce & energy do NOT exist....they are conceived in a movie of the event....got it?
“I'm afraid you have an incorrect idea about what energy is. It absolutely exists without an observer.”
Blind assertion and contradiction!
You said: “exist = have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood”
Your irrational defn of exist summarily EXCLUDES energy as it invokes observers and their OPINIONS. This necessarily renders energy as a concept.
What exists, exists independent of observers.
“Again, do some research on energy and energy - mass conversion.”
Yes, you should. And please learn about the Scientific Method while you’re at it. You do NOT understand how science is done and what a hypothesis entails. In science ALL objects/actors which perform ACTIONS are ILLUSTRATED IN THE HYPOTHESIS stage.
You have NOT illustrated your magical ‘energy’ or ‘singularity’. And you cannot, because these are abstract concepts which do NOT perform actions and do NOT affect reality, existence, matter, objects. Understand now?
“Space is a concept. By your own reasoning, concepts require an observer to exist.”
No. You missed the point entirely.
Space is our “conception” of the spatial separation of objects. Objects are separated and have a gap between them. Without this separation, the universe would be a single block of matter and motion would be impossible.
Space is nothingness. Space does not exist. Objects are separated by nothingness. This is why objects have shape....spatial separation. The Moon and Earth were separated by space before life evolved. If they weren’t, then these objects could not move. This is basic stuff.
Which part are you having trouble with?
“You say space makes motion possible... attributing the possibility of motion to the existence of something that doesn't exist is absurd, backward thinking.”
No.
Objects cannot move if they were not separated by nothingness. We call this nothingness ‘space’....they are synonyms. Motion is impossible without space. Which part don’t you understand?
“That emptiness 'exists' because the matter isn't next to other matter.”
What do you mean by ‘exist’?
Exist = object + location
Emptiness lacks shape/form, and is not an object. It is IMPOSSIBLE for emptiness to exist...understand?
“I hope you can look into what energy is a little more, so we can continue talking about Big-Bang style creationism,”
The BB is a religion which is believed by theists and atheists. The BB has absolutely nothing to do with science. The BB contradicts itself. I have already written several hubs which rationally explain WHY BB and creation claims which are impossible.
Hi emrldphx,
If you wish to continue with your argument for ENERGY and EXIST, you will have to tell the audience the following:
1) Is energy an object or a concept?
2) If it is an object, please illustrate it or reference one online.
3) If it is a concept, please define it.
4) Please scientifically define ‘exist’.
Without defining your key terms, your statements have no meaning, and are thus unscientific.
Thanks
1 - "So, now the natural question to ask is: What is God?
Is God an ‘object’ or a ‘concept’?"
In my believe, God is an 'object'.
2 - "Hold on......you previously stated that matter cannot be created. You are contradicting yourself by now claiming that God created matter. You can’t have it both ways."
I stated the hebrew word for create, which indicates something can also be formed or shaped. Just as you can say you can create something by putting together legos, so God can create a universe using matter and energy.
3 - There is proof in science. People just misunderstand the meaning of proof. Science can show that if you hold a rock up and let go, it will fall. Each experiment is its own bit of evidence. Each experiment of proof that something happened. Once we have enough evidence of something happening consistently and predictably, we can consider that 'sufficient evidence to show something as being true'. Proof has nothing to do with opinion, by definition.
But my point was there can currently be no scientific proof, or scientific evidence, for or against the existence of God.
4 - "Beliefs are irrelevant and don’t concern reality. Reality can only be explained rationally using the sci method. We don’t care what people believe in."
The scientific method can't be applied to whether or not God is real. The scientific method doesn't define reality. Until we have a method to test something, we can't objectively provide evidence for it. Nor can we provide evidence against it. By definition, these kinds of things are completely personal.
5 - When I mean we can't explain it, I mean we don't have any basis mathematically to explain exactly what that kind of moment would be like. We don't have to have a mathematical basis for attempts to explain information we get from experimentation. We think about scenarios that could fit and try to find ways to test those scenarios.
Relativity was shown to be true by testing it after it was theorized. We had ideas on how to test it, but perhaps were lacking in the technology to do so immediately.
We can't say what happens when you have something at 'X' degrees, because we can't perform any tests on something at 'X' degrees, but that doesn't mean we can't try and figure it out. That is EXACTLY what science is about.\
6 - The Big Bang is a theory! You want everything to be completely explained and proven. If that were the case, it would be fact. I never claimed it is a fact. Does that make theories worthless? No.
I can illustrate a 'singularity' in this sense. I just can't explain exactly how it would behave. There is nothing wrong with theorizing about something we don't understand... that's what it is all about. You theorize, test, theorize test, and every once in a while, we discover a truth.
This kind of singularity would be a very small point of incomprehensible energy levels.
7 - By your definition, there are two things. Objects, which have shape, and exist, and concepts which only exist when there is an observer. This isn't true. Energy exists independently of observation, so using your terms, it has to be an object.
Like I said, light, heat, radio waves, ultra violet, gamma rays, x-rays, are all forms of energy. They are a real thing, not just an idea. They have real effects.
If you want to not consider it an object, then you have to change your definition of 'exist'.
8 - You say concepts don't exist... and you say energy is a concept. So, light doesn't exist. X-rays don't exist. Kinetic energy doesn't exist. Heat doesn't exist.
Do you deny that energy is transformed into matter in particle accelerators?
9 - My sentence does have meaning, and I explained it. Nearly-infinite is a term of convenience, and it does have meaning. It is an easy way to say 'really really really really big, like a billion billion billion billion billion billion'.
Infinite is an adjective, just as numbers are adjectives that define quantity. Most people can understand that if I say 'nearly infinite mass' then it is something that would be 'really really really really heavy'.
10 - You claim science has no room for thoughts or ideas? That only shows how little you understand about how science works. When you perform an experiment, you get a result. Then, you hypothesize( to give a possible but not yet proven explanation for something) what could be causing it. All a hypothesis is is an idea. Then you test that hypothesis(idea) to try and see if it is correct.
Seriously, no room for ideas in science? How could science move forward without ideas?
And I already explained I didn't say infinite. I said nearly-infinite as a term of convenience. The only reason it doesn't have as much meaning is because we don't have a word for how much energy exists in the universe. We have to result to things like 'a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion', or '10^80'.
10 - Address this single question, please. You say energy does not exist. Are you admitting that light, heat, microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, and all other forms of energy don't exist?
11 - If they don't exist, how can matter be created in a particle accelerator, unless it is converted from energy?
12 - You say there is no room for proof in the sci method, yet you say 'creation is impossible'. In order to make a claim, you have to present proof. Seriously, how can science work without proof? Proof is just a word for 'sufficient evidence'.
13 - The definition I gave for exist is from [b]the dictionary[/b]. It's the real definition. You complain about defining a word with itself, but 'exist = to be' isn't using exist to define itself.
“have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood." That doesn't mean something has to be known to exist! It has to have the [b]ability[/b] to be known. The moon exists, so even if we weren't here it would have the ability to be known.
You just want to use your own definition for exist that is convenient for your arguments. Unfortunately, the real definition of a word is the one you get from a dictionary.
I think the second part is the easiest definition to understand. If something exists, then it means it is possible to detect it with the correct technology. Just as x-rays exist, eventually we were able to detect them. That is why something doesn't necessarily have to be what you think of as an object to exist.
I illustrated just how non-objects can exist. X-rays. Or do you still think they don't exist?
14 - "Space does NOT exist....what are you having trouble with? How can “nothing” possibly exist? Please explain."
You are the one who said space precedes God. How can something that doesn't exist precede something else? To precede God, space would have to 'come, exist, or occur' before him.
15 - "Space is omnipresent". How can something that doesn't exist 'be' anything? To say that space [b]is[/b] (is is a form of 'to be'), then something [b]has to be[/b] in the first place. This is exactly what you have wrong. Space [b]isn't[/b]. Not is.
16 - I didn't say space was created. I said the universe was created. You have a weird definition of universe that includes something that doesn't exist. The universe is a word that encompasses all of the matter and energy that exists. It doesn't include anything that doesn't exist, such as space.
If you don't address these three concerns, we can't continue.
A - Do x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, microwaves, ultraviolet, and light exist?
B - If they do, how can they exist if they are energy, which you said doesn't exist? If they don't, how can energy be transformed into matter in particle accelerators?
C - If space doesn't exist, how can it [b]be[/b] omnipresent? For something to [b]be[/b], it has to exist, so how can something that isn't 'is'?
17 - "Aha! So the universe was not created. Space and matter was already there!!"
No, space never was there. Something that doesn't exist can't [b]be[/b].
Matter can be made from energy. Either the matter, or the energy, already existed in some form. But, just as you can create a sculpture from clay, God can create a universe from energy and matter.
Again, you are using definitions for words such as Universe, but you define these words yourself to fit your argument. The definition of universe doesn't include things that don't exist(and you said space doesn't exist), so Universe doesn't include space.
18 - "A God who “sculpted” eternal matter in Art Class is a fantasy that is irrelevant to science and reality. Any 2-yr old can do that."
You argue against creationism by automatically dismissing one of the possible meanings of create. This is incorrect inference, or a logical fallacy. If there were this energy, and God used it to shape the universe, it could be said that he created it.
19 - "Energy is a concept, as explained to you before. You have offered anything else but SYNONYMS"
No, those aren't synonyms for energy. They ARE energy. Types of energy. You say energy doesn't exist, and that [b]includes[/b] x rays, gamma rays, and light. Do they exist or don't they?
20 - You obviously don't understand what energy is, and you refuse to address any evidence contrary to your belief. Scientists have shown that the KINETIC ENERGY in two particles in a particle accelerator can be transformed into matter and anti-matter. How can that be if energy doesn't exist?
You think of energy as a verb, but it's not. It's a real thing, but you can't think of it as an object, so you dismiss it. Where does the matter come from if the energy isn't real?
And I dare you to go tell any college level physics professor that energy isn't real. You argue that Kindergardeners understand energy... I'm sorry but energy is a concept beyond that early thinking.
21 - My 'irrational definition' is actually the correct definition. If everyone just made their own definitions for everything we wouldn't have a language. We would have confusion.
We know about x-rays, because they inherently have the ability to be known. They have the ability to be known because they exist. We have found them... yet you dispute this as a fact?
22 - "What exists, exists independent of observers."
Exactly! Light exists independent of observers. So do all the other electromagnetic forms of radiation, which are all types of energy.
23 - “Again, do some research on energy and energy - mass conversion."
Why do you keep dodging this subject? It's been shown, you have two particles, smash them into each other at unfathomable speeds, and new matter is transformed out of the energy in the collision.
You say energy doesn't exist, so that matter either A - doesn't exist or B - came from nothing.
24 - "Space does not exist". Yet, you say it precedes God... that it existed before God. Your hub is full of these contradictions.
How can the earth and moon be separated by something that doesn't exist? You keep using the verb 'to be' in reference to space, which you admit doesn't exist!
25 - " Motion is impossible without space". Motion is impossible without something that doesn't exist? Seriously? If motion requires something that doesn't exist, then motion is impossible.
1) Is energy an object or a concept?
By the definition of something which can be seen, felt, or touched, then energy is not an object. Since you only give two possibilities(false dilemma) then it is a concept.
2) If it is an object, please illustrate it or reference one online.
It's not an object.
3) If it is a concept, please define it.
The ability to do work.
4) Please scientifically define ‘exist’.
I defined exist. to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood.
You won't accept this because you believe things are either objects or concepts. You don't allow for energy to exist, even though it has been proven and is accepted fact by the entire scientific community. Unfortunately, your understanding of energy is elementary.
Please, research 'energy matter conversion' to at least see the experiments where energy was turned into matter. For even more fun, look at where matter was turned into energy. Hint: nuclear bomb.
Great comment debate guys!
emrldphx
Please scientifically define 'exist'.
I defined exist. to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood.
I refused to recognized that the earth exist and this make's it truth according to emrldphx.
Hi emrldphx,
“In my believe, God is an 'object'.”
This is not an issue of belief or opinion or proof or truth or lies. This is an OBJECTIVE issue which falls squarely on the sci method. God is a Hypothesis (assumed object) which identifies the actor of your Theory (rational explanation of creation).
As it turns out, we can use critical reasoning to explain why God is indeed an object!!
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.
God knows that absolutely all entities MUST have shape. And He goes out of His way to tell us in the Bible in no uncertain terms:
Deuteronomy 4:16 “so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman”
Numbers 12:8 “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.”
God satisfies the definition of OBJECT because He has shape!! God is a VALID hypothesis of the sci method.
“There is proof in science. People just misunderstand the meaning of proof. ..... roof has nothing to do with opinion, by definition.”
Oh, please define ‘proof’ objectively without contradiction i.e. scientifically. Only then can you claim the above statement. Let us see whether your definition resolves to opinion or no....ok?
“But my point was there can currently be no scientific proof”
There is no ‘proof’ in science. There is NO provision for proof, truth, opinion, belief, wisdom or knowledge in the scientific method (hypothesis + theory). If you disagree, then please explain WHERE in the sci method do we inject OBSERVER-DEPENDENT subjectivities, such as proof...ok?
“The scientific method can't be applied to whether or not God is real.”
Real is as synonym for exist = object + location. Only real things exist. Since God is an object, like you and the Bible state, God is a HYPOTHESIZED object of the sci method. A theory which used the actor God is Creation. Please rationally explain your theory of creation. If you cannot, then it is not possible for God to exist. This is how the sci method is used. Science is the study of existence...understand?
You need to learn the sci method before you argue about it.
“The scientific method doesn't define reality. “
Nonsense to the N-th degree!!
Science is the study of REALITY (existence). Science studies what is real i.e. exists. You need to take an entry level course in Science 101.
“Until we have a method to test something, we can't objectively provide evidence for it. Nor can we provide evidence against it.”
In Science, we have no use for evidence. You confuse Science with Law. Science is NOT about persuading, convincing, swaying, or twisting arms. That’s what they do in the jury room AFTER the trial is over. That’s religion. In Science, the movie stops when the prosecutor and the defence make their closing arguments after rationally explaining their THEORIES.
Science is about explaining a phenomenon of nature rationally. The purpose of evidence is political. The purpose of evidence is ONLY to persuade the jury to vote for your theory. In Science, we present theories (rational explanations). The only purpose of evidence is to persuade and brainwash weak-minded individuals. What you choose to believe after the show is over because in your OPINION that the evidence was compelling, is of no concern to Science. JFK was killed by the actual person(s) who did it, no matter how many suspects the “evidence” points out, and no matter what the “evidence” compels you to “believe”. Do you understand these basics?
The word ‘evidence’ already embodies a theory. It is a subjective term. Evidence means that the juror has already made up his mind. The detective is already at the next step: giving HIS opinion about the bloody knife. “We have evidence that this is the murder weapon. The blood matches the victim’s DNA... etc., etc.” Now comes the coroner. “The victim died of an overdose. The victim was stabbed AFTER she died.” So now, what was fullproof ‘evidence’ of ‘the’ truth is exposed as a lie when confronted with a different EXPLANATION....and hence, there was NO murder, and NO murder weapon.
Evidence demands that what is truth today is demolished tomorrow, meaning that it was not TRUTH but just an opinion.
Therefore EVIDENCE = OPINION.
Hopefully truth is truth forever. If God keeps changing His truths over the centuries – homosexualism was a sin in the past, now it’s just an alternative lifestyle; celibacy was what Levi demanded of his priests, but now the priest sleeps with his favorite choirboy; divorce was frowned upon by God; but now everyone is divorced – then God is a bit unreliable. Should I pray to the God of the Middle Ages or to the God being peddled today?
Do you understand these basics of critical reasoning? EVIDENCE = PROOF = TRUTH = OPINION....got it? It is impossible for you to argue otherwise because you will contradict yourself....and that’s why you cannot objectively define these KEY TERMS which make or break your argument: evidence, proof, truth.
“Evidence.... By definition, these kinds of things are completely personal.”
BINGO! EXACTLY!
They are personal because they are subjective. You have reasoned that EVIDENCE = PERSONAL OPINION.
I am proud of you....you are learning.
“When I mean we can't explain it, I mean we don't have any basis mathematically to explain”
Argument from Ignorance.
Math is a symbolic language which DESCRIBES. Math has absolutely no explanatory power. Explanations are always QUALITATIVE (linguistic) and never QUANTITATIVE (math, descriptive). This is basic knowledge.
It is impossible for you to use Math to EXPLAIN why the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Wanna try? Good, use all the math and equation you want.....please explain WHY the pen falls to the floor. What pull the pen to the floor.....warped space, 0D graviton particles, angels, God??
“The Big Bang is a theory! You want everything to be completely explained and proven. “
You are still chasing your tail in circles and attacking strawmen. It is YOU who using this Religion word PROOF, which resolves to OPINION. And you cannot even define this word objectively.
The BB is an irrational theory as it fails at ALL levels of its conceptualization......it self-refutes itself by its many contradictions. I have hubs which explain this. BB is NOT a scientific theory. BB is Religion because it contradictory and it is based on BELIEF.....not on scientific hypothesis + theory. BB belongs in the trash!
“If that were the case, it would be fact.”
In science we don’t have FACTS. What is FACT to you, is a LIE to someone else. In science we have the Statement of the Facts which are formed in the Hypothesis. But you do not understand the difference because you haven’t taken an intro course in Science 101.
cont...
“I can illustrate a 'singularity' in this sense.”
Oh, please be my guest. Illustrate the 0D singularity.....and please make sure that whatever you show the audience is 0D....ok?
“There is nothing wrong with theorizing about something we don't understand.”
NONSENSE TO THE N-TH DEGREE!!!
OMG.....do you even realize what you just said here????
To THEORIZE means to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN in the sci method......it does not mean to OPINE or SPECULATE, as these actions are subjective and have nothing to do with science. And you MUST understand what YOU are talking about BEFORE you present your theory to the audience in the Physics Conference...got it? Otherwise we take the microphone away from you and ask Security to escort you to the Religion & Spirituality Conference down the hall.
Again.....you confuse Science with Religion!
“and concepts which only exist when there is an observer. “
No. Concepts do NOT exist. Concepts are conceived....they are ACTIONS (verbs) which people do. Concepts lack shape and are nothing.
Exist = object + location
Object: that which has shape
“Energy exists independently of observation”
Great! Draw an image of this alleged Hypothesized object which you call ENERGY, or reference one online. I’d like to see this critter for myself.
Here is the object God: http://www.hoolinet.com/Portals/0/GOD2.jpg
Your turn.....show us Energy. And again, no synonyms.....just this SOLE object you call energy...ok? Otherwise you’ve said nothing.
“You say concepts don't exist... and you say energy is a concept. So, light doesn't exist.”
Circular argument.....Your use of the term ENERGY is God-like term which you can assign any synonym in the universe so that you don’t have to illustrate it. This allows you to circularly validate all your circular arguments.
Energy = light = x-rays = gamma..... Just like God = love = justice = truth = intelligence.
Again....you CONFUSE Science with Religion.
“Do you deny that energy is transformed into matter in particle accelerators?”
Is that what they do.....transform love into a heart.......transform justice into a jail cell? Energy is a concept.....for the 10 th time!!
“Infinite is an adjective, just as numbers are adjectives that define quantity.”
LOL....numbers are VERBS (to count). Numbers are concepts which we conceive. OMG....you don’t understand the basics of language and science. No wonder your arguments have all failed.
Again, it is impossible for there to be an INFINITE object in the universe. Get educated about adjectives and nouns (objects), because you are talking like you have drank 15 beers.
“You claim science has no room for thoughts or ideas? “
Strawman! We use our thoughts and ideas and CRITICAL THINKING for formulate a hypothesis. And again, we use these to rationally explain our Theory. You confuse Science with Religion.......you are very confused.
“Then, you hypothesize( to give a possible but not yet proven explanation”
A hypothesis is an EXPLANATION in your religion? OMG.....you don’t understand the difference between Hypothesis and Explanation (i.e. Theory). Go take a Science 101 course. You are arguing with the mirror.
“Then you test that hypothesis(idea) to try and see if it is correct.”
OMG.....LOL.....you test an ASSUMPTION??? Is this the amusing activity your Pastor does in your religion? Lord have mercy!!
A hypothesis is an ASSUMPTION for the purposes of your theory (explanation). The ultra-baby-basics of Science elude you. Go to school.
“Are you admitting that light, heat, microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, and all other forms of energy don't exist?”
These are effects (verbs) requiring the motion of object(s). These are all concepts. Effects/concepts do NOT exist.....only objects exist. You are still struggling with the basics.
A wave is NOT what something IS.....a wave is what something DOES. You can wave your HAND....not your LOVE or your RUNNING. A wave is a concept which does not exist. Please get educated in the basics before embarrassing yourself in public....ok?
“how can matter be created in a particle accelerator”
It is impossible for matter to be created or destroyed. If you disagree, please explain YOUR theory of how nothing can surreptitiously gain L, W and H and obtain shape and become an object. I am all ears....
“you say 'creation is impossible'. In order to make a claim, you have to present proof.”
Obviously you did NOT read this hub. This hub rationally explain WHY the CLAIM of creation is impossible. I have already analyzed all the contradictions. What is impossible, BY DEFINITION, is contradictory...got it?
Proof is an OPINION which plays no role here. This is an issue of critical reasoning....not of evidence or proof. But you don’t understand Science because you are obsessed with opinions like proof and truth and evidence. This is what your Pastor drilled into you all your life.
“Proof is just a word for 'sufficient evidence'.”
Sufficient to an OBSERVER who makes this personal decision. This is an Argument from Authority....a fallacy. Hence proof is subjective. Ergo....PROOF = OPINION.
See....this is the power of critical thinking. You need to take a course on Critical Thinking 101.
“The moon exists, so even if we weren't here it would have the ability to be known.”
LOL....OMG....your contradictions are endless.
Your definition is dependent on an OBSERVER to exist and see/touch/test the moon to determine whether it satisfies your definition of exist. YOUR DEFINITION STATES THAT THE MOON DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT AN OBSERVER BEING PRESENT. Understand now?
The moon exists whether an idiot can detect it or not.
Try again!
“You just want to use your own definition for exist that is convenient for your arguments.”
You are free to provide your own scientific defn which is not contradictory. You have failed to do that. Sorry!
“You are the one who said space precedes God. How can something that doesn't exist precede something else?”
Because God does NOT exist without space! God is an object with shape/form. God does not have shape/form if not surrounded by space. This is why God is IMPOSSIBLE to exist or have existed at any time. Nothingness was there before God. God did not create space.
"Space is omnipresent". How can something that doesn't exist 'be' anything? “”
Space is not ‘be’. You are confused. Space is a concept! We are using English to describe the only word in any language which is defined in negative terms....space.
Space: that which lacks shape
Space is not an object, it has no borders.....and thus is impossible to create. Space was there (again language limitations of negative terms) before God. God ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to be wrapped by nothingness in order to have shape/form.
“I said the universe was created.”
The universe is a concept. It is impossible to create the universe. You can at best try to create objects...but not concepts.
Universe: A concept that embodies matter and space.
The term universe is a relation between matter and nothing. The universe has no shape, border or boundary....for if it did, then WHAT would be outside it ...space? Gotcha! Ergo....universe is a concept.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR UNIVERSE TO BE CREATED.
Hi emrldphx,
“energy...The ability to do work.”
Good, you agree that energy is a concept. This means it does not exist.
Exist = object + location
“I defined exist. to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood.”
CONTRADICTORY DEFINITION.
Your defn of exist is CIRCULAR with SYNONYMS and REQUIRES AN OBSERVER to “know”, “recognize” and “understand”.
The moon existed BEFORE anybody did these ludicrous activities you mention. Your defn fails....sorry.
“You don't allow for energy to exist,”
Do you have Down’s Syndrome?
Do you lack basic comprehension skills?
Exist, you exist by DEFINITION only!!!!!!
Exist has a MEANING....a scientific one when used in Physics. It must not be contradictory. Take a course in basic English as I have repeated that to you many times. Enough!
“it has been proven “
Oh, I see....it has been OPINED!
Define proof? Then we’ll both know if its proven!
“and is accepted fact by the entire scientific community. “
Argument from Authority...a fallacy!
If you understood what you were talking about, you’d be able to explain using your own merits. You have only offered contradictions and the worship of authority so far.
“Unfortunately, your understanding of energy is elementary.”
Exactly your case. You are chasing your tail in circles with strawman arguments, arguments from ignorance, and authority arguments because you cannot OBJECTIVELY define your God which you call ENERGY.
Your defn is resolved to a concept. You have conceded that Energy does NOT exist.
"emrldphx
Please scientifically define 'exist'.
I defined exist. to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood.
I refused to recognized that the earth exist and this make's it truth according to emrldphx.
"
Prometheus,
First, that is not my definition of exist. It is *the* definition of exist. From the dictionary. That defines words. If we don't use the actual definitions of words, then essentially, we aren't speaking the same language.
Secondly, that definition doesn't say anything about what you think or recognize. It says 'the ability to be recognized'.
An apple has the ability to be recognized, we can see it, touch it, etc...
X-rays have the ability to be recognized, we can detect them, measure them, and create them.
Anything that *is* can be detected or known in some way, regardless of whether or not it is known currently by any person or group of people.
Hi emrldphx,
Before you make any more claims or blind assertions here, you MUST objectively define your KEY terms which make or break your arguments. Otherwise you’ve said nothing.
Before posting again, please Scientifically define the following terms in an objective (observer-independent) manner.....like I defined ‘exist’ for you. Otherwise, your posts are meaningless and self-contradictory when they invoke these KEY terms.
So please stop complaining like a child: “Oh darn, I don’t like your Scientific defns fatfist because they destroy my religion....please use the ones which English students defined as circular synonyms with contradictions in the dictionary.....I prefer that we DECREE these as Scientific”
A term is Scientific if it is unambiguous and cannot be contradicted....this means it can be used consistently in a scientific discourse. We don’t copy definitions from authorities
The purpose of defining key words scientifically is not to please the devil's advocate, but to ensure that the audience understands the theory. The presenter asks, "Which of these objects is bigger?" Is the word 'which' critical to understand the Q? No, it is object.
Now the presenter says that ‘Energy is an object.' What did he mean? Is he saying that energy has mass? That it has shape? That it has energy? That he can touch it? That he can see it? All of the above? Other?
When you don’t define OBJECTIVELY you create LOOPHOLES in your presentation which allow you to get away with murder. I will call you out on this!!!!
In Science, we don't look up definitions like you do! In Science, the presenter takes responsibility for his definitions. He doesn't blame others for his ignorance when his definitions break down. Science doesn't care where you got the definition or who the authority is. Science merely demands that you use it consistently.
In Science, we don't care how many people vote for a definition. We throw all dictionaries in the garbage! Scientific definitions are those than can be used consistently. That's an objective standard. Your "Let's go to the booth and vote" proposal is subjective and does not address whether the definition is rational.
So in your religion you don't OBJECTIVELY define the key words that you're going to use. You speculate and hope that everyone 'understands' (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). And if somebody is confused with your ambiguities and complains, ....why then you just refer him to your good Pastor who “interprets” the correct definition from the scriptures. Good strategy!
If the prosecutor would have known that the word “knife” could also be interpreted as spear, hatchet, lightning bolt, sword, arrow, love pangs, backstabbing and guilt, why then he could have demonstrated his case no matter which way the jurors interpreted his words. Loved it! Mind if I refer your strategy to all the prosecutors in my city so they can always win their cases?
Science is about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Superficial thinkers such as you gloss over the definitions and end up chasing their tails around.
I have defined ALL my KEY terms.......your turn:
OBJECT: ________
CONCEPT:________
EXIST:___________
ENERGY: _________
WAVE:____________
SPACE:____________
EVIDENCE__________
TRUTH:_____________
FACT:_____________
PROOF:____________
Hi emrldphx,
“An apple has the ability to be recognized, we can see it, touch it, etc...”
Hey man! Your definition FAILS because recognition absolutely requires a sentient OBSERVER.
The moon exists without observers performing their stupid activities of proof.
YOUR DEFINITION IS OBSERVER-DEPENDENT.....it is unscientific.....this is why it is easily contradicted!
Fatfist
1 - "This is not an issue of belief or opinion or proof or truth or lies. " You asked me if God is an object or a concept. You are trying to disprove God. If you disprove God, defined as a concept, then you aren't disproving *my* God.
2 - You say God is a hypothesis of the sci method, as an object. God is also a hypothesis of the sci method, as a force(concept). Until one is proven the others are valid.
And logic isn't used as proof in the scientific method. It is only used to try and better form hypothesis.
3 - I did define proof. Seriously, try looking up terms in a dictionary. If you don't use the real definition of words in an argument, then you have no idea whether or not you are talking about the same thing. If you still refuse to use the ENGLISH DEFINITIONS of words, what's the point? Proof is 'evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.'
4 - To say there is no proof in the scientific method is to say there is no evidence. Proof is just sufficient evidence to show a thing as being true. Get enough evidence, and it becomes proof.
Evidence comes out of every scientific experiment.
5 - What experiment are you going to perform to test whether or not God is real? We don't have anything to test. Until we do, the scientific method isn't currently applicable to God. I know the scientific method. You're the one who doesn't even think that evidence has a place in it, even though that's what you get from every experiment.
6 - Science doesn't DEFINE reality. It explores it, certainly, but it doesn't MAKE anything true. It just discovers truth. When you perform an experiment, the natural laws of the universe present themselves as data, as evidence. Science only seeks to uncover and explain reality... never to define it.
7 - What is the point of performing experiments? To get data! Data is evidence. You have one view of what evidence is, maybe from watching too many law shows, but it applies to more than law, and it has nothing to do with persuading or twisting arms. If it will make you feel better, we can call it data from now on.
Seriously, pick up a dictionary. Evidence isn't just a term for the courtroom, and it certainly isn't prejudice in the arena of science.
8 - "“Evidence.... By definition, these kinds of things are completely personal.”
BINGO! EXACTLY!"
You took my words completely out of context. I wasn't saying evidence is personal. I was saying topics that the sci method can't currently cover are personal. If you use '...' in a quote, you have to make sure that the original subject remains the same. In what you quoted me saying, the topic was 'things we can't test scientifically'.
9 - Argument from ignorance is assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa. I said, we can't explain exactly what a 'singularity'(and don't nitpick with me on that, we've been over that. I don't mean a singularity with no LxWxH) is because we have no math for those types of temperatures. I never provided anything about proving singularities exist.
10 - I love how you nitpick about the definitions of words, yet you refuse to accept the actual, defined definitions of words that don't fit your arguments. I used explanation in the same sense as describing, although there are differences. Math can both describe and explain. Seriously though, if you want to get into these types of topics, we can, but you keep getting way off track.
You can explain with math why a pen falls down, using formulas for math and vectors for directional gravity. Plug in all the data for the pen, height, and gravity of the earth, and you will end up with a vector, that by definition, points down.
11 - You claim to have scientific proof(wait, you don't like that word) a scientific explanation that shows the BB is garbage? Why don't you submit it to a scientific journal for peer review?
Again, I defined proof for you... using the definition.
12 - No facts in science? Seriously? I'm sorry my friend, please, show me in any science textbook where it says there are no facts in science. Get me a statement from a college level physics professor about facts in science.
Science is all about facts! Do I need to start quoting resources on the scientific method to you?
13 - I never said it is 0-dimensional! I told you I use the word in the sense that our math cant currently *describe* it, not in the sense of it being 0-dimensional. I would explain it as probably the size of a pinhead or smaller, but I don't know. You keep insisting I'm talking about a 0-D thing, but I'm not. Keep up with what I'm saying, not what you want me to say.
14 - A theory is an ATTEMPT to explain something. Of course we try to be rational and logical, but by definition, a theory includes things we don't completely understand. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a theory. A theory is half-way between a hypothesis and a law. If we know it and prove it and show it over and over and it makes predictions and it works and there are no problems for a long long time, it is a law. Otherwise, it is a theory.
If we had to understand every aspect of a theory for it to be a theory, we would call it the Big Bang Hypothesis. But we don't.
15 - Ok. Let's just be clear. You strongly believe that energy doesn't exist. You *know* that light doesn't exist. All forms of electromagnetic radiation... don't exist.
I dare you to walk in the first day of a Science 101 class and ask if energy exists. It only shows how weak your grasp of science is.
16 - Things don't have to be objects to exist :) You want them to be the only things that exist, but they aren't.
17 - "“Do you deny that energy is transformed into matter in particle accelerators?”
Is that what they do.....transform love into a heart.......transform justice into a jail cell? Energy is a concept.....for the 10 th time!!"
Ok, so you deny what happens in particle accelerators. Gotcha.
18 - "numbers are VERBS (to count)"
Really? 'Number: a unit or its symbol that forms part of a system of counting and calculating, and that represents an amount or position in a series.'
'Ten(noun): a cardinal number, nine plus one.'
Numbers are verbs? Well, then I'm going to five a can of soda... wait...
See how that doesn't work?
19 - You called me a strawman? You said 'Who cares about thoughts?'. I'm sorry, I thought that meant you don't care about thoughts...
20 - This is the DEFINITION OF THE WORD HYPOTHESIZE!
' to give a possible but not yet proven explanation for something"
You keep talking about my religion... you refuse to use the definitions for words! And you think you are so intelligent? Have you transcended language?
21 - "OMG.....LOL.....you test an ASSUMPTION???"
You test a hyptothesis!
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-project
Look at the 4th bullet point.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/n
Look at the 4th bullet point.
I could point you to any textbook or article on the scientific method. Testing the hypothesis(or the predictions of the hypothesis) is one of the key points.
22 - I'm sorry Fatfist. You are the one embarrassing yourself. Energy is a real thing. We can show how matter can be turned into energy and vice versa. It's been shown in scientific experiments. It's been done. Your insistence that energy doesn't exist is the reason you struggle so much with everything else. Please, if you care about truth, do some research on energy. Go talk to a physics professor. Energy exists.
23 - I never said matter is created out of nothing. I said scientists have turned energy into matter. By your definition, they turned nothing into matter. It's data/evidence to try and show you that energy is a real thing.
Did you search 'energy matter conversion'?
23 - You only dismiss my arguments by saying energy doesn't exist, when it is a scientific fact. Yes, fact. Go ask people who know.
24 - Argument from authority? Who's authority did I present as proof? Do you just spew logical fallacies and hope people go away withou
Fatfist.
1 - The definitions of words are found in the dictionary. You can't just define a word with how you understand it. That is a logical fallacy, and makes discussion pointless. The definitions I present are THE REAL DEFINITIONS, from the DICTIONARY. You just make them up. It doesn't work that way.
2 - Energy Exists. Scientists can smash two particles together, and from the energy, new matter is created(it is really just changed from energy to matter). On the other hand, we can destroy matter, which converts it to energy. It's a fact. Look it up. Yes, I know I shouldn't have said that it's accepted by the entire scientific community as proof, but I was just trying to get you to look it up. If you look for it, you will find proof of it happening.
3 - If you continue to reject the DEFINITIONS of words, there is no point arguing with you. You have to attack energy, otherwise your hub no longer 'proves' that first cause is impossible. It doesn't anyway, but we haven't gotten that far.
Fatfist
If you really care to discuss, we have to play by the rules. The definitions of words are what give them their meanings. You fail to acknowledge the definitions of words that don't fit your arguments, so you make up your own.
You refuse to talk about what happens in particle accelerators, when energy is transformed into matter, because it doesn't fit your views. When I bring it up, you fail to answer my question and instead talk about love turning into a heart.
Your behavior has been juvenile, which is unfortunate. I was excited to discuss with you, but you won't accept the definitions of terms, you won't accept the results of experiments as data, and worst of all, you make personal attacks, calling me childish, and asking if I have Down Syndrome(really?)
Unfortunately, you present ideas that spark debate, but if you are going to act like this, I can't continue discussing with you. Just for your own enlightenment, I encourage you to do some research into energy, talk to a professor, or look up 'energy matter conversion' to see examples of energy and matter changing places. E=mc^2 is all about the relationship of energy and matter.
If you change your mind about having a rational discussion with me, let me know.
You are really going to delete my comment?
If so, I'll just do any further discussion on the forum, but you complained of that already.
emrldphx,
"You are really going to delete my comment?"
Who said?
I am telling you that you cannot keep rambling like this without defining the KEY terms which make or break your arguments.
You are making some wild statements here....about ENERGY (a concept) existing and hitting people on the head and converting into matter...which is really crazy stuff from a sci-fi movie.
All I am telling you is to talk rationally. And you begin to do this by defining all your scientific terms OBJECTIVELY in an observer-independent manner.
Nature does NOT depend on observers. We came here after all this stuff was here. Hence, we can only discuss nature objectively....not based on see/touch/truth/proof/evidence/authorities.
If you don't understand this, then I cannot help you.
@nicomp,
"Your letters formed into words formed into sentences formed into paragraphs (and lots of them, too) may or may not exist"
What do you mean by 'exist'?
Until you resolve this dilemma, you have said nothing.
Hi emrldphx,
“I did define proof....... Proof is 'evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.'”
Exactly my point.....proof depends on an observer to use his senses to make a subjective decision stemming from his limited sensory system.
As I explained previously......proof=evidence=truth=OPINION.
See....you cannot define your key terms in an objective fashion. Your arguments are all predicated on Religious ideas of proof & truth. This is why your statements are self-refuting.
“To say there is no proof in the scientific method is to say there is no evidence.”
I asked you tons of times.....please explain WHERE in the sci method (hypo + theory) there is provision for truth=proof=opinion??
“What experiment are you going to perform to test whether or not God is real?”
God is not real (does NOT exist) because He is a contradictory object. God fails at the hypothesis level of the sci method.
God does not exist without space surrounding Him. God cannot create space. We are done!
“I was saying topics that the sci method can't currently cover are personal. “
Argument from Ignorance.
The Sci Method deals with CONSUMMATED EVENTS. Your personal relationship with your wife is a consummated event. We have objects wife and you.....and we have event of relationship, whatever that entails. These are events in nature because you and your wife are performing ACTIONS.
You do not understand the sci method.....and perpetually confuse science with religion.
“You can explain with math why a pen falls down, using formulas for math and vectors for directional gravity. Plug in all the data for the pen, height, and gravity of the earth, and you will end up with a vector, that by definition, points down.”
Again, your ignorance is astounding. You have just described here.....you did not explain WHY the pen fell to the floor. What pulled the pen to the floor...your God?
“”A theory is half-way between a hypothesis and a law.”
Hahahahaha!!
I loved it. Mind if I use this line?
“ 'Number: a unit or its symbol that forms part of a system of counting and calculating,”
Oh God, why hast thou sent me before an insane asylum full of patients?
Counting & calculating are VERBS!!!!!
Try understanding what you write for once!
My dear emrldphx,.....it is painfully obvious that you do not understand what you are talking about because:
1) You do not understand the sci method (hypo + theory)
2) You do not understand the diff between an object and a concept
3) You do not understand the diff between Science and Religion (truth/proof/evidence/see/touch/belief)
4) You do not have objective (observer-independent) definitions for any of your KEY terms
5) You keep repeating your nonsensical mantra even tho I have explained your contradictions ten-fold.
This is why your posts are incoherent and contradictory. Sorry, you have some soul-searching to do in order to understand this basic stuff.
Sorry to destroy your Religion....but that's what happens when you cannot critically think and reason before you post.
I understand science better than you do. Have you looked up 'energy matter conversion' yet? You claim that it's a sci-fi idea, but it's not. If you would take the time to look it up you would find the data from experiments. When two particles collide at near-C speeds, some of the energy turns into matter and anti-matter.
You have a limited view of what is possible. To you, something has to be matter to exist, even though you see light all around you, and other overwhelming evidence.
You refuse to use the actual definitions for words, because they don't suit your arguments. You live in a state of either self-induced illusion or hypocricy.
You say I haven't defined any of my terms, even though I have.
You call science, of which I am a student, religion.
You brought a discussion down to the level of personal insult.
You refuse to answer my questions directly when they are convenient, such as the following:
1 - Why don't you use the definitions of words?
2 - Where does the matter that is 'created' in a particle accelerator during a collision come from if energy doesn't exist?
I'm also going to, just for the fun of it, present you with one argument that goes against the title of your hub.
Creation is impossible - first cause is impossible.
Who says first cause is a biblical concept? Even if you prove first cause is impossible, that doesn't equate to creation being impossible. That would only work if all creationists believed in the idea of an uncaused cause.
Hi emrldphx,
“You refuse to use the actual definitions for words,”
LOL....all your defns were shown to be contradictory...ergo, unscientific! You need to re-read what I said. You gloss over the fine points and then end up chasing strawmen....and round and round in circles you go..., and you are now making lame attempts to defend your religion....quite amusing....I will grab some popcorn...
If you don’t like my scientific defns because they destroy your Religion,...fine...but at least offer rational alternatives which cannot be contradicted and I will accept them....promise! You haven’t been able to contradict any of my defns....and this is what is eating you up.
“1 - Why don't you use the definitions of words?”
They contradict each other....I said this over 20 times....OMG...are you deaf?
“Where does the matter that is 'created' in a particle accelerator during a collision come from if energy doesn't exist?”
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. See how simple that was. Now go memorize it before you go to bed.
Creation is a CLAIM. Absolutely all claims require a rational explanation (ie. scientific theory). You have none! You are not a thinker....you are a follower....a mere choir boy!!
This is your problem which you elude and come here to chase your tail and argue in front of the mirror.
I am still waiting for your THEORY OF CREATION of matter....got any?
And energy is a VERB requiring motion...a concept. VERBS like walking and running do not exist....got it?
This is what destroys all of your Religious Mantra.....Exist = object + location......got a non-contradictory alternative?
Hi emrldphx,
“Even if you prove first cause is impossible, that doesn't equate to creation being impossible. “
Ahhh...but my dear friend, I didn’t prove anything. This hub is not about opinions like proof/truth which belong in Religion. This hub rationally explains WHY creation is impossible. You cannot contradict it. You instead offer incoherent arguments, excuses, and cry that your religion was insulted.....well, that has nothing to do with Science.
BTW.....where are your SCIENTIIC definitions for your KEY terms.....I mean, we are talking about Physics and not Religion, right?
Hi emrldphx,
Science is about defining KEY terms without observer opinions or contradictions. Superficial thinkers such as you copy definitions from English Literature student dictionaries and end up chasing their tails around in a Scientific discussion. Too funny.
I have defined ALL my KEY terms.......your turn:
OBJECT: ________
CONCEPT:________
EXIST:___________
ENERGY: _________
WAVE:____________
SPACE:____________
EVIDENCE__________
TRUTH:_____________
FACT:_____________
PROOF:____________
You only 'contradict' the definitions I provide with definitions for other words whose definitions you also don't accept.
In case you don't understand, you refuse the correct definition for 'exist'. Then, you try to refute the definition for 'energy' with your own, made-up definition of 'exist'. Talk about going round and round.
In order to have an unambiquous discussion, we all have to use the same words. You refuse to use the actual definitions of words.
Oh yes, and you fail to accept the definition for proof as well, as well as evidence, and I'm sure many, many others.
Either English isn't your native language, or you just don't have a strong grasp of your native language. You can't re-define words for your own arguments.
@emrldphx,
All your dictionary-copied definitions were explained to be observer-dependent and contradictory. THEY ARE UNSCIENTIFIC. What don't you understand about that?
You cannot do science without scientific terms. So sit down and define them before posting again. ok?
Science doesn't try and define words. You need to understand that. Science defines scientific terms, which are words that explain things discovered by science.
But for communication, we use the English language. If we don't use the definitions of words in the English language, then we aren't all speaking the same language.
Your refusal to use established definitions for words is a refusal to play by the rules of living in a society.
You 'explained' how my definition of 'energy' is contradictory by using your own definition of 'exist'.
If you use the REAL definition of 'energy', and the REAL definition of 'exist', there is no problem.
What branch of science is in charge of defining the words of the English language?
And scientific terms are not the same as words. Exist isn't a scientific term, it's a word. Scientific terms are things like atom, ion, lepton...
I can't believe you are serious... I keep thinking you are playing some weird joke or trolling. What kind of person is arrogant enough to think they know what a word means better than everyone else? Words only have meaning due to a collective agreement to establish and abide by their meanings. That is why we have dictionaries. Learn to use one.
Hi emrldphx,
“Science doesn't try and define words.”
LOL....if you don’t define your KEY terms, then YOU haven’t a clue of what you are talking about in the Physics Conference....much less your audience. Please go to the Astrology & Religion Conference to peddle your nonsense!
“Science defines scientific terms, which are words that explain things discovered by science.”
LOL....it gets even better!!!!!
So your Pastor told you that scientific DEFINITIONS are EXPLANATIONS??
No wonder you cannot define anything.....you don’t understand the diff between a definition and an explanation. Quite comic!! Really....wow!!
“If we don't use the definitions of words in the English language, then we aren't all speaking the same language.”
See how ignorant you are???
You don’t even know that in Science we do NOT define the whole English dictionary. We only define the KEY terms which make or break our arguments. The rest of the words of ordinary speech will do just fine because they are NOT key to understanding your argument.
You didn’t learn this in Sunday School?
And now, my friend.....your trolling has come to an end!
I have defined ALL my KEY terms.......your turn:
OBJECT: ________
CONCEPT:________
EXIST:___________
ENERGY: _________
WAVE:____________
SPACE:____________
EVIDENCE__________
TRUTH:_____________
FACT:_____________
PROOF:____________
You MUST define these terms if you want to have a discussion about Science....the religion forums are down the hall,....you can go vent there, ok?
At least there is a record of our discussion here so the audience can see what kind of irrational nonsense you peddle.
And btw....drink some vinegar in order to feel better after discovering that your whole castle was built on the sand, and has come crashing down by a fat fist!
Tell you what. You answer my question and I'll answer yours :)
OBJECT: a thing that can be seen, held, or touched
CONCEPT: a principle or idea
EXIST: to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood
ENERGY: the ability to do work
WAVE: A disturbance that travels and transmits energy
SPACE: Can be defined either as the distance between objects, or the area in which all things exist.
EVIDENCE: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true
TRUTH: the actual fact or facts about a matter
FACT: something known to have happened or to exist
PROOF: sufficient evidence to show a thing as true
I hope you can try now to answer my question, or are you not going to approve it?
Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when two particles collide at near-C speeds?
"You don’t even know that in Science we do NOT define the whole English dictionary. We only define the KEY terms which make or break our arguments. The rest of the words of ordinary speech will do just fine because they are NOT key to understanding your argument."
Exist isn't ordinary speech? The only reason you try to define exist differently than normal is because your definition excludes everything other than objects. Your arguments depend on a different definition.
And seriously, why all the demeaning remarks?
Hi emrldphx,
OBJECT: a thing that can be seen, held, or touched
----Circular synonym: thing is a synonym for object.
----Contradictory: A blind man cannot see/hold/touch the moon. So the moon is not an object.
EXIST: to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood
----Circular synonym: to be = exist
----Contradictory: A circle has the ability to be known, recognized, or understood...but a circle does NOT exist. Same with numbers, letters, and words.
ENERGY: the ability to do work
---- Yes! Energy is a concept, an idea, it lacks shape. Only objects actually DO work (actions). “ability” is a concept.
WAVE: A disturbance that travels and transmits energy
----Contradictory: Disturbance is a concept (motion). Concepts do not move/travel.
----Contradictory: Energy CANNOT be transmitted as per YOUR definition of energy above. Energy is a concept. Concepts cannot be transmitted....only objects can!!
SPACE: Can be defined either as the distance between objects, or the area in which all things exist.
----Contradictory: What is after the farthest object in the universe? A: Space! So space is NOT the distance between objects.
----Contradictory: Space is not an area which something is ‘in’, like in an ocean. Space has no borders and cannot be entered. Space is NOT enclosed by any area. Space is boundless, borderless, shapeless, colorless, tasteless....insert ANY negative term here.
EVIDENCE: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true
----Contradictory: Observer-Dependent. Prove is an action/verb which an observer performs.
TRUTH: the actual fact or facts about a matter
----Circular synonym with FACT.
FACT: something known to have happened or to exist
----Contradictory: Observer-Dependent. You may KNOW that God created matter....but not the rest of the world. Knowledge plays no role in the Sci Method.
PROOF: sufficient evidence to show a thing as true
----Contradictory: Observer-Dependent. Evidence depends on the limited human sensory system which cannot even allow us to see outside the visible light spectrum.
So you see, emrldphx.....only ENERGY and CONCEPT make sense. Everything else you provided is unscientific. I hope you FINALLY understand the problems with your definitions. See....the dictionary is not the place to get these defns. You need to critically reason them...that's what science is about.
Hi emrldphx,
“Exist isn't ordinary speech?”
Absolutely NOT!!!!
Exist is a KEY term which makes or breaks your argument of “energy/god/waves/etc. exist”. Science demands you define it.
The dictionary holds definitions of ORDINARY SPEECH, not of scientific language. The responsibility of a presenter is to define his KEY terms in such a way that he can use them consistently (i.e., scientifically) within HIS theory.....no ordinary speech, no poetry, no metaphors, no euphemisms!!
Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects! Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification). It is Philosophy which studies concepts... and religion which deals with the motion of concepts. Anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on.
Therefore, the crucial words that anyone calling himself a physicist must be able to define are the words ‘object’ and ‘exist’. If you cannot define these two words, you are NOT a physicist. You are but a petty mathematician or religionist. So here goes...
object: _________
exist: ________
Please fill in the blanks. If you need help, just ask someone.
Hi emrldphx,
Please bear with me. Once we resolve these pending issues about definitions, then I will gladly answer your question about particle accelerators. We cannot communicate to each other unless we are doing science....and we cannot do science without rational definitions.....so something has to break here. We have reached to the straw that breaks the camel's back...
ENERGY: the ability to do work or in other words a verb in which describes what matter is doing. But energy does not exist, is only describing what matter is doing I think I finally understand Pastor Fatfist.
1 - "OBJECT: a thing that can be seen, held, or touched
----Circular synonym: thing is a synonym for object.
----Contradictory: A blind man cannot see/hold/touch the moon. So the moon is not an object."
All definitions require some level of circular reasoning. In any language with a finite number of words, there is some level of that. It doesn't make language useless, as you would have us believe.
Just because a blind man can't see the moon, doesn't mean that the moon can't be seen. It means that HE can't see it, but it doesn't mean there is anything about the moon that makes it un-see-able. Nor does the fact that a blind man is too far away from the moon to touch it mean that it can't be touched.
Do you understand? Just because I can't currently touch the moon doesn't mean the moon is untouchable. That would be defining the thing(reality) with my situation. It doesn't work that way.
2 - "EXIST: to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood
----Circular synonym: to be = exist
----Contradictory: A circle has the ability to be known, recognized, or understood...but a circle does NOT exist. Same with numbers, letters, and words."
Again, all definitions rely on each other. If you go back and get a definition of every word in every definition, you will always run into circular definitions. By your logic, the entire English language is false. I could play this game with you. Define a word, and define all the words that define that word, and all those words... every language with a finite number of words has this characteristic. It's a ridiculous argument.
3 - "ENERGY: the ability to do work
---- Yes! Energy is a concept, an idea, it lacks shape. Only objects actually DO work (actions). “ability” is a concept."
That's just a basic definition of energy. Energy is a term encompassing all the known types of energy. Kinetic energy, chemical energy, etc, etc, etc.
Answer my question. If energy doesn't exist, how can it transform into matter?
4 - WAVE: A disturbance that travels and transmits energy
----Contradictory: Disturbance is a concept (motion). Concepts do not move/travel.
----Contradictory: Energy CANNOT be transmitted as per YOUR definition of energy above. Energy is a concept. Concepts cannot be transmitted....only objects can!!
Not true. Draw a bath, let the water settle, and drop something in. The disturbance travels, even though the molecules of the water only move up and down. That's just an abstract example, because not all waves travel through matter like that.
Energy can't be transmitted? Wow... so how does your car work? How does a rock fall? How does an explosion work? Your grasp of energy is elementary, I'm afraid. If you hold up a rock, it has gravitational potential energy. If you let go, that gravitational potential energy turns into kinetic energy. When you turn on a burner, the energy of heat transmits through the particles in the burner and in the air. When you start your car, the chemical potential energy in the fuel turns into heat. When you smash two particles together at near-C speeds, some of the kinetic energy turns into matter!
5 - "SPACE: Can be defined either as the distance between objects, or the area in which all things exist.
----Contradictory: What is after the farthest object in the universe? A: Space! So space is NOT the distance between objects.
----Contradictory: Space is not an area which something is ‘in’, like in an ocean. Space has no borders and cannot be entered. Space is NOT enclosed by any area. Space is boundless, borderless, shapeless, colorless, tasteless....insert ANY negative term here."
You ask 'What IS after the farthest object in the universe?'. You say the answer is space. You say 'space is after the farthest object in the universe'. By using the word 'is' with space, you are claiming that it exists. 'Is' is a form of 'to be', and how can something 'be' if it isn't?
6 - "EVIDENCE: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true
----Contradictory: Observer-Dependent. Prove is an action/verb which an observer performs."
Will you stop using 'contradictory' for things that aren't contradictory? Contradictory means something that asserts both sides which are exclusive of each other. Like saying 'Space doesn't exist, yet it is'.
Yes, there are verbs that are observer-dependent. All verbs that describe human nature are observer-dependent. 'Jog' can't happen without someone to jog.
Do you even know what your point about 'observer dependent' is?
You yourself said 'Science is the study of existence.' Study is an observer-dependent verb.
7 - "TRUTH: the actual fact or facts about a matter
----Circular synonym with FACT."
We've been over this. If you define any word, I will show how it can only be defined with 'circular synonym'.
8 - "FACT: something known to have happened or to exist
----Contradictory: Observer-Dependent. You may KNOW that God created matter....but not the rest of the world. Knowledge plays no role in the Sci Method."
I've addressed both of these points. You say a definition is contradictory when it isn't. Observer-dependent applies to all human knowledge and human actions.
Science doesn't have anything to do with knowledge? Why do we study existence if we're not after knowledge?
9 - "PROOF: sufficient evidence to show a thing as true
----Contradictory: Observer-Dependent. Evidence depends on the limited human sensory system which cannot even allow us to see outside the visible light spectrum."
Again, I've addressed this previously.
10 - "So you see, emrldphx.....only ENERGY and CONCEPT make sense. Everything you provided is unscientific. I hope you FINALLY understand the problems with your definitions."
No, fatfist. If we apply your logic, all human actions, and all human knowledge, have to be thrown out, because they are observer dependent. In fact, all verbal language is completely useless, because it is circular. ANY WORD YOU USE IS DEFINED WITH OTHER WORDS WHICH ARE ALL CONNECTED WITH CIRCULAR SYNONYMS.
You call things contradictory when they aren't. I'm guessing you have your own definition of contradictory.
"ENERGY: the ability to do work or in other words a verb in which describes what matter is doing. But energy does not exist, is only describing what matter is doing I think I finally understand Pastor Fatfist."
Prometheus. Light is a kind of energy. Does light exist, or is it just a verb?
'Pastor Fatfist' refuses any definition that doesn't fit his reasoning.
"“Exist isn't ordinary speech?”
Absolutely NOT!!!!
Exist is a KEY term which makes or breaks your argument of “energy/god/waves/etc. exist”. Science demands you define it."
Exactly the same for you. Exist is a KEY term which makes or breaks your argument. But, you're right, so your definition is right. And I'm wrong, so my definition is wrong. The only argument you present about my definition of exist being wrong is using false logic to say if a blind man can't see something then it can't be seen.
For your definition of physics... where did you learn that physics deals primarily with objects? Physics deals with matter, energy, motion, and force. I dare you to talk to a college professor and say physics only studies things that exist, and then tell him that energy doesn't exist.
You only will answer my question if I will agree to your definitions, but your definitions are wrong. Just for argument though, answer my question with your definition of exist and objects and energy.
Also, answer my point about you contradicting yourself about space. You say it doesn't exist, and yet it 'is'. Answer those two(2) questions please.
You said 'Science is the study of existence.' Please define the following words.
IS ________
STUDY ________
EXISTENCE _______
Hi emrldphx,
“All definitions require some level of circular reasoning.”
No, not all...only the words that are in a leaf node of a derivation tree, and need to leap to another leaf node to continue the definition. Such is the case with real=exist=to be.
Exist=object+location.....has NO such problems.
“It doesn't make language useless, as you would have us believe.”
I didn’t say that.....languages are NEVER useless. They are important to communicate in science. But all key words must be defined scientifically.
“Just because a blind man can't see the moon, doesn't mean that the moon can't be seen. Just because I can't currently touch the moon doesn't mean the moon is untouchable.”
It is if life never evolved in the universe....ie. observer-independent. You cannot argue this issue away...your terms are observer-dependent. Sorry.
“If energy doesn't exist, how can it transform into matter?”
Ask this Q to YOU...because according to YOUR definition, energy does NOT exist.
“let the water settle, and drop something in. The disturbance travels, even though the molecules of the water only move up and down. “
Whoa! WHAT travels??? A ‘disturbance’?? Please draw a disturbance. I’ve never seen this critter in my life.
The water moves up and down only. The surrounding molecules are set into vertical motion from touching other moving molecules.
NOTHING ELSE MOVES! Concepts do not move,...especially the concept of energy.
“By using the word 'is' with space, you are claiming that it exists.”
No! The word ‘is’ is connector between words for proper grammar only. A circle is round. Does a circle exist according to your RIDICULOUS argument? No! Is ‘is not’ a synonym for exist....if it was...then all the sentences with is would be incoherent. We’re done!
“Will you stop using 'contradictory'”
Evidence is contradictory because it is observer-dependent. It contradicts the sci method which is relies on objectivity. Similarly for my other uses of this term.
“You yourself said 'Science is the study of existence.' Study is an observer-dependent verb.”
Yes indeed....science is a study which requires humans to study it. BUT...humans CANNOT inject observer-dependent terms into their KEY definitions. Definitions MUST be objective if there are scientific. A hypothesis has all the KEY definitions which are used by the theory. Both hypo and theory must be objective.
“Science doesn't have anything to do with knowledge? Why do we study existence if we're not after knowledge?”
To THEORIZE i.e. rationally explain consummated events (natural phenomena). There is no provision for knowledge anywhere in the sci method. You do NOT know that 0D gravitons exist. Science is about explaining WHY an event happened.
“If we apply your logic, all human actions, and all human knowledge, have to be thrown out, because they are observer dependent.”
Out of context and strawman. The sci method (hypo + theory) MUST be objective (observer-independent). Not human actions.
“In fact, all verbal language is completely useless, because it is circular.”
Nonsense. Only KEY terms WHICH MAKE OR BREAK YOUR THEORY are defined. For all other words common language terminology is sufficient as your theory does not depend on the words “is, at, down, up, jump, fly, etc....”
Hi emrldphx,
“I dare you to talk to a college professor”
Again, argument from authority....fallacy!
This is trolling!!!
“but your definitions are wrong. “
Exist = object + location
Is the moon an object? Does it have location out there somewhere (exactly where is irrelevant)?
The moon exists by DEFINITION irrespective of observers. You cannot show anything wrong with this!
“space. You say it doesn't exist, and yet it 'is'.”
I answered this Q....you are trolling!!!
“EXISTENCE _______”
Object+location
Physics studies objects, not concepts. It is objects which perform consummated events (theory)...not concepts. The rest of the words 'is' and 'study' , ordinary speech suffices! A theory does not depend on these terms.
When you categorically claim that energy exists, then exist is the KEY term....not energy, got it??
If you say that "God exists", then exists is the KEY term which must be defined. Not God. God is either an object or a concept. God cannot be defined, despite what idiotic atheists ask theists to do.
Every single word in ANY language either resolves to an OBJECT or CONCEPT....there is no other option.
Hi emrldphx,
“You can't prove your definition of exist”
Proof (OPINION) is not part of the sci method, especially not part of the hypothesis which contains all the definitions of the key terms.
In science we DEFINE words objectively, observer-independently....just like my scientific defn of exist....which you have NO rational counter-argument for...
I already explained this and other issues many times.
You have run out of arguments and are now trolling!!!!
Either you concede that you have NO scientific definitions for your key terms, or come back when you reason them out (good luck).
" '3rd person singular present indicative of be' 'Is' is a verb"
Then it is NOT a synonym for exist. Exist is an adjective, not a verb. Exist qualifies objects, not verbs or concepts. Exist is a static concept, it does not attribute motion.
All your arguments are repetitive as you have run out of arguments to defend your religion. You are trolling. Sorry.
Your grasp of English is astonishing. 'To exist', and 'to be' are synonymous. They are both verbs. Exist is not an adjective. Adjectives describe nouns, such as 'The blue car', or 'The sad man'. 'The exist car' doesn't work.
Existent and existing are adjectives. Exist isn't.
Are you going to dispute whether or not exist is a verb or an adjective?
Hi emrldphx,
“'To exist', and 'to be' are synonymous. They are both verbs. ”
You are not a critical thinker. You just copy what the dictionary says about exist. You don’t understand the diff between ordinary speech and scientific language.
It is impossible for 'exist' to be a verb because objects precede all verbs, and an object is absolutely necessary to mediate motion (verb). An object must exist before it can perform an action (verb). Otherwise, what else is performing this supposed ‘exist’ verb....a spirit? Matterless motion is impossible. Now you can understand why it is IMPOSSIBLE for concepts to exist....because objects precede concepts. Similarly, ‘be’ is an adjective when used in the context of exist.
'The exist car' doesn't work.”
LOL...that’s because you don’t know grammar. The car exists!
Are you finished with your arguments from ignorance?? Well you are now!
"You are not a critical thinker. You just copy what the dictionary says about exist. You don’t understand the diff between ordinary speech and scientific language."
I'm sorry fatfist. First, you just jump off a topic when it no longer is running in your direction. You say I'm not a critical thinker when I point out that 'to exist' is a verb, not an adjective. You still think it is an abjective?
You try to use it as an adjective by saying 'the car exists'. Seriously, is English your native language? Every sentence must have a noun and a verb, at minimum. In that sentence the noun is 'car', and the verb is 'exists'. Adjectives don't change form when they are used in sentences. You would never say 'the car browns'.
When you use a verb in the 3rd person singular present, you add an 's' to it(with the exception of certain verbs that change slightly). For instance, the verb 'to run'. In a sentence, you say 'the boy runs'. Adding the s to a verb is used in this sense. Just as you said 'the car exists'. You add 's' to the verb 'exist' to create the 3rd person singular present form.
Otherwise, what in your sentence was a verb? With no verb there is no sentence.
And still you talk about ignorance. I think I understand, you get confused with the rules of grammar so you make up your own definitions.
“You would never say 'the car browns'...... When you use a verb in the 3rd person singular present, you add an 's' to it.... You add 's' to the verb 'exist' to create the 3rd person singular present form.”
OMG....you are still clueless about the issue, aren’t you?
This is an issue of scientific language and NOT ordinary speech and linguistic grammatical textbook rules. This has to do with the grammar of PHYSICS! Of course it has eluded you.
READ MY LIPS: It is impossible for 'exist' to be a verb because objects precede all verbs, and an object is absolutely necessary to mediate motion (verb). An object must exist before it can perform an action (verb). Otherwise, what else is performing this alleged ‘exist’ verb....a spirit?
To argue that exist is a verb, YOU are arguing that something exists before an object exists in order give it the motion of ‘exist’.....utter nonsense!! Nothing precedes objects. But objects precede verbs. We’re done.
There is NO such motion as ‘ exist’. Exist is static. Exist alludes to a photograph....NOT a movie. But you cannot think critically to reason this thoroughly. What the hell do they teach kids in schools now-a-days??
Exist is not a verb. You fail again!
emrldphx,
Either you concede that you have NO scientific definitions for your key terms, or come back when you reason them out (good luck).
Then we can discuss any scientific claims you have.
Remember...anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on. So he’d better pick his arsenal of weapons wisely!
READ MY LIPS: It is impossible for 'exist' to be a verb because objects precede all verbs, and an object is absolutely necessary to mediate motion (verb). An object must exist before it can perform an action (verb). Otherwise, what else is performing this alleged ‘exist’ verb....a spirit?
Fatfist summarize everything into this simple statement amazing. But I a have feeling emridphx will avoid it.
@Prom,
““READ MY LIPS: It is impossible for 'exist' to be a verb because objects precede all verbs, and an object is absolutely necessary to mediate motion (verb). An object must exist before it can perform an action (verb). Otherwise, what else is performing this alleged ‘exist’ verb....a spirit?”
“Fatfist summarize everything into this simple statement amazing. But I a have feeling emridphx will avoid it.”
Of course emridphx avoids the statements which destroy his Religion.Here is what emridphx is arguing from what he memorized from the Scholarly English Dictionary:
1) ‘exist’ is unequivocally a VERB, as used for linguistic grammatical purposes in English scholarly sentences.
2) Hence, as a VERB, we can show an object PERFORMING this ACTION which emridphx calls ‘exist’....like we can show a ball performing the action of ‘bouncing’ (verb).
Fatfist easily destroys emridphx’s Religion as follows:
1) We can take a photograph of a ball, and in that photograph it is impossible to determine whether the term “bouncing” is a verb because photos are STATIC. We need to see a MOVIE of the ball to determine if “bouncing” is actually a verb....and indeed it is a verb because the ball undergoes at least 2 locations in the Universal Movie.
2) Fatfist now asks his good friend God, to FREEZE all the objects in the Universe...a process which emridphx’s Priests call “The Heat Death of the Universe” where all objects STOP moving. Now God takes a movie of the objects in this scenario, none are moving,....there is no motion and no VERBS to be discerned.
3) Therefore, God uses emridphx’s version of ‘exist’ to erroneously conclude that all the objects in the Universe do NOT exist, because in their motionless state, there are no verbs to be discerned for ‘exist’.
4) Being duped, God is now fuming in anger for having FAITH in emridphx’s true/proven/evidenced version of ‘exist’. God vows to dish out some justice (verb).
5) When God unfreezes the Universe, all the objects begin to magically exist (as per emridphx’s version of ‘exist’). God calls emridphx to his office and shows him the video.
6) Emridphx, with sweat running down his brow, says: “Ummm....but my dear God, I thought ‘exist’ was a verb because the Bible, err ..I mean the Dictionary told me so...and I took that as evidence/proof/truth/fact”
7) God now sends emridphx to eternal Hell, to punish (verb) him for defrauding (verb) the audience in the Physics Conference. God bars (verb) emridphx from ever doing Physics again.
8) God takes fatfist to a strip joint for celebrations, and buys him beer and lap dances.
CONCLUSIN: Exist is static (adjective), not dynamic (verb). Exist is an ADJECTIVE which is resolved in a PHOTOGRAPH, not in a MOVIE! There is NO motion which can ever be named ‘exist’.
Emridphx has no clue of the Scientific Method.
Wow. That was a proper quashing.
Supremely elucidated. I just took a lesson in language, logic, and critical reasoning right there.
Unfortunately Fatfist hasn't been approving my comments about the fact that exist is a verb, which I clearly show.
Fatfist, you argue that exist isn't a verb because it can't show action without an object already being there, but you don't understand what a verb is. Verbs can show action or state. To be is a verb that shows a state of existence. Exist shows a state of being real. Not approving my comments and then saying I am avoiding the issue is nothing other than immature.
Hi emrldphx,
Welcome back; I welcome any new rational argument you have. But as I said before, trolling and spamming dead issues will not be tolerated. I am being more than FAIR to you.
“Verbs can show action or state.”
Verbs don’t show (verb)....this circular/contradictory. Only an object can perform the action/verb we call SHOW. Verbs are concepts which are used by sentient beings to “conceive” of some type of motion in a given context. Verbs necessarily imply motion i.e. action!!
Verbs are DYNAMIC concepts. Dynamism necessarily implies motion!
So you really don’t have clue what you are talking about, emrldphx. And you are desperately running like a chicken with your head cut off in the hopes that you can salvage what is left of your Religious Mantra. You have NO valid arguments.
Anyway.....state, on the other hand, is a STATIC CONCEPT, as in a “state diagram” of a finite state machine. The machine is in only one state at any given instant in time (i.e. photograph). It can change (verb) from one state to another when initiated by a triggering EVENT (verb/dynamic i.e. movie), by which it transitions (dynamic) from one state (static) to the next.....just like an object transitions (dynamic i.e. movie) from one state (static i.e. photograph) to the next during motion (i.e. movie).
State is static (photograph i.e. 1 location for an object).
Action is dynamic (movie i.e. 2 or more locations of an object).
Learn basic English and Critical Thinking skills so you can discern the difference between English Literature AXIOMS and the Scientific Language of Nature’s Reality.
emrldphx.....I mean, you talk nice POETRY (metaphors, euphemisms, ordinary speech), and I confess that it does warm my heart when I see you post your irrational garbage here.....but unfortunately, it has nothing to do with Reality.
Exist is static, and an ADJECTIVE for the purposes of science. In religion....exist can be a verb/noun/adverb/God/love/angels/heaven....and any other irrelevant nonsense you can dream of.
Your exist=verb argument is squashed...done!
So, what did we learn from emrldphx?
That it is IMPOSSIBLE to Scientifically (objectively, observer-independently) define the KEY terms of his Religion, namely...TRUTH, FACT, PROOF, EVIDENCE. These irrational and subjective ideas have nothing to do with the Scientific Method, which is inherently objective.
These terms necessarily depend on an observer to use his limited sensory system to DECREE some sort of subjective conclusion that satisfies his tastes.
Hence, these terms resolve to none other than OPINION!
As for emrldphx’s God-like term ENERGY.....he conceded it is an abstract dynamic concept. As concepts, energy/love/justice are impossible to exist because they are conceived by humans. Energy does not get transferred, transformed or conserved. Energy does NOT perform actions/events (verbs)....only OBJECTS can do that! We learn this in Kindergarten.
The Scientific definition of exist=object+location, destroys all Religions.....none of them survive!
Whether or not Fatfist allows this, he has deleted at least 6 of my comments.
Yes, emrldphx, rational responses are indeed allowed here. We don't censor people, especially those who talk rationally. But....trolling, spamming, and repetition of contradictory arguments is swept to the garbage. I am sure you clean your home, right?
All you have said can be found in the posts above. Your childish rants have been swept into the bit bucket. Rhetoric is not in style...
So I ask you AGAIN.....please define your terms scientifically, or concede that you have none. Simple!
Why do you refuse to answer two simple questions Fatfist? Are you unable to answer them, or does the answer contradict your own position?
Hi emrldphx,
Like I said numerous times, if you wish to have a rational discussion about any topic of physics with me, you will need to either provide your OWN Scientific definitions of key terms (and I will accept them), or use mine. This is an objective criterion. Subjectivity plays no role in scientific discussions. This summarily excludes any observer-dependent definitions which you have previously provided, like truth/proof/fact/evidence/object/exist....as they resolve to an observer’s OPINION.
And btw....it is IMPOSSIBLE to define truth/proof/fact/evidence observer-independently....that’s why they are not part of the Scientific Method.
You cannot talk rationally about science unless you use Scientific language. So, the choice is yours.....either you keep on ramblin’ and belly-achin’ like a child in the Religious Forums, or be a man, grab the bull by the horns, and concede that you don’t have any sci defns to offer.
What’s your pleasure?
Well I admit, I did not read this whole enchilada, but I would like to impart my two cents, if I may. When I think outside the box, as it were, I am open to the possibility that God existed before He Created anything for this, our universe, known as "The Universe". To reach back further in an imaginative metaphysical way (who made the box we are thinking outside of?) is moot, and certainly is not worth arguing about.
From this point, however, it definitely IS worth considering people's "Testimonies" about what has been revealed to them, in a transcendent way - a way which cannot be sufficiently proven by the receiver, but only by the giver, who is ostensibly known as “The” Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead.
"A Scientific Method to Test Faith" then seems to be the next order of business.
I said you could answer the questions with YOUR definitions. Why won't you answer them?
The above guy said nothing, with fancy words.
Whether god exists or not has nothing to do with faith, testimony, evidence or proof.
All that matters is that you define your terms consistently (exist, god, object, concept).
Emrldphx was utterly unable to do that after being given MANY opportunities!
Hi Timothy,
"A Scientific Method to Test Faith" then seems to be the next order of business.”
The issue of whether God exists absolutely is a matter concerning science. Physics is the study of existence....specifically, objects that exist. So if somebody claims that Big Foot exists, this is a matter concerning science....namely, the formation of a Hypothesis and Theory.
If God is an object, like the Bible states, then the Theologian is responsible for rationally explaining (theory) the creation of matter, space, time, morals, good, evil.....or whatever else he claims exists.
One thing I take back:
"All that matters is that you define your terms consistently (exist, god, object, concept)."
If god's an object, he doesn't get defined!
Hi emrldphx,
"I said you could answer the questions with YOUR definitions.”
This is not the issue. The issue has to do with you. You are the one who is complaining. Once you accept the definitions of object and exist, .....and once you accept the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory), you cannot start talking about truth/fact/proof/evidence/belief/knowledge/wisdom or any other subjectivities. These terms are not part of the sci method.
Science falls squarely on an objective sci method with objective definitions for the KEY terms necessary to understand your theory.....and not all the terms in the dictionary. And when we say a term is CIRCULAR, we don’t mean that we define all the words in the derivation tree until we reach an end-node of circularity.....quite the contrary.......we simply mean that you cannot use SYNONYMS (ie. labels having the same meaning). For example, ‘thing, entity, structure, physical, substance, stuff, body, medium, figure, item’ are synonyms for object.....they are not definitions.
So, if you wish to have a rational scientific discussion, then you already understand what it entails. If you don’t agree, please have your discussion in the Religious forums. If you agree, I am open to your question.
El Dude,
"If god's an object, he doesn't get defined!"
Of course. It is impossible to define specific objects. Only atheists & theists define objects like God, apple, coconut, chair in their rituals every Sunday.
In science we point to objects and name them (just like God asked Adam to do with the animals)....or illustrate them in the Hypothesis stage of the sci method.
Every word in human language is categorized as either an object or a concept. God had better be an object before the Theologian proceeds with his Theory of Creation. If God is love or intelligence, then the Theologian should peddle his nonsense in the Religion Forums.
(From this point, however, it definitely IS worth considering people's "Testimonies")
Yes, Timothy, so we should also definitely consider the "testimony" of David Berkowicz, AKA Son of San, who testified under oath that the neighbor's dog had ordered him to kill.
And as emrldphx has so wisely pointed out, science has never disproved that this particular neighbor's dog cannot talk, and talking dogs may well be the norm if we only uncovered the "talking dog energy" that allows them to speak.
With so many realms of possibility open, I vote for letting the son-of-a-bitch out of jail immediately. After all, who could have said "No" to a Rotweiller?
fatfist, google "scientific method to test faith", then read the article and see if Step 3 and 4 specifically may be acceptable (like it is in the established scientific community) to your consideration of whether there is a God (a Supreme Creator of the Universe - as we understand it) or not; it is just another way to perhaps establish your own position, or it is simply a different approach look at things.
Hi Timothy,
“google "scientific method to test faith"
In science we don’t test concepts like faith/love/justice/sadness/comfort/etc. In science we identify the objects (God) of our Hypothesis, define the KEY terms (object, exist, etc.) so the audience understands what we say.....and proceed to the Theory where we use the ACTORS in our Hypothesis i.e. God, to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN the alleged event (claim) of Creation. Understand?
If you wish to pay somebody to test how strong is your FAITH in your current relationship, by all means be my guest. But such subjective activities do not concern science. Science is predicated on objectivity.
@ AKA Winston, In a court of law, before judgement is made, all testimonies are considered. The infamous killer's testimony was considered, as it surely should have been; whether it was accepted as fact is another matter. BTW, truth and fact can be different realities; in other words, for the psychopath, their "truth" probably is not fact in reality, except in their own reality, of course.
When applying the scientific method for establishing truth and fact, with repeatable results, reality can be reliably established for the person who so applies the test. It is not rocket science, it is faith science.
Fatfist. There is no problem with you answering my questions using your definitions. You are dodging the issue because you would have to contradict yourself to answer either of them.
Do you want to show me that I'm wrong? Then answer them.
You go on and on about the same topics, while not addressing my points. To do so is logically fallacious.
Please ask one Q for now, emrldphx,....stay on topic....and please provide the details to your question. I will scientifically analyze your Q, so I may need to ask a thing or two from you in order to understand it, before I can answer....deal?
Ok Fatfist. You promised to answer this before, and I have asked over a dozen times, but here goes.
Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when two particles collide at 'near-speed-of-light' speeds?
You can use your own definitions you have provided for the terms exist and energy.
In case you are interested, one example you can look at is from September 16, 1997, at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California.
Where did the extra matter come from if it wasn't energy turning into matter?
Also, I want to clarify that in the case of the Stanford experiment, no matter was used in the collision. It was strictly radiation that was collided into itself, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.
Hi emrldphx,
“In case you are interested, one example you can look at”
Please don’t ask me to look up stuff. Remember, this is your claim. All I want to see are your rational posts here. And no arguments from authority please. You should be able to explain your own claims....and you can get info from wherever you want, but you cannot claim proof/truth as this is unscientific....you can only explain. The scientific method is all about rational explanation....where you get this explanation from is irrelevant.
“Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when two particles collide at 'near-speed-of-light' speeds?..... no matter was used in the collision. It was strictly radiation that was collided into itself”
To eliminate confusion, we must restate your statement as you intend it to be....
((Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when radiation waves collide at 'near-speed-of-light' speeds? No matter was used in the collision, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.))
Please confirm that this is the Q you like to ask me, or modify it the way you like. Thanks.
“Where did the extra matter come from if it wasn't energy turning into matter?”
Again...we already agreed that energy is an abstract dynamic concept (kg x m^2/s^2) which describes the motion of an object. It is impossible for concepts like energy/love/justice/belief/elation to turn into matter,.... just like speed (120 km/h) cannot turn into matter. This makes sense.
REMEMBER: You agreed that energy does not exist because energy is not an object!
So let’s just deal with one Q at a time.....the one (()) above.
Really, I could ask the question either way. In some experiments only radiation energy is used. In others, particles are used. You can pick whichever one. I apologize for the confusion. Either way, the scientific explanation is that, utilizing E=mc^2, energy can be transformed into matter.
Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when radiation waves collide at extremely high energy levels?(they are both at speed of light). No matter was used in the collision, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.
There's your question. And no, we didn't agree on what energy is, you deleted my arguments about it. But I am allowing you to use your definition to explain where the matter comes from.
"Please don’t ask me to look up stuff. Remember, this is your claim. All I want to see are your rational posts here. And no arguments from authority please."
It's not an argument from authority. I'm referring you to one specific scientific experiment. I did not present any information based off of the authority of an expert.
I refer you to an experiment because I don't happen to have a particle accelerator to show you for this discussion. So, I refer you to the results of one such test.
"REMEMBER: You agreed that energy does not exist because energy is not an object!"
I did no such thing. You deleted my comments, and now claim that I agree due to my 'silence'. Assuming an argument is won due to silence is a logical fallacy. I never agreed that energy doesn't exist. That's the point of this question. If energy doesn't exist, then these experiments create matter from nothing.
Hi emrldphx,
“ I never agreed that energy doesn't exist. “
Fine, so we will settle this issue right here and now before discussing anything else.
Since you cannot offer a SCIENTIFIC defn of exist, we will use exist=object+location. Your defn was observer-dependent which I instantly refuted.
You said: “ENERGY: the ability to do work”
Ergo, energy is a concept, a quantity with units (kg x m^2/s^2). Units do not do work. Units do not have abilities. Speed (km/h) does not do work. It is the car which does work .....it is OBJECTS which do work.....not speeds, not lengths, no hectares, not love, not energy. Basic stuff.
Since energy is a concept, you cannot illustrate it on the blackboard for the audience in the Physics Conference. Thus, energy necessarily does NOT exist. We’re done!
Why won't you answer the question? I was just clarifying. I said you are allowed to use your definitions, but I never agreed that they are what I think is correct.
Twice you have agreed to answer that question, and now you have backed down again. I can only assume that you can't come up with a reason other than
A - The matter comes from nothing
-or-
B - The matter comes from energy
But please! for the 14th time, answer the question and show why I'm wrong!
Please understand, I am trying to encourage this discussion to continue for educational purposes. Even though I don't agree with you, I am letting you use your definitions for the terms energy and exist to answer my question.
Stay on topic, emrldphx.
Energy does NOT exist as I explained!
It is irrational (unscientific) to CLAIM that concepts exist.
If you don't agree, I cannot help you, and we cannot proceed. You cannot mention the word energy again in my hubs because it is not a mediator or actor which performs events/action/work/....any verb! If you agree, we can proceed.
If not, then you will need to consult the professional services of an expert in the Religion Forums to help you deal with this devastating realization.
Now you understand how I felt when my friend at school explained to me that Santa Claus does NOT exist.....I was DEVASTATED!!!!!!!!!!! My God...was I ever!!!
Please....somebody out there.....a PhD, a professor, a Nobel winner, anybody.....can you PLEASE define energy to show that it is an object that exists, even though it has units of kg x m^2/s^2??
Somebody please help emrldphx!!
Fatfist, I am allowing you to answer the question with your definition of energy not existing.
Why can't you answer the question? As soon as you do, I will show you why you are wrong about energy.
Or, are you going to back down again and not answer it?
I never said energy is an object, but it doesn't matter. For the purposes of the question, you can use your definition of exist = object + location and energy=concept=doesn't exist.
There is no reason for you to continue avoiding the question. Keep your word and answer it.
I will re-phrase the question to not include the word energy.
Where does the matter come from that appears in a particle accelerator when two beams of light collide?
Hi emrldphx,
Remember emrldphx, ....any mention of energy or any mention of observer-dependent (unscientific) terms like truth/fact/proof/evidence....and your post will be purged in the bit bucket. You can re-edit it without those unscientific terms and re-post it (this is fair).
Q: ((Where does the matter that appears in a particle accelerator come from when radiation waves collide at extremely high energy levels?(they are both at speed of light). No matter was used in the collision, and matter/antimatter pairs were created.))
Ok, so there is no matter at all in a chamber (part accel).
But, emrldphx claims that “waves” collide. Let us analyze this claim scientifically....
1) Collisions are events which require motion and surface-to-surface contact between at least 2 entities (ie. objects).
2) Only objects can be in motion. Concepts cannot move. Love does not move mountains....bulldozers do! Without objects to change location, motion is not possible.
3) Wave is a concept!! Wave is what something (ie. object) DOES. Wave is NOT what something IS. This is basic Kindergarten knowledge.
4) Wave necessarily implies motion. The medium (object) undulates, like water, for example, moves vertically. We call this event which we conceive....wave!
5) A medium (ie. object) is necessarily required to be set in motion, before we can call this phenomenon ‘wave’.
6) Wave is a concept. Wave does not exist.
Sorry emrldphx....but your CLAIM is irrational (unscientific). Perhaps in Religion waves, angels and spirits can collide....but not in reality.
Fatfist, I'm disappointed that you are avoiding the question.
Can you answer this? Do you deny these experiments happened? Do you deny the results?
Your disregard for science is utterly astounding.
If I phrase the question as this, will you answer it?
Where does the matter come from in a particle accelerator when two particles collide at near-C speeds?
That doesn't have any words for energy, light, or waves in it... so can you answer that question?
Your CLAIM is IMPOSSIBLE, emrldphx.
Furthermore, it is impossible for you or for anybody else to rationally explain (ie. theorize) how such an alleged event is even a REMOTE possibility in reality.
Why? Because waves do NOT exist!
You are committing the Fallacy of Reification. You are reifying the motion of an entity, to an OBJECT which can collide.
Utter nonsense!
Can you answer the other question then?
I know now that you don't accept the results of experiments that don't make sense to you... fine.
What about when two particles collide? Can you answer that?
Hi emrldphx,
“What about when two particles collide? Can you answer that?”
Particle is a synonym for object. Particles can indeed collide. Cars are particles which collide via surface-to-surface contact. I can illustrate a car.
Emrldphx....can you please illustrate these alleged particles which you claim collide? Any online ref to an image will do.
1) What kind of particles are these, do they have a name?
2) Where did these particles come from?
3) Were they loaded on some type of gun and shot in the accel chamber? If so, how were they handled if they are tiny...with micro-tweezers?
I will gladly answer your question once I see a drawing of this particle on the blackboard.
Sure, I'll get the information for you. While I do that, do you want to address this question?
Do you deny that the experiments of colliding light took place, or do you deny the results of matter appearing?
Hi emrldphx,
“Do you deny that the experiments of colliding light took place, or do you deny the results of matter appearing?”
If I DENY God....will God vanish?
If I DENY my right hand....will my right hand vanish this very second?
Denial is an activity that is performed by atheists and theists.
Denial/belief/disbelief/opinion are IRRELEVANT subjectivities. Nature could care less of our opinions. Nature can only be explained rationally.
You can run any experiment you want. It does NOT mean that you have the faintest clue of what you are doing. Religionists run experiments every day, like praying, baptizing, speaking in tongues, bending space, stretching time, collide waves, measure beauty...etc.
Experiments are SUBJECTIVE and observer-dependent on the person’s biases.
You can run any experiment you want. When you come to the Physics Conference, the onus in on YOU to explain to the audience your CLAIMS before you FORCE people to swallow them in an authoritative manner.
My job is to scientifically analyze your claims and rationally explain whether they are possible or impossible.....this is what the sci method is all about.
REMEMBER: I am NOT making claims....YOU are.
One example of a collision
1 - A Positron and an Electron. I can't show you a traditional picture because they are too small to see with visible light. Here is an illustration courtesy of NASA showing them conceptually: http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/image
2 - Positrons can be extracted from Neutrons via Positron Emmission(beta decay). The isotopes carbon-11, potassium-40, nitrogen-13, oxygen-15, fluorine-18, and iodine-121 all naturally decay and release these positrons. They are contained and controlled via electromagnetic fields. Positrons have a positive charge, so creating a negative electromagnetic field will suspend the positron. It's like floating a magnet above another magnet with the opposite charge. Electrons are similarly captured through beta-decay, from isotopes such as unstable hydrogen. Electrons are contained and controlled in the same way, just with an opposite charge.
3 - Basically, with lots of magnets. Electromagnetic fields are generated and turned off in succession. This creates an effect of a moving electromagnetic field, and propels the positron and electron.
You are nitpicking over word choice. Are you saying that these experiments didn't happen? Are you saying the results are faked?
In other words, all these particle accelerators we have, are you saying all the things they do with them, don't really happen?
And please, for the future, can we agree to understand that we each use different definitions for words? It is safe to say when I ask if you deny something I am using the dictionary definition of ' to say that something is not true'.
We are arguing over semantics needlessly.
emrldphx,
You did not read my response to you.
I SAID.....You can run any experiment you want. When you come to the Physics Conference, the onus in on YOU to explain to the audience your CLAIMS before you FORCE people to swallow them in an authoritative manner.
You are making the claim. The onus is on YOU to explain it to the audience.
If you INTERPRETED the results of your experiment erroneously...then I will show you where....just like I did in your WAVE COLLISION experiment. Waves are impossible to collide....they don't even exist. See how easy that was...
Hi emrldphx,
“can we agree to understand that we each use different definitions for words? “
Absolutely NOT! Science does not have multiple definitions for the key terms in order to please people’s personal tastes. Science is OBJECTIVE. Definitions are crisp and consistent across all contexts. This is what makes them scientific. And not because I say so....this is an objective criterion.
If you don't like my defn...fine....I will accept your scientific ones, no problem!!!
“We are arguing over semantics needlessly.”
Scientific language is all about semantics. Definitions are crucial if they are to be used in an objective discipline such as science. Definitions had better be unambiguous and non-contradictory.
I read your response.
If you think these experiments haven't taken place, why don't you take a field trip to a particle accelerator so you can actually watch the process?
You can't just deny reality because it doesn't make sense to you. You are actually at the point where you are trying to rationally define reality. You say it can't happen... but it has happened... hundreds of times.
If I were speaking at a physics conference, I ABSOLUTELY could explain an experiment, the parameters I setup, the methodology used, and the data collected. Then I would attempt to explain the data. You seem to think we can't use experimental data in science, even though that is the foundation of the scientific method.
But before you argue with me over this, please answer the question.
The problem is, YOU are the one who constantly decides what is a KEY TERM which must be defined separately from the dictionary definition and what is 'ordinary speech'. I just asked if you are saying those experiments didn't happen, or if the results were fake.
You still haven't answered, by the way. You keep going off on tangents about symantics, but you avoid so many of my questions. Please, answer the question. Then, if you feel like it, answer my questions about the experiments performed in particle accelerators.
Hi emrldphx,
“If I were speaking at a physics conference, I ABSOLUTELY could explain”
Great!
Please explain how 2 waves collide? How do concepts collide?
Think about it.....and I will respond tomorrow....see u later.
Hi emrldphx,
“The problem is, YOU are the one who constantly decides what is a KEY TERM “
No!!!!
If YOU CLAIM that “waves” collide, then by YOUR CLAIM, wave is a key term you MUST define or illustrate....got it? Grow up and stop bellyaching!
Fatfist. Are you going to even answer the question? I won't argue with you about anything else until you answer the question.
Here is the question again, since you seem to have forgotten it:
Where does the matter come from in a particle accelerator when two particles collide at near-C speeds?
I can't help it.
You said "SPACE IS EVERYWHERE, contouring all objects (invisible or otherwise)".
How can something that doesn't exist contour something? Contouring is a verb... it means the action of outlining. You already argued with me that things that don't exist can't perform actions, so how can space perform the action of contouring?
Is getting boring.
Fatfist,
The only thing that matters is faith in the infallible sciences. "If two or more people are gathered together by gravity, there I will be also". - Alfred Einstein
My impression is that neo-physicists reverse the scientific process in that the conjecture is assumed mathematically accurate and therefore it is reality which must be wrong. It is certainly unintuitive to think of Einstein's space-time as a warped sheet of plastic that makes planets hobble around bigger objects, but more that being unintuitive it is also unreasonable and irrational to make that assumption. And the reason it is unreasonable and irrational is due to the definitions we apply to space and time.
Time is a scaler - a measurement.
Space is the void that separates objects.
How is it possible that either a measurement or a void can bend?
These two notions should be enough to reject the idea of spacetime outright - instead, it has been bought as the neo-geocentric model - right as long as the Church of Ralativists says it is right.
Hi emrldphx,
“Fatfist. Are you going to even answer the question?”
Your FIRST question was ANSWERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will not play the game of 20 questions with you. I have better things to do than to EDUCATE you. I ALREADY answered one Q for you about waves....and it is IMPOSSIBLE for 2 waves (concepts) to collide with each other.
So GROW UP, take it like a MAN, and don’t complain anymore!!
We will deal with your immediate burning issues before you can ask any other questions for me to answer. And.....I will only answer ONE MORE question.....so TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT. If you FAIL this time to redeem yourself, then you cannot make it as a Scientist, and you should keep your discussions in the Religion Forums....ok? Deal?
We will deal with your immediate burning issues before you can ask YOUR LAST question for me to answer.
Hi emrldphx,
Now....your burning issue....
“How can something that doesn't exist contour something?”
Well you tell the crowd, emrldphx,....this is YOUR strawman!!
Is space a ‘something’ to you?? Does space have borders, boundaries, perimeter, color, dimensions? Is space black?
Something: that which has shape (synonym: object, particle, body, structure, thing, stuff....)
I already defined Space: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing)
REMEMBER: Space is the ONLY stand-alone term which is defined in negative terms....any other term for “nothing” is a synonym. As such, space does NOT exist. There is NO ‘thing’ which we can point to or illustrate or measure or displace or (insert ANY positive term)....and can call “space”!!!
“How can something that doesn't exist contour something? Contouring is a verb”
Indeed, countering is a VERB. Nothing (space, matterless, concepts, non-object) cannot perform events/actions/verbs. This makes sense and nobody can argue otherwise!!
But....since “space” is a NEGATIVE term, and we must use it in a sentence in order to talk about it.....the sentence will never be textbook-grammatically correct.
Ex. “I have nothing in my pocket”
Q: Does that mean I have ‘something’??......No!
Q: How can “nothing” be in my pocket?......’It’ cant!
Anybody who pursues such childish arguments is just trolling with strawmans....and they know it!!
emrldphx, you understand VERY WELL that a negative term causes textbook-grammar problems in every single sentence. This stand-alone negative term (space/nothing) must be used with verbs, nouns, and other constructs to build a sentence. But, we must explain the MEANING of this negative term.....and once we do....we can plug it into a sentence and understand full well the CONTEXT of the sentence based on the DEFINITION of this term. We don’t act like a child and quibble over the only stand-alone negative term in human language. We understand full well its implications and usage. We learn to deal with this term in Grammar School. Have you taken English grammar in university?
Definitions precede all usage of terms. And this is the ONLY stand-alone term (there are prefixes too, like ‘a-‘, ‘im-‘, etc. but they are context-opposites) that causes grammatical problems, but yet it still IS a component of all languages. So I hope that your argument is that of ignorance, and not a childish strawman argument.
Space (i.e., nothingness) is just another concept invented by Man. Nature does not “recognize” (euphemism) space...objects do NOT collide with space. Nature only recognizes objects.
Nature deals with what is there (object with location) and not with what ain't there (has no location).
Since space is a “place” (conceptual separation of objects), as opposed to an object, then an object cannot “displace” or “occupy” space, like a fish displaces water.
And this is WHY it is IMPOSSIBLE for space to be created ....by Big Bang or by God. If God exists, He is imprisoned in space...He cannot escape space, like He can escape a prison cell, which has borders. Space cannot disappear or appear. Space was always there (again, remember context).
The only reason this NEGATIVE term “space” can be treated differently than other terms is because we have to designate the “nothingness” that envelopes (ordinary speech) an object, that gives it contrast (ie. spatial separation). It's artificial. It can be used that way as long as we don't lose track of the CONTEXT OF ITS MEANING.
“You already argued with me that things that don't exist can't perform actions, so how can space perform the action of contouring?”
Yes, only ‘things’ can perform actions/events/verbs to other ‘things’... ONLY!!
Space does NOT perform any action/event/verb. Space is the only stand-alone NEGATIVE term that we must use in a sentence. I already explained above how we deal with the grammatical limitations of this special stand-alone negative term “space”.
No more strawman arguments about “space”!!!
Hi Winston,
"These two notions should be enough to reject the idea of spacetime outright - instead, it has been bought as the neo-geocentric model - right as long as the Church of Ralativists says it is right."
Of course, if people parrot what they memorized by rote from the Scriptures forced down their throats by their Priests,....no wonder they can't use their brains for critical thinking and Scientific analysis.
They end up chasing their tails in circles and not understanding anything coming out of their mouths. We call this behavior: Speaking in Tongues!
This is why I can't pursue any arguments with you, other than one point at a time. You did NOT answer my first question. You brushed it off as impossible, even though it's been done.
So answer the same question, just phrased so you don't have a problem with it.
Where does the matter come from in a particle accelerator when two particles collide at near-C speeds?
You only show your true colors by continuing to avoid the issue. Where do the W+/W= bosons that appear in a particle accelerator come from when a positron and electron collide at near-C speeds?
Hi emrldphx,
“This is why I can't pursue any arguments with you, other than one point at a time. “
Exactly!! We will deal with ONE ISSUE AT A TIME and put it to REST, before raising other issues or questions....got it? You will not create a circus atmosphere here. My job is to methodically and rationally deal with your CLAIMS.....this is what science is about.
If you want to act childish and bellyache all the time, then go get some emotional support in the Religion Forums...got it?
emrldphx: “Wave question.....You brushed it off as impossible, even though it's been done.”
emrldphx: “If I were speaking at a physics conference, I ABSOLUTELY could explain an experiment”
Here is your chance to shine, emrldphx....put your money where your mouth is. Your audience is HERE and everywhere. I will reference THIS HUB to as many places as possible on the Internet so the whole world can see your rational scientific explanation....ok? I want EVERYONE to see that you can crush poor little fatfist, ok?
One step at a time....
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW 2 WAVES, WHICH ARE CONCEPTS AND NOT OBJECTS....CAN PHYSICALLY COLLIDE WITH EACH OTHER.
There you go!
Do not elude this Q any further. We will deal with your burning issues one at a time until you are rationally SATISFIED.
If you can rationally explain this, I promise to PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice. I am on the RECORD....I cannot turn back now. If I refuse to pay you, then I will be forced to take down all my hubs and delete my account out of sheer embarrassment.
So let it be written.....so let it be done!
emrldphx,
Don't elude your CLAIM any longer. You have been called out on your CLAIM. Grow up and be a MAN! I will PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice, charity, etc.
I am on the RECORD!!
Fatfist, the subject on the table is my question. I gave you the parameters last night.
I can't answer your question about 'waves' until you deal with my question.
You continue to demean and call me childish and say I'm bellyaching... just answer the question like you said you would. Then we can deal with the other topics.
Hi emrldphx,
“the subject on the table is my question”
Absolutely NOT!!!
I will not allow a circus atmosphere here. Everybody will be treated FAIRLY.
You are not a happy camper when you post here. You are accusing me of “brushing” off your CLAIM as impossible.
We will make sure that you are HAPPY, before engaging other topics. I want to make you right.
I already settled your issues of: space, object, exist, energy, truth, proof, fact, evidence, Scientific Method...
Now we will settle your burning issue of “waves colliding”.
I answered your Q about waves and you are bellyaching......now the audience is waiting for you to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN your claim, like you said you can....you are on the record.
REMEMBER: waves colliding is your claim!
Do not post anything else here except YOUR rational explanation. All else will be swept into the bit bucket, so please stay on topic...thanks.
P.S. If you can't, then just be honest about it....nothing to be embarrassed about.
Einstein's equivalency equation does not suggest that matter can become energy or that energy can become matter, which would be the irrational assumption that ideas can transform into objects. Einstein only described a relationship between concepts: Energy and Mass.
Fatfist, I've to admire your patience, emrldphx is just posting the same stuff again and again, without ever bothering to understand. What I don't understand is, whether all religious people are just ignorant and idiotic or are they just feigning!
Fatfist,
Perhaps this information can be of use to understand the necessity of precise definitions in scientific treatise:
"An operational definition is generally designed to model a theoretical definition. The most operational definition is a process for identification of an object by distinguishing it from its background of empirical experience.
The binary version produces either the result that the object exists, or that it doesn't, in the experiential field to which it is applied. The classifier version results in discrimination between what is part of the object and what is not part of it. This is also discussed in terms of semantics, pattern recognition, and operational techniques, such as regression."
Without an operational definition, the distinction blurs between the nature of the object rock and the nature of the concept rock 'n roll. Both cannot be assumed real by the same standard.
He said that waves could collide?!
@Winston....emrldphx thinks that synonyms are actually definitions.
@jomine....emrldphx has absolutely NO more arguments. All his posts are self-refuting. All his religious words, like "truth/fact/proof/evidence/energy" have nothing to do with science, much less reality. So the only argument he has now has to do with belly-aching about how I destroyed his Religion.
I actually sympathize with him.....I was completely DEVASTATED when my friend explained to me why Santa Claus doesn't exist. Now I know how emrldphx feels about his gods which he calls "energy" and "wave"....and it's quite painful.
@El Dude.....yeah, waves (ideas) actually do collide in emrldphx's Sunday School. His Pastor "proved" it to him.
To anyone who sympathizes with emrldphx .....stop giving him emotional support and please help him get his $5000. This is the only cure for his belly-aches.
Yes Fatfist, it is easy for you to say I have no arguments when you delete half of what I say. Your censorship about what you will allow and won't allow is astonishing.
I gave you the courtesy of allowing you to answer my question using your terms. I apologize for using the question about light beams, so I changed it to a question about particles, since that idea is easier for you to grasp. You still haven't answered it.
I know you can 'rationally' prove, using your own definitions, that two lasers can't be pointed at each other to create matter, but the fact is that it can be done in labs. I told you I can answer your question about 'waves' if you answer my question about particles colliding.
Or, you can continue to censor my comments to fit your convenience.
How can "cavitation" destroy a pump?
Where does this cavitaion come from; is it air, or is it space (nothing)?
How can "nothing" destroy a pump?
Fatfist,
On further review I am confident emfldphx is simply trolling as has no genuine beliefs other than in his own cleverness - tiresome and juvenile .
“How can "cavitation" destroy a pump?”
LOL....it is soooooo funny how potato heads like to come here and showcase their ignorance with their wild CLAIMS. Is “cavitiation” an object/thing in your Religion? Does your priest perform experiments with “cavitation” and “energy” and “waves”? Do you even know?
“Where does this cavitaion come from”
Ummmm......could it be from YOUR God? Why don’t YOU tell the audience? Are you gonna run away from this question too?
“cavitaion.... is it air, or is it space (nothing)?”
No, cavitation is NOT a noun or a subject in Scientific language.....only in YOUR Religious language! The nouns and subjects in science are the ACTORS which take part in a Theory. If you wish to do science and rationally Theorize how the inside material of the pump deteriorated and flushed out the bits with the water, then your actor must be an OBJECT. Your God and the spirits your worship, like ENERGY and GHOSTS, cannot come into surface-to-surface contact with the matter in the pump and chip it away. Only objects with shape can do that.
You see, my feeble-minded friend.....cavitation is only a noun for the purposes of grammatical correctness in sentences....literature & and poetry. You cannot illustrate an object (noun of reality) which YOU irrationally term “caviation”. Cavitation is a CONCEPT only....and an irrational one to boot!!
YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORDINARY SPEECH AND SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE! This is why you perpetually chase your tail in circles with contradictions. When you learn science and begin to live in reality with the rest of us, you won’t be scared of spirits, energy and ghosts grabbing your private parts in the middle of the night.
In ordinary speech, you have reified the verb (action) “cavitate” to an object (noun) which is impossible to exist. Fallacy of Reification. Reality has nothing to do with YOUR poetry & metaphors and what comforts your inner spirit and soul. Science is objective. Your opinions & contradictions are believable by YOU and YOUR congregation only. Science is not your forte....you should stick to pushing the broom and moping the floors.
Verbs/actions/concepts (energy, waves, cavitation) do not exist in reality.....only objects do....got it?
“How can "nothing" destroy a pump?”
Nothing is not an object and does not exist. Matterless motion is impossible. Nothing cannot perform actions.....much less chip away at the matter inside a pump case.
Have you even bothered to read anything written in here?????
Have you passed Junior Kindergarten or are you happy to come here and showcase your ignorance in front of the whole world???
I mean, puhleazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....have some self-respect!! All you do is come here and shoot yourself in the face.
You know what?......your IGNORANCE actually deserves a Nobel Prize. I would personally VOTE for you if you ever go on America’s Got Talent. You would be the BEST act bar none!!
@Winston.....clever is not a word you can use to describe emrldphx. Ohhhhhhoho no!!
I haven't seen so many contradictions and arguments from ignorance ever since Braud Boy started posting here.
Braud Boy most epic troll ever.
Hi emrldphx,
“you delete half of what I say. Your censorship...... you can continue to censor my comments”
LOL.....the audience in the Physics Conference has absolutely NO sympathy for your lies, constantly crying for “wolf”, and pretending to be a battered woman so everyone can sympathize with your position. Your are perpetually going off in tangents as to avoid the issue which destroys your Religion.....that being....there is no such thing as energy, waves, truth, fact, proof, etc. These are dead self-refuting arguments which you desperately cling onto and perpetually parrot because you have NO arguments. You just HOPE that there are potato-heads out there who will sympathize with your position and send some comforting words your way.....pathetic!!
“allowing you to answer my question”
Allowing me to answer to YOUR claims??
REMEMBER:
1) This is YOUR claim.
2) The onus is on YOU to explain to the audience how 2 concepts/ideas (waves, energy) COLLIDE (surface-to-surface contact) with each other.
3) You don’t brush off YOUR claims to somebody else......know why?....because the other person will rationally explain why your claims are BUNK....then you will cry like a little woman who lost her skirt on the roller-coaster.
emrldphx, grow up!!!
“answer my question using your terms.”
LOL....you are chasing strawmen with every statement.
This has nothing to do with MY terms. The sci method could care less whose terms they are. They could come from your grandmother for all anyone cares. BUT...THEY HAD BETTER BE SCIENTIFIC (rational, observer-independent, consistent, non-contradictory). Reality does NOT depend on observers. This is an OBJECTIVE criterion, not a subjective one like you try to portray with your strawman statements. You fool no one!!
“I apologize for using the question about light beams, so I changed it to a question about particles,”
YOU FOOL NO ONE, emrldphx!!
This is not an issue of apology....so please don’t apologize to me. All I ask of you is be a MAN and explain your claims, or ADMIT that you were wrong!!
The issue here is that your God-like WAVES have been destroyed.....they don’t exist!! So you are desperately running like a chicken with your head cut off trying to figure out other avenues to save face. You are embarrassed that I DESTROYED your Religion, so now you are sidetracking to other unrelated issues which have nothing to do with your contradictory assertion of waves (i.e. ideas) colliding. This is an act of desperation.
And what will you do when I show that your particle assertions are self-refuting and impossible as well? What will you do next to save face and your dignity? What other strawmen can you think of?
You fool no one!!
“I know you can 'rationally' prove”
Too many errors!!!
Argument from Ignorance! You don’t know jack-squat of what you are parroting.
I haven’t “proven” anything....I make no such claims.....only YOU do.....this is YOUR strawman!!
Proof = truth = fact = OPINION!!!
All my statements are Scientific. I have provided you with rational non-contradictory definitions and rational explanations of WHY your CLAIMS are self-refuting....i.e. BUNK....i.e. IMPOSSIBLE in reality. All you do to repeat your same nonsense as if nothing was explained to you. You should stick to cleaning latrines.
This is trolling. Your repetitions will be deleted instantly! You have repeated them PLENTY of times in the comments sections. Use your mouse and scroll to them so you can see your name in lights and take PRIDE in the contradictions you posted tens of times.
“I can answer your question about 'waves'”
You can’t answer anything. All you have is contradictory CLAIMS. Your claims are impossible! Deal with it. Perhaps a few sessions with your psychiatrist will cure your ills.
You have NO scientific definitions for any of the irrational terms you parrot. You are FINISHED as far as definitions are concerned....so don’t complain anymore.
But you still irrationally CLAIM that waves (ideas) collide. So the onus is on YOU to justify YOUR claim.
Q: With the luxury of detail, please rationally explain how 2 waves (concepts/ideas) collide.
If you can, I will PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice. Otherwise, concede that you can’t and that you were wrong.
Only then will I give you ONE more chance at kicking my butt and embarrassing me to redeem yourself so you can be taken seriously by the audience in the Physics Conference. Only then can you throw 1 more CLAIM my way for DESTRUCTION....and make it a good one cause it will be your last. Embarrassing you once is good enough for me......embarrassing you TWICE....well that means that you are finished forever, and you have no clue of anything you post....nobody will ever listen to what you say.
So... emrldphx.....STAY ON TOPIC.....do not go off in tangents because this is trolling and will be deleted.
Are you scared to answer the Q of YOUR claim?
Another one bites the dust!!
On my own forum thread I inferred that a comment and Son of Sam were related. Hub Pages took exception. I guess I should have used a Christian mass murderer like Matthew Hopkins as a comparison and all would have been well.
Meanwhile, the trolls eat for free.
If you guys want a real laugh:
.
'You're conflating two issues, here. The evolution is deterministic in QM -- the state of a closed system at t1 evolves to a unique state at t2. It is the process of breaking up an entangled composite system ("observer" and "observed subsystem") that necessarily involves probabilities, due to the properties of quantum information. This is quite a subtle issue, but the distinction is quite important. It is not time evolution which is probabilistic in quantum mechanics -- it is the information which is available to the observer which is probabilistic.'
.
http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34264.as
.
Hilarious gibberish!
Hello Fatfist. I had some spare 'time' today and the more I thought about the entire human language being resolved to concept and object, the more it makes sense to me that this is the DEFAULT position regarding arguments of 'creation' or design. Once we assume that ONE and only distinction between concept and object, no further assumptions are required (or even possible!). It's important we establish this so the theist knows upfront where we are coming from, BEFORE we can even coherently argue about the words 'god' or 'exist'. After we establish this, the theist cannot even begin to move from the corner she has herself inheritantly painted into. There can be no further bottomline, no further temporal argument for 'original' causation ('creation'). Consciousness becomes a mere concept itself. An aftereffect. And by 'aftereffect' I'm not invoking some temporal 'action' reified into an object. I'm just using the best language a monkey like me can, because by virtue of the workings of the brain, no matter how hard we monkeys try, we struggle to escape employing the concept of 'time' into our thinking and coversation.
Am I making sense brother ... do I get an AMEN! ?
You got it Spastic!
Due to the way we have been conditioned by our upbringing and our school system, it can be very difficult for us to grasp the reality of object vs concept....of shape vs no-shape. This is understandable. I didn’t grasp this stuff overnight when I first read Gaede’s book. When I was able to reason to myself that the universe is a binary system of ‘something’ vs ‘nothing’, then everything fell into place.
Of course, I get those who come in here to assert that we don’t know if the universe is binary.....that we have no evidence of this....that we may discover other options that prove otherwise....yada yada. These people need a reality check. These people are extremely brainwashed. Evidence, knowledge and discovery plays no role here whatsoever. This is purely an issue of critical thinking and reason. If someone supposedly did have evidence or discovery of ‘something’ else, then that discovery is an object...it has shape.....otherwise it is nothing. And round and round in circles we go.
Every single word we can conceive of will either resolve to an object or a concept. There is no other conceivable option. Nobody can even give a hint of justification for another option....even with a half-assed argument.
But what about an "OBCEPT"!
This third category PROVES there's a God... at LEAST 200%!
Thanks for the reply Fatfist. Indeed thanks for my putting up with my rambling. Let my above post be a lesson to readers: Don't be posting messages on the interwebs after drinking too much Johnny Walker Black. It made sense at the time (oh yes, I had an epiphany of sorts) and it still makes sense to me now but I just couldn't word it properly. I'm glad you were able to decipher what I was trying to say Fat.
Best regards.
Doesn't rationality necessarily introduce observer bias into the hypothesis?
In the theory doesn't math (like probability distributions) remove the observer?
@rational person,
"Doesn't rationality necessarily introduce observer bias into the hypothesis?"
How so? A Hypothesis is a proposal....an assumption. A hypothesis can either be rational or irrational. How can a Hypothesis possibly be biased?
Is the Hypothesis of Christianity (God=Jesus=Father=Son=Holy Ghost) biased? It's merely a proposal.....and an irrational one to boot.
"In the theory doesn't math (like probability distributions) remove the observer?"
Oh, we all wish it did. You see, my dear friend, math is DESCRIPTIVE....it dynamically DESCRIBES what the stupid human ape (i.e. Mathematician) saw in his dream (i.e. singularity, black hole, white hole, ass hole, photon, muon, electron, proton, quark, energy, time, spacetime, ether/aether [Einstein saw those in his dream fore sure!!!], force, wave, wavicle, 0D particle, etc.)
Math is a DESCRIPTIVE syntax which decrees as Gospel what a stupid moron (i.e. Math Fyzicyst) saw while he was wandering down the halls of the Insane Asylum....just like Godel, Cantor, Turing, and Boltzmann did back in the day. You should go on youtube and watch the DANGEROUS KNOWLEDGE series to understand what Math is all about.
In the end....all the Mathematicians see God in their dreams....no doubt about it! But they may call Him under a different name....like singularity, black hole, while hole, ass hole.....
Does A=A remove the observer? No!
But we can rationally conclude that the Moon exists despite our observation of it.
Is there a probability of Planet X existing? No!
Something exists, or it doesn't. On/off. This is objective, because it takes out human senses, data, empiricism, bullshitting & lies, truths & hallucinations, experiments, observations, egos, logic, guesswork etc, right out of the "equation".
So to summarize what FF's getting at; we can't "know" reality. This is lunacy and pretending to play or see god. People like that end up in the asylum. Math Klub and Philosophy Klub try to grasp at Absolute Truths, Perfect Equations, Complete and Beautiful Proven Theories, etc.
All BULLSHIT! They're just clutching at invisible straws. We can't KNOW anything in science, like in the sense of godly omnipotence. We can only ASSUME (hypothesize) in order to explain events rationally (scene by scene, no voodoo!).
We SEE the Moon, but we don't SEE atoms! We FEEL the air, but I can't FEEL the Moon! Math Klub PROVES zero-d particles and superstrings, but I only HEAR a load of crap.
Shape is objective. Objects must have shape. Was Napoleon REALLY abdicated and then exiled to the Island of Elba? Are we going to get a time machine and VERFIY this in our lab?! No! Maybe it happened, maybe the whole thing's a big LIE! So we ASSUME that he MIGHT HAVE (i.e. it was possible that...) so we can explain certain events and "evidence" as part of our theory as to how/why he was poisoned/assassinated.
Or not!
braudboy 16 months ago
Your whole basis for arguement is ont the assumption that matter was already there. That is not a sound arguement. That is a kid saying that the lamp was already broken. It is not enough to say that matter is already there. How did it get there????? You have ignored the core question to our existence. You cant get away with that in the world we live in. If I say how did that car come to be, you would not accept the answer that it was always there. It is obvious that it was put together with thought and planning and with a purpose. It is the same with humans. It is a complicated, and very efficient being. Yet, you try to say that it had no design, and no purpose. It just happened by accident. It is ridiculous.