God Does NOT Exist - It is IMPOSSIBLE for a God to Exist
69
INTRODUCTION
The Religions of “theism” and “atheism” are in total agreement with each other....they assert that it is not possible to “prove” that God does or doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, these proponents don’t understand that the term “proof” resolves to none other than OPINION because it is predicated upon the limited human sensory system. But most importantly, none of these fanatics can unambiguously define the crucial term which makes or breaks their argument: the formidable term ‘exist’. No wonder these two fundamentalist camps have been arguing with each other for over 2000 years.
Note to the reader: This article is not proof/truth/fact/evidence for the impossibility of a God. Such irrational activities as determining proof/truth/fact/evidence are the hallmark of Religion. They are subjective because they necessarily invoke the opinion/bias/decree of an observer, and they have nothing to do with Science which is objective. Existence is an OBJECTIVE issue which has no provision for truth, lies, fact, proof, belief, opinion, hope, wisdom, evidence, observation or knowledge. An entity either exists or it doesn’t. An entity exists by DEFINITION only! There is no “grey” area. Objectivity is of the utmost importance when dealing with existence. This article uses critical thinking & analysis in conjunction with the Scientific Method to rationally explain WHY it is IMPOSSIBLE for a God to exist.
This article makes NO “claims”. It only provides rational explanations which show that it is impossible for God to exist. So the casual reader (i.e. theist/agnostic/atheist) had better go to school and learn the difference between a “claim” and an “explanation” before chasing strawmen in the comments section.
So.....it’s time to cut through all the BS thrown around by both theists and atheists alike. It’s time to rationally explain not only why God does not exist; but more importantly; that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a God to exist...any creator God!
WHAT IS GOD?
The proponents of God hypothesize that the term “God” resolves to The “Creator”. They claim that God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’, who can move and perform activities, like “create”. This is their CLAIM, and they ask you to take it at face value and NOT ask any further questions!
Hey! Not so faaaaasssssssssst! I hope that nobody bellyaches if we critically analyze this claim before taking it at face value.
Realistically, the term “God” (like any other term in human language) resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category. God either has ‘shape’ or He doesn’t....it’s a Yes or No issue....there is no other option! Those who claim that God is a concept like love, truth or intelligence, will summarily have excluded God from existence. These people need to learn the difference between an ‘object’ and a ‘concept’ before attempting to formulate arguments founded on ignorance.
For the rest, like the proponents of the God of the Bible (Christians, Jews, Muslims), for example, God is indeed a hypothesized entity/object who created space and matter. And “creation” is an action (verb) which necessarily invokes motion i.e. the motion of God!! Objectless motion is impossible! Nothingness cannot move! Whatever God is made from, whether He is visible or invisible, is totally irrelevant in the instant context. The point is that God absolutely does have ‘shape’ to His being,....God is obviously an OBJECT, whether He or His fanatic followers like it or not. This is an objective issue that is reasoned, and not blindly asserted. It is impossible to argue otherwise!
So…what is an object? How do we define ‘object’ and ‘exist’ unambiguously?
Object: that which has shape.
Exist: an object having location.
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects.
Theologians HYPOTHESIZE that God does indeed EXIST! That is, they HYPOTHESIZE that God is an object with shape. Furthermore, by virtue of His existence, theologians HYPOTHESIZE that there is a set of static distances between God and all other objects in the Universe.
Whether God is....
· Invisible
· Untouchable
· Unknowable
· Undetectable
· Untestable
· Hidden
· Mysterious
· Almighty
· Complex
· Not able to be scientifically analyzed and evidenced
· Etc.....
..... is completely IRRELEVANT to the theologian’s hypothesis - that God is an object with LOCATION! Since God is allegedly located somewhere “out there”, it follows that there is a static distance between God and YOUR nose.
Q: DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT GOD IS AN OBJECT?
A: OMG….YES INDEED, OF COURSE IT DOES!!!
Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”
Job 4:15-17 -- “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
See how simple that was? Just read your Bible....and not just the cherry-picked verses which your Pastor forced you to memorize by rote in Sunday school.
Even God cannot elude His objecthood and structure to His being, which gives Him shape. Those who disagree that all entities/objects have shape/form, whether invisible or not (including God Himself), have a LOT of explaining to do! God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘something’, God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being. Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!
WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST?
Because God cannot possibly be a “creator” of the Universe (space and matter).
1) Space is nothing; has no borders, boundaries or edges. Space is a concept invented by man. As such, space is impossible to create. Not even an all-powerful magical God can create space!
2) Matter has shape and is impossible to create from nothing. What sense does it make to say that “nothing”, which lacks shape, suddenly acquired shape in ZERO TIME; i.e. in one frame of the Universal Movie? Objects can only be ASSEMBLED from pre-existing matter. Matter is eternal….cannot be created or destroyed. Not even God can morph “nothing” into an object with shape.
Remember, points 1 and 2 are NOT claims….they are rational explanations which contradict the positive claim. It is the Theologian and the Big Bang Creationist who blindly asserts the positive claim that space and matter can be created. Their claim is irrational and contradictory. This is why they only “assert” it, and can never “explain” it.
Since God is a hypothesized object, space must necessarily enclose and contour God. This makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The God Hypothesis assumes God to be eternal, but space has eternally enveloped all objects and given them “separation” from each other. There is no other way about it. Space is there without God, but God can’t exist without space. Had it been possible for God to even attempt to escape this eternal prison we call space, He would have lost His most precious superpower:FORM; and be reduced to nothing.
God can be as all-powerful as He wants, but since space doesn’t have a border, even He cannot cross that which has no boundaries. It is absurd to propose that God is outside of space (transcends it), looking in at space AND matter from a bird’s-eye perspective. Therefore, God cannot do without the background of space that grants Him form & being.
CONCLUSION
If there is a God, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here with all of us, as not even He can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of and NO cracks to slip through. So He'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Formless & borderless space humbles the most arrogant of gods, even the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – it’s impossible! We have “free will” because God does not, as even ‘He’ cannot escape this prison ‘He’ is credited for building. So if God exists, He is just another insignificant being that satisfies the human involuntary compulsion to worship....He may very well be Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, or some Hollywood Celebrity. Mindless beings are obsessed with worshipping conceptually-important (authoritative, celebrity, idol) characters.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any God to exist…..sorry!
CommentsLoading...
Thanks Dudetta!
Hey, I'm not quite sure about this hub yet. On the one hand, you seemingly bring up some good points, but on the other, you make critical scientific errors which denounce the entire hub's points.
The tone of hub is also very aggressive and negative, and with my first hub (incidentally, a hub about disproving God) I made the same mistake.
For starters: "Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!" and "resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category." is very questionable. Energy. Where does it come into this? I imagine that you can conclude for yourself that you were wrong here, if not, ask.
This point throws great discredit at your conclusion wherein if God was energy, then he could produce mass. Just like the foundation of the Big Bang Theory wherein energy creates the mass for the universe. (Also as for God escaping space or needing a location to exist, most theists will tell you that he is omnipresent and exists everywhere all at once)
As a non-theist you would then ask about the origins for God's conscious effort to do such an action, by which I mean where did he acquire a personality. The answer you will be given is it was magic and just happened.
There are many ways of disproving the existence of God. This is particularly true if you mean the Abrahamic God (like previously mentioned, I wrote a hub on this) who has a personality. But this I'm afraid, is not one in itself but part of a longer explanation which I filled in above.
Follow me and I'll follow you, It was a good effort, well done :)
If you are worried about religious people and religions, then I urge you to read my hub on how and why Religion is declining and it's inevitable extinction. Not to worry FatFist,
Have a good evening,
Philanthropy.
Hi Philanthropy,
“The tone of hub is also very aggressive and negative”
I hope that one’s opinions are not used to invalidate my hub. You see, last week a cop stopped me doing 90 in a 55 zone. When he approached my car to tell me that I was waaaaaay over the limit, I felt that his tone was very aggressive and negative. Does this mean that I wasn’t speeding? Does this mean that I can now use my personal feelings (i.e. subjectivity) to complain in court about the cop and forgo the ticket and demerit points?
I hope that one’s subjective interpretations of emotion have nothing to do with what is objectively explained in this hub.
“"Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!" and "resolves to either an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other possible category." is very questionable.”
Great, I am glad you are questioning it. So please tell us what the third category is.....please give it a name, and then define it. This is how we introduce new words into human language.
All words we can conceive of resolve to either an OBJECT (we point at objects and name them)....or a CONCEPT (a relation between objects or other concepts).
Since you have a THIRD category where words can resolve to, I would be very interested if you define it, and give us some examples of it.
“Energy. Where does it come into this?”
Is the concept of “energy” your third category? But energy is a concept....not a third category. And why are you asking me how energy relates to this discussion? You are the one who brought this up, not me.
“I imagine that you can conclude yourself that you were wrong here”
Wrong? Wrong about what?
What is “wrong” to one person may be “right” to another. So how do we resolve an assertive claim of right or wrong? Do we use a crystal ball or Ouija Board? Do we ask the Oracle at Delphi? Do we take the word of a Ph.D. or a so-called “expert”? Or do we use critical thought and rational scientific analysis?
“Wrong” means that someone already made up their mind. There is no provision for “right” or “wrong” in the Scientific Method which is comprised of a Hypothesis and Theory (rational explanation). In science we define all our key terms in no ambiguous terms so the audience understands exactly what we are talking about. The criteria for science is extreme “objectivity”...which means that we critically reason our explanations so there are no contradictions. Right and wrong belong in Religion (i.e. Jesus is right....Allah is wrong) – subjective.
“if God was energy”
Whoa...Hold on there...
If God was a concept? If God was nothing? How can this make any sense?
There is NO religionist or theologian who will put his neck on the line and claim that God is a concept....especially since the Bible states in NO uncertain terms that God is an OBJECT.....God is something rather than nothing....God has shape/form.
“the foundation of the Big Bang Theory where in energy creates the mass for the universe.”
How can a concept like energy perform actions (verbs) like “create”?? Please explain in detail.
Concepts are ideas conceived of living entities. Objects precede all concepts. Concepts have no shape....they are not things! They do not exist. Only objects exist.
“As a non-theist you would then ask about the origins for God's conscious effort to do such an action, by which I mean where did he acquire a personality.”
You are going off into irrelevant tangents. This is not an issue of God’s personality....it is a much simpler issue. This is an issue of existence! Personalities, subjectivities and opinions play no role in scientific discussions.
The theist’s job is to provide a Theory (rational explanation) of how space and matter were created.
As it turns out....it is IMPOSSIBLE to create space and matter as explained in this hub and many other hubs in my profile. Ergo...it is impossible for any God (creator) to exist. Perhaps you misunderstood my hub.
“There are many ways of disproving the existence of God.”
Actually, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of any entity. “Proof” means that we already made up our minds and chose to believe some statement without understanding it. It was already proven 2000 years ago that the Earth was flat....and recently proven again by the Flat Earth Society. Hopefully nobody will come along and shake the foundations of that infallible proof.
We don’t deal with proofs in science. Science is objective. Existence is observer-independent. There is no provision for proof/truth/evidence/wisdom/knowledge/observation/belief/faith/experimentation in the definition of ‘exist’.
Exist: physical presence (object + location)
It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of the Moon. The Moon exists BY DEFINITION, only. The Moon is an object, and in addition, it has location. The Moon exists irrespective of any observer who makes an opinion of “proof” about it. Hopefully nobody will come along and disprove the Moon....I would really miss it if it disappeared.
You see, existence is always part of the Hypothesis stage of the sci method. Existence is never a Theory. As such, it is irrational to prove the existence of an entity. This is why God has been proven and disproven a million times over with no end result. Theists and atheists are still arguing over God’s existence despite of all those infallible proofs/disproofs.
This hub does not prove nor disprove. This hub uses scientific reasoning to rationally explain why God is impossible to exist.
Interesting hub. Really enjoyed it.
Okay well let me start with your speeding analogy. You seem to be under the impression that I said that an aggressive tone makes an argument less credible. That is not what I said, leave strawman out.
I was talking about my opinion of the hub.
As for your notion of objects and concepts and my argument of energy. Like I said, I assumed that you would be able to deduce for yourself where you went wrong, but alas:
ob·ject
anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
concept:
Something conceived in the mind
Since you are so very keen on definitions of words, you should realise that by their definitions, objects and concepts do not include every single thing in existence. By their definitions, oxygen is neither an object nor a concept (it is not tangible and is not conceived in the mind), yet it exists and we know it does. The same goes for smells, atoms and sound (all energy in fact).
I can see where you were trying to get at with the words "concept" and "object" but you were completely wrong in choosing those two words. "Physical matter" and "Forces" would be a closer, yet still imperfect way of trying to reach your point.
Therefore, and I do this not to mock you bust simply because you ask, other categories that exist outside of "Object" and "Concept" include "Smells" ""atoms" and "energy" as well as of course "natural laws" such as gravity, which are also by definition, said to exist.
As for your claims of "in science", I have read this hub, and your other hubs, and it is clear you are not learned in science. The definition of wrong is "not correct or true" and if you cannot prove how you are right (which you haven't) you will remain branded wrong.
The mere fact that you said energy is a concept throws great caution on everything you say, how could such a mistake even be conceived (the correct use of that word)? Energy is not conceived, it is perceived. There is a large difference good sir.
"God has shape/form" means he is not nothing?
You seem to think that only things with "Shape/Form" can exist. Please elaborate on how energy does not exist. It is not a concept, because energy is not conceived.
"Personalities, subjectivities and opinions play no role in scientific discussions." Actually if you were at all associated with the scientific community you would see that these are where most of the discussions are at. Disproving the existence of a God at this current moment has been futile. Disproving the abrahamic one hasn't.
"it is IMPOSSIBLE to create space and matter" the mere fact that it exists means that it is possible. Energy can be converted into mass. This is one of the most fundamental principles of science and from this I can tell that you know nothing of it.
“Proof” means that we already made up our minds and chose to believe some statement without understanding it.
Proof means : "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Not what you said.
"It was already proven 2000 years ago that the Earth was flat" HA! No it wasn't.
"We don’t deal with proofs in science." Yes you do.
Axioms are used as proof to form the foundation of all sciences.
"This hub uses scientific reasoning to rationally explain why God is impossible to exist." Scientific reasoning is founded on proof. The definition of proof includes "The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions". So by definition, whether you like it or not, you are attempting (unsuccessfully) to prove that God exists.
Please, find me a definition of proof that contradicts that you are attempting to prove something here.
To conclude, this Hub fails to include basic scientific principles (although claims to have some sort of pseudo authoritative stance), and is premised on incorrect definitions of the words "Object" "concept" and "proof".
In the end you have said "This hub uses scientific reasoning to rationally explain why God is impossible to exist" whilst also maintaing that your hub is not "proof" but axiomatic knowledge, where actually by definition it is in fact false-proof, and contains no axiomatic knowledge.
does not exist* maintaining*
Hi Philanthropy,
“You seem to be under the impression that I said that an aggressive tone makes an argument less credible. That is not what I said, leave strawman out.”
No strawman...just curious what your POINT was....or do you enjoy babbling about your heart-felt emotions?
“ob•ject: anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.”
The moon was not visible before observers evolved on Earth to “visualize” it. According to YOUR defn, the Moon is NOT an object! Stunning! HILARIOUS!!!!!
“concept: Something conceived in the mind
Something is a synonym for object!!!! An object IS something rather than nothing...got it? Do you have a brain....do you understand what you post?
LOL....go back to Junior Kindergarten and learn the diff between object and concept. You are chasing your tail in circles because of your ignorance!
“you should realise that by their definitions, objects and concepts do not include every single thing in existence.”
Erm....philo.....did the Wizard of Oz give you a brain yet?
Concepts do not exist, only objects do.
So please illustrate (or reference a pic online) ‘something’ that you say exists, but is NOT an object. The audience wants to see this alleged critter of yours which is not an object....but yet exists.
And while you’re at it...DEFINE the key term which makes or breaks YOUR argument: EXIST.
“By their definitions, oxygen is neither an object nor a concept”
By their definitions??? OMG....do you have a brain?
Objects are impossible to define. Only concepts can be defined. We point to objects and name them.....just like your God to Adam to do with the animals. Do you even understand the basics of human language?
You disagree? Good! Please define COCONUT. Let’s see if you can defend your religion.
Oxygen and atoms are hypothesized objects with shape. They are within the Hypothesis stage of the Sci Method.....but of course, you have no clue!
Here, educate yourself.
http://www.rkm.com.au/oxygen/oxygen-images/OXYGEN.
“The same goes for smells, ... sound (all energy in fact).”
Smell is what someone DOES....not what something IS. Smell is a VERB....not a noun. Same for sound....air moves (verb). But since you are soooooooo ignorant, we forgive you for not knowing that.
And energy is a catch-all SYNONYM in your Religion??
Too funny.....ENERGY = GOD in your argument. It can be used as a wildcard for all your arguments....LOL! You are a Religionist.
“Please elaborate on how energy does not exist. “
Energy is a concept, you numbskull.....it has the units kg x m^2/s^2. Energy is a conceived RELATION of other concepts!! Concepts don’t exist. And it is NOT a synonym for smell and sound. Energy lacks shape...is not an object.
Exist = object + location
Go back to school and learn language.....leave science for people with a brain, ok?
“Energy is not conceived, it is perceived.”
OHHHHHHH MY GOD....HA HA HA HA HA!!!! This will be good.....
Please PERCEIVE this God which you call ENERGY for our audience, and please illustrate it, or reference a pic of it online. Let’s see your perception.
This is will funny....OMG will it ever!
LOL...Do you understand the diff between perception and conception?
“There is a large difference good sir.”
Yes, the difference is SHAPE!!
“You seem to think that only things with "Shape/Form" can exist. “
You cannot illustrate something which exists, but yet does not have shape.....YOU CAN’T.....IMPOSSIBLE! You only come here to post your BELIEF, FAITH and irrational assertions.
HOMEWORK: Define ‘exist’ in NO ambiguous terms...i.e. Scientifically!
“Energy can be converted into mass.”
Energy is a concept (already explained above). Mass is also a concept (a scalar quantity). The concept of energy does not convert into the concept of mass.....except after YOU had 15 beers!!
Philo: “Proof means : Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
Proof requires an observer to use his limited sensory system to give an OPINION of what he THINKS is the case. Science is objective, not subjective like you claim.
Evidence & PROOF means YOUR opinion! Evidence is evidence to you and just an object or a theory to me. To a theist, like yourself, a flower is evidence that God exists and that creation is true. To the bee, it is just a flower, a place to get nectar.
Despite its complicated structure, Ptolemy produced a model so successful at reproducing the apparent motion of the planets that when, in the sixteenth century, Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, he could not match the accuracy of Ptolemy's Earth-centred system. Copernicus constructed a model where the Earth rotated and, together with the other planets, moved in a circular orbit about the Sun. But the observational evidence of the time supported the Ptolemaic system!
The only purpose of evidence is to persuade gullible parrots like you to believe in Christ or in Allah or in Big Bang. In Science, we only explain. In Science, we don't care what the jurors decide based on the evidence. That's extra-scientific. In Science, we just look for a rational explanation. Evidence for Theory A as opposed to Theory B is in the eye of the beholder, irrespective of whether the Theories are rational or not.
Go take an intro course in Science 101.
“Axioms are used as proof to form the foundation of all sciences.”
An axiom is a pre-DEFINED tautological RULE. Tautologies are not used in science. Science is the study of existence.....not the study of concepts! And we already established by YOUR definition that PROOF = OPINION....thanks!!
You cannot post here a single proof of anything having to do with Science. You can’t.
“Scientific reasoning is founded on proof.”
Sci reasoning is NOT founded on OPINION, like you allege. It is founded on critical thinking and rational analysis w.r.t. a Hypothesis and Theory. Learn the basics before arguing with your ignorance.
“you are attempting (unsuccessfully) to prove that God exists.”
This is your strawman. You have no other argument since your Religion is destroyed! You haven’t understood anything in here because you are Religionist.
I think from now on whenever I hear the word ENERGY I'll just replace it with MAGIC as that's basically what it's a placeholder for: magical thinking; a blank movie clip full of a person's faery wishes.
El Dude,
ENERGY is a catch-all term that is invoked only by RELIGIONISTS, much like the God term.
The fanatic proponents of such terms will use them as SYNONYMS for every single word in the dictionary...i.e energy=god=love=spirit=force=field=time=light=gravity=
magnetism=heat=ball=car=running=sock=sex=happy=
justice=dog=wave=sand=...
They are asking you swallow a WHOPPER!!
Their arguments hinge on the "HOPE" that you are uneducated, and can't think, and that you will WORSHIP the same authority as they do (God, priests, pastors, mullahs, einstein, hawking, bohr, penrose, sagan, etc.).
All they do is post bald assertions and expect you to become a BELIEVER. And if you don't, then you are a SINNER, an evil-doer without morals.
In a nutshell, that is the Religion of Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, Christianity, Islam, etc. They all operate the EXACT SAME WAY!
Not a single clown who uses the term 'energy', can ever objectively define it.
ENERGY = GOD!
"just curious what your POINT was" the point was that nobody is going to care to read your hub if you talk as aggressively as that, even if it contains good points, the tone will push people away. It was advice. Take it or leave it.
You seem to be arguing against the official definition of words now. "object" is as defined as how I quoted it from a dictionary. You are not using the correct definition of the word object in your hub. Infer what you will from the new definition.
"An object IS something rather than nothing" hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!
Find me one source of information that states that. You are just making up definitions for words! Oh my God!! Ahahahahhahaha. ahaha.Hah. ahahha. hah. wow.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/object
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object
" Let’s see if you can defend your religion" considering I've already let you know that I'm an atheist, I can only imagine that you are mentally challenged?. PAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
"Smell is a VERB....not a noun" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahaHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD. What an awful SMELL you are. PAHAHAHAH
You don't even know that there is a NOUN called SMELL?!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/smell
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/air
http://www.yourdictionary.com/smell
Proof
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
Hahahah So you got every definition of the words you used completely wrong. AND THEN don't even have the common courtesy to REALISE that I am an ATHEIST.
That is some impressive work there.
Hi Philanthropy,
“nobody is going to care to read your hub if you talk as aggressively “
What is aggressive is aggressive to YOU because it destroys YOUR Religion. All you do is bellyache in the hopes that you get sympathy from the audience so they can BELIEVE (based on sympathy) the crap that you post here. So why do you keep coming back?
“You seem to be arguing against the official definition of words now. "object" is as defined as how I quoted it from a dictionary. “
Argument from authority – fallacy!
In Science, we don't care what the source of your definitions or theories are. You could have run an experiment, observed something in nature, or had a bad dream. In Science, we look at what is before us OBJECTIVELY.
The definition of 'object' MUST be used consistently (i.e., SCIENTIFICALLY). The garbage that you have been brainwashed with cannot. So we have an OBJECTIVE criterion. Science cleans its ass with your opinions and authority and traditions.
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....like yours did!! Science doesn't care where you got the definition or who the authority is. Science merely demands that you use it consistently. Science is about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Superficial thinkers such as you gloss over the definitions and end up chasing their tails around.
Philo: “ob•ject: anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.”
It is self-refuting. The Moon is an object whether a human ape sees it and makes an opinion about it or not. Science is OBJECTIVE....all definitions must NOT invoke an observer within them. Nature does NOT depend on observers. Scientific defns are observer-independent!
“You are just making up definitions for words!”
In science we define all our terms OBJECTIVELY without contradiction, ambiguities,....and without observers!!!
Object: that which has shape. Synonym: something, thing, particle, body, being, structure, ...
Exist: object + location
The Moon exists, because in addition to being an object, it has location! Your defn contradicts itself!!
“I'm an atheist”
I'm sorry to hear that, Philo. Whew....for a moment there I thought that you were a scientist! Now we know that we are dealing with a Religionist Troll who is synonymous with the term “atheist”.
An atheist is an individual who does not believe in the existence of God. He is no different than a theist, who believes in the existence of God. In contrast, a scientist is an individual who invokes existence ONLY in a hypothesis. Never in a theory!
Both theists and atheists have it backwards! In Science, we don't prove or believe in the existence of X. In Science, we postulate the existence of X: "Let us ASSUME that X exists. With this hypothesis I will now explain..."
Atheism is UNSCIENTIFIC! People should learn the arguments against Atheism and abandon this pernicious religion! Atheists are no different than theists and agnostics. The only one that is different is the scientist.
Atheism IS a religion: the religion of Mathematics! In Science, we are not atheists! Only brain-dead clowns are theists, atheists and agnostics. Atheism goes against the grain reality. An atheist is an individual who is still stuck to the 17th C version of the Scientific Method. An atheist still does not understand what Science is about. The reason theists and atheists are still debating to this day is because atheists have not resolved their contradictions.....just like you!
“You don't even know that there is a NOUN called SMELL?”
Too funny!
Please draw an image of the noun object which your Pastor told you is called “smell”. Or just reference a pic online so the audience can see it.
Clowns like you don’t know the difference between Scientific Language and Ordinary Speech. You think that Scientific Grammar has to do with poetry and euphemisms and reifying the verb “smell” into a grammatical noun “smell” for syntactical correctness. You have NO clue you are committing the Fallacy of Reification!!!!!
“Proof”
Exactly, all you do is provide your OPINION.
PROOF = YOUR OPINION, as I explained to you before!
“REALISE that I am an ATHEIST.”
Atheism is an untenable position because it invokes the crucial terms 'belief' and/or 'knowledge'. If God actually exists out there, if there really is a Supreme Being out there, will the fact that I don't believe in 'Him' make God disappear? And conversely, if there is no such being, will the fact that I believe that there is make God appear?
Conclusion (for atheists as well as theists): there is no provision for belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom in the definition of the word 'exist'.
Theists and atheists alike have a distorted notion of the Scientific Method.
You can easily tell you are dealing with FANATICAL Religionists known as atheists & theists, when they get OFFENDED when you ask them a simple question...
Q: Is God an object or a concept?
Q: Is Energy an object or a concept?
Q: Is Time/Field/Force/Mass an object or a concept?
Q: Is Spacetime an object or a concept?
Only clueless Religionists like atheists & theists get offended and go into a trolling tirade, instead of coming here to provide their Scientific Definitions and have a rational discussion. All they do is assert IRRATIONALITY, and commit all the fallacies out there.
Philo, you are disgruntled Religionist (atheist) .....
1) You come here to bellyache because you ran out of arguments.....you have nothing scientific to offer.
2) You cannot define any word without invoking YOUR OPINION within it.
3) Your religion has been destroyed, so you come here to TROLL.
4) I have answered all your Q’s directly!
5) You have NOT answered any of my Q’s at all.
6) CONCLUSION: YOU ARE A TROLL!!!
Philo, no more trolling. Either post a scientific argument with Scientific Definitions....or get lost! We have better things to do than watch you CRY as you get slaughtered!
@Philo,
" I believe you have the wrong definition of religion too!"
Believe???
You believe???
That quite the Religion you got there!
In science we don’t “believe”. Belief is the Hallmark of Religion. In science we objectively DEFINE all our terms in the Hypothesis, and rationally explain consummated events in the Theory.
If you want to talk Science, you should first stop going to Church every Sunday (i.e. Atheist Experience), and educate yourself in the basics.
Of course ATHEISTS ARE RELIGIONISTS who have nothing to offer but BELIEF!!! Atheists are absolutely NO different than the fanatic fundamentalist Christians & Islamics who spew nonsensical contradictions with every sentence....just like you have done here.
@Philo,
“you think energy is a concept “
No, you clown! Pay attention!!!
I never said “I think”.
READ MY LIPS: Every single word in the dictionary either resolves to an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other option. If you think there is another category, please post it here, DEFINE it, and EXPLAIN it with the luxury of detail.
Object: that which has shape
Concept: a relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts
Philo.....THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING!!!
Either post another category and define it as I asked you to, AND define energy so we can understand that it is NOT a concept....OR get lost!!! We don’t need TROLLS here, ok?
This is your last chance.....DO NOT RAISE ANY FURTHER ARGUMENTS UNTIL YOU ADDRESSED THE ABOVE ISSUES.
No more dancing, no more crying like a girl who lost her panties, no more telling me what you had for lunch yesterday.....JUST DEFINE YOUR TERMS AND EXPLAIN!!
Hello Fatfist,
Just some questions for now.
"WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST?
Because God cannot possibly be a “creator” of the Universe (space and matter)."
I understand that god as defined (the creator of space and matter) is not possible (how does one create nothing?)
But you state that 'it is impossible for ANY god to exist'.
What about a god that did not create space and matter? Or is the creation of space and matter the defining quality of god in your article?
If so, then I agree. A god that created space and matter is impossible, based on the understanding that creating nothing is impossible and creating matter from nothing equally so.
But is it correct to define god as 'the creator of nothing and matter from nothing' and then assert the entity's non-existence because this creation is impossible?
What about a god that does the possible?
God does not need to have the impossible attributes that religion/philosophy assigns to it in order to exist.
Omnipotence, Omniscience, immortality, are qualities that humans have endowed the creator with in order to feel better about their futures. None of these features are necessary in order to create the universe.
I submit that what is impossible is the definition of god you are using.
I submit it is still possible that a purposed sentience is responsible for the creation of the current formation we call the universe, if not the matter itself.
Such an entity would indeed be an object. But need that object be distinct from the rest of matter? Is it not a fair hypothesis that the eternal matter is also sentient? Can we not point to observed effects (gravity, light and heat transmission in a vaacuum) to put forth the assertion that all matter is connected? (Does the e-m rope theory not do this?) Can we not then attempt to test the idea that this connection and observable effects point to intent?
I don't want to clutter the comment with an attempted explanation. I started along these lines of thought as a result of interactions with you and aka winston re: your 'first cause' hub. For now just asking the questions to get your thoughts.
Fire away! :)
I appreciate the article. Thanks for writing it
cheers
"READ MY LIPS: Every single word in the dictionary either resolves to an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other option. If you think there is another category, please post it here, DEFINE it, and EXPLAIN it with the luxury of detail."
Read mine: YOU ARE WRONG.
FORCE is another category in which none of the things are concepts nor objects
(physics) LAW is yet another category.
Proof? Here is concept:
con·cept? ?[kon-sept] Show IPA
noun
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.
ENERGY then by definition IS NOT A CONCEPT. ENERGY CAN BE TURNED INTO MASS - AN OBJECT. BUT ENERGY ITSELF HAS NO SHAPE AND IS NOT
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
NOT
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
AND NOT
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept) (- Look evidence! Now you try!
Even by your FALSE and UNBACKED definition of CONCEPT "Concept: a relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts" then ENERGY IS STILL NOT A CONCEPT as it is NOT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO OR MORE OBJECTS.
Furthermore, on top of the fact that you've given a wrong definition of concept, you've actually changed it from your Hub's one " a concept like love, truth or intelligence" what "relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts" does TRUTH have? NONE
I HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS.
NOW MOVE ON TO WHERE YOU ARE GETTING YOUR FALSE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS "OBJECT" "CONCEPT" AND "ENERGY" FROM.
Hi Anton,
“But you state that 'it is impossible for ANY god to exist'. What about a god that did not create space and matter?”
Yes, you have to take this statement in context with what the article is about. This article is about the human conception of God-The-Creator....the creator of space & matter (universe).
If God is the “hot blonde” next door whom I can’t stop thinking about....then yes, God exists!!
If God is a concept, like love, energy, intelligence, morality, free-will, all good,...etc., then of course it is impossible for such a God to exist.
The bottom line is....God must be an object with location before God can be said to exist.
1) The Hot Blonde God is an object. She has location (next door). Hence God exists!
2) The Creator God is an object. But it is impossible for Him to have location (as explained in this hub). Hence God does not exist!
3) A God who is a synonym for a concept, like ENERGY, is not an object. He has no location. Hence God does not exist!
“But is it correct to define god as 'the creator of nothing and matter from nothing' and then assert the entity's non-existence because this creation is impossible?”
This is not an issue of “correctness”. This is an issue of definition and context, only. Any creator God is impossible to exist. If one defines their own “personal” conception of God as the “hot blonde” next door.....then let them knock themselves out. What they convince themselves of does not concern reality. Nobody cares.
“I submit that what is impossible is the definition of god you are using.”
Yes indeed. Theologians who assert a CREATOR God have really cornered themselves with an irrational and impossible object. This is the context of this hub. But the sad thing is that atheists are taking their bait and feeding them more bait to support the theistic arguments. Now we have that God created space & matter in a stupid idea fundamentalist atheists call “Big Bang”. The atheist arguments are really re-affirming the theistic arguments....they are of no other value. Atheists are brain-dead apes.....they have no clue!
“I submit it is still possible that a purposed sentience is responsible for the creation of the current formation we call the universe, if not the matter itself.”
But Anton, listen to what you just said: “I agree. A god that created space and matter is impossible, based on the understanding that creating nothing is impossible and creating matter from nothing equally so.”
You are saying that creation is impossible.....but then asserting that it is possible. You are contradicting yourself. What gives?
“Such an entity would indeed be an object.”
Sure; absolutely all entities are objects. These are the NOUNS of reality (i.e. existence). All nouns of reality have shape, they are spatially separated. That is why we can call them objects. This is what Physics studies.....objects that exist. If God is an object, then OF COURSE He is the subject (noun) matter of the Scientific Method. An atheist who disagrees with this statement, really has no clue.
“Is it not a fair hypothesis that the eternal matter is also sentient?”
Atoms themselves are not sentient. An atom is a hypothesis. We hypothesize that matter is made up from building blocks we call atoms. A collection of atoms can form into a being with the ability to be sentient, and think, etc. But since sentient beings are ASSEMBLED from atoms, and these atoms break their connections after death and go back to the eternal pool of atoms.....it cannot be reasoned that sentience is an eternal quality of matter.
“Can we not point to observed effects (gravity, light and heat transmission in a vaacuum) to put forth the assertion that all matter is connected?”
We invoke a rational argument to critically reason this.....like so:
Q: How do we explain attraction? How do we explain 2 discrete atoms 5000 Quadrillion light years away attracting each other?
A: It is impossible for discrete entities to attract each other. There is NO physical mechanism that can accomplish this. All atoms are necessarily physically connected with each other, whether a human ape likes it or not. What is this medium that connects all atoms? We form a Scientific Hypothesis to reason it. Then our Theory should explain without contradiction all the natural phenomena: light, magnetism, gravity, etc. Yes, the em-rope does explain all phenomena.
“Can we not then attempt to test the idea that this connection and observable effects point to intent?”
No you can’t. EM ropes connect every single atom to all others. They go right through all objects. This is why gravity CANNOT be blocked. It is impossible to invent an anti-gravity machine. The EM ropes cannot be seen or tested “directly”. Any test you attempt to do you will always end up INFERRING (extrapolating) a conclusion i.e. giving an opinion about it.
Fatfist? Just to be clear, are you saying that CONCEPTS CANNOT CREATE MATTER? only an OBJECT can?
Hey, nice Hub. I didn't read all the comments so I'm sorry if this was said before, but many religions are based on the notion that a "creator" exists that transcends space and time and other universal boundaries. Claims that are both out of the realms of what is provable and dis-provable. Seeing as how we don't understand the universe nor many of the things within it, it seems rather arrogant to claim that we know what created it, or how it came to be. I'm also curious to know the third thing, if it exists, after concepts and objects. Interesting Hub =)
@ Fatfist
"You are saying that creation is impossible.....but then asserting that it is possible. You are contradicting yourself. What gives?"
I'm not being clear on 'create'.
Something from nothing is impossible. However, I don't think creating something new from something existing is impossible. While I am willing to accept that matter has always existed, I am also willing to accept that this same existing matter can be manipulated, altered, changed by sentient intent. I do not mean creation out of nothing.
Put differently, the matter in the universe may be eternal. The arrangement of said matter is maleable, certainly by apparently non-sentient processes which we can observe. So if I'm an entity with enough knowledge and power to alter that arrangement of matter, I can be said to have 'created' the universe, or at least it's current configuration, the same as an artist can 'create' a painting with existing pigment, brushes and canvas. Though of course, I'm willing to accept an alternative to the word 'create'.
"But since sentient beings are ASSEMBLED from atoms, and these atoms break their connections after death and go back to the eternal pool of atoms...."
But isn't the 'e-m rope' theory (or equivalent concept) that all atoms are always connected? (If I have this wrong, apologies). When the brain dies, the atoms are still connected, yes? Still part of the 'eternal pool of atoms connected by e-m rope or equivalent. Is it unreasonable that sentience could develop in this condition? (of course, no way to actually test. What would we look for?)
cheers
Natural systems create new matter all the time virtually out of nothing - in reality it's all part of the one fundamental process called CHANGE through constant reproduction, evolution, growth, decay, death, etc.
Biomass exists and is a lot more than just a physical object, it's a lot more than that.
Objective reality exists also and no scientist will ever know if nature is a part of it or the other way around!
Hi Anton,
“While I am willing to accept that matter has always existed, I am also willing to accept that this same existing matter can be manipulated, altered, changed by sentient intent.”
I already addressed a similar scenario in my hub: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-IS-IMPOSS
There are 2 issues which I analyzed in that hub:
1) Causality on Something (Creatio ex Materia)
2) Self-Causality (Creatio ex Deo)
“Put differently, the matter in the universe may be eternal.”
It’s not that it *may* be eternal....matter is already there. As such, the proponent of creation is asking the audience to swallow a whopper of an assertion: “that matter and space can be created from nothing”. They are saying that space, which has no shape, will surreptitiously acquire L, W and H and magically morph into an object (atom) out of nothingness. This is clearly impossible as it is contradictory at all levels.
That matter is eternal is NOT a claim. A claim is a positive assertion, and is in the context of a Theory....i.e. theory of creation. Creation is a claim. As such, it necessarily needs a rational explanation (i.e. Theory) explaining in detail how nothing converted to something. Neither Theology nor Big Bang have any such Scientific Theory. And BB is actually a Religious claim asserted by the Vatican with Priest LeMaintre. This is how they proved God exists.
“Though of course, I'm willing to accept an alternative to the word 'create'.”
The word is ASSEMBLE...not create in this context. And this brings up the 3 rd issue, having to do with space and matter and God already there to begin with.
And my question is: So what? What are you trying to explain within this limited context?
Will you explain the conception of a baby as: God assembles all the food atoms in the mother’s tummy and uses them to build the baby inside her? Is this what God does for all creatures? At the end of our lives, does God disassemble the atoms from our body?
Does God do the same to assemble planets, stars, etc?
I mean, this type of argument has been pushed around for centuries because nobody can explain how 2 “allegedly discrete” atoms can attract each other. And nobody could explain because the clowns of the mathematical establishment were NOT following the Scientific Method. They formed no hypothesis. They had no actors (i.e. objects) which could be used to explain natural phenomena, like attraction (gravity).
Even the brilliant mathematician Newton is guilty of this (“hypothesis non fingo” – Newton). Newton believed that God made gravity happen. Newton could not even define motion or time....yet it’s quite amusing how idiots worship him today and his alleged Laws of Motion. I mean, is this what science is about? Not defining any critical scientific terms, not explaining any phenomena, ...and being regard as a genius? This is what they do in Religion.
Thread Theory uses the EM Rope to scientifically explain how 2 atoms attract each other. And if atoms can attract each other....then we don’t need God to assemble objects from atoms.
“But isn't the 'e-m rope' theory (or equivalent concept) that all atoms are always connected?”
Yes, sorry! Wrong choice of words. When I say atoms disconnect from objects, I mean that atoms break their atomic bonds and go back into the pool where they are reused to assemble other objects. The EM rope cannot be broken and the atoms are still connected with each other. All the atoms are eternally interconnected to each other. There is no other possible explanation for gravity (attraction).
“When the brain dies, the atoms are still connected, yes? Still part of the 'eternal pool of atoms connected by e-m rope or equivalent. Is it unreasonable that sentience could develop in this condition?”
Yes they are connected until the brain tissue rots and atoms are dispersed elsewhere, or the brain is eaten by insects/animals. And again, these atoms are eternally recycled into other objects, beings, planets, stars, comets, etc. The food that you eat is likely composed of atoms which once made up dinosaurs or other people.....and even some alien beings in another galaxy 8000 quadrillion years ago.
Sentience is the concept of a specific arrangement of atoms which fire signals to each other via the EM ropes. This causes the atoms to undergo quantum jumps and other motion. When there is a network of these atoms firing systematically in a brain, we call this concept “sentience”. Sentience is a verb, an action – the motion of atoms. It is the collection of atoms in the brain which mediate this action we call sentience.
Hi f_hruz,
“Natural systems create new matter all the time virtually out of nothing “
What do you mean by “virtually”? Do you mean maybe?
Either matter can be created from nothing, or it can’t... it is a YES or NO issue....there is no virtually.
As it turns out....nothing has no shape, no border, no boundary, no edges to rub against itself and give “birth” to matter. Creation from nothing is not only IMPOSSIBLE.....it is a vile fanatical religious assertion!
Those who CLAIM creation, need to rationally explain to the audience how nothing can surreptitiously acquire L, W and H in ZERO TIME (i.e. one frame in the Universal Movie), and magically morph into an object. If they can’t do that.....then they are fanatical zealots who base reality on contradictions, belief, and the worship of authority...that is, they are RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS! Such clowns have no business attacking theists.
“in reality it's all part of the one fundamental process called CHANGE through constant reproduction, evolution, growth, decay, death, etc.”
Yes, of course, ....and this is due to the fact that matter is eternal in existence and in motion. Motion cannot be started....just like matter cannot be created. There is no other option. And those who say otherwise, had better explain with the luxury of detail, or get a divorce from their pernicious Religious ideology.
“Biomass exists and is a lot more than just a physical object, it's a lot more than that.”
So biomass is an object....this is what you said! This is all we need to know, that the actor of your hypothesis is an object....it has shape.
If biomass means MORE to you, just like God means more to a Religionist, then this is of no concern to science.
“Objective reality exists”
Yes, objective...i.e. OBJECT!!!
Only objects exist.....nothing else!
Exist: physical presence (object + location). Synonym: real
“and no scientist will ever know if nature is a part of it or the other way around!”
It's traditional religions and relativistic mathematicians who have spread the nonsense that there is 'something' humans can't understand. Bring the smartest ETs in the Universe or God Almighty Himself. Whatever either explains to us, we WILL understand! Humans have the highest level of intelligence available in the Universe. Mother Nature has run out of wishes to concede. We can understand ANYTHING that is explained to us in a rational manner. It is idiocy, irrational stuff what we can't understand. Fortunately, Mother Nature's Universe functions rationally. It is the great majority of humans who are irrational.
My dear f_hruz......
This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a long time. St. Augustine was famous for using such tactics to win his religious arguments and prove that his God exists. The mathematicians have brainwashed everyone to repeat this SAME argument because these clowns have NO explanation for ANY natural phenomena. They are Religionists in disguise!!
St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we cannot ever hope to 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)
St. Augustine was honest and confessed his ignorance:
“Alas for me, that I do not at least know the extent of my own ignorance! Behold, O my God, before Thee I lie not.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 25)
Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can win BOTH sides of the argument. He claimed that if you don’t KNOW God by now, then you are an idiot, of course:
“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 world; even though it was to Augustine’s detriment. 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)
Of course St. Augustine KNEW that God Created the Universe by speaking it into existence, rather than using any sort of materials:
“...nor didst Thou hold anything in Thy hand wherewith to make heaven and earth. For whence couldest Thou have what Thou hadst not made, whereof to make anything? For what is, save because Thou art? Therefore Thou didst speak and they were made, and in Thy Word Thou madest these things.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 5)
People can make up all the excuses they want in order to protect their ignorance or their emotional position on such matters. But one thing is a definite 100% certainty: All excuses have inherent contradictions which are easily unravelled, .....not by observation or evidence, .....but by simple analysis. Intellectual dishonesty never prevails.
In contemporary times, relativists and Big Bang Creationists have reinvented Augustine. They fall back on similar circular Augustinian arguments to make their cases.
So again, isn’t it fishy that, on the one hand, relativists claim that space-time cannot be imagined and can only be approached only through Mathematics and, on the other, they perennially insist on illustrating space-time with the bowling ball on a hammock analogy?
Hi Fatfist,
"What are you trying to explain within this limited context?"
I agree I'm pushing out of context here, since we have already established that the god that is impossible is defined in your article. This in response to the 'any god' statement.
I found the exchange useful. Thanks.
cheers
Hi Steve,
“many religions are based on the notion that a "creator" exists that transcends space and time and other universal boundaries.”
Yes, I already addressed this issue in my other hubs that begin with “Creation is impossible....”
In summary, only objects can be transcended. Your house is an object....so God can transcend your house, just like you do. Nothing miraculous about that!
Space is not an object. Space is a synonym for nothing, it lacks shape. It is impossible to transcend “nothing”, as it has no borders or boundaries to cross. Similarly with time. So as you can see, the universe has NO boundaries, except those offered by objects and objects alone!
And this is where atheism fails.
In a nutshell, atheism is no different than theism....they just believe in different Gods. Theists believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, ......while atheists believe in Energy, Force, Field, Time, Mass ....same God, different name. This is why they use the name of their God as a SYNONYM for every word in the dictionary.
“Claims that are both out of the realms of what is provable and dis-provable.”
Actually, proof/disproof are not part of the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory). What is proof to you....is a lie to your neighbor. Proof means that someone has BELIEVED an assertion.....that they have swallowed a whopper without understanding anything. PROOF = OPINION because proof depends on human observation using the very limited human sensory system to subjectively resolve a claim. This is inherently biased and fails.
Science is strictly OBJECTIVE...there is NO grey area....ever. We rationally define and scrutinize all definitions until we can find no holes, ambiguities or contradictions. This is what science is all about.
“Seeing as how we don't understand the universe nor many of the things within it...”
The universe is composed of matter and space. What else is there to understand? There’s no spirits, souls, ghosts, gods, energy, time, fields, forces, mass, etc....as these ideas are just concepts which we have invented to describe objects. Concepts don’t hit you over the head....objects do. Ergo, concepts do NOT perform actions!
“I'm also curious to know the third thing, if it exists, after concepts and objects.”
Stay tuned, hopefully Philo will have a rational discussion here and provide Scientific definitions for all the key terms of his claims. I will not put up with contradictions, irrationality and trolling.
Hi Philanthropy,
“are you saying that CONCEPTS CANNOT CREATE MATTER? only an OBJECT can?”
No. Creation is impossible. “Nothing” cannot acquire L, W and H in one frame of the Universal Movie and magically morph into an object. This only happens in Religion and in Star Trek.
Objects affect other objects via surface-to-surface contact. Concepts are ideas in a being’s brain....they ultimately resolve to some systematic MOTION of atoms in the brain (ie. brain activity). Concepts do NOT perform actions or affect objects.
“FORCE is another category in which none of the things are concepts nor objects”
Really? Let’s see if you know what you are talking about. Please DEFINE ‘force’ for the audience. Then everyone will understand whether it’s an object, concept, or a new third category! Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!
“(physics) LAW is yet another category.”
Please DEFINE ‘LAW’ for the audience. Then everyone will understand whether it’s an object, concept, or a new fourth category! Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!
“con•cept? ?[kon-sept] Show IPA....noun”
Please illustrate for the audience this noun THING you call ‘concept’, or just reference a pic online. Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!
“concept - a general notion or idea; conception.”
A synonym is circular. Not a definition!!!
WARNING: IF YOU POST ANY MORE SYNONYMS FOR DEFINITIONS HERE, YOU WILL BE KICKED!
“concept - an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct...... a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.”
“something” is a synonym for object.
Indeed, exactly what I said: “A relation between 2 or more objects or concepts”
So quit your bellyaching about the word ‘concept’ or you will be kicked!
Philo.....enough of your childish antics, ok? You acting just like HP user ‘emrldphx’!!
“ENERGY then by definition IS NOT A CONCEPT. “
Whoa! Hold on there! How did you conclude that? Where is your definition of ENERGY???
You need to DEFINE energy before we can decide whether it is an object, concept, or a fifth category. Please do NOT evade this issue otherwise you will be kicked!
“MASS - AN OBJECT.”
Mass is NOT an object! You cannot point to ‘mass’. Just what the heck will you point at and name ‘mass’? Can you even draw a picture of mass?
I can draw a picture of God, who is an object....here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b_i63mV_2Eg/TfvWrqewC5I/
What are you going to draw for me?
Mass is a concept, only! It is a scalar quantity...a number line expressed in ‘kg’. Definitely a concept!
Whenever a mathematician uses the irrational word mass, the sane person supposes that he is referring to a physical body. The juror imagines an object, something that has shape. I clarify this because it is not necessarily true in the religion of Mathematical Physics. For example, a photon has a body, yet no mass, and a black hole singularity has mass, but no body. The idiots further hypothesize that there are particles of mass called Higgs Bosons. The Higgs is a particle of a concept, something like a particle of love. That's how irrational the stupid idiots of Mathematics are. Then, they tell you that their theories have been confirmed by experiment and that all celebrities of Mathematical Physics believe in them. You reach your own conclusions!
The definition of mass is resistance to motion. An object with mass resists motion. An object without mass does not resist motion. Mass is not an object i.e. does not have physical presence. You cannot draw mass and point to it. Mass is inherently conceptual because it requires two or more objects. We cannot conceive of mass in a universe with a single atom. Again, a concept is a relationship between two or more objects. A concept can only be described. I cannot point to love or justice. I can show you a movie of two people having sex or a judge in a courtroom. These are descriptions of love and justice. As long as my concept involves only concrete objects then it has a bearing on physics. Mass, energy, and time are all concepts. They are illustrated by description in terms of concrete objects, which are in turn defined as "that which has shape and location".
In Math it is not the elephant that moves. The idiot of Math converts the entire elephant into 'the center of mass', forgets about the object elephant for the rest of the presentation, and now MOVES THE CENTER OF MASS...a concept!!! He defines energy as 'the capacity..." and then purports to 'transfer energy'. ....a concept!! He tells you that a black hole is comprised of two abstract concepts -- a mathematical singularity and an even horizon -- and then tells you that these two concepts -- love and justice -- swallow an astronaut (object). This is the Hallmark of Religion. People who reify concepts into alleged objects are committing the Fallacy of Reification....and they need to be institutionalized!
“Look evidence!”
The only reason someone invokes buzz words such as evidence, proof, and truth is to bring authority to bear on the discussion.
The word 'evidence' already carries subjective connotations.
In Science, we don't prove or attempt to convince the jury (although it is natural for humans to do so). Therefore, a scientist has no use for evidence. It is the proselytizer, the door-to-door Bible seller who attempts to persuade (subjective). Science stops at explanation (objective).
In Science, we have no use for evidence. Philo confuses 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.
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.
Evidence demands that what is truth today is demolished tomorrow, meaning that it was not TRUTH but just an 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? Of course, you would expect the religion of Mathematics to oppose such heresy as questioning the ‘evidence’ in order to preserve the privileges of its members.
The best you can do is PERSUADE the jurors with evidence. What is EVIDENT to you.....is a LIE to your neighbor. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE and has nothing to do with the Scientific Method, which is OBJECTIVE!
“what "relationship between 2 or more objects or concepts" does TRUTH have”
Truth requires an OBSERVER (1 st object) to use his limited sensory system to subjectively validate and decide that a proposition about an object(s) (2 nd, 3 rd, ...N th object), resolves as ‘true’.
Grow up, no more strawman arguments, ok?
“I HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS”
No you have not. Please answer each and every single Q I asked you above, and don’t bring up any new arguments until we resolved these pending issues.....or you will be kicked!
@Philo.....you were warned. Collect your thoughts very carefully and answer the Q's I asked you. The audience who reads this hub wants to see a rational discussion with all your KEY terms defined, as I asked.
NOTE: Only give a SINGLE and final definition for each term. Multiple definitions are ambiguous and will be deleted promptly!!
No, those are by the links I have already sent you, all within the definition of the words. People will click on those links and see that what I have posted is the definition for the words, they'll see you're wrong, and they'll then laugh heartily.
"“Nothing” cannot acquire." So are you saying that "concepts" are nothing? Ooh the world isn't going to like that fatfist.
Hi Philanthropy,
“those are by the links I have already sent you, “
Do not send me links....I don’t care for links. You can filter thru all that stuff and form a coherent definition for your terms.
“People will click on those links and see that what I have posted is the definition for the words, they'll see you're wrong, and they'll then laugh heartily.”
Of course people will laugh when they see a million definitions for one term. You are too stupid to realize that those are not definitions. For the purposes of Science, each term only has ONE definition which allows the term to be used CONSISTENTLY. What you have provided is AMBIGUOUS at best!! Your nonsense does NOT concern science. Have you read anything I posted to you thus far? I already addressed this issue.
So....next time post only ONE definition.....THE definition!
“So are you saying that "concepts" are nothing?”
Yes, idiot!! A concept is NOTHING....it has no shape/form....no L, W and H....no border, no boundary, no edge. What did your Priest whisper in your ear while he was doing you in the confession box? That a concept is a THING?? Sheeesh!
@ fatfist. Arrogant fuck aren't you? You make me want to believe in a god just so I could argue with you.
Fatfist,
I don't understand (unless simply to troll) why someone would believe that we are obligated to dictionary definitons.
Everyone knows what the word "pie" means. My pastor talked just the other day about the Great Pie waiting for us after death. This pissed off the diabetics who immediately became atheists.
If only the pastor had been precise. He told me later he specifically meant thin crust pepperoni pizza pie.
Hey Justme13!
“You make me want to believe in a god just so I could argue with you.”
Naaaaw, Justme13, it’s the other way around......the reason why you would like to argue with me, but can’t, is because you are a fanatical Religionist who ALREADY believes in God.
But your God has another name, ....yep, a CATCH-ALL name with a million SYNONYMS attached to it.....a tell-tale sign of the fundamentalist Religion known as ATHEISM!
Q: What is your God’s name??
A: ENERGY!!
And we all know that every single word in the dictionary is a SYNONYM for your God’s first name. I mean, you consider these synonyms to be the given middle-names of your ENERGY God, right?
You’re a Religionist who is no different than a Born-Again Christian, Justme13......that’s why you are soooooo predictable and have absolutely NO rational argument to support any of your made-up imaginary characters in your Religion of Atheism:
- God (Energy)
- demi-gods (0D particles, 1D strings, singularities, photons, gravitons, Higgs, neutrinos, chronons, phonons, solitons, tachyons, muons, pions, dark matter, dark energy)
- ghosts (waves, forces, time, wavicle)
- spirits (fields, mass, charge, spacetime, radiation, warped space, quantum fluctuations)
- souls (dimensions)
- Virgin Birth (primeval atom)
- Genesis (Big Bang)
- Revelations (Big Crunch, oscillating universe)
- Purgatory (flatland)
- Heaven (white hole, multiverse)
- Hell (black hole)
- Acts of the Apostles (Einstein, Hawking, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Penrose, Feynman)
That’s some RELIGION you got there, Justme13. I can see your Pastor has done quite a number on you!
Winston,
“I don't understand (unless simply to troll) why someone would believe that we are obligated to dictionary definitons.”
Our dear friend Philo has been brainwashed by his Pastor to believe that the dictionary, which was written by English Literature students, contains SCIENTIFIC DEFINITIONS. I mean, Science is just all poetry, metaphors, synonyms, hyperboles, euphemisms, slangs and figures of speech to a Philanthropist like Philo.
And this fits in well with his Philanthropy Religion, to warm up his soul, lift his spirits, and hopefully go to Heaven one day by making sure that the English Literature students didn’t write the dictionary in vain.
A definition is always objective. In Science, observers and their opinions cannot be embodied in a definition. A definition is OBJECTIVELY scientific if it can be used consistently. Not one definition of Math can be used consistently. Try the word 'point' for instance! The mathematicians freely admit that the word point is undefined and should remain that way! The funny part is that all of GR is founded and contingent upon this undefined hypothesis!
Dictionaries list definitions as per POPULAR use (i.e., ordinary speech)....not Scientific use. Dictionaries do NOT unambiguously define words. Definitions are entered in dictionaries without consideration of their SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY, just that they are popularly used that way. That makes any dictionary written subject to the fallacies of "ARGUMENT BY POPULISM & AUTHORITY ", and those who refer to a dictionary to make an argument are committing these fallacies as well.
Why not look up a word like TRUTH in the dictionary and settle a 3000 year long standing debate in philosophy? What happens when you open a new dictionary that uses a different definition? That isn't thinking, that is doing exactly what theists do in blindly submitting to what the bible says. I can't reach someone who is that lost. There is no point in talking to those who can't hear or think.
The philosopher, mathematician, and theologian do not spend their valuable time defining petty words such as object and existence. That is either below their dignity or it would destroy all their arguments. What they do is move on to the theory stage and use these words without having any idea of what they are talking about.
Mathematicians erroneously believe that they have communicated their ideas effectively when in fact nothing of the sort has occurred. The mathematician cannot have any idea what he is talking about because he takes these words for granted. He extrapolates the definitions of ordinary speech into a scientific context without realizing that a rigorous definition of the same words destroys his entire argument. I promise to harp on such vital words as object, exist, and concept until it hurts. I will insist until you hate me. The mathematicians have no idea what these words mean or how important they are to scientific communication.
This is where the battle will begin. This is where the battle will end: Scientific Language!
If a clown who posts here cannot define his terms for the audience, then he obviously has NO CLUE of what he is talking about.
def·i·ni·tion/?def??niSH?n/
Noun:
A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary
In order for you to come up with a correct definition of a word, you need an authoritative stance.
You are wrong. If you cannot provide any evidence for the reliability of your false definitions, you will remain so.
No one cares about what some Psycho ranting on about false definitions thinks.
@Philo,
“DEFINITION...A statement of the exact meaning of a word”
Exactly! Post the exact scientific meanings of the words FORCE, ENERGY, MASS, LAW.....then we will see if YOUR CLAIM that they are not concepts has any merit.
“In order for you to come up with a correct definition of a word, you need an authoritative stance.”
FALLACY: Argument from Authority
There is NO correct or incorrect....these are subjective. What is correct to you.....is INCORRECT to your neighbor!! How do we decide who to believe? Do we look inside YOUR crystal ball?
Nonsense!
Science is OBJECTIVE. All definitions are critically scrutinized and reasoned to be unambiguous, rational, consistent, observer-independent and non-contradictory....just like ALL my definitions are!
“If you cannot provide any evidence for the reliability of your false definitions”
Evidence is subjective! What is evidence to you....is a LIE to your neighbor. How do we decide who to believe? Do we look inside YOUR crystal ball?
Nonsense!
Science is OBJECTIVE. If a definition is ambiguous, irrational, inconsistent, observer-dependent and contradictory, then it gets thrown in the TRASH. This is the objective criterion which we follow in Science.....not your subjective stance on LOOSE and AMBIGUOUS God-like synonyms which suit YOUR AGENDA to cover all your bases and unethically win every argument by deception. You can’t even understand your own terms you post here....too funny..LOL!!
Philo.....if you can find a SINGLE problem with any of MY Scientific Definitions.....I will PayPal you $5000 USD to the account of your choice.....I am on the RECORD. And this is how you will shut your mouth forever because you can’t. Any fool would accept this challenge, but you won’t!
“No one cares about what some Psycho ranting on about false definitions thinks.”
Exactly! So why are you still ranting, bellyaching and crying like a Psycho that I DESTROYED your Religion when you can’t even define anything?
@ Philo,
Looks like you are just another disgruntled troll after all. You are the atheistic equivalent of HP user ‘emrldphx’. I told you there is NO difference between atheists and theists.
In order to protect YOUR Religion, you do exactly what a theist does....you refuse to post definitions of your KEY terms which make or break your argument. You cannot define ENERGY, FORCE, MASS, LAW.....even though you blatantly lie by claiming that these words are not concepts, but NEW categories.
Let’s see what the English Literature students wrote in Philo’s ever-loving dictionary on google......
ENERGY – “In physics, energy (from the Greek energeia, "activity, operation", from energos, "active, working" ) is a quantity that is often understood as the ability to perform work”
An activity is an action, a verb; it is what an object does. Matterless motion is impossible. Activity is a concept. ENERGY is a concept...NOT a third category. Activities (verbs) do not move. Only objects move!
A quantity (ergs, Joules, kg x m^2/s^2) is a concept.... NOT a third category. It is a set of measurements we take from an object. Quantities do not move, only objects do. Hence quantities cannot convert (motion) into mass (another concept).
FORCE – “In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo an acceleration.”
Again, an influence is an action, a verb; it is what an object does to another object. Influence is a concept. Force has the units of ‘N’. It represents a scalar quantity...a concept! A FORCE is a concept...NOT a third category.
MASS – “the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field”
Properties of objects are concepts. They describe the object. Mass has the units of ‘kg’. It represents a scalar quantity...a concept! MASS is a concept...NOT a third category.
LAW – “A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.”
Again, laws are concepts which we humans conceive, deduce and document. These ideas represent the results of repeated experiments. LAW is a concept...NOT a third category.
AND HERE IS THE KICKER WHICH KILLS PHILO’S ARGUMENT.......
If the universe was composed of a SINGLE LONE object, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to conceive of the words ENERGY, FORCE, MASS or LAW to describe this object in any way, shape or form.
Don’t think so? LOL....then please explain to the audience what RELATIONS you are going to establish with a lone object to conceive of ENERGY, FORCE, MASS or LAW?
Every single word in human language either resolves to an OBJECT (point to and name) or a CONCEPT (a relation)....there is NO other option....ever!
LOL...Your argument is DEAD!!!!
You have been trolling all along.
"Space is not an object. Space is a synonym for nothing, it lacks shape. It is impossible to transcend “nothing”, as it has no borders or boundaries to cross. Similarly with time."
No, space is not nothing,it is in existence. It has no form because it is needed for forms of anything to take place. So, in a sense, isn't its form endless? Also, for all we know there are unknown dimensions as well. Additionally, there is something called spacetime that not only shows the existence of space and time (how can you questions that to begin?) but it show that they are the same thing.
Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims? Do you have some sort of experience or degree in anything that enables you to state those things? I mean no disrespect, I'm just a student who's curious about the whole matter. (no pun intended)
"Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims?"
----
By applying reason!
----
"No, space is not nothing,it is in existence."
----
This is a contradiction. It all follows from one's definitions. FF's definitions are not contradictory. Space = no thing. Space has no shape/form. Only objects have shape.
----
"Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims? Do you have some sort of experience or degree in anything that enables you to state those things?"
----
Irrelevant! Let's say FF did have some; would he suddenly become right?! What if he then lost his degree down the toilet one day or had his Master's Degree revoked for smoking pot, would his argument be less valid?!
No! Authorities and consensus have no place in science and reason.
----
"I mean no disrespect, I'm just a student who's curious about the whole matter."
----
We all are, my friend!
Fatfist,
I am using a quote here as example only.
(No, space is not nothing,it is in existence)
I tend to think of this oft-repeated claim as Existence Shock, much like the book Future Shock, as it appears to be like someone shaking his head and saying, Hey, wait a minute, space has to exist because that is what I was taught.
@ Steve
“Before I continue, may I how you're so able to make such claims?”
What claim? I have never made a single claim in this article. Can you please cut and paste one claim? Perhaps I am mistaken, but please show me anyway so I can correct it.
The problem is, that many don’t understand what a CLAIM is. A claim is a positive assertion about a consummated event i.e. creation of space and matter. A “claim” MUST always be followed by a Theory which rationally explains the “claimed” consummated event, otherwise it remains an irrational claim.
1) That creation is “impossible” is NOT a claim! It’s the negation of the positive Creation claim. There is only one way to show what is impossible, and that is via an ontological contradiction. A ball cannot be on the floor and on the table at the same time....that is impossible.
2) That space is NOTHING, is NOT a claim. That space is SOMETHING is NOT a claim. That space is something is a HYPOTHESIS. Do you understand the difference between a Hypothesis and Claim? That space is nothing is a negation of the positive Hypothesis which is followed by an explanation showing the positive hypothesis to be contradictory i.e. IMPOSSIBLE.
3) That “God does not exist, or is impossible to exist”....is NOT a claim. Again, this is similar to #2.
People need to understand the Scientific Method before posting irrational assertions. Sorry, I am not putting you on the spot, Steve...I am talking about my friend Philo!
“No, space is not nothing,it is in existence.”
Space exists? How so? Please show me a picture of space. Can you please bring a chunk of space to the Physics Conference for show & tell? What are you proposing to show the audience, nothing?
You hypothesize that space is ‘something’ (i.e. object) which exists. Let’s critically analyze your proposal....
Exist = object + location
Is space an object? Does space have shape, a border, a boundary, an edge? If so, what is OUTSIDE that edge....more space? Do you see the contradiction now?
Space doesn’t even pass the ‘object’ phase of existence, much less the ‘location’ phase.
If space was indeed ‘something’, as you propose, then ....
1) The whole universe would be one solid infinite block of matter!
2) There would be no objects, because there would be no spatial separation.
3) Motion would be impossible because there would be no void (nothingness) to facilitate objects to exist and have shape/form, and to move around from one ‘location’ to another.
Just think about that for a sec ..... If space was ‘something’ then you would NOT be able to move your arm. How do you propose that ‘something’ you call space will be DISPLACED in order facilitate motion? How do you displace ‘something’ when there is no void, when there are NO components in that ‘something’ wrapped by a void so they can be displaced? A fish in the ocean can displace water molecules because there is emptiness/void/nothing between the molecules which facilitates their displacement....i.e. facilitates their change of ‘location’.
Motion necessarily requires a void (nothingness) to facilitate objects to change location.
“space....It has no form because it is needed for forms of anything to take place.”
Exactly! Space lacks shape/form. It is impossible for space to have a boundary. Hence space is NOT a ‘thing’.....space is NO-THING!
Space is a concept. Space does not exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE for space to be anything other than a void/nothingness.
That space is NOTHING is NOT a “claim”, as you assert. That space is NOTHING is not an issue we resolve via belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, opinions or proof, testimony or evidence, democracy or authority.....these are all subjective. It is strictly an issue of utmost OBJECTIVITY....i.e. Scientific Method. It falls squarely on critical reasoning and rational explanation without contradictions....whether we like it or not! That’s what Science is about.
“So, in a sense, isn't its [space] form endless? “
Steve, but earlier you said: ““space....It has no form”. You contradict yourself.
What you mean to say, is that space (nothingness) is “everywhere”. Not everywhere like in the sense of an object’s location....but it has no limits or boundaries. If you were an eternal God who travelled from the Earth in a journey into the nothingness of space, you would eternally increase your distance between yourself and the Earth, but you would NEVER reach an alleged “end” of space. There is no wall to hit. You would continue to travel away from the Earth forever and ever amen!
@ Steve & Dude
"I mean no disrespect, I'm just a student who's curious about the whole matter."
There is no such thing as disrespect in Science. There are NO authorities to worship. There is no status-quo or democracy which OUTVOTES us. Science is predicated on OBJECTIVITY only and is free from BIASES, DISCRIMINATION and POLITICAL AGENDAS. The sole purpose of science is to rationally explain natural phenomena. The key here being “rationality”....not DICTATORSHIP & RELIGION, as our buddy Philo would have you “believe”.
You should question everyone and hold them accountable to rationally explain whatever they present. Belief & authority is anti-science!
@Winston,
“Hey, wait a minute, space has to exist because that is what I was taught.”
Of course, because the priests who taught this nonsense did not understand the difference between an OBJECT and a CONCEPT. These priests...err, I mean, teachers, think that “running” is an object which could “catch up” to us if we run too slow! This is why these clowns we call Einstein & Hawking chase ghosts like: spacetime, warped space, stretched time, black holes, white holes, dark matter, dark energy, waves......which is all crap they invented to plug all the contradictions in their assertions. These clowns have not developed a single Scientific Theory.
"There is no such thing as disrespect in Science. There are NO authorities to worship. There is no status-quo or democracy which OUTVOTES us. Science is predicated on OBJECTIVITY only and is free from BIASES, DISCRIMINATION and POLITICAL AGENDAS. The sole purpose of science is to rationally explain natural phenomena. The key here being “rationality”....not DICTATORSHIP & RELIGION, as our buddy Philo would have you “believe”."
Ok... just asking if you had any credentials and if so what? Nevermind, then. Just wanted some background on why you say what you say, I guess I was wrong to call those "claims."
Now, as for the space argument; I didn't mean any contradiction when I said that space could have endless form. I meant, if matter took on some form, wouldn't there be space to accompany that form? Also, isn't the word "nothing" accurate to describe a lack of space and matter? If not, what word would be fitting?
The atheist and theist are in full attack mode I love it.
God is one.
Chaco Culture understood that god was one, then came the stupid Egyptians and messed things up, and then Moses show up and really screw things up. lol
@ Steve
“just asking if you had any credentials”
What does credibility even mean? That somebody was blessed by a High Priest, or even by a God? If so, who blessed the High Priest and God.....and who blessed them....and so on..?
This is an argument akin to “who made God?”
There are no authorities anywhere in the universe. Anybody who claims they have credibility or is an “authority”, is just asking you believe all he says, never question him,....and that he has the TRUTH by which we judge everybody else. When you blindly follow him, you are part of a RELIGION!
Do you understand the fallacy here?
I can name all of my academic accomplishments, awards, certificates, degree, etc....but I’d be pushing authority in your face to shut you up. All I’d be showing you is a badge that says: “Hey! I’m more qualified than you, so no matter what I say, even if contradictory,... is the unquestionable absolute truth....so shut the hell up and don’t question me!”
What if I told you I shine shoes beside the subway line for a living? Would that make my hub “false”?
What about Stephen Hawking, who is confined to a wheelchair and can’t move a finger, and never ran a scientific experiment in his life, and never made an observation in his life, and never observed a black hole, and never observed warped space, and never observed a photon? Would that make Hawking more CREDIBLE than me? If so, please explain how, so we can get to the bottom of this. I would like to understand how Hawking, who is just another human here on this planet, is more qualified than me to discuss Physics. Can anybody explain how? Just think about this!
“if matter took on some form, wouldn't there be space to accompany that form?”
But matter already has form/shape, by definition, Steve. Matter is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. The universe is a binary system....there is either something (objects) or nothing (space). They are the antithesis of each other. There is no in-between or any other conceivable option....because if there was, ‘it’ would have shape, regardless of whether it is invisible or not.
Space is “eternal” and “omnipresent” in ordinary speech, but you get the idea of what I am saying. Space necessarily “wraps” all existing objects and gives them spatial separation, which is the pre-condition to motion. Since objects are separated by space, one object can move and collide with another.
“ isn't the word "nothing" accurate to describe a lack of space and matter? “
Remember....the universe is a binary system....there is either something or nothing. There is no other option. So any other option is contradictory.
Object: that which has shape. Synonym: something, thing, being, particle, structure, etc.
Space: that which lacks shape. Synonym: nothing, void.
The term nothing alludes to a lack of matter – no object. This makes sense. But there is no such concept as a “lack of space”....this is an oxymoron/contradiction. A lack of nothing is incoherent.
“If not, what word would be fitting?”
This is not an issue of trying to find a NEW word that would be “fitting”. This is strictly a conceptual issue which we must be able to critically reason in detail.
Here is the issue: Can you conceptualize a lack of ‘nothing’? I mean, if there is already nothing, is it possible to take ‘it’ away? If so, what are we left with?
Suppose we go out in deep outer space (8000 quadrillion light years away) where there are no particles, no galaxies to be found. We send an astronaut out to put ‘space’ in a hermetic box and take the box in the ship.
Q: WHAT will be left behind at the previous location (we call X)? If one says there will be NO space at X, then is X a back door to heaven? Will God peek thru X? Will this be similar to the scenario where we go to the bottom of the ocean and take a chunk of ocean water away in a hermetic box?
The ocean level will get lower. Will the “space level” get lower??? If so, then space MUST necessarily have a border or edge, just like the ocean does! Then, WHAT is outside that edge? More space? Contradiction! Our original hypothesis (“lack of nothing”) is contradicted.
A: space is nothing. You cannot take space away or displace it, like you can with the atmosphere or ocean.
Steve's come here with an open mind and healthy scepticism it seems. A rare thing indeed! Asking questions is excellent, that's how I started off. Questioning everything. Most others here go on a rage or tangent.
@Dude,
"Asking questions is excellent, that's how I started off. Questioning everything."
That's how everyone started off, including me.
But the majority of people think they "know" everything.
Q: Why do they think that way?
A: Because they memorized by rote all they know from an authoritative source.
So they come here, thinking they know everything,....but when their contradictions are explained to them, all they do is chant "AUTHORITY" & "POPULARITY" like a mantra. That's when you realize that these people are nothing but parrots. They know squat! They are just tape recorders who memorized what their Pastor shoved down their throat without even blinking.
And now that their Religion is shown to be bunk, they bellyache and troll in the hopes that others will feel sorry for them.
I am a very patient person. I give people PLENTY of opportunities to make their point and rationally explain their assertions. But when people start to act childish, troll, clutter the comments section with garbage, and not answer questions, they get their asses kicked!
All I ask is for people to define the key terms which make or break their arguments. When they copy/paste definitions from the English Literature Dictionary, it shows that they haven't a clue of what they are talking about. Yet they still complain when their definitions are shown to be contradictory.
Such fools think that Science is a personal & subjective discipline, where everyone must bow down to one's personal feelings and accept their contradictory garbage.
Wrong!
Science is OBJECTIVE! If a definition is contradictory or observer-dependent, it gets thrown in the trash. Reality is not based on contradictions, and is not dependent on observers. God did NOT create us....humans are not the rulers of the universe.....so scientific definitions had better not invoke any observers and their opinions!
It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.
(....the casual reader (i.e. theist/agnostic/atheist) had better go to school and learn the difference between a “claim” and an “explanation” before chasing strawmen in the comments section)
(janesix 4 hours ago - It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.)
It also may help to read the hub.
janesix,
"It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist"
Actually, it doesn't end there. It is impossible to prove that anything (even YOUR hand) exists!
Why?
Because "prove" is a humorous human activity, not much different than binge-drinking or smoking crack-cocaine. Prove is a VERB. To "prove", we require a human ape to use his limited sensory system to give us a subjective biased OPINION of what they sensed.
"Opinions vary!" -- Patrick Swayze (Roadhouse, 1989)
"Prove" is the verb that the Pastors of Christianity, Relativity, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Big Bang perform on our brain, to get us to swallow the nonsense that space and matter were "created".
Exist = object + location
The scientific definition of ‘exist’ makes no provision for proof or opinions, belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, testimony or evidence, authority or popularity.....whether we like it or not!
God exists or doesn’t, BY DEFINITION, only....not because some human ape with a clown outfit decrees it as such!
Proof is in the eye of the beholder......PROOF = OPINION!
The alleged CERTAINTY of "proof" is impossible. Only rational explanations are possible.
@Philo,
It's funny how you keep good company with theists. See....I told ya....atheists are NO different than theists.
Since our dear friend Philo has no more arguments to support his Religion of Atheism which is governed by a God he calls "Energy",... what does he do? He just keeps coming back in the hub to troll.
You have sawdust my friend....just sawdust!
Hahaha FatFist keeps deleting my comments refuting his arguments, keep this up and I might just make a hub to humiliate your hubs like Emphri did! hahahaha, that hub is more popular than yours by the way :D Mainly because his actually knows something about science and more importantly, words :)
@Philo,
Of course your trolling and spam will be deleted. Whaddiya think, the internet is a free-for-all for your childish antics?
You don't have a single argument to refute any of my hubs, otherwise you'd write a hub with your argument instead of coming here to act like a virgin who lost her panties to the Big Bad Wolf.
And yes, the Religious position is the most popular one. So please, go ahead and write all the hubs you want to flaunt your Religion! Atheists cannot live without theists, so it's best that you keep hanging around under emphridx's dress, ok?
But your next post here had better contain a scientific argument...got it?
@Philo,
Oh, I forgot....since you and emrldphx have the SAME Religion, can you please copy/paste in here the EXACT comments emrldphx made which allegedly refute my hubs?
How about it....you think you can do this simple task?
emrldphx RAN AWAY from the argument with his tail between his legs after his Religion was destroyed. Can you carry the torch for him??
@Philo,
Run away, Run away
Run away and save your life
Run away, run away
Run away if you want to survive
.....
Oh oh oh oh, run away, oh oh oh oh
Keep the faith, you gotta keep the faith
You better keep the faith and run away
hello FF and AKA -- good to see you working hard at keeping it rational;)
@fat-f how about this... "verbum L." neams "word" (as in Dei Verbum = Word of God) --- then, is it fair to say "my existence" leads to experiences which gives us language (concepts, whatever) which in turn defines everything for me, therefore word is the god of concepts (a virtual kind of god). But since I created a virtual god, I can also create a virtual correlation -- valid only in the virtual sense, nevertheless hopeful that the God of existence is imperceptible (if it exists). Do you watch Shakespeare and say "it's all bullshit"
Certainly, not having the "senses" to perceive the indescribable does not translate to "no probability" of the indescribable "cause" not existing -- Or are we as arrogant as to exclude a probability of having ignorant senses.
concept: If existence is indescribable (beyond the senses), then would we perceive the cause - if it indeed exists. This argument is futile, if not trivial -- it always results in the the deconstruction/proof of the argument syntax itself. It was said 5000 yrs ago -- "that which has no expression", rational or irrational.
Therefore your post (as is my comment) is no more than a rational (irrational would be equally valid) attempt to correlate a statistical event to an imperceptible occurrence ie existence of a concept -- by your own reason.
Please explain why rational is preferred over irrational (assuming you agree with my thesis above) -- let me remind you that there has been the occasional scientific discovery that were imperceptible but for faulty contemporary reasoning. whoa!!!
Pythagarus, welcome back....long time no post.
"my existence" leads to experiences which gives us language (concepts, whatever) which in turn defines everything for me,
Existence doesn’t define. Existence is a concept. It is humans who define for the purposes of giving meaning to KEY words so everyone can understand the words which make or break one’s argument. It’s that simple....but many seem to confuse it while they are drinking.
“But since I created a virtual god, “
No....you are missing the boat!
God is a PROPOSAL. I hope that us humans are free to PROPOSE ‘things’, right? Some propose gods and ghosts....others Superman and Phantom. These are all objects....they have SHAPE....just like YOUR triangles!
These objects are not created.....they are CONCEIVED.
“the God of existence is imperceptible “
Irrelevant!!!!!
Did you even READ this article???
It doesn’t matter to what extremes the theologian goes to in order to HIDE his God from the wrath of my hands, so I won’t strangle his neck and break his legs. His God is a PROPOSAL.....a proposed object with shape. This article already explains in detail why this proposed object is IMPOSSIBLE to exist. And this is not an issue of evidence, measuring, knowing, seeing, believing, prosthelytizing, or declaring. This is an OBJECTIVE issue of critical reasoning!!
“Certainly, not having the "senses" to perceive the indescribable does not translate to "no probability" of the indescribable "cause" not existing”
Obviously this hub went over your head. Please lay off the bottle.....collect yourself...get off the street as there is freezing rain tonight....go home and ask your wife to make you a few cups of coffee. Put your legs up on the ottoman and get sober. After you collect your thoughts, please read this article carefully. And if you don’t understand something....FOR GOD’S SAKE, please ask questions before plowing forward with irrationalities, ok?
Existence is NEVER an issue of probability or liability. Your Pastor doesn’t have a clue. Please don’t let him mentor you anymore, ok?
Existence just IS. Either a PROPOSED entity is possible to exist or is impossible to exist, by virtue of the proposed Theory. There is NO other option! Repeat this a few hundred times while you sip your coffee,...it should sink in eventually.
“Therefore your post (as is my comment) is no more than a rational (irrational would be equally valid) attempt to correlate a statistical event to an imperceptible occurrence”
What did I just say in my previous sentence.....did you even read it??
Existence has nothing to do with probability and statistics.....these are disciplines for mathematicians and actuaries. Existence just IS. The Sun existed BEFORE mathematicians and actuaries did. Ask your wife to make another pot of coffee, as you are still not sober.
“Please explain why rational is preferred over irrational “
So let me get this straight.....you want me to explain why us humans should communicate rationally (without contradictions) to each other, versus communicating irrationally (with contradictions)???
Are you sure you are asking coherent questions?
Are you sure you are sober enough to be surfing the Internet?
I’m sure there are Internet police out there just waiting to arrest people like you!
I actually think pythagarus asked some OK questions. To fully clear up that last bit though, re: preferences.
It's irrelevant whether someone PREFERS rationality to irrationality. Either one can communicate (i.e. explain), or they cannot.
In order to explain something coherently (or even argue for God Almighty!) one has already attempted, at least to SOME degree, to communicate rationally. Even if the arguments don't make sense in the end.
It's a trick you see. Relativists, Atheists, Moralists and Religionists want to fool you into thinking they're making sense and scare you off examining their undefined terms. When they actually have no idea what they THEMSELVES are talking about — it's just an emotional vomiting to defend their faith.
So one might say that most people DISPLAY a preference for rational communication, yet are unable to acquire the fine art, unlike say Bill, Alton, or Fattie.
You crack me up. I actually missed your irreverance;)
Ok, let's take it one step at a time then.
Are you the only human allowed to use concepts to describe verbs?
You have attributed similar relevance to logic/reason as faithers do to their gods and in that sense no different. Human beings have to fake being objective and you do it spectacularly.
"Existence just IS"
Since I am still outside, I looked for the sun, and not seeing it looked for the moon. Not seeing any reflected light, I concluded that the Sun had stopped existing at least for that moment. And you can not prove disprove it except by saying that it "is highly improbable" or that it is irrational -- i see you ignored my verbum reference.
The best we can do is "a credible correlation" between the senses and the concepts. So thanks for insisting that we at least get agreement on syntax.
El Dude,
“It's irrelevant whether someone PREFERS rationality to irrationality. Either one can communicate (i.e. explain), or they cannot.”
Consider for example Quantum’s proposal of the graviton. They claim to explain gravity as follows: a 0D graviton particle which has no mass, which cannot even be imagined or illustrated on the blackboard, ...emanates from the Earth and hits the pen in your hand. When you let go of the pen, the action of the pelting gravitons will pull it to the floor.
This is an explanation. So these people can obviously explain. Just like the theist claims that angels come in contact with the pen and pull it to the floor. But....these are irrational explanations. So the scientific criterion here is rationality (non-contradiction). Throwing rocks at a soccer ball will not attract it towards you.
“Relativists, Atheists, Moralists and Religionists want to fool you into thinking they're making sense and scare you off examining their undefined terms.”
Not only their undefined terms....but the smoke and mirrors that accompany them, like measurements of non-existing entities, extrapolations, and irrelevant equations/math.
But as a human being, one must concede that only actors (i.e. objects) can perform events (actions). Only then can we use these actors in our theories to give rational explanations.
Pythagarus,
“Are you the only human allowed to use concepts to describe verbs?”
We describe verbs with adverbs. This makes sense.
For example.....in English it’s ok to say: the ball is continuously moving.
But in physics, you can’t!! In physics we say: the ball is incessantly moving.
Continuous is an adjective of reality. An adjective is an inherent, static, objective, property or attribute of an object (e.g., flat, continuous, straight, discrete, spherical). In Physics, adjectives are exclusively used in the context of structure. Adverbs apply only in the context of intangible concepts. In English grammar and poetry we can break these rules as long as the sentence is SYNTACTICALLY correct. Physics will have none of that. Reality doesn’t give a shit about syntax. Reality is objective. Physics is LITERAL and absolutely dependent on rigorous semantics/meanings. This is the only way we can communicate coherent explanations to our peers.
“You have attributed similar relevance to logic/reason as faithers do to their gods and in that sense no different.”
Example please. Where do I do this? I would like to correct my mistake.
“I looked for the sun, and not seeing it looked for the moon. Not seeing any reflected light, I concluded that the Sun had stopped existing at least for that moment.”
Exactly my point! Only a Religionist (i.e. theist, atheist, agnostic, mathematical physicist) would make such a ridiculous conclusion. People who belong to these Religious clubs are completely divorced from the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory). These folks chase their tails in circles while attempting to prove the existence of rocks and ghosts.
Existence is always a HYPOTHESIS...never a theory. Existence is a static concept, not a dynamic (action of proof) one which you irrationally assert. Existence is a snapshot....a photograph of an object....NOT a movie of an object, like you allege. Existence is not predicated on motion/activity (i.e. proof). Existence is not a verb. It is impossible to prove that anything exists. Don’t believe me? Ok, let’s see you prove that your right arm exists. Any attempt to do so will have you chasing your tail in subjectivities and biases which are personal to you.
“And you can not prove disprove it”
Proof & Dis-proof are Religious ceremonies performed by the CLUELESS! They are no different than exorcisms. Proof just means that your Pastor has brainwashed you to believe in “his” argument. What is “proof” to you, is a LIE to your neighbor.
Q: So how do we determine who is right or wrong? Is it you or your neighbor??? What is the OBJECTIVE criteria we use?
A: There is NO possible objective criteria with “proof”. Objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE when a human ape sets it upon himself to perform an activity he calls “proof”.
Why?
Because “proof” is an act of verification which necessarily invokes the extremely limited human sensory system to perform some type of validation. Humans cannot even see/touch/hear/smell/taste what mediates gravity, light or magnetism. So how can a human ape possibly be a reliable witness to “prove” something to do with reality....when such an ape cannot even prove in a court of law that OJ Simpson committed murder??
PROOF = YOUR OPINION!
Remember.....what is PROOF to you....is a LIE to your neighbor. Proof only belongs in a court setting, and is dependent on the personal feelings and biases of the jury. Reality has NO juries. Reality is objective.
Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained.
“except by saying that it "is highly improbable" or that it is irrational “
No! The argument is still over your head. Did your wife make you coffee yet??
What is rational can only be POSSIBLE...not probable or likely or statistical. Please learn the difference. It is qualitative rather than quantitative.
What is irrational is IMPOSSIBLE. There is only one way to show what is impossible; and that is via an ontological contradiction.
“The best we can do is "a credible correlation" between the senses and the concepts. “
I already explained to you that YOUR senses are IRRELEVANT and play no role in any explanation. What you sense when you are drunk is personal to YOU and only warms up YOUR heart.....not your neighbors. It was already proven that OJ Simpson did not commit murder. It was already proven (and still is by the Flat Earth Society) that the Earth is FLAT!!
Does proof change day by day in your Religion, Pythagarus?
Learn the difference between truth/proof (i.e. OPINION) and a rational explanation. I am surprised you cannot grasp this.
Hmmm.... OMG! I tootaatly agree with ff. but there is a problem; either Jesus or a rock resolve into atoms and energy states and empty space ---- wait! empty space??!!!! That's a concept! It does not exist --- damn, more word tomfoolery. See word is God and it created you and the faither-fools. Your parents conceived you because you came from nothing -- oops.
Can you demonstrate or at least re phrase the statement "God does not exist" to exclude the negative? empty space does not exist because there is only "existence" which is indescribable. The senses are like words - they correlate (map) stuff and when it comes close to existence us fools call it power of god - and you do that with words -- same difference, my fistfury-friend. So your god is word, not "the" or "a" word but word that is also verbs as in "dei verbum". Have a great day.
Pythagarus,
“either Jesus or a rock resolve into atoms and energy states and empty space ---- wait! empty space??”
You are making a claim.
Just as space cannot acquire L, W and H and morph into a 3D object in zero-time (i.e. one frame of the Universal Movie),....then so objects cannot lose their shape and morph into space. Objects cannot be created or destroyed. Anybody who says they can....is making a positive CLAIM and the onus is on them to rationally explain how.
“space??!!!! That's a concept! “
Yes, space is a concept. Space cannot be created. Space is a synonym for nothing/void. Space does not exist. Only objects exist. Space and its synonyms are the only inherently negative words in any conceivable language. And of course we must use them in sentences after UNDERSTANDING what they mean. There are no others. All other words with prefixes a-, im-, ir- etc. are predicated on a context-opposite positive root word....not on negation. So what is your problem???
“damn, more word tomfoolery.”
How so? Please explain what is bothering you so we can resolve it, right here and right now. Or are you just bellyaching because you are bored?
“Can you demonstrate or at least re phrase the statement "God does not exist" to exclude the negative?”
Why? What are you trying to accomplish by this?
The statement is just negating the positive claim “God exists”. And we can only do this after we rationally explain why the God proposal is totally bunk. I am not making blind assertions, like you seem to imply.
“So your god is word, not "the" or "a" word but word that is also verbs as in "dei verbum".”
Huh? Are you feeling ok, Pythagarus? Or is it that the only way you can attack this article is by trying to pull “strawmen” out of thin air? You are still not talking coherently.
I welcome you to cut/paste statements in this article that refute themselves, or at least cause you tummy-aches. Until you do so, all you are offering is "hot air".
Pythagarus,
“Have a great day.”
Oh please, Pythagarus...don’t run away on the good part of the discussion. It’s your turn on the microphone.
You still have the following unresolved issues....
Pytha: “You have attributed similar relevance to logic/reason as faithers do to their gods and in that sense no different.”
Fatfist: Example please. Where do I do this? Please copy/paste. I would like to correct my humble mistake, if any.
Pytha: ““space??!!!! That's a concept! “
Fatfist: So? What is the problem? Is space an object to you?
Pytha: “damn, more word tomfoolery.”
Fatfist: Where? Please cut & paste so the audience can see the specifics instead of throwing words around.
Pythagarus, I hope you didn’t come here to drop some STRAWMAN bombs and run for the hills when you are called out on your claims. I mean, this is what Religious trolls like Philanthropy & emrldphx do. How can that be an argument?
Not all forms of reality exist! Only objective reality does. Fatfist has illustrated his personal idea of reality to be some what simplistic by looking past some obvious facts, such as:
1 - For objects to exist, they have to take up space.
2 - Objects are constituted of various forms of matter.
3 - Different forms of matter have their own specific
qualities which define their differences.
4 - Physics on its own is not sufficient to understand correctly how nature functions.
Natural processes take place when matter is forced to interact with the qualities of other forms of matter or by being involved in other natural processes.
It seams reasonable for objective reality to require a constant process of change to occur in and around all forms of matter for nature to continuously unfold within the realm of objective reality, for it to exist.
awwwhhhh! that's so sweet, ff.... you gave me a nickname! Do i sense a tinge of borg-induced-feelings of abandonment? ;)))
"Why? What are you trying to accomplish by this?"
I am trying to show you that language is useful but flawed and everything resolves to verb.
"Rationality" lies within boundaries of "perfect rules and definitions" --- But you have invented an 11th commandment: NO-ONE SHALL CROSS TO THE IRRATIONAL BOUNDARY, EXCEPT FOR FATFIST".
I will conrinue to exagerate your irrationality.
Set aside the faither's delusion - BORING, it's a clear case of irrational/delusional brain activity. Not because I don't believe in using irrationality, but because faithers cross irrational-boundaries... into deep space of "Rational Rules". However, your brain-activity is equally delusional at times -- and you contradict yourself by crossing into "the irrational" -- you belive "rationality rules!" Then you say stuff like "existance just is" or "just negating". The language flaw works equally on you and the faithers and me.
If your rationality correlates 100% with anything then it is because "anything" was "setup/constructed" to correlate 100% with rationality. Disprove it! --- see, irrational request to make a point;) And to the extent that rationality or irrationality serves us, we can't see it.
...cont/
"The statement is just negating the positive claim “God exists”. And we can only do this after we rationally explain why the God proposal is totally bunk. I am not making blind assertions, like you seem to imply."
That is my point... by your reational rules one can not "prove" anything. So you are being dishonest.... by assigning relevance to the word "explain" you circumvent the paradox and crusade-on with same intensity (it was explained that the earth was the centre of the universe, so what!).
If it was knowable - we would prove Not-God. Isn't this the reason why it's called irrational --- ie cannot be resolved? The best you can do is "God exists" is irrational.
Now...
Let your statement "God exists" be S. If S is constructed within an irrational lexicon, then not-S is equally irrational.
Similarly, If not-S is rational then you have constructed a closed boundary to support S as rational. By rational definition, irrational is everything that cannot be resolved -- isn't that convenient that "the rational Generals" get to choose what is valid, just like the faithers choosing a god that rewards them for good deeds!!! It's NONSENCE!
I AM ALIVE AND I DON'T NEED SOME BULSHIT-ARTIST TO TELL ME WHAT ALIVE IS -- however i experience it --- that is enough!!!
So I am going to ask you again before I get tootaaly bored with you and go listen to AKA, he's well behaved; Please demonstrate that you can invoke a concept of "thing" that does not results in "no thing". Observing you conceive the concept is why i am here.... The "thing and no-thing" is boring -- it's reason I would leave, not strawaaatever!!!
Pythagarus,
“I am trying to show you that language is useful but flawed”
Without language, we cannot communicate and understand each other. Language will make us understand exactly what any person is trying to propose or explain to us. So yes, language is useful. The flaws of all languages have to do with SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR. In the syntactic construction of sentences, we are forced to treat certain words as concepts, even though they are objects,... and vice versa. Case in point....’reality’ is a concept, but ordinary speech has reified it into a noun; i.e. object! Similarly with the words: nothing, void, space.
The word noun comes from the Latin meaning name. The English (and other European languages) apparently opted to call a noun anything you could name, which includes just about every word in the dictionary.
The Spanish use the word sustantivo, which comes from the Latin meaning substantive. Initially, a substantive was meant to be more restrictive than the noun and designate only those things that are corporeal. Later this word evolved so that today it plays exactly the same role as the word noun of English: it encompasses any word that may serve as the subject of a sentence. However, the original name-substance dichotomy continued and today is at the root of disagreements in objecthood debates.
Language and all its words are concepts. The words of any language are considered to be the ‘articles’ of the language, and are usually called ‘terms’. Since terms can be used as a subject of a sentence, they are irrationally treated as nouns in ordinary speech. Physics will have none of that. The only nouns of physics are objects.
The problem in Science today and more specifically in Mathematical Physics is that theorists self-servingly mistake object for noun, thing with term. The mathematicians and philosophers take as a matter of fact that an object is anything that we can think of, talk about, or serve as the subject of a sentence.
Take for instance the words motion and incessant. In ordinary language the word motion is a noun and its modifier incessant, an adjective (e.g., 'The incessant motion of the Earth'). However, in Science, words such as incessant, constant, rectilinear, and perpetual may only be used in the context of an activity. They may never be used to qualify a physical object. It makes no sense in Science to say ‘incessant cube’ if we are alluding to architecture. For the purposes of Science, the word motion is a verb and its qualifier incessant is an adverb. In Science, the fundamental categories of ordinary grammar -- noun, verb, adjective, and adverb -- are either more restrictive or altogether different.
In any case, as long as we understand the issues, then we have NO PROBLEMS providing rational explanations for our proposals...got it? I mean, a rational human who understands these issues is not an idiot...like a mathematician or an atheist, right?
“and everything resolves to verb.”
Only for grammatical syntactical purposes...i.e. ordinary speech!!
In Scientific Language, ‘space’ is a concept, not a noun (object). Similarly, infinity is an adjective, not a noun. You need to learn the difference between POETRY and Scientific Language.
“"Rationality" lies within boundaries of "perfect rules and definitions" “
Wrong again! Rationality has no rules. Rules are made by man to be broken. What is rational is what is critically reasoned!
A rational theory is one that:
a. can be illustrated (i.e., can make a movie of)
b. uses definitions consistently
c. Is non-contradictory
What part did you not understand? What part was so difficult for you?
“NO-ONE SHALL CROSS TO THE IRRATIONAL BOUNDARY, EXCEPT FOR FATFIST”
Oh, please be my guest....copy/paste a part of this article which is irrational. Let’s see how fast you run with your tail between your legs this time!
“I will conrinue to exagerate your irrationality.”
Exactly! You are just exaggerating and posting strawmans here because YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. You are just TROLLING!!!
“and you contradict yourself “
Where? Please cut/paste my alleged contradictions, you Religionist fool.
“you belive "rationality rules!"
This is not an issue of belief. Read what I said about “rational” above, and memorize it, because it destroys your Religion!
“Then you say stuff like "existance just is"
Existence is what it is....object + location.
What are you having trouble understanding?
Here, you clown....you tell the audience what it means to exist......
define exist: ______________
But a predictable fool such as yourself will NEVER post a definition of any term, because I will instantly refute it!!
You cannot refute anything in this article....you are just a disgruntled bellyacher because your Religion has been destroyed!
Pythagarus,
“by your reational rules one can not "prove" anything.”
Hey clown....what is PROOF to you, is a LIE to your neighbor. I already explained this to you and you AGREED!!!
Here, you are on the record...
Pythagarus: “OMG! I tootaatly agree with ff.”
So just shut up and don’t bellyache anymore. Just define PROOF, or concede that you are defeated by fatfist, got it?
“So you are being dishonest”
Exactly! We agree 100% here. A stupid moron who AGREES that proof is actually impossible, but then turns the other cheek (like a Christian) and demands for “proof”...is a dishonest moron who fools no one!!
Do you have any other arguments except for STRAWMEN?????
“The best you can do is "God exists" is irrational.”
The argument went right over your head, like it does for a typical Religionist know as an atheist.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist because it is impossible for God to have LOCATION, got it?
Exist = object + location
It has nothing to do with the STRAWMEN that you invent and call “negation”. You fool nobody!
“S is constructed within an irrational lexicon”
A lexicon is a dictionary you fool. Dictionaries are not rational or irrational....they define words in ordinary speech, and NOT in Scientific Language. Did your Pastor at least teach you that much while he was doing you in the confession box?
“Similarly, If not-S .... It's NONSENCE!”
LOL, you bet its nonsense! You are not talking coherently because the argument in this hub went 30 miles over your head.
“I AM ALIVE”
What do you mean by ‘alive’?
“Please demonstrate that you can invoke a concept of "thing" that does not results in "no thing".”
A ‘thing’ is what has shape, you clown! Haven’t you been paying attention? You cannot get nothing from something...never. A thing does NOT lose L, W and H and vanish into the void. But to a Religionist like you everything is asserted and claimed, without so much an explanation.
Again....do you have any other arguments except for STRAWMEN?????
@Pythagarus,
Just like my friend nicomp says...the song is still playing for you....
F_hruz,
“Not all forms of reality exist! Only objective reality does.”
Ummm...my dear Franto....’real’ is a synonym for ‘exist’. What is real is said to exist!
‘Real’ is an adjective which refers to that which has objective (i.e. physical) presence (is real). Objective presence refers to that which is objectified by its presence; i.e. is an object that exists; and not a concept which can only be conceptualized!
So existence (reality) deals exclusively with objects which have presence. Such objects are said to exist because of their locality; they have ‘presence’ in the Universe and can indeed be located. This means that they have ‘location’. Location is a property which refers to the collection of static gaps between the test object and all other objects in the Universe. Objects like squares and circles have no location, and cannot be present in the Universe. Such objects are conceptually abstract; hence do not exist.
Hence your clause “objective reality” is nonsensical rhetoric. You really haven’t said anything. Only theists & atheists use these irrational terms which they don’t understand. This is why atheists and theists have been arguing for over 2000 years whether God exists or not. Atheism is a pernicious Religion which is no different than theism.
“Fatfist has illustrated his personal idea of reality”
Only Religionists which are known as atheists and theists, will give you their ideas, i.e. opinions...and force them down your throat as truth and proof! A rational human is able to rationally EXPLAIN his position scientifically! That is, without rhetoric, metaphors, euphemisms, poetry, ambiguities and contradictions. Anybody who simply states their OPINIONS can easily be shown their contradictions....as I have shown yours. Can you show any of mine?
“Objects are constituted of various forms of matter.”
The term ‘matter’ alludes to the “aggregate of atoms”. So let’s get our language straight before we have a Scientific discussion.
An object is NOT “that which is made up of matter or parts”. This is circular and meaningless. An object is that which has shape!
The following are objects: God, Superman, Cinderella, Big Foot, rock, Sun, cat, box, ball.
The following are concepts: energy, dark energy, dark matter, spacetime, force, field, mass, time, photon, warped-space, dilated-time, singularity, graviton, wave, black hole, and all the Standard Model particles.
“Physics on its own is not sufficient to understand correctly how nature functions.”
Perhaps to a Religionist who doesn’t understand what Physics is about....
But a Physicist can most certainly use the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory) to rationally explain consummated events in the Universe. It just takes basic CRITICAL THINKING skills! No magic at all.....magic is the hallmark of theism & atheism!
My dear Franto......we have already been through this.....did you read my previous comment to you? If so, did you understand it? If not, perhaps we can meet over coffee and discuss....
This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a long time. St. Augustine was famous for using such tactics to win his religious arguments and prove that his God exists. The mathematicians have brainwashed everyone to repeat this SAME argument because these clowns have NO explanation for ANY natural phenomena. They are Religionists in disguise!!
St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we cannot ever hope to 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)
St. Augustine was honest and confessed his ignorance:
“Alas for me, that I do not at least know the extent of my own ignorance! Behold, O my God, before Thee I lie not.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 25)
Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can win BOTH sides of the argument. He claimed that if you don’t KNOW God by now, then you are an idiot, of course:
“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 world; even though it was to Augustine’s detriment. 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)
You see, Franto????
The idiots of Mathematics are doing the exact SAME thing.....
They CLAIM to have PROVEN that space is warped and black holes exist. But when you grab these morons by the throat and corner them on the issue, they turn the other cheek (like Christians) and say that warped space and black holes are only ANALOGIES, and they really don’t exist out there! They are just FIGURES OF SPEECH. So these clowns are really practicing Religion...NOT Science!!
This is why Mathematicians are NO different than Religionists.
If you had a background in Physics you wouldn’t be talking in riddles like this. Here, let me explain to you what Physics is about....
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 they cannot define these two words, they are NOT a Physicist. They are but a petty mathematician or religionist. So here goes...
object: ______
exist: ________
Please fill in the blanks. If you need help, just look them up in your first year Physics textbook. They should be on the first page.
A Physicist uses the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to hypothesize what the actor (i.e. object) is which mediates a phenomenon we call light. Then he rationally explains in the Theory exactly how this object goes about to mediate the phenomenon of light. It’s that simple.
Which part of Physics and the Scientific Method are you having trouble understanding, Franto? Let’s discuss your issues.
“matter is forced to interact with the qualities of other forms of matter”
Only in Religion does matter interact with “qualities”, which are concepts. But outside of the Church, matter only interacts with other matter. Real objects can only possibly interact with other real objects via surface-to-surface contact. There is NO other possible interaction. If you disagree, then you are free to rationally explain your position to the audience.
F_hruz,
“It seams reasonable for....reality to require a constant process of change to occur....for it to exist.”
No, it is not reasonable at all. Such a proposal is contradictory at best!
Existence is a static concept, not a dynamic one (requiring change) which you irrationally assert. Existence is a snapshot....a photograph of an object....NOT a movie of an object, like you allege. Existence is not predicated on motion/activity. Existence is not a verb....no way, no how!!
You can easily “prove” this to yourself: use your cellphone to take a pic of your car.
Q: What do you see?
A: Your car is in the picture!
If a real object like your car was required to undergo “change” in order for it to exist (as you allege)... then there would NOT have been an image of your car in the pic you took. If what you “claim” is the case, then you would have required to take a “movie” of your car in order to see it....understand?
"But a predictable fool such as yourself will NEVER post a definition of any term, because I will instantly refute it!! "
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verbum
I did -- verbum -- (verb) which means word, so word is a verb because it has meaning. Contradiction? no! dichotemy maybe...
"So in the beginning there was the word, and the word bifurcated from verb to become meaning, before verb was a word". Verb gives meaning to itself and simultaneously bifurcates word and meaning.
You ignored it. But I know you looked, because you got the difference between English and Latin bang-on!!! -- good for you.
Sooo-loong fatfist, and thanks for the song;)) Peace.
Pythagarus,
“I did -- verbum -- (verb) which means word”
So what? What does it have to do with this hub? Do you even understand where you are going with this line of argumentation? Will this verbum (verb) either MAKE or BREAK your argument?? Let’s see below....
"So in the beginning there was the word, and the word bifurcated from verb"
Nonsense to the N-th degree!
And here is where our fellow Pythagarus has shot himself in the face. Here is where Pythagarus is showcasing his utter ignorance of language and reality. Pythagarus has NO clue what a verb is.
In the beginning, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have any word which is a VERB!!!!!!!
Why?
Because a verb is a relation between two or more objects. Without objects, you cannot even begin to conceive of a verb. Verbs are predicated on objects, not concepts. A verb necessarily invokes motion....the motion of an entity. Objectless motion is impossible!
“Verb gives meaning to itself and simultaneously bifurcates word and meaning.”
Wrong again!! There are NO meanings to be given to any verb unless an object is realized beforehand. Objects precede verbs!
The first word ever grunted/uttered by man was an OBJECT, and NOT a verb (concept).... just like this Adam fellow of Pythagarus’ Religion allegedly did when God put the animals before him.
Genesis 2:19-20 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.”
In language, we cannot even begin to define a word or a verb unless we point to and NAME (just like your Adam did) at least 2 objects beforehand. In fact, we cannot even define the objects themselves. It is objects which allow us to conceive of concepts, like verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc. and ultimately language and grammar itself.
Before you can teach the ET your concepts (phenomena), you must teach him the nouns of reality (i.e. objects). This is how we teach toddlers language; we start with naming objects....we give them shapes to play with. The only nouns you can teach him are the objects (rock, tree, dog, table). Verbs that are concepts (motion, location, direction, love, weight, mass, wave) are beyond his comprehension for the moment.
So if you are marooned on an island with an ET. You point and say 'tree'. You point again and say 'rock'. And then again and say 'coconut'. Gradually, he learns the names of OBJECTS. So far there are no verbs (the Gods of Pythagarasus’ Religion).
Of course, you can only point at 'that which has shape'. Now, the ET and you have been on the island for a couple of years and he has more or less learned your language. You tell him that he can use a rock (object) to break (verb) open a coconut. You are no longer alluding to the shape of these things, but talking in abstract mode. You are alluding to a PROCESS (verb) and not to the objects themselves.
The problem in Math is that they still haven't gotten beyond Square One. Not one mathematician can point and name the object. A mathematician cannot teach an ET the language (much less teach his own peers) because there are no nouns in Math.
A concept is "a relationship between two or more objects". Hence, the word "up" is a concept because something is "up" relative to something else. In a sentence, concepts cannot be followed by verbs. Love (concept) cannot pull (verb) two persons (concrete objects) together. Justice (concept) cannot arbitrate (verb). A HUMAN (concrete object) can WALK (verb) toward another HUMAN (concrete object). If you point to two humans walking toward each other and call it "love" then you are defining love as a concept, i.e. as two people approaching each other. A JUDGE (concrete noun) can ARBITRATE (verb). If you point at a judge in a courtroom banging his gavel and yelling at a criminal in black stripes and you say "justice" then, for the purposes of your discussion, "justice" is a concept referring to a judge banging his gavel and yelling at a man in black stripes. Notice that concepts do NOT DO ANYTHING. Concretes act, concrete objects are where all the action's at. The word "field" is a concept because "fields" don't PHYSICALLY do anything. "Field" is what something ELSE does. This is akin to the word "wave". A wave is not a concrete object anymore than a field is. A wave is a concept. You point at moving crests on the ocean and say "wave". A wave is not some THING, a wave is what something DOES. What is "wind"? Wind is not some THING, it is what something DOES. Similarly a "field" is what something DOES. If your concept can be illustrated with a movie involving concrete objects, or even better demonstrated using concrete objects, then you have a "concrete concept" i.e. a scientific concept.
We tend to think of Man (or even Pythagarus) as the most intelligent of animals because he has the capacity for abstract thought. No other animal even comes close to him in this regard. But abstract thought is also a tremendous handicap. People invented demons and spirits along the way to explain what their minds were not prepared to explain. We see ghosts and reify concepts. The soul of Pythagarus’ dead grandma now becomes the 'spirit' who touched him last night. He thinks he hears voices. Maybe it's God talking to him. And actually it's a monologue occurring inside his brain. And so on...
Lions don't have these kinds of problems. They are not as sophisticated as Pythagarus is. They don't need pills to go to sleep or anti-depressants to wake them up. Their life is much more objective. Their world is food. They wake up. They're hungry. They see a real wildebeest (i.e. OBJECT). And they go satisfy that urge (i.e. CONCEPT), plug that hole in the stomach. That's it.
Therefore, the trouble we have is separating what's real (what a lion KNOWS is real) from concepts. The abstract concepts we invented have become so many that we've made them real and what's real has become a concept. Most people have trouble distinguishing one from the other. Ergo, the Christian sees God and angels and the mathematician 'observes' warped space, 0D particles and black holes. He is convinced these 'entities' are real....just like Pythagarus is convinced that numbers, triangles and verbs (verbums) are real...LOL!!
And this is why people like Pythagarus, Philanthropy, emrldphx, aka-dj et all are living in their own artificial delusionary world....and they will probably NEVER wake up!
“You ignored it.”
No I didn’t, you fool. I asked you to explain your case because I knew that you would shout yourself in the face from your ignorance. You live in your own delusional world where concepts (like triangles, numbers, spirits, God, angels, equations, etc) hit you over the head in the middle of the night. I can imagine how frightening that might be for you.
As you can see Pythagarus, all you are doing with this “verbum (verb)” is just pissing in the wind. Oh darn....don’t face the wind while doing that! Now look at what you did to yourself.....quick, grab a towel.
Pythagarus,
See what happens when ignorant people like you, Philanthropy and emrldphx blindly post definitions from the dictionary without so much as critically analyzing them first? Only the clueless will use the Dictionary just like fundamentalist Christians use the Bible to authoritatively make their arguments. Did you know that Argument from Authority is a fallacy? Well, you learned your lesson today!
All dictionaries were written by English Literature students who had no clue about Physics, reality, objects or concepts. It's funny how many people are ignorant of this.
Pythagarus....got any more definitions for me to shoot down?? Or better yet, can you shoot down any of mine?
"Sooo-loong fatfist"
And oh, btw.....my buddy nicomp and I are dedicating this song to you:
Always, always it comes down to definitions.
And they always run like cowards.
fatfist
the God you are destroying was not constructed rationally.
to explain "God does not Exist" as a real construct, is not a logical exercise, it is an irrational endeavour, which relies on an irrationally constructed "God Exists". You are wasting your time!(exception, this hub fills your needs).
What you have to show is that their god construction is the logical consequence of something, and without that something there is no need for their irrationality. Then their god construction does not occur, and "god does not exist" becomes irrelevant). cause-effect.
I will say it again. LET'S MOVE ON..
Now.
I contest that any "rational" effort is bound by language and thus must start with agreement. But you can only have agreement if there are (at least)two entities to relate.
And.
Faith is an idiotist relationship -- L. idiota. onto it's own, not requiring agreement. (ironically, separate from di or deus, plural of god)
Whereas
reason relates bifurcated entities, faith attempts to reverse bifurcation to idiotism of idios (that is why faithers are "logical idiots") -- see, what I did here.
What do you think of this:
Reason (basis or cause) requires scale of observation (resolution). example, a dog looks different to a human/flea/atom. A HUMAN insisting the dog has form would find opposition from an independently thinking flea lunching on a dog, and the atom transferred from the dog's blood stream to the flea's belly, would have to insist on freedom from form if not function.
Pythagarus,
“the God you are destroying was not constructed rationally.”
Exactly! He doesn’t have location. Hence is impossible to exist. The clowns who conceived of God could not define the key words which made or broke their argument: object, space, exist. This is why their God Hypothesis can never be used to formulate a rational Theory.
"God does not Exist" as a real construct, is not a logical exercise, it is an irrational endeavour, which relies on an irrationally constructed "God Exists"
You are clueless of the Scientific Method. You fall in the same camp as atheists and theists. You should take a course in Science 101 after you finish public school.
Existence has absolutely NOTHING to do with logic, axioms, syllogisms or premises. These are TAUTOLOGIES. They are pre-DEFINED rules. Existence is not a “theory”. Existence is a “hypothesis”. It is clowns like you who don’t understand Science and come here to chase their tails in circles.
Existence is observer-independent.....and NOT based on logic!!!
You disagree?? Great....please use any logic and premises you want to demonstrate that the Moon exists, ok? Now don’t act like a scared little kitty and run away from this question....just do it. If you don’t respond to this Q by your next post, then you and audience will know that you have no argument and were bluffing all along about logic, premises, syllogisms, truth, proof, etc.
“You are wasting your time!(exception, this hub fills your needs).”
Perhaps Science is a waste of time to a Religionist like you, but in Science, God is an object which was hypothesized by Theologians. God has SHAPE....it says so in the Bible:
Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”
Job 4:15-17 -- “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
See what happens when you try to argue when you haven’t read the hub? You are just arguing with yourself. You have no argument. Maybe you should talk to your Pastor for advice on the Scientific Method before you troll on the Internet.
“I contest that any "rational" effort is bound by language and thus must start with agreement. “
All human communication is bound by language. When you finish primary school and learn to comprehend what others write to you, perhaps you might understand this. Did your Priest in Sunday School ever tell you that humans use language to communicate...or was it all fun and fondling games inside the confession box?
We don’t go to the ballot box to vote on what is rational. Opinion, as much as YOU want it to, plays no role here. You are always used to giving your OPINIONS as assertions and expecting others to swallow them as TRUTH and PROOF. Well, that doesn’t work here. Rationality is an OBJECTIVE issue...which is irrespective of my, yours or your God’s opinion, got it.
Rationality has no rules (logic, premises, opinions, etc). Rules are made by man to be broken. What is rational is what is critically reasoned!
A rational theory is one that:
a. can be illustrated (i.e., can make a movie of)
b. uses definitions consistently
c. Is non-contradictory
What part did you not understand? What part was so difficult for you? You continue to dodge these questions...LOL!
“Faith is an idiotist relationship”
You are perpetually confused because you are watching too many theist/atheist debates where these idiots don’t understand the issue.
God has nothing to do with faith. Only the clueless and uneducated (i.e. theists & atheists) have/lack “faith” in God. God is an entity..an object!! God is the subject matter of Physics, and Physics, only! Which part didn’t you understand?
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. Anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on.
Science is obviously way over your head! Perhaps you’d be better suited to go into the Fashion forums and argue which celebrity is the worst dressed. Those types of arguments are much better suited for your level of intelligence!
“reason relates bifurcated entities”
What is a BIFURCATED ENTITY?? Do you even know....or are you just pulling out big words to make an impression?
Here you go... BIFURCATED ENTITY: _____________
I am willing to bet my life that you cannot define this.....we will see by your next post.
“Reason (basis or cause) requires scale of observation (resolution). example, a dog looks different to a human/flea/atom.”
Opinions play no role here. We don’t scale observations to impress others. What does this subjective BS have to do with Science? Reality could care less if a dog “looks” different to a drunken fool. Reality is objective, not subjective, like you try so much to make it. Reality pisses on idiots and their opinions.
“A HUMAN insisting the dog has form would find opposition from an independently thinking flea lunching on a dog,”
Is this what your Priest told you last Sunday?
A dog has form/shape independent of any observers; be it dogs, cats, fleas or drunken fools. This is an objective issue. A dog has shape all on its own. A dog is an object with a boundary......a dog does NOT blend in with space...it doesn’t lose L, W and H and vanish into the void....irrespective of what anyone thinks.
If the flea “lunches” (verb) on the dog, then obviously the dog has shape! Verbs can only be mediated by at least TWO objects with shape....one being the flea....and the second being the dog. So your argument is contradictory and ludicrous....as usual.
Got anything else to offer other than your ignorance?
you left out the atom, of course!
"A dog is an object with a boundary......a dog does NOT blend in with space...it doesn’t lose L, W and H and vanish into the void"
The atom (blood) was sucked from the dog-shape into the flea-shape. hmmm... the dog didn't lose any mass!!!! OMG! I figured it out!!!
I will repeat it; "it doesn’t lose L, W and H".
So an hungry flea ate the whole dog BOUNDARY(it's a tiny dawg) and the dawg still has shape SINCE "it doesn’t lose L, W and H".
OMG! FATFIST BELIEVES IN GHOST SHAPES AND SCIENTIFIC BARKING FLEAS!
pythagarus,
"So an hungry flea ate the whole dog"
Go ahead, eat the whole dog....eat the whole car if you must. Did the dog blend in with the void??
Matter does not lose L, W and H. Matter does not disappear into a spirit after your car dies, as your Religion alleges. Atoms are redistributed and reused to perpetually build other objects.
Matter is eternal and in perpetual motion.
Your Pastor didn't tell you that?
@ff shapes are people too?;))
"Atoms are redistributed and reused to perpetually build other objects. Matter is eternal and in perpetual motion."
hmmm...very good fortran4!
The name atom comes from the Greek ?????? (atomos, “indivisible”).
there4 we now know, for sure, every-things is them atoms?
Want to continue without and apology to the rational people that read you hub?
Curious that religion, quantum physics, relativity, and geocentric universe model all rely on the primary assumption that the observer is the central actor.
It must be part of the Heisenberg WTF? Principle...
Pythagarus,
“shapes are people too?”
Are ‘shapes’ people in your Religion, pythagarus? Do you really have to ask such a dumb question? You can’t reason this on your own?
Is ‘shape’ a synonym for ‘person’??
---BEGIN_REALITY_LESSON_FOR_PYTHAGARUS
Object: that which has shape
Exist: object + location
A human is an object because it has shape. Aliens can illustrate a human on the blackboard in their Alien Physics Conference. They show to the other aliens that humans have shape....they have a boundary....they are objects....just like God is an object, irrespective of whether He is invisible or not.
Furthermore, a human exists because in addition to shape, they have location...i.e. there is a static distance between the human and every other object in the universe. And a human has location NOT because we can “know” it or “prove” it. A human, the Sun, the Moon all have location irrespective of any observer and their stupid OPINIONS (like yours for instance). Therefore, a human is a real object, as opposed to an abstraction.
So yes, humans are OBJECTS.
But most importantly....ALL women are OBJECTS....they are SHAPEly. If you don’t believe me, just ask my neighbor’s wife what we do together when her husband goes on business trips!
---END_REALITY_LESSON_FOR_PYTHAGARUS
“The name atom comes from the Greek”
The Greeks rationally reasoned that it’s impossible for matter to be incessantly divisible. There has to be a fundamental unit of matter which is a single indivisible piece. They called that “atomo”...meaning “indivisible”. Now, you must understand.....the Greeks did not propose that an atom is made up of 0D little balls held together by ‘spirits’ and 0D electrons ‘ghosts’ orbiting those 0D balls. These ludicrous proposals came from the Clowns of Mathematics....i.e. the Pastor’s of YOUR Numerology Religion who use crystal balls to make these breathtaking PREDICTIONS.
“there4 we now know, for sure,....”
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don’t get it!!!
You are still LOST!!!!
And this is what YOU cannot get thru your THICK SKULL, Pythagarus!! You are so brainwashed by your Priests & Pastors......you are so enamoured by CELEBRITY & AUTHORITY, that you are fetishly drooling at the thought of mathematicians like Hawking, Einstein, Bohr, Sagan, Pythagoras, Euclid, et all.
Knowledge is NOT a part of Science. There is NO provision for Knowledge, Truth or Proof in the Scientific Method.
Knowledge, Truth and Proof are OPINIONS which form the foundational basis of Religion....i.e. YOUR theistic/atheistic/agnostic Religion!
It is impossible for any human to KNOW how natural phenomena work or the structure of matter, because the bandwidth of the human sensory system (and the technology they invent) is extremely limited. Anyone who claims to know, like the Pastors of YOUR Religion for example, ...are arrogant LIARS!!
The Scientific Method (hypo + theory) is used to Hypothesize an actor (object, i.e. God) which mediates an natural event (i.e. Creation), and to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN the how’s and why’s of the event in the Theory. That is all the sci method does!
A rational theory tells us that the objects of the hypothesis are POSSIBLE to exist.
An irrational theory (like God’s Creation) tell us that the object (i.e. God) of the hypothesis is IMPOSSIBLE to exist.
I cannot believe that you are still struggling with the basics of Science! You should become a fashion commentator....
It is Religionists who claim that Science has truths and proofs and knowledge, because these clowns don’t understand the Scientific Method and the limitations of the human sensory system. They saw 0D particles and black holes in their dream, so now these concepts are asserted to be part of reality. This is not Science!
“every-things is them atoms?”
No, not necessarily. If we can identify certain natural phenomena which cannot be rationally explained by atoms alone....then of course, atoms must be made up of some fundamental constituent of matter. But the bottom line is....matter is NOT incessantly divisible. There is a fundamental constituent of matter which is made of a SINGLE indivisible piece which cannot be broken or separated.
Winston,
“observer is the central actor....It must be part of the Heisenberg WTF? Principle”
The mathematicians routinely rely on idiotic 'tree-in-the-forest' reasoning to answer mundane questions. Bohr and Heisenberg were two not-so-bright individuals who developed the 'tree-in-the-forest' reasoning into an art. They alleged that whether there is a reality out there depends on the perception of a human (i.e., experiment/truth/proof). So successful were these two heroes of Mathematical Physics that they created the 'tree-in-the-forest' Copenhagen Interpretation.
Heisenberg's position vs momentum dilemma can be synthesized in Physics as: "When the ball moves, it doesn't stand still, and when the ball stands still, it doesn't move." This amusing pronouncement was adopted as a 'principle' of the religion of QM.
In reality, an event happened irrespective of whether a human witnessed it, and this is where we have trouble with irrational people like Bohr and Heisenberg. They claim that if they didn't see it, it didn't happen (i.e., phenomenon = observer).
Heisenberg and the mathematicians have not been able to justify the force of PULL. You can't produce PULL with discrete particles. You cannot hope to strike the billiard ball, have it roll to the 8-ball, deliver 'negative momentum' and compel it to move towards you.
The first thing we do is kill the observer! There are no opinions in science. So it's a moot issue what it "looks like to an observer". We are only concerned with what REALLY happened and not with what a stupid wino or demented individual of math 'thinks' happened! Science is objective, not subjective.
OMFG! I broke the f**kin' machine and AKA showed up to be nice!!!
sorry guys, how was i supposed to know that it was an experiment. here is a suggestion... remove irony from the uncertainty, and teach the borg allegory. AKA watch....
... too much fun with this... mumbojumbo
Let P = "There are opinions in science"
then not-P = "There are no opinions in science"
but (opinions) = not(science) --- by definition.
How do I know? it says so in the definition. How do i know the definition is correct... another definition said so... what???
Ask the scientist responsible for the first absolute definition... therefore scientist is GOD. No no no no! scientist got atoms defined wrong, so define scientist;))WHOA!!!!!!!!!
It is constructed nonsense (strawdummies).
A construct that is flawed.
SO TRY THIS...
"There are (opinions in not(opinions))"
self evident and trivial?? maybe...
Resolves into "There are ()".
Note that it's not "opinions" or "science" NOR "nothing" -- nothing is not-(thing).
Its Just simple dippidibooobaaasweetall ( ). And if you try to fill it with opinion or science you get fatfist irreverence or AKA considered kindness.
To me, that common unexpressed/inexpressible whatever ( ) is reason enough to be rational and irrational --- when ever I so desire, without need to fill the expression() with dumb words like GOD or science.
I am not saying it's not useful, I am saying that if you build a construct to destroy the stuff inside the brackets(), expect to get destroyed as well.... ME INCLUDED.
I must go play outside;)
Pythagarus you have to be the absolute biggest dumbass that has ever vomited his incoherent gibberish onto a hub-page.
Thank you El Dude, for your absolutist opinion. You have confirmed at least one of Oscar Wilde's axioms.... That indignation is hardly expressed with logical language.
Sorry Dude, I did not know HAL1000 was in beta version.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason. – Oscar Wilde
hi fatfist, you are a hard one to argue w so im not even going to try but I will comment on a few things if I may. I found your dissections interesting and you seem an "authority" on semantics if not anything else. your a seasoned infighter when it comes to throwing words around and dissembling notions. Im being very careful here, I dont want to get kicked. your hub, intelligence and comments suggest your a scientist of sorts. are you? just curious about your actual work as your profile is just a mystery. I find the statement you made that humans have the higest intelligence in the universe fascinating. how can you claim NOT to be an authority and utter such words. it seems you think you can understand everything there is to know. dont you know your wasting your time here on hubpages when you should be lecturing and inspiring brilliant minds world wide. forget about proving this or that about "God". in the frame of things it appears an exercise or contest of sorts. I didnt come across any responders that are worthy wasting your time so Im going to have to kick you to change arenas or are you just fine kicking amature butt.. my hats off, you just leave me wondering?? go easy on me cause im not an authority on anything, just trying to learn how the mind works within the universe.
@gconeyhiden,
Ummm....gcon, what is your argument?
Please explain to the audience exactly what causes your tummy to bellyache about this hub. Is it the font? Is it the background color? Is it the use of punctuation? I mean, ya gotta come clean with the details, otherwise you are no different than emrldphx, who bellyaches because his Religion was DESTROYED.
Was your Religion destroyed??
If so, than you can do what Jesus did on the cross to feel better i.e. drink vinegar!!
Otherwise, if you have an argument that can refute this hub, then spit it out, ok?
I have No argument. And I know of only one fact pertaining to this interesting hub. Your not the most intelligent creature in the universe. if you are prove it, in your next hub. I have faith in you to make it interesting.
@gconey
"I have No argument."
Exactly!
And neither do your buddies emrldphx & Philanthropy. Trolls of a feather bellyache together!
@Pythagarus,
"if you build a construct to destroy the stuff inside the brackets(), expect to get destroyed as well"
Exactly! That's why all your arguments have destroyed themselves....they are self-refuting. It didn't take me to destroy them, so don't bark at the messenger. I merely pointed out the contradictions in your feeble reasoning.
Perhaps you should kneel in front of your Priest and ask him to give you another lesson!
fast-fist you are a sweetheart. I did say "me included";)
Pythagarus,
"fast-fist you are a sweetheart."
You should look for sweethearts on Church St., in your downtown core. I hear they have all kinds there. You might even find the biker dude from the Village People....he'll take good care of you!
lol... HAL1000 has been rebooted; and back to identifying the non-humanoids -- and ignoring reason -- my work here is done;))
@Pythagarus,
So...you haven't been able to answer any of the questions I asked you. Trolls always run away instead of explaining their position.
Run away, Run away
Run away and save your life
Run away, run away
Run away if you want to survive
.....
Oh oh oh oh, run away, oh oh oh oh
Keep the faith, you gotta keep the faith
You better keep the faith and run away
Had to laugh at a comment made just below yours, here:
hubpages.com/question/144303/what-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-your-own-humble-opinion#answer388751
Look just below, a guy says, and I quote:
"The circle or a-symetrical,based on outward energy force caused by the Naked Singularity(big bang) and by detected microwave background radition on Nasa's I-rad.Taken into consideration Dark Matter,However now it has recently been discovered that a phenomina called DARK FLOW throw's all theroy for a loop as it consentrates to a single point of focus near the edge.Geodessics within a 4 dimentional space time curveture from a metric tensor as equaded in pythagoris therom show that parelell's don't remain constant.Indicating outward expansion.However if using elucidian geomerty and not hyperbolic geomerty when solving field equasions for general realitivy,the metric tensor will be true.And if using Hyperbolic Geomerty the metric tensor is true but DARK FLOW says other wise1Therfore I would be inclined to go with AN A-SYMETRICAL SHAPE!For this dimention! And inter dimentionaly stacked on top of each other!"
What a complete lunatic. Is this what mathematics does to your brain? Or just mathematical physics?!
Unbelievable gibberish. What a moron.
El Dude,
Yes, this is what happens when the herding mentality of humans leads them from one religion to another.
We first had God as the explanation of all things. But certain dissidents, known as "atheists", decided to deny the good Lord. These fundamentalists thought they could do better by inventing their own gods (energy, 0D particles, dark matter, warped space, dilated time, black holes, Big Bang) in order to explain nature.
What we have is ignorant humans who don't understand the difference between an object and a concept. So they end up inventing their own surrealistic fantasy world where concepts come to life and "threaten" them.
I mean, can you believe that many people are scared that the LHC will make a black hole which will swallow the Earth? This is NO different than the Christians who think that a sinner will go to Hell.
Humans are doomed as a species. They have nobody to blame but their ignorance and gullibility.
Fatfist,
I got it directly from the corn that "He who walks behind the rows" is pissed that you are crucifying his followers.
Fattie, do an article about the holy man himself, Karl Popper. I swear this jerk gets off lightly. He screwed humanity so much with his retarded ideas about "science". I always hear 'falsifiable this, unfalsifiable that' from empiricists and other clowns, yet those same parrots will look you in the eye and tell you wave-packets and black holes exist.
If 4d objects, infinite curvatures and space-time aren't falsifiable... WHAT THE FUCK IS?!
Saw this on a site called All About Science: (Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) demonstrated in 1928 that the Universe is expanding, showing beyond reasonable doubt that the Universe sprang into being a finite time ago.)
Beyond reasonable doubt...I wonder what the sentence was?
Guys, you gonna end up creating signatum from signum all of your own if you continue to agree so euphorically.
btw did you know that eu- means good and also "I" in Latin -- just saying.
Ok here his a question to keep me honest.
"decided to deny"
Free will, Devine miracle, or pure coincidence and luck?
Fatfist you did not delete my comments. I am impressed with your ethos. Pathos - not bad either. Now your logos is not as good as Mr AKA or the Dude - he's smooth. Socratic?? Bahah I hear 3dudes beating up on ignorant people. Yes Dude, not moron, that shows your ethos. Throwing stones is a practice only some morons can engage in.
@Pythagarus,
Of course your comments were not deleted. I don’t kick people who come here to discuss their beefs with my articles. But remember, you initially came here to troll. I, on the other hand, tried to get you to post your BEST ARGUMENT....I mean your argument that would destroy this hub and all my other hubs.
I did succeed in getting you to at least post a couple of half-assed arguments. And this is the best that your mental capacity can deliver. So by holding your hand, you were able to cough up some crap! That’s ok, crap is still an argument.
As you can see, arguments don’t get deleted......only trolls and spammers do. And these idiots know who they are....that’s why they never come here to post again. They stick in the Religion forums where they belong!
No, no troll. Btw I am back again because I heard the term "freedom from fear" - so wanting to look-see objectively I shall ask again.
Faithers are pathetic, not because they are morons - from pathos which comes from believing. When dudes claiming logos, resort to pathos and then get a word definition wrong - don't they deserve to be called to the ethos carpet????? With the same vigor as you do here - very socratic - hence freedom from fear - but all three must be shown. So, again, the q is... To have the freedom to use or be ethical, pathetical, or logical - each must be whole onto itself -- 1. what is "objective" and please don't be circular with object. ie x=f(x)
As pointed out On this hub, Mathematician as well as faithers can be stuck in logos and pathos respectively such that they sound the same x=f(x) ; replace x for pathos or ethos or logos.
What does it take, to transcend being stuck in one, to use all three in good measure?
@F_hruz,
Franto, as seen from your previous posts, this hub rubs you the wrong way because it definitively explains WHY a God is impossible. I guess it has to do with fact that atheism is based on the BELIEF that God doesn't exist. I mean, just like theists, atheists claim that "proof" either way on the existence of God is impossible.
So....what are atheists left with? What is the atheist's response to the God Hypothesis? Do atheists use their own Religion to "deny" another Religion? Is this all that atheism can offer....just subjective "emotional" arguments?
In any case....you still haven't answered the question I asked you on my previous post:
"Anybody who simply states their OPINIONS can easily be shown their contradictions....as I have shown yours. Can you show any of mine?"
Perhaps if you could refute this hub, it may add some validity to your sentiments.
Here’s a question for you: Can you use Math to refute this hub?
Can you use Math to explain to the audience WHY 2 atoms perpetually attract each other?
Of course you can’t.....Math only describes; it never explains why.
Math is used by priests today like Latin was used many hundreds of years ago. To frighten off inquisitive plebs and give an aura of intellect or divinity.
The only difference I can see is that the Math Priests don't tell you that their 0d Electrons LOVE you, but that you'll BURN in INFINITY for your sins in warped space-time!
Fatfist,
After about 10 million spilt pixels, philanthropy2012 finally defined existence: "Existence is a relationship between an object and everything else."
He finally spilled the beans on my forum question, "If you subtract humans, what is left in the universe?"
When it comes to destroying big bang religion fatfist is the best author in these hub pages.
And when evolution is parrot by the atheist the mighty toobsucker shows up and destroys there irrational theories.
Pythagarus don't tell fatfist and aka winston that evolution is just as made up as big bang religion- they might get mad at me.
Here is and example of toobsucker destroying Darwin's religion or aka neo-darwinism religion
This was an interesting Hub to read, and the comments just make it even better...
However, I must say, your Object/Concept religion will never fully explain anything, actually. No offense, but I like to call this age-old faith, the "Dead Rock Religion."
Unfortunately, this type of perception you have attained over the years, is blind to the obvious. It never will explain the mystery of life, the reason for the progression of evolution and constant need to improve and/or learn/evolve, or the emotions behind thoughts, personality, and what drives life in general, etc., as to you, none of those things technically exist because they ain't an object. Ha! You're a funny guy and very persistent, I'll give you credit for that.
I'm surprised you haven't been bombed with woo-woos talking about multiple dimensions and other otherworldly unprovable stuff. Me, I'm not bringing none of that in here, just saying that you unfortunately don't disprove anything other than the majority of the fantastical, silly religions of today.
Other than that, it was fun to read! Cheers! :D
It never will explain the mystery of life.
Amen
We know nothing of this universe or how life got started the best thing we could do is to have rational guesses.
Winston,
"Existence is a relationship between an object and everything else."
Ok, let's try to understand what Philo is saying here......
He is DESCRIBING what the term "existence" ALLUDES to .....and not what it MEANS (definition).
And he is correct....in that the term/word "exist" is a CONCEPT. Obviously the word "exist" is not an object like the word "rock" is. Specifically, absolutely all concepts are relationships between two or more objects.
concept: a relation between two or more objects.
But let's go one step further and ask Philo to DEFINE "exist" and tell us exactly what it means in no ambiguous terms.
I am very proud that Philo finally understood that the term "exist" MUST absolutely....without any doubt or question.....MUST resolve to a RELATIONSHIP between objects. There is absolutely NO other option. Good for Philo!!!!
If Philo takes his above statement and critically reasones it through, he will inevitably resolve it as follows...
exist: physical presence (i.e. an object having a location).
And an object can only have a location if there are other objects around. Hence the term "exist" is a concept. It is our conception of what it rationally means for an object to "exist"....without an observer being present to see/touch/confirm/prove the object to exist.
@Insane,
"your Object/Concept religion"
Religion?? Do you even understand the words you are using?
Religion is a field of study which reifies objects into concepts, ascribes motion to concepts and asserts supernatural mediators for natural phenomena.
Where do I do any of that in my hubs??
" It never will explain the mystery of life, the reason for the progression of evolution"
Mystery?? Is this what your Pastor told you....that life is mysterious? Perhaps life and existence are mysterious to people such as yourself because you cannot define neither of these terms. For the rest of us, there is no mystery as we can define them in no ambiguous terms.
Obviously you have no clue what the Scientific Method is all about. Perhaps you should take a course in Science 101 and learn the difference between Hypothesis and Theory.
Evolution is a Theory....a rational explanation of natural phenomena. Do you understand this much?
" and constant need to improve and/or learn/evolve, or the emotions behind thoughts, personality,"
Oh gosh....you are obviously in the wrong forum. This forum is about Science....the study of existence....not the study of concepts, like love, emotions and what warms the cockles of your soul.
You should ponder these questions with a Theologian, Spiritualist, Levitating Guru of India, Psychiatrist.....or even a cocaine addict who shoots himself up every night in some dark alley. They will have a lot of advice to offer you during your soul searchin'.
"emotions, thoughts, personality.... none of those things technically exist because they ain't an object"
Bingo!!!!
Now you are learnin'.
" just saying that you unfortunately don't disprove anything"
Right on the money again!!!
Proof and truth are the Hallmark of Religion.
My articles are about the Science which has nothing to do with proof.
I'm figuring out your ideas being conveyed to the readers and just realized it is quite shallow.
You put a note to the readers and yet you actually,in your title, claim that God is impossibly to exist. Wow, you're contradicting with yourself proving your arrogance and pride.
Then go ahead and state the contradiction, you moron.
Oh wait, you're full of shit!
Dagger,
“it is quite shallow”
I couldn’t have sinned in God’s presence if there is no God, right?
Does God have “presence” i.e. location?
“You put a note to the readers “
Yeah, the readers are put on notice that a “creator” God is impossible. The only God that is possible is the one which can “actually” be worshipped i.e. has LOCATION....like my neighbor’s sultry blonde wife with the luscious tanned curves and 44D’s....yum yum!!
“yet you actually,in your title, claim that God is impossibly to exist.”
Do you enjoy showcasing your ignorance all over the Internet? I mean, if your mother or your co-workers saw you posting such drivel, would they be proud of you?
A CLAIM is a POSITIVE assertion of a consummated event (i.e. that God created space & matter). The existence of God has nothing to do with “claims” or beliefs or wisdom or knowledge or truth or proof or faith or evidence. The Moon and God exist or not, irrespective of what a human ape utters once he learns how to communicate, got it?
That God doesn’t exist is not a positive assertion, much less a claim. It doesn’t even make sense to place this statement in such a context. You must be a theist, agnostic or an atheist, right? I mean, it’s only these 3 clowns on this planet who “speak in tongues” like you’ve just done. Everyone else talks coherently.
That God doesn’t exist is a rational conclusion stemming from critically analyzing the Theologian’s God Hypothesis (ie. the proposal that God is an object that exists) and God Theory (ie. God created space & matter). Have you ever done any “critical thinking” before in your life? Do you understand what I just said to you? I mean, how could these basics have eluded you? Did you even read the Bible or this article? If you did, then there is no excuse for your ignorant and embarrassing statements!
“you're contradicting with yourself”
A contradiction is of the form: P and not-P at the same time, where P is a proposition. Please showcase ANY contradiction with the luxury of detail, ok?
“proving”
A rational human understands full well that “proof” is the Hallmark of Religion.
So, what is PROOF?
In science, we neither prove nor disprove. Proof means that your Priest mounted and raped you. He had his way with you and 'converted' you to his Religion. That's all that 'proof' means. What is PROOF and TRUTH and EVIDENCE to one, is a LIE and BLASPHEMY and OBSCURITY to another. So how do we resolve this dilemma? Who is RIGHT and who is WRONG? Do we flip a coin? Do we consult a crystal ball or a Ouija Board?
The act of "proving" is a humorous human activity, not much different than binge-drinking or smoking crack-cocaine. Prove, like drinking & smoking is a VERB. To "prove", we require a human ape to use his limited sensory system to give us a subjective biased OPINION of what they sensed.
"Opinions vary!" -- Patrick Swayze (Roadhouse, 1989)
"Prove" is the verb that the Pastors of Christianity, Relativity, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Big Bang perform on our brain (or our orifices), to get us to swallow the nonsense that space and matter were "created" by God or by ‘nothing’.
Exist = object + location
The scientific definition of ‘exist’ makes no provision for proof or opinions, belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, testimony or evidence, authority or popularity.....whether we like it or not!
God exists or doesn’t, BY DEFINITION, only....not because some human ape with a clown outfit decrees it as such!
Proof is in the eye of the beholder......PROOF = OPINION!
“your arrogance and pride”
Like I said.... I couldn’t have sinned in God’s presence if it impossible for God to have ‘location’, right?
So I will happily resume my “sins of the flesh” activities with my neighbor’s wife, if you don’t mind.
Then go ahead and state the contradiction, you moron.
lol
Fatfist,
I have been going back and forth on a couple of forum questions and I finally see what you mean about the religious aspect of neo-scientists, aka atheists.
A simple idea that clear and precise definitions are required to scientifically examine reality receives a chorus of strawmen all ballyhooing in unison that concepts, of course, exist, that if they didn't exist we couldn't have the neo-religion of neo-science.
When one responds with the very simple explanation that existence depends on the definition of existence, holy war 0D jihadists highjack and fly conceptual airplanes into the towers of your definition while screaming about gravity, force, and magnetism and then swearing that Allah isn't real and believers in gods are morons.
It is truly a spectacle to see - providing you can witness concepts acting upon the physical world - which is, of course, a direct route into Bellview on a psyche diagnosis.
Winston,
That's why atheism is no different than theism. They are both fanatics. They both espouse belief over reason and critical thinking.
The funny thing is that atheists cannot explain WHY a God cannot possibly exist. Even the religious atheist, Richard Dawkins, says that there is a 1% chance that God exists. Can you believe this shit??
Atheism is the Religion of Reification!! Concepts magically turn into objects and scare the BuJesus out of you in the middle of the night.
I urge everyone to abandon this religion called atheism and start using their brains to critically reason and "understand" reality,.... rather than to "believe" what others force down their throats. You made a very difficult and major step in your life to understand what theism was all about and abandon it. Now it's time to do the same with atheism. Both are untenable positions for a rational human being.
What an incomprehensible load of gibberish and random angry mouth noises.
Where would one even start with this feces of a comment?
@pythagarus,
The issue of definitions and the Scientific Method has been addressed many times and resolved in explicit detail....with you, and with all the other trolls who come here to see their name in lights. So trying to revive a dead horse with the same debunked arguments only qualifies as SPAM. Stop cluttering my comments section with your nonsense.
P.S. If you want to see your name in lights, go to Hollywood and spread your legs for a rock star or something. He will make you famous!
Otherwise... surrender to your nearest Police station at 42 Division right now! They will call the men in white jackets who will take you to a nice place with lots of trees, flowers, sunshine, and nice people who will take care of you. I don’t know what your Pastor has been brainwashing you with over there at your Guildwood Presbyterian Church, but you have yet to understand why atheism is also a religion.
Hello Fatfist.
When Gaede says "EM ropes" I assume 'EM' stands for electromagnetic? Pardon my ignorance but I've never been able to grasp what electromagnetism is. I've tried reading layman material regarding the subject but it still eludes me. What does Gaede mean by EM? What are the ropes 'made of'? Are they made of something continuous, something solid? How is it I can I hold two magnets close to each other, feel the pull or repulsion, and pass a credit card through the gap between them? I watched Bill's vid on magnets but I still don't get what the ropes actually are and what they're made of.
Best regards.
Spastic,
“What does Gaede mean by EM? “
The EM rope is a hypothesis, as demanded by the Scientific Method. It is a PROPOSED object for Mother Nature's invisible agent/actor; the one which enables Her to carry out Her daily chores of 'illuminating' us and keeping us from flying out of the Earth. A hypothesis is never comprised of souls, spirits and ghosts, like energy, mass, fields, forces, waves, spacetime, 0D particles and other Fallacies of Reification. A hypothesis always identifies the actors (i.e. objects) which will mediate the phenomena of nature.
The rope is comprised of two threads, which, to stay with convention, we label them 'electric' and 'magnetic'. Thus, the infamous EM 'field' (concept) is now the EM rope (object). We could just as well have named it KY, from the famous jelly I often use on my neighbor’s wife when we engage in adult activities.
The word ‘field’ was invented by Faraday in 1836 to refer to 'a region in which something OCCURS'. The mathematicians have converted the CONCEPT 'field' into a physical object over the years: "The field accelerates the charge." Reality check: There is no such baseball bat in physics called 'a' field. Mother nature has no such garbage in Her kingdom. Thus, the THREAD is an object whereas 'a' field is a concept. In science, we don't move concepts. We can only move objects. What 'a' field lacks to be scientific is shape. 'A' field lacks form. It is not a valid object for the purposes of physics. This hypothesis can be used to explain inter alia:
1. Why the E ‘field’ runs orthogonally to the M 'field' (Faraday/Maxwell Laws) and twine around an imaginary axis.
2. Why light is sinusoidal (i.e., wave nature of light. Remember, a ‘wave’ is a concept, that we use to relate observable behaviors with variations ie. up/down, left/right, compress/decompress, etc.)
3. Why light 'travels' rectilinearly (taut rope).
4. Why light is so fast. (Torque a rope. You can't even film the speed of propagation... unless, of course, the rope is tied between the Earth and the Moon).
....and many other phenomena.
“What are the ropes 'made of'?”
Well, it's simple. They are made of two threads: the magnetic thread and the electric thread. You know, kinda like the old Fresnel-Maxwell EM 'wave' was made of 'a' magnetic 'field' and 'an' electric 'field', but now instead there is an object rather than a concept in front of us. Now we're doing Physics (thread) rather than Philosophy/Religion (field).
The thread is the “fundamental constituent of matter”. It is what matter (i.e. atoms) are made from. So the threads are not made from peanut butter, steel or rubber. They are what they are....irreducible fundamental entities. And this is what is so hard for people to grasp. We’ve been brainwashed to think that everything is made of something, and so on to infinity. God is made of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and infinite spirits. Atoms are made of protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, bosons, neutrinos, photons, gravitons, and 0D particles ad infinitum. So we must build Hadron Colliders to search for them, just like Religionists build Churches to search for God.
“Are they made of something continuous, something solid? “
Yes, they are continuous in the sense that they are not made of parts. They cannot be broken or destroyed into nothing. Matter is eternal.
“How is it I can I hold two magnets close to each other, feel the pull or repulsion, and pass a credit card through the gap between them?”
Because the credit card is made from a material which does not have swinging threads to interact with the swinging threads of the magnets. Only materials in which their atoms swing their threads are said to be “magnetic”. See Bill’s hubpages articles. They are self-explanatory.
I'm giving Spastic Ink a Nobel Prize in awesome curiosity for actually asking relevant, rational questions, in contrast to the swarms of religionists who frequent this "thread" (arf).
Bravo!
El Dude Amen
Thanks very much for your prompt reply Fatfist. I always appreciate your input. I'm going to digest your post and read up a bit more. I wasn't aware Bill had hubs as well. I also need to go through the rest of his website more thoroughly.
I understand the field/concept part and I agree. Magnets have fascinated me since childhood. In school we'd do the iron filing experiment and my science teachers would always tell me magnetism is the result of a 'field'. That never made sense to me. I always thought "Hey, these physicists and teachers must know what they're on about - I'm just a kid so it's obviously me who's missing something".
Thanks, cheers.
Spastic Ink don't forget to check out toobsucker articles there epic.
WOW
THE LACK OF EDUCATION on theology and philosophy JUST PERMEATES THROUGH YOUR IDEAS. I know your gonna wanna strike back and belittle me but just listen instead of thinking you have all the wisdom in the universe.
If you had even the slightest knowledge of theology you wouldn't have typed a single word as God is NEVER EVER proposed of being in Space.
ACTS 17
"in Him we live, move, and have our being". The other cases are anthropomorphism's, "the hand of God", "face to face with God" etc
I gonna help here despite the fact that I'll probably be ridiculed and met with extreme bias...
An analogy...Think of your dreams. Is there any real space in those dreams? Your thought creates a space, people and objects. They even talk to you and you have no idea what they are going to say. "They live , move, and have their being" in your thought.
God is not IN the universe. The universe is IN God. If God and space existed eternally then space would be God because God would need it to exist In. God is the unmoved mover, the foundation of all reality--space was created for physical objects to move in. God doesnt move. God is Thought--he has no parts.
So, your young, or have no idea, whatsoever, about even the simplest concepts of theology. God is not energy, or any other physical thing. He is not physical period and no Christian theologian, EVER, has described the ground of all Being as physical. Not only is this never been taught---it is philosophically absurd, as it forces God to not only have a beginning--but it forces Him to not be God.
About Proof
Christians dont "believe" because someone showed us one last piece of evidence that finally convinced us this was all true. This isnt Columbo
If we treat belief as the collecting of data, piecing together clues, and then finally obtaining just enough to put us over the hump, we leave ourselves open to that one piece of new evidence that debunks our theory.
THINK
If we didnt live a life but all just stood before some great being with 2 doors...one to heaven and one to hell..there would not be a single person who would not follow that great being into heaven
...and Yes...even if he was the Devil. God did not set up such a ridiculous plan of coersion.
Why is God not on TV? Can he not perform such a task?
God is almighty..that means the world is exactly how it has to be to save the most humans. It cannot be better, it cannot be worse. God is hidden for a reason. There is no coercion, there is just enough proof for those who want to know God to search for him through prayer and just enough doubt for those who dont to just say its all crap. Anyone who feels coerced is not a Christian. God is not some idiot we can fool.
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all who asked.. What Father would deny his child that gift, Christ said. Once you have that gift--Christ is a fact to you.
Think again about this point....If God set up a world in which knowing him was based on a collection of a certain number of facts or satisfactory answers--then that would mean you much reach that certain point of evidence to believe---which would also mean that if one was debunked you would no longer believe. This isnt some contest about who can figure stuff out the best. Its about your heart. Do you want God as your Father or Not? if so...turn to Him and he will make it clear to you. If not..just join the rest who make excuses.
God's plan is perfect. His message is designed to penetrate the Heart and he doesnt make mistakes. Those who are are FOR the Real God..not one they made up in their heads who agrees with everything they want--are His children ..it is guaranteed. They will turn to Christ.
Of all the people who I've talked to that dont believe in God, not one has ever answered yes to this question.....
Have you ever thought to ask God Himself what the truth is? Humbly and submissive?
They search for clues, have arguments with themselves, debating back and forth pros and cons, but never ask God. But why? Well, its usually because they think they're smarter than the supposed God of this world. In other words, "I can think of a better plan than this--so there cant be a God to ask anyway."
Dont you think that would block communication with God? :) Think about it..."I dont understand the plan...so there's no God." Isnt one of the definitions of God that he is infinitely smarter than us? Does a dog ever realize why we sent him outside to poop? You see suffering and think..I've got better plan. Doesn't a dog think he has a better plan than us too? Haven't we seen Man's grand plan enough to know we dont have clue?
It takes humility to admit we might not be as wise as we think we are. It takes a child like attitude to say, "God...help me understand. If you are real, help my mind understand it." If you drop your shields He will put it as a fact in your head. God's children flock to Christ(80,000 per day). People who are against this God flock to false religions and philosophies. They dont think they need saving.
Its not about clues or data. Yes, the probability of even the Atom's cohesion is insurmountable. Yes, there is testimony. People have died for it instead of suicide bombed for it. And yes, there are more copies of the Bible on earth than any other book. But ask God himself. That is the answer-- hear the testimony and ask God. No clever arguments will achieve what only God can do.
*****The vehicle God choose was not to put a burden on you---but HIM. We cant be perfect because have the freewill to think anything we want..(so its possible to choose.) We deserve to be punished for our behavior but God stepped in and took that punishment for us. All he asks is you accept that. His plan is like nothing man would think up. Man would make it hard..God made it as easy as it could be. Accept his offer and live forever. I say, where do I sign up? Man's idea would be to go on CNN. But God reveals the true state of a human heart by requiring child-like faith. Remember, they killed Christ when they saw him and all the great things he did. So seeing makes no difference because God knows who you are regardless of what you see.
The atheist search for "Proof" is not found in data, but in asking God. God transforms the mind...not data.
Paul, who also was a hater of the Christ, was very intelligent, but considered data worthless in the end. He found it was about the heart. He said..
1 Corinthians 1
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 2
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
His point is you can research all the live long day and it will all be just text on a page unless God reveals it to you. So now that you've done your research, ask God for the truth. Lower your shields
There are gonna be a lot of people, especially in this generation, who boldly proclaimed their wisdom-- who are gonna be counted as the fools of the universe because of their arrogance. It is this ar
yourreasonable,
WOW. WHAT AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF TIME.
EXACTLY!!!
REALLY??? FATFIST MADE THAT ALL POSSIBLE?? or are you just waxing poetic. God made the parasitoid that eats its host alive. God made insects because he couldnt figure out how to get the fruit any other way. God created the holocaust because Jews are the "Chosen People". God did this God did that. Did FATFIST tell you to write this overly sweet dribble? or did God just inspire you here on the holy station of FATFIST the unexistant one? Hail FATFIST!!!
Why do they always have to insist upon themselves? If you all are so right why do you feel the need to defend your beliefs? You will never prove God exists, if you could, there would be no need for faith, and there would be no athiests. You can spew all the bible verses at me you want and tell me my soul is going to burn in hell for all eternity and I'll still tell you the holy spirit doesn't exist just so I've committed an unforgiveable sin.
Here's a thought, try proving god exists without the bible....
That's all well and good, but it still doesn't prove the existence of God. Sorry.
@sunkentreasure,
You already spammed my comments section with your incoherent poem about God being so great a few weeks ago. And you didn't respond to my reply. So that was your freebie. You don't get to spam here again unless you go back and answer my questions, ok?
Yourreasonable,
“God is NEVER EVER proposed of being in Space”
Of course not. Space is not an object. There is no such thing as space. Any entity, including God, can only be inside another entity, like in your mom’s Tupperware, for example.
“God is not IN the universe.”
Bingo again! You and me are not “in” the universe either. You see, the universe is a concept....a relation. It is impossible for objects to be INSIDE concepts. I am glad you understand that it is impossible to put an apple inside justice or inside love or inside running.
Universe: a concept relating space (nothing) and matter (atoms).
Objects, like you, me and God, cannot possibly be inside concepts. You are quite the smart guy....kudos :-)
“The universe is IN God.”
Ooops! I spoke to soon.....I take my last compliment back.
How can the universe, which is a concept, be INSIDE an object, like God??
Can you please put justice or happiness inside a box and mail it to me?
You really need to go back to Junior Kindergarten and learn the difference between an object and a concept before you use your mom’s laptop to engage in adult discussions and make a fool of yourself all over the Internet, ok?
He is pretend, but not for the reasons you suggest, GodlessHeathen. Atheism's conclusions may be right (God does not exist), but their reasoning (WHY does God not exist?) is all messed up beyond repair!
There is no evidence of a God...that is reason enough El Dude
El Dudetta 6 months ago
Great new article!