FIRST CAUSE Argument for Creation - REFUTED
77
INTRODUCTION
THEISTS say that God is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.
ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe.
AGNOSTICS say that we are limited beings, and can never “know” who or what created the Universe.
Q: So who is right? Who makes sense? Which position is the rational one?
A: NONE! They already decided for ALL of us that the Universe was created. And they made this decision by merely converting a contradictory CLAIM into a fact.
Most people are conditioned to accept irrational claims like, Creation, as 100% proven certainty; and meaningless terms, such as, Uncaused First Cause and Infinite Regress, as absolute unquestionable “knowledge”. Such folks need to understand that a CLAIM is any “positive assertion” which deviates from the default position of ‘existence’. Since the proponents of Creationism wish to deviate from this default position, the onus is on them to provide an analysis which rationally explains that the “creation” of space & matter at some instant in the past, is a VIABLE option. Proofs, truths, facts, certainties, evidence and authorities are the hallmarks of Religion. The only objective criterion is a rational explanation.
Q: So what does this gibberish, “Uncaused First Cause”, even mean?
A: Absolutely NONE of the parrots of the First Cause Argument can even tell you what ‘a’ cause, ‘an’ effect, ‘an’ event, or even an object is; never mind ‘an’ Uncaused First Cause. They don’t even understand what the word “infinite” means or whether it’s applicable in any context. They have been spoon-fed these breathtaking contradictory arguments from their favourite authoritative celebrities who don’t even understand the arguments themselves.
This article will explain:
1) Exactly WHY Christianity’s beloved First Cause Argument is in complete violation of the Law of Causality. Whoever uses the Law of Causality in the context of “First Cause” or “Creation from Nothing”, is either embarrassingly foolish, or intellectually dishonest.
2) Exactly how the sleight of hand conversions of concepts, verbs, and “nothing”, into imaginary objects, are deceiving the audience into accepting the First Cause Argument.
3) The ontological contradictions hidden within all First Cause Arguments.
4) Exactly WHY the Universe (space & matter) is IMPOSSIBLE to “CREATE”, whether under the guise of a God, a Singularity, out of nothingness/void, or by any other conceivable means.
5) The 4 possible Creation scenarios asserted by humans throughout millennia. The application of the Law of Causality to ANY Creation “claim” will easily explain why the Universe is eternal – it had no beginning and will have no end.
We will explain why space is omnipresent and precedes God, and why God cannot perform “causal actions” without the existence of Target objects. This means that space and matter were already there BEFORE the alleged creation event. The Universe is indeed eternal.
The FIRST CAUSE argument is the “bread & butter” for Christianity’s God hypothesis - the eternal creator. You will be surprised to understand why it doesn’t have a leg or limb to stand on. It’s Game Over for the Uncaused Creator!
THE LAW OF CAUSALITY
Describing nature with the concept of Causality goes back to at least Aristotle where we have its first formal documentation. Aristotle formalized a theory of causality for the first time in human thought, which brought together elements of various thinkers of his time. Aristotle first introduced his theory of causality as a way of understanding the human experience of physical nature. His theory was instantly accepted in the known world by philosophers and theologians who used it as a tool for structuring their arguments, and demonstrating the reasoning behind their claims.
From a Scientific perspective, the Law of Causality pertains to the Physics of nature itself, rather than to any subjective or biased experience of it. In nature, causal actions occur between objects: mediators and targets. And causal actions occur whether an observer is there to make them evident or not. Absolutely ALL causal actions occur between objects. Causal actions do NOT occur between concepts. Whether the objects are invisible to a human observer is IRRELEVANT to the issue of Causality. All objects, whether invisible or not, have an inherent being or structure. All objects are entities which have the intrinsic property of shape – they have form! This is the only property that allows objects to be spatially separated from their background.
Even God cannot elude His objecthood and structure to His being, which gives Him shape. Those who disagree that all entities/objects have shape/form, whether invisible or not, including God Himself, have a LOT of explaining to do! God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘something’, God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being.
Even the God of the Bible is not stupid. God knows that absolutely all entities MUST have shape. And He goes out of His way to tell us so in no uncertain terms:
Deuteronomy 4:16 “so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman”
Numbers 12:8 “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.”
And God goes a step further by disclosing to us that ALL invisible entities, like light, air, and even God Himself, absolutely have shape (form):
Job 4:15-17 “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light”
Amos 4:13 “He who forms the mountains, creates the wind”
So the Law of Causality is absolutely applicable to ALL entities/objects whether they are visible, invisible, made of flesh, inanimate, living, dead, and even if the object is God Himself!!!!!!
Aristotle’s Law of Causality is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B)
Its specific application in the context of Creation is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B). At even consummation, there is a resulting Output (object C)
For example:
Aristotle uses the example of a builder creating a house to describe the Causality of Creation.
“A builder (object A) is using material (object B), to create a house (object C)”
All the concepts pertaining to the Creation event are:
Cause: The “act” of imparting action (surface-to-surface contact) with the material (object B), as performed by the builder. Synonym: “causal action” (a verb).
Effect: The “change” realized by the material (object B) during the duration of the “causal action” imparted by the builder (object A). Synonym: “change effect”.
Event: The phenomenon of Creation (house built) from initiation of Creation, to termination of Creation. An event is always consummated.
The ACTORS participating in the Creation event are:
Object A: The MEDIATOR object (builder) imparting “causal action”.
Object B: The TARGET object (material) undergoing “change effect”.
Object C: The OUTPUT object (house) resulting from the consummated event.
Cause, effect, and event are all concepts, and not actors participating in the Creation event. The actors participating in the Creation event are the following objects: A (the Mediator), B (the Target), and C (the Output).
We must not forget that the crucial ACTORS to any causality argument are the objects, like A, B, and C, shown above. Without a minimum of TWO “actor objects”, there is absolutely NO causality argument that can be established.
So what do these elusive terms, “CAUSE” and “EFFECT”, mean?
a) “Cause” and “effect” are VERBS. They are concepts, and not objects. There is NO such thing as ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event; ‘a’ cause or ‘an’ event does NOT exist. Only objects, like Mediators and Targets exist!
b) “Cause” is what something DOES (i.e. action), not what something IS. Specifically, “cause”, is the action that object A (the mediator) DOES to object B (the target) while interacting with the target.
c) “Effect” is what something DOES (i.e. changes), not what something IS. Specifically, “effect”, is the change in object B (the target) while interacting with object A (the mediator).
d) Object A (the Mediator) and object B (the Target) must BOTH exist, BEFORE the Mediator can perform “causal actions”, and BEFORE any “change effect” can be said to have been realized.
So what does the MEDIATOR (object A) do to the TARGET (object B)?
1) At event initiation, the Mediator moves toward the Target object and imparts surface-to-surface contact with the Target.
2) At this stage, the Mediator object has imparted “causal action” to the Target object.
3) Simultaneously with 2, “change effect” is realized by the Target object while interacting with the Mediator.
4) At event termination, the phenomenon is formally termed: Consummated Event.
The details of the “causal action” stemming from the Mediator, and the details of the “change effect” realized by the Target are issues which MUST be critically analyzed and explained in the Theory stage of one’s “claim” (i.e. Theory of Creation). The proponent of Creation MUST rationally explain to the audience all the WHY’s and all the HOW’s of the Physics and ontological details associated with the claim.
a) If the explanation has no contradictions, then we say that the Theory is “rational”, and hence the “claim” is viable (i.e. the event “could” have possibly happened as specified by the claim). Consummated events cannot be proven. Certainty plays no role in consummated events; they are only “claimed” to have happened in the past.
b) If the explanation has a single contradiction, then it will elucidate the Theory as irrational, and hence render the “claim” IMPOSSIBLE.
Remember: A contradiction always tells us what cannot be the case; i.e. what is impossible!
HISTORY OF THE LAW OF CAUSALITY & ITS REINTERPRETATION BY CHRISTIANITY
The monotheistic religions have regarded Aristotle's Metaphysics with both appreciation and hostility. Christian, Islamic, and Jewish theologians generally approved of his well-ordered, teleological world in which the Law of Causality describes how natural processes are directed toward the fulfillment of particular ends. Yet Aristotle’s philosophy was viewed as hostile to newly established Christian tenants in the late 2nd century. These included the doctrines that God is the “ultimate cause” of the existence of the Universe, the resurrection of the body, and the full immortality of the soul.
In Book Eight of his Physics, Aristotle describes what he calls the "Unmoved Mover" or "Prime Mover," which is the ultimate source of motion in the Universe, but is itself unmoved. For Aristotle this is an abstract conception of an impersonal god, who dwells at the edge of the universe and causes object motion. Although the Unmoved Mover was regarded by many as a god, it did not create the Universe. Aristotle reasoned why the Universe was uncreated in his philosophical argument for the eternal universe (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3).
Even though the monotheistic religions loved the idea of a prime Godhead overlooking the Universe, they hated the idea of an impersonal God who didn’t create all of existence, and who was not personally connected into the cultural and emotional aspects of human existence. In Aristotle’s eternal world there is no room for miracles, for providence, for reward and punishment either, and thus the basis of religion is totally shattered. So as Christianity progressed through the centuries, it was particularly compelled to repudiate Aristotle. Theologians thus tended to reject or reinterpret what they took to be Aristotle's offensive philosophical works. They even went as far as reinterpreting and rewriting Aristotle’s inconvenient laws of logic and inconvenient causality laws in order to suit their personal tastes and objectives within the Christian movement.
Contrary to Aristotle’s Law of Causality, in the thirteenth century, most Christian philosophers tried to reconcile Aristotle's logic and causality with the Christian idea that God created the world out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo). As a consequence, Aristotle's “unmoved mover” which set all objects in motion, was transformed into a “creating cause of existence”. More generally, the Liber de Causis (a Neo-Platonic Arabic work of the ninth century, translated into Latin in the twelfth century) had a decisive influence on the concept of causality. Christian theologians and philosophers reinterpreted and modified portions of Aristotle’s works in order to make them fit within Christian dogma. These actions resulted in making the Law of Causality inapplicable to the new dogma of Christian Creationism, “creation from nothing”.
Aristotle reasoned that “creation”, in the sense of matter surreptitiously appearing from “nothingness”, is contradictory and hence, impossible. Aristotle’s Law of Causality could not be reconciled with “matterless motion”, as all causes, without exception, are verbs that are mediated by a “mediating” object to a “target” object. Whereas Christianity’s dogmatic paradigm asserted “Creation from Nothing”, which meant that matterless “nothingness” will somehow acquire motion and participate in causality; specifically, it will be imparted with causal action from a mediating God, and result in an effectual output of matter and space (nothingness).
But space (nothingness) was ALREADY there! How is it possible to create space, when space is already “nothing”?
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that such contradictions are akin to arguing that “married bachelors smell like triangular square circles”. It doesn’t make any sense to claim that causality can be imparted on “nothing”. The only “nothing” in the Universe is SPACE. Although space is our conception of nothing, it is not artificial in the sense that we invented it as a concept. Concepts are artificially invented by humans. But space was “discovered” by humans. Space is not a WHAT. Space is a WHERE. It is the static distance between all objects. So as “nothing”, space can only be described via negative predication. Space is non-causal and not caused. It does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges for a mediator to “grab” on to and perform causal actions on it. We’re done!
THEOLOGIANS REINTERPRETED “CAUSALITY” TO PROTECT THEIR RELIGION
Not only was Aristotle’s Law of Causality changed in order to facilitate the irrational Christian dogma that the Universe was “created from nothing”, but it was also covertly REIFIED with DUALITIES by future theologians and philosophers, such as, St. Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig, just to name a few. Through the past 1400 years of mindless philosophical arguments which were used by theologians to convince the uneducated masses of Creation,..... theologians used ambiguities to convert the terms ‘cause’, ‘effect’, and ‘event’ from VERBS (concepts) into NOUNS (real objects). Today, these 3 terms are used interchangeably with the term ‘object’, as shown in the examples below:
- ‘The’ cause is ‘the’ event that made it happen. (cause and event = objects)
- God is ‘an’ uncaused fist cause for all of existence. (God and cause = objects)
- Humans are ‘the’ effect of God. (Humans, God and effect = objects)
- God set the event in motion that caused us to exist. (God and event = objects)
Is there no ontological difference between ‘cause’ and an ‘object’?
Is there no ontological difference between ‘God’ and ‘cause’?
Is there no ontological difference between ‘effect’, ‘event’, and an ‘object’?
Can God make ‘causes’, ‘effects’, and ‘events’?
Can God set ‘events’ or ‘causes’ in motion?
Do people even understand what they are saying? Have people lost their brains?
Yes, there is a difference. And God cannot make ‘causes’, ‘effects’, or ‘events’; neither can He move them! God can only build ‘objects’. Causes are actions or verbs which are MEDIATED by God upon other objects.
Remember: The Law of Causality necessarily requires a minimum of 2 objects:
1) The mediator (God).
2) The target object of the mediator’s causal action. The mediator will necessarily impart “causal action” on the target object, which will realize “change effect”.
** And in the special case of Creation, there is a resulting “output object” from the consummated event.
And no, people who mindlessly parrot such nonsense do not understand what they are saying. But no, people have not lost their brains; they just REFUSE to use them. People will mindlessly parrot whatever terms their favourite celebrity (authority) uses in their presentations. And they will happily do this without so much as blinking, and without even understanding the basics. Then they will go to Internet forums in order to defend a concept which they haven’t a clue about. But that issue is of no significance to them. They prefer to instead defend an irrational idea because they watched a YouTube video of their favourite celebrity defending it. That is all they’re interested in doing!!
But why is this issue I’m raising so relevant? Why am I nitpicking on petty semantics? I mean, we all understand the usage of these terms, right?
WRONG! Such terms which embody concepts cannot be used as ACTORS in any argument, presentation, or theory; especially in physics or in any context of reality. Love does not swim. Justice does not run. Beauty does not fly. Not in reality! If you are going to be clear for the sake of understanding, then you must be clear. Otherwise, your claim that “God is ‘an’ uncaused first cause” is pure baloney. It is irrational and has no meaning whatsoever. So this is not semantic nitpicking. People have been accustomed take too much for granted. And theologians count on that in order to easily PROVE their arguments and have them readily accepted. The theologian has to specify exactly what he means when he gives a scientific presentation on Causality and Creation. No euphemisms, figures of speech or ambiguities are allowed when understanding is at stake. Especially when understanding has the capability to influence people’s beliefs, and ultimately their lives. Theologians and philosophers don't like to use rigorous, unambiguous, and scientific terms because such consistencies destroy their arguments, if not their Religions. There is no other reason for a presenter of Causality and Creation to fall back on such wishy washy notions.
The buck stops here. When it comes to issues of ontological existence (reality), and the existence of God, there is no room for.....”nudge nudge, wink wink, you KNOW what I mean!”
Q: What benefits do theologians and philosophers obtain when introducing DUALITIES into their arguments?
1) They eliminate crucial problems which are DAMAGING to their arguments, because dualities allow them to COVERTLY make use of MATTERLESS MOTION. This novel idea allowed them to use the expression, ‘a’ CAUSE (irrational notion), in a very deceptive way that made it seem that “cause” was a noun (an object), specifically, the object God! So they conveniently eliminated the troubling objects B and C from Aristotle’s Law of Causality. And now, ‘the’ EFFECT is an object (irrational notion) which didn’t exist before, but now has magically resulted directly from God in the appearance of the Universe from nothing. In this irrational interpretation, there is only ONE object, God, which is synonymous with CAUSE. So there is no motion or causal action imparted by God to “create”. But then the EFFECT is the Universe, which magically appears out of nowhere! Only fools will swallow such concocted nonsense!
2) Now they established a situation where ‘a’ cause, which is a concept or “nothing”, is also treated as God (duality). So “nothing” now performs actions, specifically “creation”, and it is irrationally associated with the object God. This allowed them to convolute the Law of Causality and conveniently eliminate from their analysis the TARGET (object B), which the “causal action” was directed to. It is this TARGET object which was the source of heartaches and sleepless nights for many theologians and philosophers. Now that it has been ELIMINATED from Aristotle’s Law of Causality, the phrase, ‘a’ cause, is synonymous with God, and axiomatically made God the ONLY NECESSARY OBJECT in the Theologian’s new irrational Law of Causality. How convenient is that? This allowed them to easily FOOL people into thinking that God is the one and only, Uncaused First Cause. How could people miss such underhanded trickery? To borrow from a Capitalist slogan: “A fool is born every minute of the day!”
3) This reification and alteration to the Law of Causality also made their arguments SHORTER, because uneducated people back then could not follow an argument that was more than 3 lines long. And it made their arguments more convincing (believable). The audience now “believed” these arguments as PROVEN fact! How could they not believe them? I mean, God was now a magical creator and ‘a’ CAUSE; specifically, ‘an’ UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, even though this was contradictory to the Law of Causality. Now they have a spoon-fed argument which they THINK they understand, so they swallow it a face value without so much as blinking. Duh, but it sounds convincing to me!!
In fact, to this day, almost everyone and their brother considers the following terms as synonyms: cause, effect, event, and object. And the scary part is that they haven’t a clue how to distinguish between them. And that’s why these First Cause arguments are geared towards such folks; which sadly comprise the majority of the population.
Today, theologians, apologists, theists, naturalists, spiritualists, atheists, philosophers, logicians, and even mathematical physicists, have mindlessly inherited this SAME tradition from theologians of the past. They are now parroting this breathtaking knowledge as if they know what they are talking about.
WELL THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! And they shouldn’t be able to fool anyone with half a brain. Causality necessarily requires 2 objects: the mediator (object A) and the target (object B). Only if the mediator performs a causal action on itself, can we disregard the secondary target object. But even in this case, the mediator must be mereologically comprised of at least 2 component objects; otherwise it cannot impart causal action onto itself.
As demonstrated by the societal appeal of Religion, Einstein’s Relativity, Quantum, and the Big Bang Theory, many people harbour preconceived notions that consider matterless motion and creation from nothing to be logical possibilities. In fact, some even consider such notions as absolute proven certainty!
Today, people are unable to understand the ontological contradictions in the following list of impossibilities:
- Theologians ascribe motion to ‘a’ CAUSE, which is already a verb (i.e. nothing!!) that must be mediated by a mediator A to a target object B. Then they say that God is this CAUSE, by using reification. And they conveniently eliminate object B in order to make their arguments work.
- Theologians ascribe motion and causal actions to “nothing”.
- Relativity ascribes motion to 0D particles, space, black holes, and concepts such as ‘length’, ‘mass’, ‘time’.
- Quantum ascribes motion to 0D particles, space (quantum fluctuations), concepts such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and the various Standard Model particles.
- String Theory ascribes motion to 1D strings.
But isn’t ironic, that theists and atheists accuse each other of believing in Creation from Nothing, when in fact, they are both creationists who clearly believe in Creation from Nothing and matterless motion?
In summary, I hope the reader now understands how Aristotle’s Law of Causality was reinterpreted by the monotheistic religions in order to dogmatically and covertly allow the IRRATIONAL notions of:
1) Creation from nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).
2) Matterless motion.
3) The reification of concepts (nothing) into objects. Specifically, the conversion of ‘cause’, ‘effect’, and ‘event’ into gratuitous spur-of-the-moment OBJECTS that can be used to suit any argument.
APPLYING THE “UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE” TO THE CLAIM OF CREATION
In the next section we will analyze “creation” from BOTH the theistic (God) and atheistic (Singularity) perspectives. But before we begin, let’s establish our rational approach to the ontology of creation so that we understand what creation entails:
1) Do you agree that “creation” is a verb, an act that necessitates the motion of a MEDIATOR entity which always existed? Yes or No?
2) Do you agree that the act of “creation” necessitates “causal action” from the MEDIATOR? Yes or No?
3) Do you agree that “causal action” CANNOT be imparted on “nothing”? Yes or No?
If you are not in agreement with the above 3 points, then you are practicing one of the worst Religions imaginable: a religion which asserts ontological contradictions as facts. Your religion is not based on “faith”. It is instead based on the worship of “contradictions/impossibilities”.
I will now do what every atheist fears: I will grant the theist and theologian the premise that God is the Uncaused First Cause.
This is the atheist’s worst nightmare! Atheists prefer to attack God and immediately dethrone Him from His asserted beginningless existence. There is no reason to attack God and it is very unscientific to do so. We don’t attack objects in science, we use them to either explain the viability people’s claims, or to explain their contradictions.
Since creation is the theist’s “claim”, I will use their own Causality argument for an Uncaused Creator to determine if their claim has any merit, validity, or viability. And in order to do so, the claim of creation must NOT have any ontological contradictions. The same analysis will apply to the Big Bang Theory’s assumption of the Singularity.
Since mathematical physics posits that the Singularity is 0D (shapeless), has no width, no height, no length, then it is NOTHING, and the Big Bang creation theory FAILS right here and now! Creation from nothing is impossible. The Big Bang is absolutely NO different than Religion. It is absolutely EQUIVALENT to the doctrine of an Uncaused Creator God!
But, just to give these atheists a fighting chance against the theists, for argument’s sake, let’s assume the Singularity is a real object with shape.
Let’s use the notation, “object A”, as a convention to refer to an object with no beginning, that is, either God or the Singularity. So object A will be the MEDIATOR in the foregoing analysis.
Now we are able to analyze the act of “creation” from an ontological perspective with no bald premises, no logical semantics, no proofs, no assertions, no opinions, no biased observers, no subjective evidence and no BS!
In the foregoing analysis we will ACCEPT the Theistic and Big Bang assumption that either God or the Singularity is the Uncaused First Cause: The Creator. We will use the Scientific Method to determine the viability of this assumption at the conceptual level. We will critically analyze the process of creation and rationally explain WHY an Uncaused Creator, can or cannot, impart “causal actions” through all the creation scenarios that are ontologically possible. There are only 3 scenarios which are ontologically possible for an Uncaused Creator, and we will exhaustively analyze all 3 of them. If any of them lead to contradictions, then we will have rationally explained WHY that particular creation scenario is not viable and is ontologically impossible.
For the purposes of this analysis, we will use object A as a moniker for either ‘God’ or the ‘Singularity’; it is synonymous with either of them. Hence we will assume that object A is a real object that always existed (it was not created).
So let’s analyze the 3 possible ontological scenarios for the Causality of Creation:
SCENARIO 1 – Causality on Something
This is an example of creation out of something (Creatio ex Materia).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon another object, B, which always existed without cause, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). This scenario is an example of Causality on Something, because TWO “actor objects”, the Creator (object A) and the material (object B) have always existed without being caused. The result of the event of Causality on Something mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.
1) Before the causal action of “creation” can begin, do you agree that an object, call it object A (God or Singularity), is necessarily required to have always existed (without cause or beginning), in order to perform this CREATION action we call, “cause”? Yes or No? If No, go to 3.
2) From 1, if Yes, then do you agree that “at least” another object, call it B, MUST exist in order to have causal action performed on it by object A, so that object A can “create” something from it? Yes or No? If No, go to 4. Absolutely ALL creation actions require a physical Creator object A, to mediate its “creation” causal action upon a Target object B, in order to create object C. This means that existence is an ontological necessity and it precedes any cause/action. Before a causal action can occur, AT LEAST 2 OBJECTS MUST ALWAYS EXIST, object A and object B. In the context of “creation”, object A will impart causal action on object B, in order to “create” object C from it. Both objects A and B have no beginning – they were never created! They necessarily ALWAYS existed! But object C was ASSEMBLED from at least object B. It was not created from nothing! It is impossible to realize any scenario where object A imparts a causal action, without at least one Target object, namely B, having always existed. Any notion suggesting otherwise, is either an ontological impossibility, or object A has to perform a causal action on “itself” or on “nothing” (see 4). Go to 5.
3) From 1, if No, then you are SERIOUSLY in trouble! You will need to rationally explain how causal action can be performed without an object to mediate the action. You are positing a state of nothingness. How does “nothing” perform causal actions? Go to “SCENARIO 4”.
4) From 2, if No, then do you agree that object A must impart causal action on itself, and SACRIFICE ITSELF in order to “create” something? Yes or No? If Yes, then go to “SCENARIO 2”. If No, then go to “SCENARIO 3”.
5) From 2, since object A and “at least” another object, B, must have always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour these objects and allow them to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothingness), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Space precedes causes; it necessarily precedes motion. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
6) From 5, we have rationally explained that space, object A, and “at least” one or more objects, namely, object B, were ALWAYS present and could not have been created. Since SPACE WAS NEVER CREATED, and necessarily is the background for all objects, then space is necessarily OMNIPRESENT. SPACE IS EVERYWHERE, contouring all objects (invisible or otherwise). Space has no boundaries or borders to cross. Space is “nothing”. Only objects have boundaries (i.e. shape), not space. There is no “outside of space”. Therefore space cannot be “transcended”. No object, including God, can do that magic trick – no matter how much they kick, scream, and shout!
Conclusion from Scenario 1:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.
Space is “nothing”; it has no shape and is therefore neither finite nor infinite. Space is unbounded and borderless. Therefore space is ETERNAL because it cannot be created or destroyed. Since space must necessarily enclose and contour God, this makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The Uncaused Cause Argument assumes God to be eternal, but space is already OMNIPRESENT AND ETERNAL. God is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space! There is no other way about it. Space is there without God, but God cannot exist without space. Space is IMPOSSIBLE to create as its omnipresence necessarily wraps all objects. God must be IN space in order to move and perform causal actions, like “create”.
Similarly, one or more objects (B, B1, B2,...Bn) always HAD to exist as targets in order to facilitate the causality of “creation” from either God or the Singularity. These objects are matter (atoms). And since matter cannot be created or destroyed (converted into nothing), therefore matter has no beginning and no end. This necessarily implies that the amount of matter (atoms) in the Universe is constant. No new matter can ever be created. Therefore God is not omnipotent; He is not able to do whatever He wants. God cannot defeat nor contradict the omnipotence of “nothingness” and “matter”.
Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter in this scenario of Causality on Something, this means that object A was just another matter object (atoms) in the possible constant amount of matter in the Universe: A, B, B1, B2,...Bn.
This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. Space and matter were already there. They were always present with no beginning or cause, at least in the form of objects A and B.
So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one’s self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 2 – Self-Causality
This is an example of creation out of the being of God (Creatio ex Deo).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon itself, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible. So in this particular case, object A must necessarily consist of at least two component parts, and not a single continuous indivisible finite piece. Only then can object A, as a whole, impart causality upon itself, that is; upon its component parts. The result of the event of Self-Causality mediated by object A upon itself is intended to be the Universe.
1) Object A will impart “causal action” upon itself, and sacrifice its component parts in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).
2) From 1, since object A has always existed without being created, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). And space necessarily contours all the component parts of object A in order to allow them to move when imparted by causal actions. Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
3) From 1, it necessarily follows that object A is made up of matter (atoms), and breaks pieces of matter from itself and distributes them in the Universe. Since space is omnipresent, it necessarily contours all the matter (atoms) in the Universe, even before they were dismembered from object A.
Conclusion from Scenario 2:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms). They can only distribute atoms which they already have. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! In this Self-Causality scenario, God is necessarily made up of matter and would have to sacrifice His own matter in order to disperse it in space. It is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe. If anything, God can only build it from pre-existing matter.
If God dismembers Himself to distribute matter, then what becomes of God? Isn’t God a living being? How much matter can God afford to lose before He stops living?
But of course, since space necessarily contours all of God’s matter (atoms), why would God need to disperse these atoms in space? They are already IN space. Their distance of separation is meaningless and irrelevant as to whether the matter currently in the Universe comprises God’s being or not. If we conceptualize and visualize all the matter in the Universe from a “bird’s eye” perspective, we could easily “join all the dots” to outline an object and claim that this object is indeed God. So what then is the difference about how the Universe is NOW, versus at the alleged moment of Creation? The only difference is in the ‘location’ of the matter (atoms); there is no other difference.
Well, the Devil’s advocate may say that God is still alive because He still has matter connecting and comprising His being,.... even though the rest of the matter in the Universe is disconnected from God and therefore comprises OUR “separate existence”. After all, God is outside of space and matter.
But the Devil’s advocate would be DEAD WRONG! Absolutely every single atom in the Universe is gravitationally bound to every other atom. This means that all the atoms in the Universe are physically interconnected with each other! So if God’s being consists of atoms (and it MUST be if He sacrificed his matter), then God is incapable of having his own SEPARATE existence from the rest of the matter in the Universe, including us. If we are capable of having a beginning and an end to our life, then obviously God MUST have a beginning and an end to His life, because after all, He consists of atoms. Only matter is eternal, life is not, because life is NOT an object, life is a concept. Life is not what something IS; life is what a collection of atoms DO!
Life consists of a collection of atoms, which come together under gravitational attraction in specific configurations, to form an object that is able to move of its own volition against gravity. If crucial configurations of these atoms dislocate from the object, or if other atoms combine with the object to alter these crucial configurations, it is said that the object has come to the end of its “service life”. And since the atoms of God are necessarily gravitationally bound to all other atoms in the Universe, then God’s atoms are influenced in the same way our atoms are influenced. This means that if God did exist, and did have life, and sacrificed his matter to distribute it in space, then God’s life has either come to an end, or it will come to an end. There is no escaping it. God can be as omnipotent as he wants in this scenario of Self-Causality, but even He is humbled by the formidable omnipotence of space & atoms. Since God necessarily consists of atoms wrapped by space in this scenario, then He is powerless to them.
So God cannot have it both ways. God cannot say that He sacrificed Himself by dispersing matter all over space, and yet have the capability to be a separate discrete entity, because absolutely ALL matter is interconnected. All matter is attracted to each other via gravity. There are NO discrete entities which are separate from matter; all entities are interconnected at the atomic level. God cannot be OUTSIDE of matter anymore or any less than He can be OUTSIDE of space. There is no such “outside” context when it comes to the ontological primacy of existence. Space has no borders to cross and thus cannot be transcended. All of matter is interconnected at the atomic level, so God cannot sever these eternal interconnections, for if He could, He would destroy His atoms and His being. Therefore God cannot transcend matter. In this scenario of Self-Causality, God is necessarily all of matter......whether He likes it or not!
Q: So then, what did God create, build, assemble, or organize in this Self-Causality scenario?
A: Nothing that wasn’t already there! To posit that a God exists who simply increased the distance between portions of his matter to enable our existence to “assemble”, is an irrational and ludicrous notion. All the matter was already there! And it was already interconnected! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL!
Regardless, the quantity of matter in the Universe is constant; it cannot be created or destroyed. If the universe was composed by an unlimited quantity of matter, the Universe would be a single infinite solid block of matter, and there wouldn’t be any space at all. Such a scenario would not permit motion, life, let alone a God.
The BEST that proponents of creation can do in this scenario is to use the words ‘God’ or ‘Singularity’ as synonyms for “matter”. It is obvious that if ‘God’ or the ‘Singularity’ existed, they MUST have necessarily been composed of matter (atoms). Since object A (God or Singularity) did NOT create space and matter, this means that it can be conceived to be a conglomerate of matter (atoms), which comprise a constant amount of matter in the Universe (i.e. objects: B, B1, B2,...Bn). The Universe would be no different back then, than it already is today; other than for the locality of matter. There is no other option!
This scenario of Self-Causality posits the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of creating the Universe (matter & space). But this is an ontological contradiction because space and matter were NOT created. So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space, AND it was necessarily all the matter in the Universe itself! Creating matter from one’s self is IMPOSSIBLE under any context. Matter can only be redistributed or dispersed, NEVER created!
If theists, atheists, or other creationists wish to refer to all the matter in the Universe as ‘God’ or ‘Singularity’, then more power to them, as that would make them Pantheists. Synonyms are no substitute for a rational explanation to the contradictory claim of creation.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 3 – Causality on Nothing
This is an example of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo).
In this scenario, object A (God or Singularity), which always existed without cause, will impart causal action upon “nothing”, which was always around without cause, in order to “create” the Universe (matter & space). In other words, object A will perform “Creation from Nothing”. Object A must necessarily impart causal action upon space (nothingness), since no other medium is available to create from. The result of the event of Causality on Nothing mediated by object A is intended to be the Universe.
BUT....
We must understand that without at least TWO “actor objects”, causality is impossible – it is an ontological contradiction!
This scenario defies the Law of Causality! An Uncaused First Cause is IMPOSSIBLE in the context of Creatio ex Nihilo!
1) Object A will impart “causal action” upon “nothing” in order to create all the matter in the Universe (objects B, B1, B2,...Bn).
2) From 1, since object A must impart causal action on “nothing”, and since space is “nothing”, then space MUST have always been present in order to contour object A and allow it to move and participate in causal actions (verbs). Without the background of space (nothing), object existence, object motion, and object causality, are ALL impossible. Therefore, space had no moment of creation – it was always there!
3) Since object A will attempt to impart “causal action” upon space (nothing), it will absolutely FAIL to perform any causal actions. Why? Because space is nothing. Space is non-causal, not caused, shapeless, structureless, boundless, and incorporeal and it is not a Target actor in causality. Only objects can possibly be “actors” in causality. Causality necessarily requires SURFACE-TO-SURFACE CONTACT between TWO objects, A and B. Since object A is the only object assumed to always exist, it is impossible for it to impart causal action on its background medium of nothingness, space. Space is the necessary background medium giving form and contour to object A. Space is what gives spatial separation to object A, thus enabling it to be an entity, and giving it the ability to move against the background. God cannot rub elbows with space (nothing) and cause actions on it. All the objects in the Universe are constantly moving in space. If we deem this motion as “causal action”, then WHY aren’t they “creating” new matter in the process? The creation of matter from space is indeed impossible!
Conclusion from Scenario 3:
So if we now assign God or the Singularity to object A, we arrive to the same ontological contradiction: God or the Singularity CANNOT create space and matter.
It is painfully obvious that God or the Singularity have absolutely no way to create the eternal and omnipresent space that necessarily surrounds every object. Of course that can’t be done, because space and matter are necessarily eternal.
It is also painfully obvious that God or the Singularity cannot create matter (atoms) from nothing. There is no magical wand that God can wave which will surreptitiously convert the formidable and omnipresent nothingness of space, into matter – IMPOSSIBLE! All the atoms in the Universe were already present (eternal) and constant in quantity; they cannot be created or destroyed. In this scenario, object A is indeed a conglomerate comprised of all the atoms in the Universe. Creatio ex nihilo is impossible! Causal actions cannot be imparted on the nothingness of space. Therefore, in the scenario of Causality on Nothing, it is absolutely IMPOSSBLE for God to create the Universe.
So whoever posits the scenario of Causality on Nothing, has to understand that object A is ALREADY representative of all the matter in the Universe. All the matter was already there! And it was already separated by space! Matter is indeed ETERNAL! You can call it God if you wish, but that is completely irrelevant.
The ramifications of this scenario are similar to that of scenario 2, Self-Causality, and so are its conclusions about object A and its component parts being equivalent to all the matter in the Universe.
But the most important issue here is that Causality on Nothing VIOLATES THE LAW OF CAUSALITY! There is absolutely NO causal action. Causal actions necessarily require the motion of at minimum, TWO objects. This means that object A must act as the Mediator of causal action to a Target object, say, object B. So object A will be in motion and impart causal action via surface-to-surface contact of another object, B, which will necessarily impart motion to object B. God cannot rub elbows with nothingness, and cannot impart motion or “causal action” on it.
This scenario of Causality on Nothing posits the irrational idea of “matterless motion”, which is completely IMPOSSIBLE because it is an ontological contradiction. Space cannot have motion imparted on it because it has no shape, no structure, and no boundary or surface to contact. Only objects can have motion imparted upon them.
So if God or the Singularity has always existed uncaused, it was necessarily surrounded by space. But it was unable to impart a causal action on space, as space is motionless and non-causal. Thus it was unable to create matter from nothing. Such a magic trick is indeed impossible under any context!
The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals with a dishonest agenda to push.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
SCENARIO 4 – Causality out of Total Nothingness
This is another variation of creation out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo), where there is no mediator or any object present. Even space is said not to be present in such a scenario. So it is a case of Self-Creatio ex Nihilo.
This is an irrational creation scenario posited by those fools who claim to believe in a “Creator-less Creation from Nothing”, where nothingness is the “mediator” imparting causal action on itself to create a real “output” object”.
The fools who posit this scenario are no different than those who posit any variation of Creation from Nothing. We already settled this issue before. Nothingness is non-causal and not caused. Nothingness does not have any shape, borders, boundaries, or edges. Hence, as a MEDIATOR, it cannot come in contact with itself in order to perform causal actions on itself. We’re done!
And I can’t wait for the proponents of this scenario to explain to me with the luxury of detail, exactly how ‘nothingness’ is different from ‘space’. I will crack open a bottle of champagne just to hear that explanation. I will not give such fools the time of day by discussing this scenario further in this article, as there is NOTHING to analyze! If there was such a scenario as total nothingness, then we wouldn’t be here discussing it.
The Law of Causality is not applicable to any Creation from Nothing scenario where there is no MEDIATOR or no TARGET. It is impossible to have CAUSES and EFFECTS. So those who attempt to apply Cause/Effect to Creation from Nothing are either extremely foolish, or extremely deceptive individuals.
Irrespective of what conceivable Creation “claim” we analyze, the reasoning always demonstrates that the Universe (matter & space) is ETERNAL.
AN “UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE” IS ONTOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!
Of course, “Causality on Nothing” is the most popular causality scenario posited by theologians. They covertly treat ‘a’ cause as a noun (object) and make it synonymous with God, as in: “God is ‘the’ cause of the Universe”.
So we have a situation where the Law of Causality is contradicted because a minimum of 2 objects are required for causality, the MEDIATOR and the TARGET. But there is NO target object, even though the unsuspecting audience is under the impression that the target is the Universe, it is in fact the word “cause” which confused them and threw them off course because it is treated as an object. So the audience interpreted this ambiguous sentence as: God imparted ‘a’ cause, which seems to be the “causal action” (but it is not), and the effect or outcome was the Universe (but it wasn’t).
It is easy to understand that there was NO “causal action”!!
Q: What was the target object on which the “causal action” was imparted upon?
A: There is no target object. And the Universe is not the target object because it is the end result of the event of creation.
By treating verbs/concepts as NOUNS in a sentence, the unsuspecting audience thinks the sentence is about REAL ‘things’; i.e. things which exist. But it’s not the case. The ontology of Causality deals ONLY in real objects, not concepts or missing objects. Concepts don’t exist; they require a conscious observer to conceive them. Objects precede all concepts. Objects were around before humans arrived to conceive of “causes” and “effects”, and decide whether the ‘mediator’, ‘target’, or ‘output’ objects are representative of “causes” or “effects”.
It’s no wonder why such “fast and loose” ambiguous language with metaphors and euphemisms to drive home the point is HIGHLY DESIREABLE by theologians and philosophers. It has to be, as they have no legitimate and rational means of rounding up mindless followers to join their Religion. But their party hasn’t stopped there. They have managed to brainwash the mindless atheists and mathematicians to parrot the same irrationalities without having a clue of what they are talking about. But there is no surprise there, as most atheists are ex-Religionists and most mathematicians are Religionists.
Without understanding the underlying principles of ontology and Causality, people cannot even begin to comprehend the fatality that is hidden within ALL First Cause Arguments. People are used to going on the Internet and YouTube to educate themselves on this contradictory First Cause Argument, without so much understanding the basics. Then they will parrot this nonsense to others like it’s some Nobel Prize winning knowledge. Even Stephen Hawking is a clueless victim to this SCAM as is evident in his presentations on physics, causality and the Universe.
As you can see, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE SLEIGHT OF HAND which 99.99% of all people fall victims to, no matter what their level of education. The human brain is first and foremost a “pattern recognition machine”, and this is the most efficient job that it does most of the time. And in this mode, the human brain automatically fills-in the missing ‘target’ object in the Uncaused First Cause scenario. And it fills it in with the reified object noun “cause”. And the unsuspecting observer swallows up the argument as absolute fact without even using a neuron to think about it.
So naturally, it is almost impossible for most of us to spot such contradictions as missing target objects in the above example. Most of us prefer to BELIEVE what we are told by “perceived” authorities. Humans are extremely LAZY creatures. They prefer to have their “knowledge” spoon-fed to them from a decorated authority, rather than spending a few minutes of critical thought to figure things out for themselves. And this is the primary reason why we have beliefs in Gods, creation of existence, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, black holes, warped space, time dilation, time travel, 0D particles & singularities, particle accelerators, ghosts, spirits, monsters, etc. It’s business as usual here on Earth!
Here is another popular example that is often asserted by theists:
“Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call God.”
And if we replace the word ‘God’ with ‘Singularity’, we will get the breathtaking atheistic version of the First Cause argument. So I guess that one is proven fact too, huh?
Homework: Can you spot the 3 ontological contradictions (reification of ‘cause’, matterless motion, creation from nothing), in the above statement?
If you have ever debated a Christian, you will inevitably see them choose arguments that allow them to play on both sides of the fence.
Christianity’s bread and butter is Aristotle’s Law of Causality in its application to the First Cause argument for the creation of the Universe. Christian philosophers often claim that:
“Nothing exists without a cause; and the uncaused first cause of the Universe is God.”
Isn’t it ironic, that theologians, philosophers, and theists use Aristotle’s Law of Causality to attempt to prove their claim of creation, when in fact, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at MINIMUM, the existence of 2 objects: the MEDIATOR (object A) and the TARGET (object B).
And in the specific application of Creation, the Law of Causality necessarily requires at minimum, one OUTPUT object from the consummated event. Under the ontology of Causality, Creation in any form, under any mediator, under any context, is completely impossible!
THE LAW OF CAUSALITY DOESN’T EVEN APPLY TO SUCH CONTRADICTORY FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENTS WITH MISSING OBJECTS.
Why is this basic concept so difficult for people to understand?
1) If God is going to perform a “causal action” for Creation, then it rationally follows that He will perform this action on a TARGET, right? Otherwise, what is it that He is going to perform?
2) And it rationally follows that the result of that consummated event will have an OUTPUT that stemmed directly from the TARGET, right? Otherwise, where is the OUTPUT object going to stem from, nothing?
3) So BEFORE Creation, there must have been at minimum 2 objects always existing: God and the Target, right? This means that matter is necessarily ETERNAL!
4) And AFTER Creation, there must have been at minimum 3 objects existing: God, the Target object, and the Output, right?
I mean, this is straight forward stuff. There is no reason for somebody to use deception and dishonesty to make their argument acceptable, right?
It is painfully obvious that:
THE PROPONENTS OF CREATION CANNOT USE THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS THE LAW OF CAUSALITY.
As I explained in my analysis of the 4 possible scenarios for Creation, “creation from nothing” contradicts Causality and is thus ontologically impossible. Anybody who attempts to use First Cause Argument to account for the claim of Creation, is either a VERY ignorant person, or a charlatan!
C’mon people.....God must have given you a brain. Use it for a change. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
But don’t get me wrong. I am not here to pick on theists, as atheists, logicians, philosophers, mathematicians, and mathematical physicists are no different when it comes to understanding the ontology of Causality. They have all been taught to parrot this nonsense by Religionists. So let’s pick on them for a change, shall we?
One of the many disturbing examples out there can be found in the writings of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the eminent British logician and philosopher of the 20th century. Russell, an atheist himself, once claimed that:
“If everything must have ‘a’ cause, then God must have ‘a’ cause. If there can be anything without ‘a’ cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.....There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without ‘a’ cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about ‘the’ First Cause.” -- Bertrand Russell (Why I am not a Christian)
It’s obvious that the Law of Causality as applied to Creation even eluded the much praised Bertrand Russell. Even Russell, a famous mathematician and logician, did NOT understand the basics of Causality and ontology. For if he did, he would not have made such a silly childish argument against God being ‘the’ First Cause. He was blind to these fatal ontological contradictions in his above remarks:
1) He did not notice that he is reifying ‘a’ cause and ‘the’ First Cause, from a verb, into an object.
2) In his statement, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without ‘a’ cause”, HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! If say, for argument’s sake, that it is possible for the Universe to come into being (which is impossible), then that event MUST ABSOLUTELY be mediated by a MEDIATOR that imparted “causal action” upon a TARGET. To say, like Russell did, that a consummated event does need to be caused by a mediator, not only violates ontological existence and Physics and logic, but is TOTAL LUNACY!
3) He did not notice the implicit necessity of matterless motion in the First Cause Argument.
4) He did not notice the necessity of “creation from nothing” in the First Cause Argument.
Such a smart person should have pointed out that Causality requires at minimum 2 objects: the mediator and the target. And from this he should have concluded that creation under any context is impossible. So Russell was indeed WRONG in his conclusion....he should have spent a lot more time thinking about and understanding the Law of Causality. He gets a failing grade.
If God cannot create space and matter, especially when matter was ALREADY present in the 3 Causality Scenarios I outlined earlier, then what makes theologians, philosophers, and logicians think that God can create “out of nothing”?
How is that even a possibility?
Why would any logician attempt to use childish emotional arguments to attempt to discount Christianity’s “creation from nothing” myth?
Are these people on drugs or something?
Creation from nothing, or any sort of creation of space and matter, under any context, is easily shown to be completely IMPOSSIBLE via the Law of Causality. An Uncaused First Cause is instantly shown to be impossible because it is an ontological contradiction.
Should we accept as fact, or believe in, or have faith in the possibility of a triangular-square circle?
Can God be omnipotent and not-omnipotent?
Can God make parallel lines intersect, while still maintaining their parallel nature?
If you are a human being with HALF A BRAIN, you must concede that there are things which a God CANNOT do, no matter if His life dependent on it. In fact, many Christian apologists and logicians (William Lane Craig and Matt Slick come to mind) will explicitly tell you in no uncertain terms, that God CANNOT defy the laws of logic, and God CANNOT defy the ontology of nature.
It takes the worst kind of Religion imaginable to base its beliefs in pure contradictions. It takes the most dishonest and heinous Religion imaginable to teach its followers to worship and base their lives on pure contradictions. An honest and real Religion bases its epistemology on what is rational and reasonable. And it bases its faith and belief system on the UNKNOWN and UNEXPLAINABLE, which it attributes to God. Unfortunately, Christianity is no such Religion, as it bases its epistemology on impossibilities which are easily explained to be impossible!
People can make up all the excuses they want in order to protect their ignorance, their emotional biases, or their Religion. But one thing is a definite 100% certainty: All irrational claims and excuses have inherent contradictions which are easily unravelled, .....not by logical proofs, observations or evidence, .....but by critical thinking and analysis. Intellectual dishonesty never prevails, especially in Creation Arguments, whether in support of God, or of the Singularity and Big Bang.
No matter how you approach the First Cause Argument, and no matter what the context, when you critically analyze the ontology of Creation, you always reach the same conclusion: THAT MATTER WAS ALWAYS THERE. Even if God was there, matter was necessarily with Him, whether as another object, or in the composition of His being – whether He likes it or not. But the ultimate death blow to Creation is that space necessarily precedes God. God cannot exist without space contouring Him and allowing Him the free-will to move. Space reduces God’s free will. Space is MORE formidable than God!
Therefore, God is not omnipotent, not omnipresent, and does not have ultimate free-will,......and if God is said to exist.....then God is necessarily comprised of matter (atoms), just as we are. God would be just another being, maybe much bigger and more power than us, just as the dinosaurs were, or maybe even bigger.
THE DEVIL HAS MANY ADVOCATES
The Devil has his career to think about. Without God to set some authoritative standard, there would be no authoritative negated standard and no Devil; and vice versa. If there was no God the Devil would have to pack it in; he would have to shut down his business; he would be run out of town. That’s why the Devil has sent his advocates to tell me that I have it all wrong. The Devil’s advocates have their stake in “creation”. They have put all their eggs in that basket. Without creation from God, the Devil and all the other characters in the mythical story vanish in an instant!
The Devil often sends his advocates to beat me up with their arguments from ignorance. Here are some responses I’ve received in my exchanges with theists and atheists:
“Hey, how do you KNOW with certainty that God is an object? How do you KNOW that God has shape/form? Our Lord is not like you or me. He is not visible, He has no structure. You cannot SEE my Lord in order to prove your claims. God is immaterial. Take your trash elsewhere. You are a pathetic simple-minded clown making wild claims you have no evidence for!”
How do I “know” that God has shape? How do I “know” that God is an object?
BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO, THAT’S HOW!!!!!!!!!!
Job 4:15-17 “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light”
God tells us that ALL objects have shape/form. God tells us that He has shape/form, even though He is invisible. Absolutely ALL invisible objects have shape/form, even the mediator object for light, and even God Himself. God cannot defy the ontology of nature – no exceptions!
"God said it....I believe it.....that settles it."
So who is the pathetic simple-minded clown??
Whatever God or any authority tells us is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Neither I, you, God, nor anyone else can claim to KNOW anything to be 100% true, or even 1% true. There is no objective way to resolve such biased observer-dependent claims. And my analysis does not go down the irrational path of truths, proofs, facts, knowledge, wisdom or faith. We only need to think critically in order to explain why God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’.
God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity; a being. It is taken on faith that God exists. So if God is an entity, if God is something rather than nothing, then God necessarily has some type of intrinsic structure; God necessarily has shape! Therefore God is indeed an object (that which has shape). The specifics of God’s shape are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The point is that God is ‘something’. God can most certainly be invisible, just like the invisible mediators for light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc., which are objects. But like all these invisible ‘things’ which mediate those phenomena, God has ‘shape’ as well.
Nobody needs to SEE God in order to critically reason that God is an object. Nobody needs to see the physical mediating mechanism for gravity in order to reason that it is a physical object which is in contact with all matter. The existence of objects is observer-independent. The Sun is an object whether or not you were born to SEE it. Even a blind person can reason that the Sun is an object. So if God is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’, then God is necessarily an object! And there is no such anything as “immaterial”. Anything that is negatively predicated is actually referring to nothing. Only space is immaterial. Only space can be negatively predicated. If God is said to be immaterial, then obviously, God is nothing.
“Dude, how can you tell us that you KNOW exactly what happened at the moment of Creation? Were you there to actually SEE God fail at creating the universe? Can you PROVE what you are saying? What is your evidence?”
Claims regarding God, ontology, creation, or any claims for that matter, have nothing to do with what we can know, prove, see, or have evidence for. Any such claims can be hypothesized, conceptualized, visualized, and critically reasoned in order to reach an objective conclusion of whether they do or don’t have merit, validity, or viability. This is the only objective, observer-independent, and unbiased method we can use to assess claims made by humans. All it takes is a single ontological contradiction to demonstrate a claim to be IMPOSSIBLE.
So let me ask this of the Devil’s advocate: “Do you objectively KNOW, can you objectively make EVIDENT, and can you objectively PROVE that your right arm ‘exists’? Are you sure that you can handle such a formidable ontological challenge?”
For those who disagree; for those who would like to “prove” me wrong; for those who want to make ME look foolish....here is YOUR chance:
I am officially on the record as challenging anybody to objectively prove that their right arm exists. They are free to post their “proof” in the comments section so they can tell the audience how they intend to go about proving their claim. That should be an easy task, right? Well, they can try.....but only then will they be able to realize how the words KNOW, EVIDENCE, PROOF and CERTAINTY humble even the most intelligent of logicians. If the reader still doesn’t understand why claims of KNOWLEDGE, EVIDENCE and PROOF are the hallmarks of FANTASY, LUNACY and IRRATIONALITY, then I am willing to sweeten the pot for them in the hopes that they GET IT! If the reader can prove that their right arm exists, I will PayPal them $1000 US so they can donate it to their favourite charity. Any takers? Nope, I don’t see any! ”Truthers”, “Provers”, and “Logicians” always RUN from a challenge rather than admit to their ignorance.
So to answer the Devil’s question: there is nothing to “know” about the moment of creation. The issue at hand has nothing to do with knowledge. The issue has to do with a critical analysis and understanding of the claim that is posited by theologians. Creation is a CLAIM, remember? The “moment of creation” is a supposed consummated event that is THEORIZED by theologians.
We don’t need to “SEE” God attempting to “create” in order to understand whether it is possible for Him to do so. Knowledge, truth, fact, proof, or evidence plays absolutely NO role here! The only way to assess this claim of creation is to take it at FACE VALUE and critically analyze all the details surrounding the claim. If there are ontological contradictions, the claim is instantly discarded as it has been rationally explained to be IMPOSSIBLE.
“You don’t know everything. You have to accept that there are limitations to human intuition, and that common sense is not always applicable. We are not gods. Some things we cannot KNOW for sure, like God or Creation for example.”
Oh, really? But yet you KNOW that what you just said is true? So what is the objective criterion for deciding what is “common sense” and what isn’t? Should I ask for my mailman’s opinion, Oprah’s opinion, Lady Gaga’s opinion, Pat Robertson’s opinion, Stephen Hawking’s opinion, or Einstein’s opinion? Whose opinion would be better? In fact, the opinion of a “mouse” carries the SAME weight, as far as opinions go.
We resolve these matters objectively by reasoning them through, and identifying any inherent contradictions. And if we destroy the belief systems of celebrities such as Pat Robertson and Stephen Hawking, then that would fall under the category of: TOO BAD!!
What does subjective “knowledge” have to do with anything? We can never “know” that claims of consummated events are the case. We can only explain whether they are rational and viable, or contradictory and impossible. The issue before us an objective one: Are we gonna wait around for some authority to spoon-feed us what we are supposed to KNOW or BELIEVE, or are we gonna grab the bull by the horns and use our brains to think for a change?
Only fools will make such wishy-washy excuses as limited knowledge and intuition because they don’t have the balls to admit that they don’t understand the difference between an object & a concept, the difference between existence & nothingness, the difference between rational & irrational, and the difference between reality & delusion. These fools went to University for 4+ years just so they could warm up a seat and get a certificate of attendance!
For those who want to nitpick on the terms ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’, I am 10 steps ahead of you! I explain the difference between rational & irrational in detail in my hub: Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED.
This argumentative tactic (limited human intellect, intuition, knowledge) has been around for a very long time. St. Augustine was famous for routinely using such tactics to win his religious arguments and instantly prove that his God exists in any situation.
St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we can NEVER KNOW God:
“If you understood him, it would not be God.” (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663)
Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can use it to win BOTH sides of the argument. He argues that if you don’t KNOW God, then you are a really stupid idiot:
“Those who say these things do not as yet understand Thee, O Thou Wisdom of God, Thou light of souls; not as yet do they understand how these things be made which are made by and in Thee.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)
And by using this antidote, St. Augustine claimed to KNOW EXACTLY what God was up to before the Creation of the Universe; even though he unwittingly implicated himself to damnation with this knowledge! He argued that God was of course preparing Hell for those who wanted to KNOW God:
“Behold, I answer to him who asks, ‘What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?’ He was preparing hell, saith he, for those who pry into mysteries." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12)
Unfortunately, St. Augustine’s stupid circus show is still prevalent in all sectors of society, especially in Theology, Atheism, and Mathematical Physics. People always fall back on lame EXCUSES in order to protect their biased arguments and beliefs from being destroyed by rational explanations.
Enough of this lunacy!
All these fools can take their excuses about Limited Intuition, Knowledge, Evidence, Truth, Proof, etc. and shove them!!
Let me repeat it again in case it didn’t sink in: If a claim, any claim, is critically analyzed and explained to be contradictory, then whatever the claim posits to be the case, is an impossibility!
Whoever thinks they can refute my case is welcomed to post in the comments section a rational explanation of how it could be possible that there was no space and no matter in the past. They will need to explain HOW God can go about creating space, when space was ALREADY there preceding God. The will need to explain HOW God can go about creating matter, when matter was ALREADY there as one of the ACTORS in the Law of Causality. Without matter being always present, causal actions are impossible! If God is powerless in creating space from nothing, then how can he possibly create matter from nothing? These are magic tricks which man speaks of God. God is clearly humbled by the incredible omnipotence of space and matter.
In summary, here is how we rationally put ALL Creationist arguments to rest:
1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.
2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.
3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
4) Space is formless, shapeless, unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing! It is the void.
5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object. Existence without space is impossible!
6) There is NO object that can occupy all of space, or enclose space - including a supposed “Universe object”.
7) Matter cannot escape or “transcend” space, because space has no boundary. There is no structure, surface, or edge to cross. We are all trapped in “here” (space) for eternity.
8) The Creationist claimed scenario where there once was no matter AND no space is inconceivable and ontologically impossible. Causes don’t exist; especially an “Uncaused First Cause”. Only objects exist.
9) If there is a God, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even He can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of and NO cracks to slip through. So He'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Formless & borderless space humbles the most arrogant of gods, even the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – it’s impossible! We have “free will” because God does not, as even ‘He’ cannot escape this prison ‘He’ is credited for building. So if God exists, He is just another insignificant being that satisfies the human involuntary compulsion to worship....He may very well be Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, or some Hollywood Celebrity. Mindless beings are obsessed with worshipping conceptually-important (authoritative, celebrity, idol) characters.
Therefore, we rationally conclude that matter & space are ETERNAL. God and the Singularity are Hypotheses that die at inception!
a) The God Hypothesis of the big 3 monotheistic religions is invalid not only because it leads to absurdities and contradictions, but because it is ontologically impossible for it to be used in a Theory to rationally account for the Creation of space and matter.
b) The Religion of the Big Bang is absolutely NO different than that of God’s Creation, sans the intelligent being. The Big Bang hypothesizes a 0D singularity having no Length, Width, or Height, and definitely no background to contour it and give it form and existence. This 0D singularity supposedly created not only space and matter, but an artificial concept known as ‘spacetime’. So it is even MORE surrealistic and irrational than any Hypothesis that has ever been conceived by any religion!
The nonsense of Creation under the guise of God, the singularity, or by ANY other mechanism has been put to rest. It is impossible. We’re done!
Nature had no beginning and will have no end. Rocks, gases, stars and atoms recognize no past or future, which are conceptions of a human brain. Nature only functions in PRESENT MODE, the NOW, and as such, nature is effectively the only perpetual recycling machine – it is non-entropic! Atoms have no ability to rub their elbows against space, grind to a stop, and die. They float in space and gravitationally interact with each other forever. God cannot create atoms from scratch. And as such, even He cannot alter the eternal activity of atoms.
THEISTS AND ATHEISTS HAVE A LOT MORE IN COMMON THAN THEY CARE TO ADMIT
Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre wanted to prove that God created the Universe. So he found ways to conjure up the Big Bang for the science department in the Vatican. And of course almost everyone accepted his theory; most of the members in the scientific community were theists themselves.
1) Christians like to argue that their position is NOT “Creation from nothing” because it was God who created the Universe. Atheists do the same, but say it was the Singularity that created the Universe when it exploded, and expanded.
2) Christians allege that they don’t know what happened BEFORE creation, although St. Augustine claimed to have KNOWN that God was preparing HELL for those who pry into such mysteries (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12). Atheists do the same, and tell you that it is unscientific to ask such questions (pry into such mysteries), because it’s like asking what is north of the North Pole, i.e. like asking where HELL is.
3) Christians want the Universe to begin AFTER God created the heavens and the Earth and said “Let there be light!” They will do anything to AVOID such questions as “Where did God come from?” Atheists do the same. They want the Universe to begin AFTER the Singularity exploded and started expanding (Let there be BANG!). They will do anything to AVOID such questions as “Where did the Singularity come from?” They both claim that such questions are meaningless because time did not exist back then. Little do these mindless clowns realize, is that TIME DOESN’T EVEN EXIST NOW! Time is a concept invented by man.
If you are ever accused of murder, tell the judge and jury that it’s MEANINGLESS to ask such questions as: “Where were you and what were you doing the days leading up to the murder, and the day of the murder?”
Tell the judge and jury that it’s like asking: “What is north of the North Pole?”
Tell the judge and jury that TIME only began at the INSTANT the murder occurred (t=0), and that anything before that is MEANINGLESS and must be SUPPRESSED in order to PROTECT you from inquiry and scrutiny, and allow you to walk out the courtroom having PROVEN your case of “not guilty”.
What is so SPECIAL about the God Hypothesis and the Singularity Hypothesis that compel their proponents to enforce biased rules and regulations so as to prevent public inquiry and “snooping around”?
Why don’t we do this in court cases?
Isn’t the hypothesis that YOU were at the crime scene before the murder took place?
Isn’t the hypothesis that God or the Singularity were at the crime scene before the Universe began?
Isn’t the theory that YOU made prior preparations to commit the murder, and committed it in the manner the prosecutor outlines in his explanation?
Isn’t the theory that God or the Singularity created the Universe because of some prior events leading up to “creation”, and it happened in the manner the Christian Apologist or the Big Bang Apologist outlines in his explanation?
Can you believe how accustomed we’ve become to letting such clowns get away with murder? Aren’t we incredibly stupid to let such contradictions walk out the door and declare victory that they’ve PROVEN their case?
CONCLUSION
Causal “creation” can take on the 3 possible scenarios which we explained: Causality on Something, Self-Causality, and Causality on Nothing. There are no other options.
We rationally explained why all 3 scenarios lead to ontological contradictions where God or the Singularity cannot create space and matter. We explained why in all 3 scenarios, matter was necessarily pre-existing; it had no beginning of creation – IT WAS ALREADY THERE!
Indeed, that which is necessary must also be eternal, for if something is necessary it can never begin to exist or cease to exist, but must have always existed. Since matter and space are not contingent, they are not necessitated by any “external” causal action. That which is not contingent is by definition necessary and thus never had the potential to not exist, let alone the potential to be created via “external” causal actions mediated by some God entity.
And besides, there are NO causal actions that are “external” to the Universe. There is no “outside” to the Universe. The Universe cannot be transcended. The Universe encompasses all of space and matter. Space is omnipresent – it is everywhere, and has no borders to transcend. All matter, invisible or otherwise, is gravitationally interconnected at the atomic level and hence no entity, including a God, can transcend and escape the interconnectivity of matter.
Existence is the default situation as existence obviously exists. Existence is not a claim. Existence was already there. Only “inexistence” and “creation” are claims. And they are CONTRADICTORY claims. Creation of existence under any context is impossible, as explained.
If there is a God, then God was definitely assembled “within” space. This means that matter necessarily preceded God. It had to, because space forbids God from being ‘eternal’; and ontological causality forbids God from being a ‘creator’. So if God is assumed to exist, then it follows that God was naturally ASSEMBLED by matter, and is subject to death, just like any other living being in the Universe. This means that matter is indeed eternal......and as for God.....He would just be a simple being, either like us, or some other life form. But God’s ontology is irrelevant. The key issue is that it is impossible for God to be an “eternal being” or a “creator”.
Therefore we conclude that the claim of Creation, whether via a God, a Singularity, or in any other context, in not only irrational, but also, completely IMPOSSIBLE!
The Universe is eternal; it cannot be created or destroyed.
CommentsLoading...
poignant,
Sorry to scare you....didn't mean to :-)
I'm just trying to wake up some people here...LOL!
I recommend you read the articles of billgaede on hubpages. My articles have encapsulated much of his scientific work and expanded upon it with details so as to make it more accessible to everyone.
I'm glad there is someone who enjoys these articles :-)
"An Uncaused First Cause is instantly shown to be impossible because it is an ontological contradiction."
Ontological... in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Please nicomp, tell the audience what it means....
I think you may be misunderstanding the philosophical concept of causation. Things which exist can exist by either of 2 ways: Either contingently (they are caused by another) or necessarily (they MUST exist). Numbers and abstract entities exist necessarily. God also exists necessarily--by definition of His nature, God MUST exist. Otherwise you face the conundrum of infinite regress of causes (yes I read your treatise on that topic and it was equally incoherent)
PhilosoRaptor,
"Numbers and abstract entities exist"
What do you mean by 'exist'?
Unless you can tell the audience in no ambiguous terms what this word which makes or breaks your argument means, then you have said nothing.
exist: physical presence; an object having a location
object: that which has shape
location: the set of static distances to all other objects in the universe.
The subject of your sentence (ie. numbers & abstract entities) can ONLY exist by definition of the word 'exist'.
I have defined 'exist' unambiguously and I can use it consistently in ANY sentence. This is an objective and non-contradictory definition. Pursuant to the definition of 'exist', numbers and abstract entities are not objects with location....hence, do NOT exist!
"God also exists necessarily--by definition "
Oh really???
What is YOUR definition of God?
What does the word "God" even mean?
Do you know?
Is God an object? Does God have location?
If God wants to exist, He had better pass these 2 criteria with flying colors.
Here, let me help you out....if God can be defined, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist. Only concepts can be defined. Objects cannot be defined.
fatfist,
Impressive effort! How can I compete?
I must admit, I skipped over certain paragraphs to get to "SCENARIO 2 – Self-Causality" because my own take on things probably falls into this category.
Can you point out where (if at all) you discuss this category from the 'accidental cause' (unintentional cause) position?
As a firm 'believer' in the Big Bang theory, I find the idea that maybe I unwittingly subscribe to a 'cause with intent' rather than an accidental cause worrying! I had no idea the 'singularity' you speak of had any design on creating the universe at all! Did said singularity have a choice?
I'm quite taken aback that you can lump together an intended cause (God) with an unintended cause (Big Bang).
Cromper,
“SCENARIO 2 – Self-Causality.......Can you point out where (if at all) you discuss this category from the 'accidental cause' (unintentional cause) position?”
Self-Causality, accidental or otherwise, is still self-causality. We need to stick to the issue at hand and not get diverted into tangents with irrelevancies. The issue at hand is HOW nothing can acquire MOTION (undergo 2 or more locations) and impart an ACTION onto itself (cause) and magically produce (effect) a new OBJECT. Such a notion is contradictory at all levels.
Why?
Because only an object (that which has shape) can ever acquire motion and have 2 or more locations. Nothingness cannot acquire motion. And you cannot produce an object from nothingness. This is basic stuff.
When we have nothing....we literally have nothing.....it is impossible for ‘something’ to arise from ‘nothing’. We explain what is impossible by showing an ontological contradiction. This is the only way to show what is impossible. Creation under any context has to do with Religion....never with Science.
“As a firm 'believer' in the Big Bang theory”
What does belief have to do with science? Is reality based on belief? Do you believe that your arm exists? What if you fall into a coma for 6 months and lose your faith....does your arm cease to exist?
The Scientific Method is very simple and powerful, and more importantly....it is NEVER based on belief.....it is based on rational explanations. The Sci Method allows us to hypothesize a situation where no space and no matter existed. This is the initial scene proposed by the Big Bang. Space is nothing...it has no shape or border. So HOW can it be possible that there was NO space??? How can this be an initial scene of the alleged Big Bang?
The BB not only fails at the Theory (explanation) level.....but it fails at the very crucial Hypothesis level of the Sci Method......the initial scene!
“I'm quite taken aback that you can lump together an intended cause (God) with an unintended cause (Big Bang).”
God is an alleged object (with shape) which religionists posit created matter. On the surface, this makes a LOT MORE sense than something arising from nothing.....don’t you think??
The ridiculous claims of Religion are orders of magnitude more sensible than the garbage posited by the mathematical Religionists of the Big Bang.
But as it turns out......creation under ANY context is impossible.....whether it is self-creation or creation under the guise of an alleged object we call God. This means that it is impossible for a God to exist.
The Big Bang was conceived by a Catholic Priest who wanted to please the Pope by showing that God’s creation has a scientific basis. The Catholic Church did not want to get caught with its pants down again, like it did with Galileo. This is why the Catholic Church supports Big Bang, Quantum, Relativity, and everything coming out of the Religion of Mathematical Physics. They just claim that “God did it!!”.....whereas the Priests of Mathematics claim that "Nothing did it!!"
Ok, I had a good idea you would pick me up on the 'believe' when it came to the Big Bang. I should have said 'I subscribe' to it.
Time is short at the moment as I leave for Spain on Friday and have lots to de before I go, but intend to come back to this on my return.
Enjoyable hub all the same. I still think there is room for an unintended (accidental)cause and have already started a hub on this very subject.
Cheers for now, and will speak soon.
Hi Cromper, you are more than welcome to come here any time and discuss why the Big Bang makes sense for you. Please don't take any offense if I pick apart your argument and show why the Big Bang is contradictory nomatter which of the 100 flavors of the Big Bang you subscribe to.
You enjoy your trip to Spain and make sure to sample the awesome Spanish brandies they have. I am going to the Mediterranean as well this Sunday....I will be touring Greece for a few weeks.
Thanks fatfist!
I'm off to the family apartment on Mojácar Playa, on the south east coast. Not a big spirit drinker but will certainly have a brandy for you (any excuse to consume alcohol!).
I have only ever been to the Greek island of Crete (twice). Lovely people.
Enjoy your break!
If we all drank enough brandies, would a black hole show up in our wallets the next morning? :D
Fatfist is to broke to do any kind of traveling.
Yeah I said want to fight about it?
Sorry if it's a n00b question, but (!!!), when you said just above that:
"... it is impossible for ‘something’ to arise from ‘nothing’. We explain what is impossible by showing an ontological contradiction. This is the only way to show what is impossible."
(Had to look up "ontological contradiction" btw!) ...isn't this a LOGICAL contradiction, and IF so; doesn't this mean that logic is indeed a part of critical analysis (of reality/existence)? Or if not; why not?
[My own intuition is leading to an answer somewhere vaguely along the lines of "binary reasoning" (i.e. exist / doesn't exist) isn't a part of logic (IF/THEN), but of reason generally and rationality, and/or; logic is a part of reasoning, not the other way around. But I'm confused on the issue, as I've never had any formal intellectual training (I'm a self taught drop-out, thanks to Hubs like yours!).]
Thanks in advance...
I am not fundamentalist creationist. The presumptions of the philosophical materialist are highly suspect. With the regards to the above discussion- not convincing. Bottom line is that the following singularities are, in truth, not REMOTELY close to being explained. If, for the latter two, one invokes Darwinian evolution- again, not adequate to account for the ontological leaps.
Nothing......something
Dead matter......life
Life.........conscious life
Consciousness......Self-consciousness
We don't know how this happens. But we DO know that this does NOT happen via intentionality or agency. How? Intuition presumably.
Hi fatfist! Hope your holiday was as enjoyable as mine was. I should have used more sun block as I'm peeling like a snake! Got a lovely tan though.
Right, down to business. I have a few questions I need to ask;
1) Atheists do not have a rule book, socialise with each other (generally), or form organisations. A belief in the Big Bang is not an essential piece of the atheist's kit. How can you justify listing atheists as believers in the Big Bang theory? How do you come to the conclusion that all atheists believe this?
2) The Big Bang theory does not require an uncaused first cause. Am I missing something here?
3) What parts of the Big Bang theory do you not agree with? I would be very interested to know.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Atheist = Theist in disguised.
Dark Energy = Magic
Dark Matter = Spirit
Black Holes = Devil
Point Horizon = Unicorns
Space Time = Priceless
@Reasonable1
“isn't this a LOGICAL contradiction, and IF so; doesn't this mean that logic is indeed a part of critical analysis (of reality/existence)?”
We are not using any particular “system of logic” to show that it is impossible for something to arise from nothing. What we do is define our terms....ie. what is ‘something’ and what is ‘nothing’.
Something: that which has shape
Nothing: that which lacks shape
These are polar opposites....there is no in-between.
Just how does ‘nothing’ magically produce ‘something’....and vice versa. It is irrational and impossible from an ontological perspective once we understand that in the universe there is either ‘something’ or ‘nothing’, and no other option.
It is the job of claimant who asserts the “positive claim” who has the task to explain how something arises from nothing....AND...he had better define his terms unambiguously and consistently before he starts explaining.
@Cromper,
Nice to hear you had a great time in your holiday. I just came back and I have jet lag....but I had an awesome time as well...thanks.
“How can you justify listing atheists as believers in the Big Bang theory? How do you come to the conclusion that all atheists believe this?”
Well, here is the issue....when somebody presents a theory (Big Bang or otherwise) which attempts to explain a claim (ie. space & matter were created), and the explanation is irrational....then what basis do they have for this theory? If their presentation does not make sense and cannot be understood by the presenter, then what conclusion can we draw? In any case, science is not based on “beliefs” of theories. It is based on rational explanations of theories.
“The Big Bang theory does not require an uncaused first cause.”
A “cause” is not a thing or object. A cause is what an object does...an action/verb. This means that matter is eternal because actions cannot be mediated by nothing. So the question arises: How can matter and nothingness be created?
“What parts of the Big Bang theory do you not agree with?”
Everything. But this is not an issue of what I or anybody else “agrees” with. The issue falls squarely on the proponent of the BB theory to rationally explain:
1) The initial scene BEFORE the BB. Was there something or nothing or both or what??
2) How can a singularity, which is 0D, magically produce 3D objects and space (which is already nothing)?
fatfist
Welcome back!
Ok, there are two main versions of the theory (that I know of); the BB from nothing; and the reciprocal(?) BB. The former requires matter to come from nothing, the latter does not (the universe expands and collapses ad-infinitum).
You say;
"Well, here is the issue....when somebody presents a theory (Big Bang or otherwise) which attempts to explain a claim (ie. space & matter were created), "
The BB theory is built around observations - not the other way around! However, the 'Steady State' theory is indeed claim based.
You ask;
"The issue falls squarely on the proponent of the BB theory to rationally explain:
1) The initial scene BEFORE the BB. Was there something or nothing or both or what??
2) How can a singularity, which is 0D, magically produce 3D objects and space (which is already nothing)?"
The BB theory does not even attempt to explain anything before the BB. This is where I think you misunderstand the theoretical process.
The singularity, absense of spacetime, and reciprocating universe, etc. are all scenarios that "work" with what we observe. They could all be wrong, but ideas equally as astounding will always take their place. And your idea that matter is infinite and the universe has always existed is equally as astounding!
What we observe is an expanding universe. It's as simple as that. Even Fred Hoyle (who first used the term 'Big Bang' to ridicule the theory) agreed that the universe is expanding. The difference is; he claimed that when there is enough room between galaxies other new galaxies appear to fill the spaces (according to his Steady State theory).
Hi Cromper,
“The BB theory is built around observations”
We need to be very careful with our terms here. The BB is an alleged consummated event which supposedly took place in the past. There are no observations of this event. Regardless, if science was based on observations alone, then why isn’t the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus a scientific event?.....it was claimed to be observed and documented. You see, science is based on “rational explanations” of alleged consummated events. It is impossible to observe into the past.
“The BB theory does not even attempt to explain anything before the BB.”
Then there lies the primary problem! If some human being, like Priest Lemaintre, CLAIMS that some “event” took place in the past....but he can’t even propose WHAT the initial scene was like BEFORE the event....then should we take the opinions of this individual as having any merit whatsoever? Think about it.....how can anybody propose an event took place without even proposing what was the case before this alleged event?
It’s like saying that his hair grew 10 inches, but he has absolutely no initial frame of reference for which to base this claim on.
“This is where I think you misunderstand the theoretical process.”
A theory is a proposition....it proposes a rational explanation. The scientific method consists of a hypothesis and a theory.....not just a theory without any basis.
1) The hypothesis sets the INITIAL SCENE. i.e. what is the case before the event occurred, along with consistent definitions of all the key terms used in the theory.
2) The theory is a rational explanation of an alleged consummated event. If the explanation is rational, then we can certainly say that the event COULD have happened as the theory proposes.
“reciprocating universe, etc. are all scenarios that "work" with what we observe.”
What is a reciprocating universe? Please tell me what you or anyone has observed. I will ask you again.....why do you dismiss the observation of God and Jesus, while being adamant that the BB was observed? Do you see the fundamental flaws here?
“They could all be wrong”
Scientific theories are never right or wrong.....they are only rational or irrational. Alleged consummated events are only in the past. Right and wrong plays no role here. The concepts of right and wrong are based on rules/axioms and systems of logic. They are always tautological. Reality is not a tautology....it can never be asserted.....it can only be explained.
“And your idea that matter is infinite and the universe has always existed is equally as astounding!”
You obviously misread this hub. I never claimed matter is infinite. It is impossible for anything to be infinite. Please read my hub on infinite regress to see why the word ‘infinite’ is an irrational concept and should never be used in any sentence.
And ‘the’ universe does not exist. The term ‘universe’ is a concept. Concepts do not exist. Only objects can exist. The universe is our CONCEPTION of matter wrapped by nothingness (space). Only matter (atoms) exist. Atoms are eternal....they cannot be created or destroyed. Like I said, you need to be able to define your terms rationally in order for you and others to understand what you are saying.....makes sense?
“What we observe is an expanding universe.”
No you don’t! Nobody can observe ‘a’ universe. We can only observe objects which exist...i.e. have shape and location.
“Even Fred Hoyle (who first used the term 'Big Bang' to ridicule the theory) agreed that the universe is expanding”
It is irrelevant what anybody agrees. Pat Robertson “agrees” that you and I are going to Hell for not believing in God......so what??
Science is NOT based on dogma, authority, and twisting somebody’s arm behind their back until they AGREE with you! Science is based solely on rational hypotheses and theories. If they are irrational, then why should we give them any merit; let alone argue about them? Why are you having so much trouble understanding the basics here?
Fatfist,
Along the lines of Cromper's discussion, I am always curious about the explanation of redshift as a Doppler effect, when sound (the actual Doppler effect) is produced in an atmosphere, while the so-called redshift of light supposedly occurs over a vacuum.
How can that be?
Does the Doppler effect of sound occur in a vacuum?
The two key "observations" that BB hangs its hat on are redshift and cosmic background radiation. My contention has been not that the observations are wrong but that the explanations of the observations, the interpretations of that data are wrong.
Fatfist,
I think we are both misunderstanding each other here.
"We need to be very careful with our terms here. The BB is an alleged consummated event which supposedly took place in the past."
Yes the supposed BB happened in the past but the theory is based on today's observations.
"Then there lies the primary problem! If some human being, like Priest Lemaintre, CLAIMS that some “event” took place in the past....but he can’t even propose WHAT the initial scene was like BEFORE the event...."
If it was a CLAIM then he was wrong to make the CLAIM but would be justified if he were to PROPOSE it.
"1) The hypothesis sets the INITIAL SCENE. i.e. what is the case before the event occurred, along with consistent definitions of all the key terms used in the theory."
You're talking about the end result of the theory. The BB theory concludes (or predicts) that all matter at one time in the past was in one place. Call that a hypothesis if you like. If we discover a car crash we can consider any of the many rational explanations of how it crashed. With a bit more investigation we can trace BACKWARDS to discover what caused it. The same with the BB 'THEORY' (not the BB itself), we take what we discover (or observe TODAY!) and trace BACKWARDS to come to some kind of rational conclusion.
"2) The theory is a rational explanation of an alleged consummated event. If the explanation is rational, then we can certainly say that the event COULD have happened as the theory proposes."
As I just tried to demonstrate, the theory is not an explanation of the Big Bang! The Big Bang is the explanation (or conclusion) of the theory.
"Scientific theories are never right or wrong.....they are only rational or irrational. Alleged consummated events are only in the past...."
I was refering the the various hypotheses here, not the theory.
I agree, all matter is empty space. Have you ever seen an atom? No. And no one ever will.
"Only matter (atoms) exist. Atoms are eternal....they cannot be created or destroyed."
So the existence of an atom has INFINITE duration?
To be honest with you, I'm not at all sure where you stand in this debate but would love to go further.
I go away tomorrow for a long weekend with the girlfriend so will look forward to continuing next week.
Cheers for now.
Hi Winston,
You make a good point, but then you would have to show that radio waves or light waves do not travel through space to refute the findings.
I'm not 100% sure on the figures but certain frequencies cannot travel through certain substances, such as high frequency radio waves through water, sound waves through a vacuum, light waves through earth (and other solids, of course), and so on...
The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. Water is excellent at conducting low frequencies. That's why whales can communicate over vast distances. Submarines use low frequency radio in the LW spectrum (or even lower) and can communicate all around the globe on only a few watts. However, a submarine transmitting in the VHF spectrum would not be able to communicate at all!
Irrespective of frequency, they all behave the same because they all 'wave'.
Hope this helps. (I'm a radio amateur. Can you guess?)
Sorry, meant to say; the doppler effect is the stretching or 'squeezing' of the frequency. The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength and vice versa. As the object approaches the wavelength is squeezed and so you get a higher pitch and vice versa. The same with anything that emits a frequency.
"The BB theory concludes (or predicts) that all matter at one time in the past was in one place."
This is completely bonkers. It makes nonsense whatsoever!
"The same with the BB 'THEORY' (not the BB itself), we take what we discover (or observe TODAY!) and trace BACKWARDS to come to some kind of rational conclusion."
But BB isn't any kind of rational coinclusion. It's a religious dogma. It makes no sense at any level. What we "observe" is just various incarnations of matter in motion. Red shift, for example, can have any number of possible interpretations.
But BB still either has to answer how something popped out of nothing, or a magical something "created" another magical something. Otherwise not a single ounce of it is coherent at all. It's really that simple.
"I agree, all matter is empty space. Have you ever seen an atom? No. And no one ever will."
Wooooooaaaaaaah, there. How many beers?! :P
"So the existence of an atom has INFINITE duration?"
Duration is time. Time is a concept, i.e. does not exist. Eternal simply means 'time-less'. Atoms are eternal (NOT infinite!) because there's no such thing as time. TIme requires a human observer to invent the concept.
But Mr Fatfist can clear that one up a bit.
Cromper,
“the theory is based on today's observations”
Again I will ask....what observations? Just what could you or anyone on this planet have possibly “observed” that would lead you to believe that space (nothing) and matter (something) were somehow “created”?? Could you please show me how to observe this as well, because I am obviously missing the boat on this one.
And you didn’t answer my question why you dismiss the “observations” of Jesus, Yahweh, and Allah....but you “believe” these alleged observations of space & matter being created.
Regardless, what you or anybody “observes” is naught but opinion. Science is not based on people’s opinions, it is based on rational explanations. There is NO provision for observation, opinion or authority in a scientific theory. Theories only rationally explain!
Can you please explain how space (nothing) and matter (something) can be created from nothing?
If you can’t, then all you have is belief in someone’s dogma....all you are doing is following someone’s religion.
“the end result of the theory.”
Theories have no end results. Theories only explain....and they do so rationally.
“The BB theory concludes (or predicts)”
Theories do not predict. In Science, we don't do predictions. That's the stuff of astrologers, palm readers, and mathematicians. In Science, we ONLY explain.
A Theory is an EXPLANATION. A prediction is only a DESCRIPTION: "Tomorrow there will be an eclipse at 2 p.m." Does this prediction explain WHY an eclipse happens? Does the fact that the astrologer accurately predicted that the King would win the battle demonstrate that he had a reason for his opinion? The astrologer did not explain beforehand WHY the King would win the battle.
Regardless, you are struggling with the basics because you don’t understand the difference between a PREDICTION and an EXPLANATION. Predictions are nothing but DESCRIPTIONS that ONLY have to do with the future. Explanations ONLY have to do with the past. You can only explain a consummated event which is what a THEORY is. You can only predict an even that hasn't happened. Understand? Alleged events of the future have absolutely nothing to do with theories. Theories ONLY deal with the past. A prediction IS invariably ALWAYS a description. A prediction NEVER contains an explanation (cause, why). A prediction ONLY states that on such and such day at such and such hour something will occur. That's only a description of the alleged future event, not an explanation of why it will occur. Predictions are mere guesses....nothing else.
As you can see, there is NO provision for “predictions” in any theory.....predictions and theories are polar-opposites which have nothing to do with each other. You really need to understand the Scientific Method before you start swallowing people’s opinions on creation and taking them on FAITH alone. BB is nothing but Religion dressed up with the veil of mathematical authority.
“the theory is not an explanation of the Big Bang!”
You need to learn the basics. To “theorize” means to EXPLAIN why. And BEFORE you can theorize, you must “hypothesize” what the initial scene was and what objects will be used as actors in your theory. If the Theory of Gravity cannot explain to me exactly WHY a pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling....then just what the hell is it supposed to tell me?
“The Big Bang is the explanation (or conclusion) of the theory.”
You are chasing your tail in circles here because you didn’t bother to understand the sci method. An explanation is NOT a conclusion. There are two different concepts which you should understand by now. We learn these words in primary school. The BB “is” the theory.....hence Theory of BB. So can you explain to us exactly how space (nothing) and matter (something) is created from nothing??
“So the existence of an atom has INFINITE duration?”
Huh? What does that even mean??
Infinite is an adjective (context-opposite of finite). Duration is a verb which alludes to a measured time frame. Just what the hell does “infinite duration” even mean?
You didn’t read my last post to you which reference my article explaining why the word “infinite” makes no sense and hence cannot be used in any sentence.
“I'm not at all sure where you stand in this debate”
What is the debate? Are you debating that space and matter can be created from nothing? If so, I would like you to rationally explain exactly how by your next post. I mean.....if a big name like Hawking stands behind this BB theory, then it should have at least ‘some’ substance behind it, right?
Cromper,
“The BB theory concludes (or predicts) that all matter at one time in the past was in one place.”
And just which of the 100’s of “flavours” of the BB theory makes this wild statement? You clearly haven’t a clue of what you are talking about on this issue.
If you read some the gospels on the BB theory you will also discover these statements:
1) A 0D singularity (nothing) EXPLODED and created matter (something), space (nothing) and time (nothing), which went flying everywhere. Hence the initial scene was nothingness (space).
2) A 3D primeval atom (something) EXPLODED and created matter (something), space (nothing) and time (nothing), which went flying everywhere. Hence the initial scene was an object surrounded by space.
3) Nothingness exhibited a “quantum fluctuation” which created matter (something), space (nothing) and time (nothing), which “expanded”. Hence the initial scene was nothingness (space).
So which of these 4 BB scenarios (including yours) is the correct one? Is this what theories are meant to do....contradict each other?
WHY is it that atheists like you harp on Christians when their 4 canonical gospels contradict each other on issues surrounding Jesus.....but yet you turn the other cheek and dismiss the contradictions of your Big Bang religion?
Winston,
“the so-called redshift of light supposedly occurs over a vacuum”
Yes, this is what they allege...and of course it makes no sense whatsoever. These fools clearly don’t understand what they are talking about because....first and foremost....they have no explanation of what causes this phenomena we call ‘light’. They claim that light is either:
1) A 0D magical spirit which they call a ‘photon’.
2) A 0D magical spirit which they call a ‘wave’.
Or
3) Both a wave and a photon....which they call a 0D ‘wavicle’.
Clearly, they invent what they please so as to cover every hole in their religion. This is no different than alleging that God is a spirit, love, consciousness, the son, the father, and the holy ghost.
All these terms and ideas are invented because the mathematicians do not understand that reality is composed of something wrapped by nothing. They don’t understand that it is OBJECTS (with shape) and not spirits which perform actions (phenomena) like light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.
“Does the Doppler effect of sound occur in a vacuum?”
Vacuum is nothing (space). Space cannot move, wave or bend. Sound does not use space as a medium....and neither does light. Light is mediated by a physical object connecting all atoms. The only rational explanation for light is that matter is interconnected by some medium.....instead of being composed of discrete alleged particles flying randomly all over the place. This is why the irrational particle theory of light cannot explain how these particles ALWAYS manage to hit their targets....even though they travel so slow at the speed of ‘c’.....while the rest of the objects in the universe have moved away from the initially targeted “bulls-eye” area.
“cosmic background radiation.”
Again, these mathematical fools cannot even tell you what “radiation” is because they have no rational theory on light.
Radiation is not a thing or object. Radiation is not something. Radiation is a concept.
Radiation is a verb describing what atoms are doing during the mediation of the phenomena we call ‘light’. And they certainly are NOT shooting 0D photon bullets to other atoms across the universe. Even the resurrection of Jesus is more believable than this nonsense.
“the explanations of the observations, the interpretations of that data are wrong.”
Yes, they are all rotten to the core because they made a FATAL assumption from the get go: that the atom is a discrete entity composed of discrete particles. They shot themselves in the face before they even attempted to come up with their ridiculous theories on light, gravity, magnetism, and of course....creation!
fatfist,
I would normally be happy to carry on debating your views because I am genuinely interested in what you say, but I detect a personal agenda here which has nothing to do with what you claim, and everything to do with those you seem to have taken a dislike to.
You can't have a sensible debate by forcing your own tight rules on terminology and such like. Nitpicking on such a grand scale becomes tiresome after a while which is why I'm running low on enthusiasm and cannot justify putting any more effort into what could otherwise be an awe-inspiring and enlightening hub.
I'll take a look at your other hubs in the meantime.
Cheers!
Cromper,
“I detect a personal agenda here which has nothing to do with what you claim”
There is no agenda in any of my hubs....personal or otherwise. I have nothing to gain or lose. I am answering your queries in an objective fashion, without opinion nor authority.
But the issue here revolves in your understanding of Science. This hub makes no CLAIMS. In fact, this hub NEGATES your positive claim that space and matter are created. It shows that the CLAIM of creation under any context is contradictory, irrational and impossible. Are you with me so far? You see, a CLAIM is a positive assertion of a consummated event; this means of the past. That space and matter are eternal is NOT a claim by any stretch of the imagination. It is the DEFAULT position.
You have attempted to divert from this default position by asserting the positive CLAIM that space & matter are created. I have asked several times to please rationally explain exactly HOW this is even possible. That is all I am asking you to do. I am not trying to fight with you, belittle you or piss you off.
“those you seem to have taken a dislike to”
You cannot possibly know what I like or dislike. Regardless, the issue at hand has to do with your claim of creation. This is what this hub is addressing. Please try to be as objective as possible in your posts here and not divert the conversation into irrelevant tangents.
You see, when we are having a discussion about reality, we need to be as objective as possible....otherwise we are inevitably going to let opinions, agendas and dogmas persuade the audience.....do you agree or not?
“You can't have a sensible debate by forcing your own tight rules on terminology”
Amen! You hit the nail right on the head here!!!
Definitions of terms cannot be forced upon anybody by some supposed authority. All humans on this planet have the capability to understand definitions and show where a definition fails by being ambiguous, contradictory, irrational, etc.
Cromper....let me ask you this......should we ACCEPT irrational/contradictory definitions in Science? Should we force such definitions down people’s throats? Is this how science is done? Yes or No?
As is evident, I am not forcing definitions of terms down anybody’s throat. If you have your own definitions of terms, or you would like to copy/paste them from other sources, you are free to do so. I am OPEN to any suggestions. But please do not get offended if I critically analyze your definitions and possibly show where they contradict each other. I mean, this is how we do things objectively in science....right?
“Nitpicking on such a grand scale becomes tiresome”
It had better be tiresome. Would you prefer if I AGREE with the claims of every Tom, Dick and Harry who posts here? Should I give them accolades for their irrational opinions which they cannot even justify by using critical thought and objective analysis to post a rational explanation about the BB? I mean, is this how you prefer to do things? I know you are better than that, Cromper. The first thing an atheist does is ask a religionist to define God....right? The first thing an atheist does is nitpick....right?
When it comes down to making a presentation to someone, it all boils down to explanations and semantics; i.e. definitions of terms. If the presenter of the BB theory cannot define the following critical terms of their dissertation:
a) Space
b) Matter
c) Object
d) Universe
Then, what in heaven’s name could they possibly be talking about? How could they possibly understand what they are preaching??
Worse still.....if the BB proponent cannot rationally explain their theory, then how could an inexplicable/nonsensical theory have anything to do with reality? I mean, are we letting our imagination run wild with nonsensical ideas or are we doing Science? Which is it?
Perhaps you could be more open-minded and try to understand what is presented here. It is nothing new. There is no agenda in any of my hubs.....never was....never will be.....no friggin’ way!!!
The stuff in this hub was known and understood by mankind for thousands of years. It’s only during that past 2000 years when such critical thought was opposed by the cult of Christianity and censored, so everyone could be brainwashed to believe in creation.
I have no issue with you. If you wish to believe and have faith in BB creation, it is your personal business. But if you come here making claims about BB and creation....be sure that I will put you on the spot in an attempt to get to the bottom of your claims. My one and only ‘agenda’ is to try and get you to re-evaluate your claims in an attempt to rationally explain your theory to another human being.
I am trying to get you to be Scientific......this is my only agenda!
This means that the onus is on YOU to understand what you are talking about.....cause if you don’t, then how can you possibly answer any questions about your theory?
Cromper, you are more than welcome to ask any questions here. You are welcome to post your own definitions of your terms. You are welcome to present your BB theory in an objective fashion so that it can be understood by you and anyone else....this means that it must be objective ....rational. I didn’t mean to scare you with my posts....but I hope you can appreciate that science demands objectivity, otherwise it becomes religion.
I would normally be happy to carry on debating your views because I am genuinely interested in what you say, but I detect a personal agenda here which has nothing to do with what you claim, and everything to do with those you seem to have taken a dislike to.
The Atheist/Theist Cromper FAIL.
Cromper are you going to call stephen hawking to save you from the wrath of fatfist.
Or Cromper are you going to call God to save you from the wrath of fatfist.
lol
Prometheus,
Let Cromper understand and digest what was presented to him and he will be back for clarifications, as the Scientific Method is new to him and most of the posters who comment in my hubs. People who argue against my hubs haven’t really read them through or even understood them. This is normal because we as a species have been conditioned for millennia to be close-minded, respect authority and parrot their statements...irrespective of whether we understand them or not. Big Bang, Hawking and Hubble have authority written all over them. This is the only thing which keeps the “faith” with their followers in this day and age.
Remember.....up until 75 years ago the universe was eternal. Then overnight it was dogmatically decreed by the Mathematicians of the Vatican that space & matter magically created themselves from the Big Bang. We have entered the dark ages of Creatio ex Nihilo again.
It is evident that humans cannot live without religion ruling their lives and having others thinking for them. We as a species have evolved with the innate desire to BELIEVE rather than to REASON. This is why we will always be ruled by charlatans until we go extinct.
fatfist,
I don't recall ever making the CLAIM that matter was 'created' or came from nothing. I simply remain open to the POSSIBILITY, just as I remain open to the possiblity that matter (or should I say atoms?) are/is 'eternal'.
This is why I'm giving up; because either I am not articulate enough to explain where I sit in all of this, or you are not listening to me. Whichever one it is I cannot get my message across.
Just as evolutionary theory does not require organic matter to come from inorganic matter, so the BB theory does not require matter to come from nothing. The theories only deal with the matter which exists, irrespective of how long it has existed. It is you who does not understand the theory.
Prometheuskid,
Have you got anything constructive to add to this debate, or are you just fatfist's muppet? LOL!
Cromper,
How can it be rationally possible for matter to spring from nothing?
I think this is the point Fatfist is trying to help you address - open mindedness should not include the irrational. The irrational is covered in philosophy.
For example, you state you are "open to the possibility" that "matter was 'created' or came from nothing".
The first premise of Alvin Plantiga's logical argument for God begins, "It is possible that a maximally great being exists in some world."
The first premise of your response to Fatfist begins, "It is possible that matter was created or came from nothing."
Do you see the point? This is not science. This is philosophy. Both premises deal with irrational subjects, god and creation ex nihilo. Neither argument has any bearing on reality. Also, because both begin with a description of possibilities, neither argument can ever prove a necessity - the phrasing is always contingent on the word "possible".
Concerning the Big Bang, the entirety of its observational power rests in redshift. Without the Doppler Effect for redshit, there is no expansion, and without expansion there is no Big Bang. Cosmic Background Radiation is a sideshow that has easy alternative explanations.
If redshift is wrong, the Big Bang theory is wrong.
So when you are alluding to the ideas of the Big Bang, you are alluding to a philosophical argument (it is possible that..." that rests on an observation that relies on an irrational basis for it to work (Doppler Effect carries over to light and in vacuums.)
In my opinion, that is really all Fatfist is trying to get across - that modern physics and cosmology is not really science but philosophy.
Rational thought does not require proof; philosophy is a method of proofs. How can these two mix into a theory?
Winston,
You're right! The idea that matter came from nothing is certainly irrational.
Throughout history humans believed the earth was flat. We can all sympathise with their beliefs because it would have been rational from a non-the-wiser human point of view. In those days, the idea that the earth was round would have been laughed at! It would have been irrational because we would have fallen off if we went around too far, wouldn't we?
I don't mind the term irrational, and I'm very happy to keep the door wide open on ideas deemed so.
But then there are 'absurdities'. It's perfectly rational to believe the earth is flat, but to believe it rests on the back of a giant turtle is absurd!
And that is the difference.
While the idea that matter came from nothing is irrational, it is not absurd.
Cromper,
Don’t worry about Prometheus, he just loves to hang around here and harass posters because his wife doesn’t pay attention to him.
“matter was 'created' or came from nothing. I simply remain open to the POSSIBILITY”
This issue has been addressed in my hubs. Follow the reasoning very carefully here so you understand why creation is impossible:
Creation is an action. All actions require real objects to mediate them. Real objects have shape and location; i.e. they exist. This means that a car can be created by moving atoms from one location to another.
When there is nothing, we have a situation where there is only space. Space is not an object because space lacks shape. It is IMPOSSIBLE for nothing (lack of shape) to acquire motion and act as a mediator to perform any action....much less ‘creation’. Since matterless motion is impossible, this rationally means that creation from nothing is impossible. So, which part don’t you understand? Just how do you propose we create a car from nothing?
So how can you remain open to your “belief” of a possibility, when it is extremely easy to reason why it is impossible? Do you see the error in your ways? I am trying to open your eyes here and help you understand. I am not trying to ridicule you, ok?
“or you are not listening to me.”
I am listening to you. But you also need to read my posts and try to understand them....or try to refute them. If you can refute them, then my reasoning goes in the trash.
My reasoning is extremely easy to follow. I mean, if you don’t like my replies to you because you have some pre-conceived notion/belief about creation.....then I cannot help you. In this situation you should not be having scientific discussions, but instead stick to philosophical & religious discussions. My hubs are objective in nature and deal with Science only. Subjective opinions and personal views belong to philosophy & religion.
“so the BB theory does not require matter to come from nothing.”
Ok....so what? All you are doing with the above statement is AGREEING with my hub that matter is eternal and not created. So if the BB theory does NOT require matter to be created.....then just what in heaven’s name is the purpose of this BB theory? What does it say? That matter is eternal? Are you sure?
“The theories only deal with the matter which exists,”
Great....then you have just conceded that matter is eternal. Remember, the HYPOTHESIS of a theory sets the INITIAL SCENE. If the initial scene is “existing matter” (as you’ve stated), then matter is eternal.....as per your interpretation of this BB theory.
“It is you who does not understand the theory”
Don’t worry about me. Just treat me like a stupid dumbass and please RATIONALLY EXPLAIN the Big Bang Theory to me so BOTH YOU AND I CAN UNDERSTAND IT. I think this is the 5th time I have asked this of you....right? I am open to any rational explanation you may offer.
Cromper.....if you come here belly-aching and complaining all the time that you are treated unfairly.....but yet refuse to address the questions posed to you regarding your BB theory.....then I am sorry to tell you.....but it is you who has issues. Fair enough?
Cromper,
“the idea that the earth was round would have been laughed at! It would have been irrational”
Irrational means that it cannot be reasoned....it is contradictory.
That the Earth COULD have been a sphere was irrational back then? Are you sure about this?
It was very easy for someone to reason that the Earth was a sphere. And Eratosthenes certainly did that. So, it was actually not irrational....but rather, it was not readily contemplated for the Earth to be a sphere. A sphere is rational. A tribar, on the other hand, is irrational. Understand the difference?
“While the idea that matter came from nothing is irrational, it is not absurd.”
If it is irrational then it is absolutely absurd! Irrational means that it cannot even be imagined. It is an ontological impossibility. We cannot even build a model or even make a movie of it. It is contradictory and it cannot be understood. That matter was created from nothing is not only irrational and absurd.....it is IMPOSSIBLE....as explained in my previous post.
Just as evolutionary theory does not require organic matter to come from inorganic matter.
Cromper aka theist/atheist.
Evolution = Genesis = Big Bang Theory. Crap after Crap
Fatfist,
I will try to explain why the BB theory makes sense to me - someone who studied amateur radio (20 years ago now) before he knew anything about the theory. This is purely from memory!
Everything resonates at a certain frequency - even the bones in our bodies! Sound resonates from our vocal cords through the air in waves which peak and trough so many times per second (20-120 times?). In the Doppler Effect the waves travel towards us and so the peaks and troughs pass us faster which increases the frequency (times per second). Likewise as the source of sound travels away from us, the peaks and troughs of the wave pass slower and therefore the frequency reduces. Sound cannot pass through a vacuum so to transmit audio through space we need to send it electromagnetically.
Radio waves are generated (these days) by passing an electrical current over slivers of quartz crystal and mixed (synthesized) to achieve a frequency which will be a denomination or multiple of the frequency we want to use. All frequencies have harmonics (we hear this in music and singing, but they also exist in radio) and so we can filter out the harmonics we don't want and use the one that we do. This is the 'carrier wave' which transports the voice (or what ever sound we want to transmit). The voice resonance is added to the carrier wave and then 'let loose' through an antenna (which also resonates).
The length of an antenna is very important! You can guess the frequency of a transmitter by looking at the length of its aerial. The length needs to be the same as the wavelength or denominations of such. 1/2 wave and 1/4 wave antennas are most common for CB radio, for example. The wavelenth of CB radio is 11 metres (36 ft?) and so a half wave antenna (commonly known as Silver Rod) is 18ft long. There are other lengths such as 3/4 and 5/8th wave antennas but I think I've made my point here.
If the antenna is the wrong length the radiated waves will struggle to transmit and, depending on how far out the measurment is, will 'reflect back' into the transmitter causing damage to the equipment. It's like trying to squeeze an elephant through a catflap, but the same happens if the antenna is too long too, because it is the harmonic length that's important, and not how long the antenna is. This is why we need antennas of varying length.
Waves radiate omnidirectionally. To direct them in any particular direction we need to add at least one antenna 'element' called a 'reflector'. This is an extra, slightly longer, antenna placed at optimum distance parrallel and in line to the 'driver' (our initial antenna) which literally bounces the waves back towards the driver like a mirror. The reflective element stands alone without any connection to the transmitting equipment. It is not powered in any way, it only acts as a mirror.
To make the antenna more accurate in its direction, we can add 'directors' to the antenna array (now called a 'beam') on the opposite side of the driven element to the reflector. Just like the reflector, the directors are stand alone and are not powered in any way, but they are cut slightly SHORTER than the driven element. The more directors we use, the more accurately we can direct the radiation to its target.
Ever looked at a TV antenna? See how many elements there are? Even though TV antennas do not transmit, the principle is the same when receiving signals as when transmitting.
The reason I talk so much about antennas is to demonstrate the physical nature of radio waves. Not only do they act the same as sound but they also act the same as any 'object'. Throw (driver) an object against a wall (reflector) and aid its forward path (directors).
Light waves behave the same as radio waves which behave the same as sound waves, so we can apply the same principles when talking about the Doppler Effect. (Someone is probably going to prove me wrong here, but this is my understanding)
White light consists of a spectrum of colours from infra-red up to ultra-violet. Using the Doppler Effect we can already see how red-shifted white light suggests it is travelling away from us. Is there another explanation for this? I don't know.
'Cosmic Background Radiation' is in the microwave range which is below visible infra-red. It is suggested that this radiation is light that has been red-shifted so much that it no longer resembles light, which makes sense. Is there another explanation? I don't know.
The amount of microwave radiation detected is the same whichever way we look out into the universe which can suggest a number of things but most importantly; that either we are at the dead centre of the universe (creationists rejoice!) or that there is NO centre to the universe.
To suggest that we are at the dead centre is 'absurd'; to suggest there is no centre is 'irrational'.
cont...
Then we get into the realms of light and gravity's effect on it.
(fatfist please note; even if the source of light has direction, the lightwaves it emits are omnidirectional - they have no direction)
We now know that light bends through space. It was previously thought that light only travels in straight lines but observations have shown during solar eclipses that stars which would otherwise be obscured by the sun can be seen. This can only be due to the bending of light as it passes the sun.
Therefore, light cannot escape matter as it will ultimately end up bending back on itself however far it manages to travel.
The background radiation tells me (and this is my idea, not that of science) that our universe is the same size as it was at the very start of the Big Bang (irrational). We only see the matter in our universe 'spreading out' because we are inside the universe. To an outsider, the universe is not getting any larger but the contents are fading away! And the rate of this fading away is equivalent to the speed of light!
Light particles remain frozen in space relative to the 'outside'. It is the ripples (waves) they create in space that expand outwards that are observed as light. For anything to travel faster than light the 'fading' process would need to be reversed and would require an infinite amount of energy, therefore it would be impossible.
Our universe should not exists at all! It is trying to vanish out of existence, such is the nature of its behaviour.
Cromper,
Thanks for the info you posted. But do you consider the so-called “radio wave” to be the same as what we refer to as a “sound wave” which uses air as its medium? If it is the same, then the “radio wave” must necessarily use a medium which has the capability to WAVE....i.e. move up/down/etc. If so, then what is the medium for radio waves of the electromagnetic (light) spectrum?
“Waves radiate omnidirectionally”
Ok, just stay with me on this line of thought......we are haphazardly using the term RADIATE to describe an effect. The question a physicist asks is: what is the object which is performing this “radiating effect”? You see, an object must necessarily be in motion (i.e. waving) in order for the effect of “radiation” to be propagated....right?
Here is the million dollar question.....What is this object? Is it a 0D photon particle as Quantum alleges? Is it a “wave concept”? Is it a “wavicle concept”?
This is the question we must answer before we can say that we DETECTED BACKGROUND RADIATION, and BEFORE we can conclude that this radiation is from an alleged Big Bang. In physics we need to hypothesize what object causes this radiation effect and how it does it....and we must do so rationally so that it makes sense without contradiction.
If someone is telling the audience that 0D photon particles are flying throughout space because of some BB explosion and that we are detecting them with our equipment as background radiation, then this is total BS....utter nonsense. There is no such thing as a 0D photon particle in the universe.
“The reason I talk so much about antennas is to demonstrate the physical nature of radio waves...... they act the same as sound”
Ok, let’s backtrack a bit. Radio waves are not physical. They are not objects. Only objects can possibly be physical. What is ‘physical’ is the MEDIUM which ‘waves’ in motion and propagates this effect we term ‘wave’.
‘A’ wave is not what something IS. It is not a noun of reality; only a grammatical noun. Wave is what something DOES. ‘A’ wave is only a concept. It is our conception of a physical medium moving up/down/etc. i.e. waving! So let’s get our language straight here because we are doing physics. In physics only objects can ‘wave’....never concepts.
If the effect of our conception of “radio waves” acts the same as sound waves, then they must have a medium which they propagate through, right?
So again, the million dollar question is: What is the MEDIUM for radio waves?
For sound waves it is air. For radio waves it is ??????
“Using the Doppler Effect we can already see how red-shifted white light suggests it is travelling away from us.”
Before you can conclude that light is capable of a Doppler effect, you must absolutely have a theory on light which rationally hypothesizes a medium for light and how the effect (motion/wave) of light propagates through that medium. What is the medium for light? What is it that is doing the WAVING for light? If the proponent of the BB theory cannot even conceptualize this medium, then all he is doing is imagining contradictory and irrational scenarios. He cannot rationally explain his theory. So how can the BB even be a remote possibility when it doesn’t even make sense?
“Is there another explanation for this?”
There most certainly is.....and a rational one. But you have to go thru the hurdle of familiarizing yourself with a rational theory of light.
“To suggest that we are at the dead centre is 'absurd'; to suggest there is no centre is 'irrational'.”
To suggest that the universe has an alleged ‘centre’ is most certainly irrational and absurd. Only objects can possibly have a centre. The universe is not an object. The universe is a concept which embodies matter wrapped by space.
REMEMBER: If the universe was an object, then the natural question arises: What is outside that object?
Is it space? If so, then what is space doing OUTSIDE the universe? The universe includes space! It is irrational to suggest that the universe can possibly be an object....it is impossible! And since the universe cannot possibly be an object, it follows that it is impossible for the universe to expand. Only objects can expand....right?
“even if the source of light has direction, the lightwaves it emits are omnidirectional - they have no direction”
Yes, but why? Why does light behave that way? What theory of light explains this effect? The 0D photon theory? The wave theory? The wavicle theory?
If it is the 0D photon theory (quantum) then light is definitely NOT a wave as you suggest here. How can a particle be omnidirectional? How can a particle be in multiple locations at the same time? This is impossible!
If light is a wave, then WHAT is the medium it uses to propagate?
“We now know that light bends through space.”
Absolutely not! Space is nothing. How can nothing have any effect on a physical entity such as light? We know that light is a physical entity because we can stop its effect with our hand.....it physically interacts with objects. Light only CHANGES DIRECTION when it interacts with other objects.
“Light particles remain frozen in space relative to the 'outside'.”
Ok, now you are treating light as a particle. Before you said that light was a wave that used a medium to propagate. Do you understand that going back and forth like this, you are contradicting yourself? If light is a particle, it cannot possibly “radiate” omnidirectionally.....it cannot be in multiple locations at the same time.
“It is the ripples (waves) they create in space that expand outwards that are observed as light.”
Space ripples? Are you sure about this??
Is space a physical entity? Is space an object? If so, then what is outside the BORDER of space? More space??? Does it even make any sense to suggest that space is a physical entity?
It is irrational and impossible for space to be a physical entity. Space cannot bend, wave or ripple. Space is nothing. Space is the antithesis of a physical entity. I hope you can understand this.
“Our universe should not exists at all! It is trying to vanish out of existence”
Let’s put your statement in the proper context. You are suggesting that matter will vanish out of existence, right? Then please suggest a mechanism by which matter loses its shape, loses its length, width and height and magically becomes nothing? How can this even be possible?
It is irrational for something to become nothing....and vice versa. It is impossible. Not even God can perform such a magic trick.
fatfist,
You make some very interesting points which I intend to address on my return from work.
Very briefly, I understand sound, radio and light waves to be nothing more than waves that pass through a medium. As for passing through space I do not have an answer and niether does science. I'm sure that will please you.
I'm trying not to give too much away as I'm currently writing a hub related to this so you'll have to forgive me if I don't delve too much into the 'vanishing universe'.
Cheers for now.
Cromper,
Don’t worry about discussing your vanishing universe proposal here. Let’s just discuss and deal with the primary issues which lead you to accept the BB as a viable possibility of an event that occurred in the past. One primary issue is “background radiation”. So let’s just stay on this topic right now until we resolve it.
“I understand sound, radio and light waves to be nothing more than waves that pass through a medium.”
Ok, let’s critically analyze this wave issue. ‘Wave’ is what an object does. ‘Wave’ is an action; a concept. When I wave my hand, my hand is performing an action which we CONCEIVE to be a wave. Thus ‘a’ wave is a concept and nothing real. My hand is real because it is an object with location.
Similarly, consider the concept of a water wave in the ocean. This is not an object. It does not exist. What exists is the water which changes location by moving up/down. Waves do NOT move or travel. Only the water moves. We say that waves “propagate”....meaning that the motion of the atoms in the water will induce neighboring atoms to move as well via surface-to-surface contact. This process will make it SEEM to us that a wave travels. But nothing is travelling. Only the water moves up/down...not laterally. Place a boat in a wavy ocean without lateral currents. The boat will only move up/down...and not travel because the water is not travelling to the shore.
Consider a single tsunami wave. It is the motion of the water molecules which induces other molecules to move via surface-to-surface contact. This is the propagation of motion to other water molecules which gives the APPEARANCE of ‘a’ wave moving towards the shore. But it doesn’t. Waves are not things (objects)....they are concepts. Similarly, the same thing happens in our conception of a sound wave.
Therefore, since waves are not objects, and not anything real which exists.....they do NOT pass thru a medium. It is the actual medium itself which is in motion. This motion we conceptualize it and term it as ‘a’ wave concept. It’s that simple. Most people do not understand this. I am not trying to make fun of anybody, but even modern-day mathematical physicists are confused about this and are not able to tell you whether ‘a’ wave is anything real which exists....whether it is an object or a concept. This is where errors of interpretation of phenomena are introduced into mathematical theories. I hope you can appreciate that this is not allowed in science. In science we critically analyze the facts objectively and ensure that we FULLY understand what we are talking about.
So having said that......when I turn on my laser and point it to the moon, I am obviously projecting a light beam on its surface. But since there is space (nothing) between the moon and the earth, how did the laser project its beam on the moon? What is the medium which allowed light to PROPAGATE its effect at the speed of c and make it to the moon in 1 second?
Since there is absolutely NO medium between the earth and the moon, then just HOW did this effect of light manage to propagate itself to the moon? This is the burning question we need to answer BEFORE we can make any bald assertions and draw premature and irrational conclusions about background radiation and the BB. This is what the BB theory hinges on. This is one of the issues which makes or breaks the BB theory. I hope you can understand and appreciate this.
The so-called “radio waves” are synonymous with light waves....they are part of the same EM light spectrum. So light and AM/FM radio and X-rays use the exact same medium for propagation.....the medium is just moving/vibrating at different frequencies. When it is vibrating at the frequency of the visible light spectrum, the atoms in our retinas vibrate and send signals to our brain which “draws” the images for us. We conceive these images and obtain the “illusion” of sight. Multiple images give us the appearance of motion. Our eyes have an extremely limited response to the effects of the physical world. There are tons of “stuff” we do not see because they vibrate OUTSIDE the frequency response of the atoms comprising our retinas.
“As for passing through space I do not have an answer and niether does science.”
If the mathematical physicists do not have a rational explanation of this allegation that space moves or bends....they have absolutely NO business making this irrational allegation....right? I mean, if you cannot imagine or conceive of how space can bend or move or ripple or wave, then it is nonsensical and absurd to make such a CLAIM....right? We laugh at religionists with their absurd God claims. But why don’t we laugh at mathematicians who make more absurd claims?
What if I CLAIM that I can fly unaided to the moon and back in 2 seconds and I managed to get the Nobel committee to give me a Nobel Prize for this.....does this mean that it actually is the case? So now you cannot QUESTION what I CLAIM....now the case is closed....a done deal? Do we ridicule and laugh at people who question/deny my claim? Do we suddenly censor the people who showcase the contradictions and impossibilities in my claim? I certainly hope not!!
Cromper....this is not an issue of “science NOT having an answer”. Science is a discipline which has absolutely NO authorities, high priests, dogmas, biases, inquisitions or censorship. Science is an objective discipline which is driven solely by critical reasoning, consistent definitions, non-contradictory hypotheses, and rationally explained theories. If the mathematician CLAIMS that the BB is proven by background radiation.....but then turns the other cheek and admits that he DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE what background radiation actually is......then we take this idiot and throw him off a 20 storey building for attempting to commit FRAUD upon society!! And we replace him with someone who can rationally explain ALL his CLAIMS.
There absolutely IS an answer: It is IMPOSSIBLE for space to be an object, because it has no border or boundary. Hence, space does not bend, warp, ripple, etc. Space is nothing. Therefore it is impossible for space to be ‘the’ medium by which light propagates, say, from the earth to the moon.
This is how we do things in science. In religion we just leave open gaps in order to get you to accept our theories on faith alone; that is, solely on an EMOTIONAL basis. And BB creation draws lots of EMOTION from theists and atheists alike.
Boring
fatfist,
I agree with you regarding waves. I keep my mind open on this still because radio signals possess a tiny amount of voltage which, when received, needs to be substantially amplified to get the modulated information (if any). This implies either the voltage has travelled from the transmitter to the receiver (like a blob of energy through empty space), or the medium it has used to 'wave' the information from TX to RX is itself electrical.
OR... My theory that there is no travelling involved by either party! And this is a part of my 'Vanishing Universe' theory. (It needs a better name, such as 'Condensing Universe' or 'Conflicting Universe')
fatfist, you keep on repeating your mantra about how 'objects' and only atoms exist. How do you get to claim objects and atoms are the only things that exist when they are made of empty space? Are liquids and gasses conceptual?
I know you have already commented on this but the amount of writing here makes it difficult to refer back to particular comments.
Cheers.
Ooh, Mr Peavley!!!
Sorry, meant to add;
Waves in water and sound waves which rely on matter as a medium to travel through will eventually die away to nothing (because the energy is absorbed by the medium). This does not happen with electromagnetic waves in a vacuum.
Does this point to an absense of a medium?
atoms are the only things that exist when they are made of empty space?
Cromper is not even trying anymore.
This guys still does not get the basic definition of concepts and objects wow.
Cromper what is a concept ? please give your definition.
Cromper what is and object ? please give your definitions.
...or better still, what is a Prome?
Cromper,
“This implies either the voltage has travelled from the transmitter to the receiver”
Voltage travels? I thought only objects can travel i.e. change location. Does love and justice travel? Concepts do not travel.
Voltage is an effect; a concept. It is our conception of an effect performed by atoms. So radio signals cannot possibly posses ‘anything’ because a radio signal is a concept, not an object. Only objects can possess or be composed of ‘something’. The medium which radiates/waves/moves to mediate the effect we term “signal”, is the object which exists.
“there is no travelling involved by either party!”
Yes, there cannot possibly be any object which travels from transmitter to receiver. The only rational explanation is that the transmitter and the receiver are physically connected by a medium at the atomic level. It is this physical medium between atoms which gets torqued by the perpetual motion of atoms. Atoms cannot possibly be discrete entities. Matter must be composed of a web of interconnected atoms. These interconnections are the MEDIUM for light. This is a basic introduction into the Thread Theory of light which rationally explains all of the EM phenomena, including Maxwell and Faraday Laws of the mutually induced EM wave effect, orthogonality, sinusoidality, why the EM wave effect appears to oscillate around an imaginary axis, and tons of others. The particle and wave theories of light do not have any rational explanations for any of the effects of light.
“How do you get to claim objects and atoms are the only things that exist when they are made of empty space?”
How do you know this? Which of mathematical physics 3 major models of the atom are you using to make this statement? The planetary model? The ribbon model? The shell model?
How can you justify gravitational attraction between objects with your model of the atom? How can 2 atoms possibly attract each other if they are not physically interconnected? How can the atoms comprising the Earth possibly pull the atoms of the pen to the floor if they are not physically connected?
The bottom line is that only objects can possibly exist. Concepts cannot exist. Is matter composed of atoms or spirits? What else could possibly exist other than objects?
What does the word ‘exist’ actually mean? We define exist scientifically as follows:
Exist: physical presence (an object having a location)
Object: that which has shape
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects
“Waves in water and sound waves which rely on matter as a medium to travel through will eventually die away to nothing (because the energy is absorbed by the medium).”
It’s not that the waves “die”. Waves do not even exist. What is happening is that the atoms are torquing their interconnections with all the other atoms in the universe. That is, every atom is torquing. Since each atom is a physical object, it acts like a shock-absorber and will only torque the next atom in the chain with a reduced amplitude. This is what we term as the Inverse-Square Law of the EM spectrum. What you term as “energy absorbed”, is actually this reduced amplitude in the torquing of the next atom in the chain.
This is why a radio signal is everywhere at the same time. There is nothing that travels from the transmitter to all the receivers scattered in the universe. Only their interconnections are torqued by the transmitter. This propagates the “wave effect” via the interconnecting medium to every single atom in the universe.....albeit at an ever-decreasing amplitude.....but propagates it nonetheless.
fatfist,
We're going back into things that exist and things that do not.
As I asked before; are gasses and liquids concepts? Or are they objects?
There made of atoms so they must be objects.
But cromper what is space made off or lack off?
Cromper,
“are gasses and liquids concepts? Or are they objects?”
I already defined object in no ambiguous terms in my previous post. Does 'it' have shape?
If it has shape, then it is spatially separated. Thus you can point to it or illustrate it...hence 'it' is an object. Can we point to or illustrate an envelope of gas which surrounds the Earth? Can we illustrate gas in a chamber as it takes part in a reaction during an experiment? Sure we can. Gas has shape. Gas is a physical object capable of making surface-to-surface contact with other objects. Air can knock down a tree during a storm. Thus gas also has location around the Earth i.e. it exists. Use similar reasoning for liquid, irrespective of the different categories of liquids or gases.
If it has shape it is an object. If it also has location, then the object is said to exist...otherwise it is an “abstract” object i.e. a concept which does not exist.
Is a circle an object? Does a circle exist? How about love and justice? How about a spirit and soul?
fatfist,
Ok, got that.
Is the speed of light (c) a limiting factor at the quantum level?
(Just a quickie before I leave for work)
Sorry, I don't understand your question, Cromper. Quantum Mechanics is a religion which deals with 0D particles which are impossible to exist. They claim that a photon is 0D. So how can a photon possibly move or have any speed, if they can't even draw this critter on paper? If we ask them to make a movie showing how a photon of light shoots from the earth to the moon, then just what is it that these mathematicians will put on the big screen? What could they possibly show that will make you "believe" their wild claims....mere equations and tautologies?
You wrote earlier;
"The only rational explanation is that the transmitter and the receiver are physically connected by a medium at the atomic level."
I was under the impression that connections at the atomic level are not limited by 'c' - that the relationship of one atom with another billions of miles away is instant. 'c' is not a limiting factor of gravity. The effects of gravity are instant no matter what the distance is between 2 objects.
Radio signals travel at c (slightly less through atmosphere) so what is the limiting factor in space where there is only a connection at an atomic level?
Cromper,
“I was under the impression that connections at the atomic level are not limited by 'c' - that the relationship of one atom with another billions of miles away is instant.”
Yes of course, but let’s put your statement in the proper context. We are trying to rationalize 2 phenomena:
1) The speed of light being a constant....it doesn’t really matter what the numeric value of ‘c’ is for the purposes of our analysis...it only matters whether ‘c’ is constant or variable. Since ‘c’ is a constant, a connecting medium between atom A and atom B explains the constancy of the speed of light. Take a rope and stretch it taught (no slack) over a few hundred meters. When you torque one end of the rope, the action (i.e. torsion WAVE) is propagated by the rope to the other end almost instantaneously. It is the medium (rope or whatever) which dictates the speed of the signal that is propagated. It is the medium interconnecting atoms which dictates ‘c’ when an atom performs what is termed as a “quantum jump” and torques the medium to propagate a torsion WAVE to the atom at the other end. There is no other limiting factor for the speed of EM radiation.....only the medium.
2) Gravity’s Instantaneous Action At A Distance (IAAAD). Even though the fools of Quantum & Relativity CLAIM that 0D graviton bullets shoot from the Sun to the Earth at speed ‘c’ in order to keep Earth in orbit..... all of their experiments show the speed of the gravity effect to be “infinite”, as per their irrational choice of words.....but they are trying to say “instantaneous”. Why do they stubbornly & irrationally CLAIM ‘c’?? Because their whole bread & butter of equations is based on ‘c’. All of Quantum’s & Relativity’s math falls apart otherwise....as is expected by a theory which is based on TAUTOLOGIES and IRRATIONAL CONCEPTS alone, and not on reality. So a rope having tension between 2 entities (say atoms A and B), will INSTANTLY attract these atoms together even if they are 5000 billion light years apart....there is no time delay!!!
“'c' is not a limiting factor of gravity. The effects of gravity are instant no matter what the distance is between 2 objects.”
Yes, this makes sense!
In fact, Newton understood this very well because his gravitational formula operates via IAAD, exhibiting no time dependence whatsoever. There is no ‘c’ limiting his description of the gravitational effect. Newton was a smart guy, but he had no hypothesis as to what is the OBJECT which mediates the effect we call gravity. But what he did was perfectly describe gravity via math, even though he never could explain it.
Of course, a medium interconnecting all the atoms in the universe rationally accounts for instantaneous gravity because they are constantly under tension with each object in the Universe. This is how we can rationally explain the effect of the PULLING force between all objects in the universe. It is impossible for 2 objects to attract and perpetually pull each other together if there no physical connecting medium between them. Magical spirits do not pull....only physical objects do. It should be obvious to you by now that all of the 3 major models of the atom used by the establishment, are fatally flawed.
Sorry fatfist, perhaps I am missing something here.
If the radio signal uses a medium at an atomic level and the limiting factor is the knock on effect of atoms, then am I correct in assuming you are suggesting there are atoms in empty space?
Cromper,
Now do you understand why we have this cosmic background radiation effect which comes from every single direction around the Earth?
Even if the universe consisted of only 2 atoms, each atom would be receiving this radiation from the other atom because atoms are in perpetual motion. They perpetually torque their interconnecting medium, propagating torsion waves to each other.
The establishment has absolutely no rational explanation of WHAT causes this phenomenon.
Cromper,
"am I correct in assuming you are suggesting there are atoms in empty space?"
No. Perhaps there is some confusion here. Atoms exist where there is matter, objects, planets, stars....ie. "cosmic stuff" is comprised of atoms. They are in perpetual motion, perpetually torquing their interconnecting medium. We have a new model of the atom here which is able to explain this phenemena.
I'm still confused.
Am I getting this correctly? If we take 2 atoms billions of miles apart, and they torque their interconnecting medium, the effect of the torque from one atom to the other will still be subject to the limit equivalent to the speed of light?
Or will the torqued effect be instantaneous?
Cromper,
Yes, the torque "signal" is propagated to the other atom at the speed limited by the interconnecting medium....i.e. 'c'.
But the effect of gravity is mediated by the perpetual "tension" between the atoms. This tension is always present and pulling atoms together. This is why the gravitational effect is instantaneous.
So, light is "torsion" of medium, and gravity is "tension" of medium.
fatfist,
This is a fascinating conversation!
Of course, this is all assuming that the medium between atoms can be torqued, and why not indeed! If it was rigid the torqued effect would be instantaneous. That would be interesting.
Cromper,
Yes, all assumptions are part of the Hypothesis stage of the sci method. The theory is what uses the objects of the hypothesis to rationally explain the phenomenon of light and gravity.
Warped space, 0D particles, wave-packets, black holes, wormhole, dark energy, 1D strings, 4D spacetime... are ALL without exception IRRATIONAL assumptions. They are all CONCEPTS that mathematicians have morphed into OBJECTS. We call this REIFICATION...a fallacy, right? Whenever a concept moves in physics, we know it's time to put the mathematician who proposed it in a straight jacket and send him to the insane asylum....watch the youtube videos on the Dangerous Knowledge series which showcases the top mathematicians going insane with their ludicrous ideas about God and the universe.
But notice how c = frequency x wavelength is actually the equation of a torque signal propagated by a rope-like medium interconnecting atoms. This explains all the frequency/wavelength aspects of the EM spectrum. This is why we "thought" that light is an irrational alleged "wave", which is impossible to exist. The correct terminology is: light exhibits "wave-like" behavior.
Cheers fatfist.
I could be back with more questions for you. My own theory negates the need for strings whilst still maintaining that no EM radiation needs to travel between objects. Maybe my own interpretation of things is more related to string theory than I thought!
Food for thought.
Cheers for now.
This is a fascinating conversation!
Cromper turning into the Dark Side.
Aka string theory is a joke.
fatfist,
I have been thinking.
As we know, light cannot pass through opaque objects. Does this suggest that not all atoms are connected to each other via the medium we have been talking about?
If there is a 'torquing' from the TX point to every other atom that exists then there is obviously something stopping the information from continuing along its path as it reaches 'populated' bodies of atoms (objects).
Also, radio signals sometimes 'bounce' off the earth's ionosphere in unpredictable ways which is surely an 'interruption' between the torquing at TX and every atom that exists?
For example; Atom A torques along the string to atom B, but at a point in between there is an interaction that prevents atom B from receiving the torqued information.
What is the interaction?
I can only imagine that a local atom (C) takes custody of the string, receives the information, but sends nothing to atom B.
But then why would atom C take over the A-B string when it already has connections with both anyway?
However, the main problem is this: Even if you 'torque' a string there is still an instantaneous decrease in length which pulls the two ends closer together even if the 'twist' is received later. The only way to combat this would be with string having only 1 dimension. Even then, it would need to be rigid!
fatfist! We need your help!!!
Cromper,
“As we know, light cannot pass through opaque objects. Does this suggest that not all atoms are connected to each other”
This is the problem with observations. If what we “know” is what we “readily see”, then of course we will conclude that light stops dead in its tracks with opaque objects. But this is not the case. Physical mediums only block certain frequencies of the EM spectrum. An X-ray will go right thru an object. This means that atoms are perpetually torquing the ropes which connect them. Of course, atoms in different mediums will torque at different frequencies, effecting BLOCKING the visible light spectrum which our eyes have EVOLVED to respond to. Our eyes only have an extremely limited frequency bandwidth. The only rational explanation is that all atoms are interconnected by “some” medium. The rope medium is able to explain all the phenomena of light.
“Also, radio signals sometimes 'bounce' off the earth's ionosphere”
What you are talking about here is known as the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PRR), also known as optical reversibility, indicates that light is a two-way mechanism. The PRR states that whether reflecting, refracting, or diffracting, light always retraces its path. It is impossible to simulate this phenomenon with either particles or waves (whatever those are). Just consider the scenario where the emitter and the reflector are 50 light years apart. Why would a discrete photon retrace its footsteps through space and travel for another 50 years along the exact same path during the return segment of its trip, especially since the remaining cosmic objects moved in the meantime and are NO LONGER in the same location? We know that in ray reversibility, light ALWAYS makes it back to its source. The only way to explain this phenomenon is that the light signal travels back along the medium. This happens because each atom performs quantum jumps which relay the light signal to absolutely ALL atoms in the universe....including to their “sender” atom.
“but at a point in between there is an interaction that prevents atom B from receiving the torqued information.”
No. B will receive it, but like I said before, it may come from a different medium and thus the visible light spectrum may be blocked. Nonetheless, other portions of the EM spectrum will be received and re-torqued by B to the rest of the atoms in the universe.....including to its sender atom.
We need to understand that what we term as “light”, does not selfishly refer to our eyes visible response.....it includes the whole EM spectrum frequency range. If our eyes would respond to the whole EM spectrum....we would be effectively “blind” as our vision would be white-washed.
“Even if you 'torque' a string there is still an instantaneous decrease in length which pulls the two ends closer together”
No. You see, now you are entering into the architecture of the atom. This question specifically deals with what the atom looks like under this model and hypothesis. This model hypothesizes that the atom is woven from the fundamental constituent of matter which we term a “thread”. All of matter is composed of one closed-loop thread. The rope consists of 2 threads twined in dna-like fashion between all atoms in the universe. A torque of the rope does not pull 2 atoms together because the rope has link-lengths which determine the wavelength of the pulse being sent along the rope. And since each atom performs a quantum jump, it alters the link-length (wavelength) of the rope depending on the rate at which it torques it. And atoms in different media, obviously vibrate (torque) at different rates. Atoms are only perpetually “pulled” together because these interconnecting ropes are under “tension”. This is why it is impossible to block gravity. An anti-gravity machine can never be invented.
Cromper,
"The only way to combat this would be with string having only 1 dimension."
You need to understand that it is impossible for anything to have 1D. Such beasts do not exist in the universe. The God of String Theory is a 1D string. And it is very convenient for them because they can protect their God from scrutiny and ridicule because, just like the Christian Fundamentalist, their God has no shape/form and they cannot even illustrate Him to you....nor even imagine Him. They just leave you guessing and hope that you will accept their theory on an EMOTIONAL basis alone.
Fatfist has forsaken my comments. I pray to god to punish you fatfist.
[[The rope consists of 2 threads twined in dna-like fashion between all atoms in the universe. A torque of the rope does not pull 2 atoms together because the rope has link-lengths which determine the wavelength of the pulse being sent along the rope. And since each atom performs a quantum jump, it alters the link-length (wavelength) of the rope depending on the rate at which it torques it. And atoms in different media, obviously vibrate (torque) at different rates. Atoms are only perpetually “pulled” together because these interconnecting ropes are under “tension”.]]
By this, do you mean that not all atoms pull on eachother because tension between ALL atoms is diffused, as the atom vibrates due to zillions of interconnections to it? (In other words, the ropes wind around the atom and exit at different connecting ropes along it?)
Reasonable,
When all the atoms are in tension within their interconnecting medium network, then tension cannot possibly be diffused/absorbed/vanish.
Yes, this hypothesis of the atom proposes that the atom is made up of the fundamental unit of matter called the "thread". This makes sense because there is no possible way for 2 "discrete" atoms to attract each other. Since 2 atoms must be connected to mediate attraction, then of course it is rational to expect their connecting medium to be the fundamental unit of matter which makes up the atom.
fatfist,
Interesting stuff.
Just going back to the notion that only objects exist because they have size, shape and location - this isn't strictly true.
The size, shape and location of an object is constantly changing analogously, even if it is only at the atomic level. Therefore, the size, shape and location of an object can only exist in the past.
Even if we were to take exact measurements instantly and in synchronicity, by the time we receive those measurements through whichever measuring devices we use, the size, shape and location of the object will have changed and will be no more than an electromagnetic record of what it was in the past at a certain point in time.
In this respect, objects are only temporary whilst the electromagnetic information they leave behind is permanent. This is why we cannot change the past - because what we 'think' is real, isn't. The only reality is waves and frequencies.
The only thing that 'exists' is atoms, not objects.
Perhaps if there were no torsions whatsoever then there would be no space or time, which begs the question; where did the torsions come from?
Cromper,
“The size, shape and location of an object is constantly changing analogously, even if it is only at the atomic level. Therefore, the size, shape and location of an object can only exist in the past.”
There is no past. There is no time. Time is a concept which requires a sentient being to conceive. Matter is perpetually at the cutting edge of universal events...matter exists only in the present.
It is irrelevant whether an object, like a car, can rust to pieces and change its shape. A car is composed of matter (atoms). Matter can never be destroyed. Matter cannot lose length, width and height in zero time (ie. at a single frame in a universal movie) and disappear. Matter is eternal.
“In this respect, objects are only temporary whilst the electromagnetic information they leave behind is permanent.”
Electromagnetic Radiation an object LEAVES behind??? Like I leave behind my shoes when I enter my house???
EM radiation is a concept! Concepts cannot possibly be left behind by other objects. A car can leave behind its MUFFLER in the middle of the road. A car cannot possibly leave behind its “revving” or “power” (a concept) in the middle of the road. Similarly, atoms cannot leave behind EM radiation (concept).
“This is why we cannot change the past”
No, that’s not why. There is no such thing as the past...never was, and never will be. The past is only a concept we have conceived because we have MEMORY. We have memorized previous universal LOCATIONS of objects.....we have a movie in our brain. This relation is what we call “time”...the “past”. The past never exists or existed. Only what exists (objects with location) can be changed.
“The only reality is waves and frequencies.”
Huh? We have already established that “waves” are not real. Only objects with location can ever said to be real..ie. exist. What is real is what exists. Real is a synonym for exist. Waves & frequencies are concepts, not stand-alone objects. Objects precede all concepts. Only objects can possibly be real.
“The only thing that 'exists' is atoms, not objects.”
Is an atom an object...yes or no? An atom most certainly has shape & location. A hydrogen atom exists.....and so does the Sun, which is an object made up of atoms. The Sun has shape & location.
Exist = physical presence (object + location)
“Perhaps if there were no torsions whatsoever then there would be no space or time”
No space? No time? Space and time do not exist. Space is a synonym for nothing. Space is our CONCEPTION of nothing. Space is nothing real. Time is a concept. Matter is always in present mode....time does not exist.
“which begs the question; where did the torsions come from?”
Maybe from God? Theists allege that God set matter in motion.
I mean, what sense could such a question make? If God moved his arm to initiate the first torsion, then there already was motion. The first motion for matter cannot possibly be initiated because it takes “motion” to initiate motion. Matter is eternally in motion. Motion cannot be initiated nor ceased for any object in the universe. You cannot stop your coffee table from moving....ever!
Atoms are eternal, and so is their motion....if an atoms moves, then so will its interconnected medium. Hence torsion and atomic quantum “jumps” are eternal.
Please read my hub on Matter, space, motion is eternal to get a better understanding on this issue.
fatfist,
I am a fellow student - not an opponent. I don't know why you're so defensive and confrontational. To put your mind at ease I will read the hub you suggest and educate myself further...
Cromper,
I am not defensive or confrontational. I am trying to get you to think and challenge these ideas which dominate your and everybody else’s mind. They are preventing you from moving forward towards a rational understanding of reality.
I am trying to get you to understand that you cannot possibly have a rational discussion about reality with anyone unless you define your terms from the start. When we talk about reality or physics, we are unequivocally talking about OBJECTS, whether we like it or not. If we cannot put an image of something (with shape) on the big screen and make a movie about it, then we are not doing physics. This means that we must define the words object and exist.
We have already established that an object is that which has shape.....and that an object exits if it has shape and location. This means that waves, time and radiation do not exist.....they are not real. They are only concepts which describe the “motion” of objects.
And before we can talk about reality, we must definitively decide whether it can be created or not. If reality can be created, then matter had a start to motion. If not, then matter is eternal and so is its motion. As it turns out, creation is a claim, and an irrational one because existence precedes any action like creation. I know that this idea is very difficult to swallow by 99.9999% of the population. But this is to be expected from a human race which was dominated by religious thought over the past 2000 years.
It is about time we started to hold people accountable whenever they use words like: creation, object, exist, time, space, radiation, motion, black hole, photon, wave, dark matter, energy, etc.......don’t you think? Or should we just swallow these words without understanding them?
fatfist,
You cannot claim that 'size, shape and location' define things that 'exist' when they are conceptual! Just like TIME, size, shape and location are concepts!
No matter how complicated or simple your explanation is, it STILL needs an explanation. String (Thread) Theory is simple, makes sense, and it works! I appreciate your down-to-earth explanation.
But it does not explain itself!
You cannot say to me "there is no explanation", because that is like "God is eternal"! Need no explanation, right?
By asserting that atoms are eternal, you are making a claim which requires faith. Faith that atoms need no answer. That atoms always existed.
Personally, I believe matter came from nothing. I don't believe in 'time'. And I don't believe anything caused anything to happen. It just happened!
All will be revealed in my next hub...
Personally, I believe matter came from nothing.
Amen lol
Hey fatfist i need some pointers i am going to start trolling this place.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistExperience#p/u
I am going to start with there big bang theory and then move on to The Dogma of God and then eventually the religion of evolution.
Cromper,
“You cannot claim that 'size,.... define things that 'exist'”
Size??? Where did you see ‘size’ defining existence in any of my posts?? Are you sure you can read, because I get the impression that you haven’t understood 1% of what I said to you.
“You cannot claim that ... shape and location' define things that 'exist' when they are conceptual!”
Absolutely ALL words are conceptual. Which part don’t you understand? I mean, do words walk on the street and say “hi” to you?? Words are concepts which are constructs of language....they are used for HUMAN COMMUNICATION.
Words, as concepts, are used in sentences to describe and explain reality. Some words resolve to objects of reality because they allude to ‘something’ which has shape and location....while the rest are strictly conceptual. Do you understand this part or should I repeat it?
The moon has SHAPE all by itself whether your priest agrees on this issue or not.....it needs no observer (priest) to give an opinion about it. The moon is spatially separated from its background of ‘nothingness’. Additionally, the moon has LOCATION because there is a static distance between your priest’s pea-sized brain and the moon....got it?? This means that the moon has PHYSICAL PRESENSE. This means that the moon is REAL i.e. EXISTS....are u with me so far?
Nonetheless....if you cannot understand basic words, grammar, and language, then it’s no wonder that you are still awe-struck and starry-eyed when your priest holds your hand and tells you the fable of Creation. And this is why you cannot DEFINE your own scientific terms, but instead choose to irrationally belly-ache when others define them for you.....you are acting like a spoiled brat who lost his marbles!
“Just like TIME, size, shape and location are concepts!”
Amen! There must be a God somewhere out there! This is the 1% you understood from me.
“But it does not explain itself!”
Explain itself??? What are you talking about here? A rational explanation uses objects to explain WHY natural phenomena behave that way. Do you understand the Scientific Method?
“You cannot say to me "there is no explanation",”
Ok.....now you are just inventing BS!! Please cut & paste my statement to YOU which says "there is no explanation". Can you at least do this much?
“By asserting that atoms are eternal, you are making a claim which requires faith.”
I made a CLAIM which requires FAITH???? Huh? Really??? OMG...I need to be shot!!!!
Holy jumping Jesus Christ!! You really need your head examined because your priest has really messed up your brain!
A ‘claim’ is a positive assertion that a consummated EVENT occurred (i.e. past). An EVENT necessarily requires an object to perform some ACTION (i.e. cause)....got it??
Ummmmmm......Cromper........PLEASE ASK YOUR PRIEST TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THE CLAUSE “ETERNAL ATOMS”, ALLUDES TO AN EVENT IN YOUR RELIGION....then post it here....ok?
That atoms are ETERNAL means that they had no beginning.....atoms did not come into existence. So the onus is on YOU to explain exactly HOW your religion concludes that ETERNALness is an EVENT. How is it possible that some event or action in the past allegedly made atoms eternal? Does this even make sense to you? Are you talking coherently here or are you “high” on religion?
Do you now understand why your statement (“By asserting that atoms are eternal, you are making a claim which requires faith.”) is pure nonsense....pure BS....impossible?
Existence is NOT an event. Existence is static...never dynamic. Atoms exist in present mode only....this is the present....not the past.....there is no time in the universe.
ETERNAL EXISTENCE IS THE DEFAULT POSITION. Do you understand this much?
If the DEFAULT POSITION offends you and your priest, and you want existence to be created, then the onus is on YOU to rationally explain YOUR CLAIM of your ALLEGED EVENT. Which part are you having trouble understanding??? Did you take Science in school?
If you don’t understand this much, then I suggest you go back to primary school and start over.
Only the religions of theism, atheism and agnosticism will brainwash you to believe that the following are CLAIMS:
1) God does not exist -- the theist says this is a claim
2) God exists -- the atheist says this is a claim
3) God exists OR does not exist – the agnostic says this is a claim
Cromper.....if you want to talk coherently then you must understand what a CLAIM is....otherwise you are pissing outside the pot with your strawman arguments. I mean, you come here pushing your AUTHORITY of 20 years experience of playing with radio EM waves....and you still don’t have a clue that waves are concepts (actions), and not ‘things’ that move and go bump in the night. Then you irrationally allege that the term ‘eternal’ alludes to a claim (ie. event). You need a serious dose of reality.
“Personally, I believe matter came from nothing.”
Yes, just do what your priest told you. What you BELIEVE, is dear to your heart & soul and does not concern reality....in science we don’t believe, we only explain rationally...got it?
“All will be revealed in my next hub”
Ahhh, yes.....REVELATION. I saw this argument in the Bible as well....and it touched my heart!
WHAT A BUNCH OF UNINSPIRED DRIBBLE.
When your done trying to impress yourself you'll want to get some facts into your house of cards.
Christians do NOT rely on the first cause argument..they dont care about it one bit and most have never even heard of it.
The knowledge of Christ is done through the MIND supernaturally. God didnt set the world up so only philosophers were saved. This isnt a detective mission.
The world is set up with a message that moves those who are FOR God to ask him for the truth. Its now in our mind as a fact because we gave ourselves to Christ.
Thomas Aquinas 5 ways were not formulated to convert people. They are just an attempt refute the stupidity of the lost.
It is God who converts through the heart. Those who are Gods WILL come to Him--PERIOD. NO ONE will be lost or saved based on clever arguments. Their hearts will be moved by the simplicity of Christ or they will flatly reject the God that made them.
If this was based on clever arguments there would have to be one LAST piece of evidence that would finally convince you--as with any argument. The problem is if one line of the argument is later debunked in your mind you will no longer believe.
God forbid salvation is like that-- where we are blown to and fro, like the wind, in our faith. God supernaturally puts the truth in our minds when call on Christ--nothing can debunk that.
As Jesus said--No one can snatch those who are mine out of my hand.
Jim,
“Christians do NOT rely on the first cause argument..they dont care about it one bit and most have never even heard of it.”
Ever heard of William-Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Matt Slick, Frank Turek, Ravi Zacharias, James White, Hugh Ross, Randall Niles, etc?? There are thousands of these Christian apologists who use the First Cause argument to confuse and brainwash Christians to accept their claims of creation. You really need to educate yourself about YOUR religion and its representatives before coming here to argue with no ammunition.
“It is God who converts through the heart. Those who are Gods WILL come to Him--PERIOD. NO ONE will be lost or saved based on clever arguments.”
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Christian Priests and Pastors who threaten their gullible congregation with Hell-Fire if they don’t come to church every Sunday and empty their hard-earned money in the church till, and pay monthly contributions, ....so that the smart priests can buy nice houses, nice cars, go on awesome vacations, have sex with young women, etc. You can only be saved by emptying your pockets! God is money...and money is God.
You are contradicting yourself, Jim. Are you American by any chance? Because Americans are known world-wide to be really gullible!!!
“there would have to be one LAST piece of evidence that would finally convince you--as with any argument. “
This statement really “proves” that you don’t have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. Evidence is used to PURSUADE or TWIST YOUR ARM, only!
The only purpose of evidence is to persuade gullible idiots to believe in Christ or in Allah or in Big Bang. In reality, we only explain. What you choose to believe after the show is over because in your OPINION, if the evidence was compelling, then is of no concern to reality. JFK was killed by the actual person(s) who did it, no matter how many suspects the “evidence” points out, and no matter what the “evidence” compels you to “believe”.
Nobody gives a rat’s ass who believes what, or who is convinced. Reality pisses on the opinions of stupid human apes! Reality can only be rationally explained. And when you do that, ...then you have shown exactly WHY creation is impossible....just like this article does.
“The problem is if one line of the argument is later debunked in your mind you will no longer believe.”
No....listen to me again: reality pisses on idiots who believe!
If one line of the argument is debunked, then the whole argument is irrational because it has nothing to do with reality. This is an objective criterion. We throw it in the trash where it belongs. Belief or opinion plays no role here.
Just saw your comment here too and read this article. Really cool! There are some great arguments I can use here. It's a good hub to learn from.
My other question is this (if you have time for a n00b, don't wanna piss you off!):
Can the arguments against religion not also be applied to governments or nation states as well (i.e. voting/praying, priests/politicians, hell/prisons, sin / social contract... and so on)?
Ed Dude,
"Can the arguments against religion not also be applied to governments or nation states as well (i.e. voting/praying, priests/politicians, hell/prisons, sin / social contract... and so on)?"
An argument is an argument. Either the argument is rational or it isn't. Only rational arguments can possibly have any merit, make sense, and be applicable to reality. Just use your common sense to keep the argument in context (whether religion, politics, or whatever), and be prepared to answer any critical questions after your presentation.
Prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have meaning, to have relative, numerical, value, to carryany weigh the Reality of Everything existed as a Steady State of Singularity, a State or Condition in which an an untold number of Individualities, Indivisible Singularities existed with none being relative to another, each alone in the Emptiness of the undifferentiated Singularity of Time and of Space; Time, Space, and Motion, each existing without meaning; Cause and Effect, the Evolutionary Process not being a factor in the existence of the Reality of Anything.
The State or Condition of the Reality of Everything, the Steady State of Singularity, a state in which an untold number of the Individual of an Indivisible Singularity existed, a State in which nothing was readily apparent, nothing was measurable as to location or momentum in Time and Space, nothing having relative, numerical value, The Steady State of Singularity, the Reality of Everything existing without meaning.
Prior to the Moment the Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause it was Impossible for the Universe, Reality as we now know it to be, to become a Manifest Reality; The Probability of the Universe, Reality as we now know it to be to become a Manifest Reality was made possible because of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to have a dual quality, to have, relative, numerical, value, to have meaning, to carry any weight; the relative value of the Reality of First Cause lying in its Dual Quality.
The Reality of First Cause being an Creation, was an Effect born of an Affect, a State or Condition, yhe Reality of First Cause being an Effect that became First Cause, the First in Series, being the beginning of, the direct cause of Space-Time, the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, the Beginning, the Start, the First in a series of events that began Process that made Manifest the Universe, the Reality of Everything as we know it to be according to Natural, ordinary, the usual means, the Evolutionary Process born of the Dual Quality, Nature, of the Reality of First Cause, Cause and Effect.
This whole conversation relies on the assumption that the universe is static in some form, and that is naive. As much as fatfist likes to sit on the 'throne' of knowledge, string theory is not the end of all exploration.
The 'Shrinking Atom' theory debunks ALL of fatfists arguments.
Eddie,
“This whole conversation relies on the assumption that the universe is static in some form”
What do you mean by “static in some form”? Do you even know....or are you just parroting some random words you heard one of your Priests say?
Please explain in detail before you bag a strawman in your purse and kill him with your stiletto heel.
“The 'Shrinking Atom' theory debunks ALL of fatfists arguments.”
Hold on there....before you get to any alleged “theory”, you must first have a valid Hypothesis. First you “hypothesize” then you “theorize”. One step at a time.
What is this “hypothesized” atom of yours look like? Is it made up of discrete particles? Before you can shrink an atom, you must first illustrate this alleged entity on the blackboard. Can you do that....or is your atom just imaginary & contradictory?
Once you illustrate your alleged atom, please explain how it mediates “attraction” i.e. gravity. Can you do that? If not, how can this alleged atom of yours be a valid Hypothesis as DEMANDED by the Scientific Method??
And this is where Eddie runs with his tail between his legs and seeks comfort under his Priest’s robe. Thank you for stopping by to showcase your ignorance, Eddie.
Shrinking Atom lol
Unless I have completely misunderstood, you are subscribed to the string theory explanation which bridges the gap between quantum and relativity theories. String theory itself is 'made to fit' even though there is no evidence to back it up.
And so there is another little known theory called 'shrinking atom theory'. It suggests that atoms shrink at a rate equivalent to the speed of light. If atoms shrink, there is no need for string theory to tie together relativity and quantum theory.
Eddie,
“Unless I have completely misunderstood, you are subscribed to the string theory explanation which bridges the gap between quantum and relativity theories.”
Yes, you have misunderstood. String Theory is a Religion that is no different than Quantum and Relativity because it proposes an invalid Hypothesized object with supernatural abilities. In fact, these 3 Religions are worse than Christianity. Christianity proposes a valid object, God, which can perform actions. But the God Hypothesis fails at the Theory stage (i.e. Creation).
Now let’s examine the 3 Religions of Mathematical Physics....
1) String Theory: Proposes a Hypothesis with 1D string OBJECTS. There are no such objects in the universe.
2) Relativity Theory: Proposes a Hypothesis where space is an OBJECT that can bend/warp. This is impossible as the void (nothing) cannot perform any actions, like warping. Space/spacetime is not an object. Matterless motion is impossible.
3) Quantum Theory: Proposes atoms as discrete OBJECTS which are composed of 0D discrete OBJECTS (photons, gravitons, quarks, Higgs, etc.). It is IMPOSSIBLE for 0D objects to exist. Also, it is impossible for any discrete (non-connected) objects to attract each other (i.e. gravitation). It is also impossible for discrete particles like photons to retrace their path from their target to their source (i.e. Principle of Ray Reversibility)....as performed by the NASA Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. Furthermore, Quantum cannot explain the Zero-Slit, Single-Slit and Double-Slit experiments, polarization, magnetism, electricity,....and ALL other natural phenomena!
Since day one, all the mathematicians have considered a single hypothesis: the particle. Since there are no discrete particles out there, every theory that has ever come out of Quantum is instantly debunked. Ionization is wrong. Electricity is wrong. Handling single electrons during the slit is wrong, etc. Since there aren't any 0D particles out there, their explanations reduce to nonsense. All they’ve done so far is taken a natural phenomenon and foolishly attempted to explain it under irrational Hypotheses.
In fact, to put the icing on the cake, none of the 3 Religions of math physics have ever explained (i.e. theorized) a single natural phenomenon....ever!! All they’ve done is describe whatever was visible. They only DESCRIBED the entire phenomenon by invoking irrational objects which are IMPOSSIBLE to exist. They have NO Theory. These mathematical clowns are NOT doing science....they are doing religion.
So, as you can see....Christianity looks much better than ST, Relativity and Quantum, because it has a valid hypothesis. We don’t even need to address any alleged Theory at this point because all the 3 Religions of math physics fail and contradict themselves at the Hypothesis level. If we address them at the Theory level....well....they die with flying colors because you cannot rational explain (i.e. theorize) natural phenomena with impossible objects.
“'shrinking atom theory'..... If atoms shrink....”
Before you can “if” or “theorize shrinkage”, you MUST FIRST Hypothesize!! You must illustrate your hypothesized atom on a bar napkin. This is what the scientific method is about (hypothesis + theory).
I will ask for the second time.....what does YOUR atom look like? Is it made up of discrete particles? Before you can shrink an atom, you must first illustrate this alleged entity on the blackboard. Can you do that....or is your atom just imaginary & contradictory? Because if your hypothesized atomic entity is contradictory and cannot act as a mediator for natural phenomena....then all you have is an imaginary impossible “ghost”.
Eddie 5 weeks ago
This whole conversation relies on the assumption that the universe is static in some form, and that is naive. As much as fatfist likes to sit on the 'throne' of knowledge, string theory is not the end of all exploration.
The 'Shrinking Atom' theory debunks ALL of fatfists arguments.
The above was added to my post on the Uncaused Cause; starting with "Prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have meaning, to have relative, numerical, value, to carry any weigh the Reality of Everything existed as a Steady State of Singularity.
My question being could something be Steady without being Static; The Reality of Everything existing as a Steady State of Singularity prior to the Moment of Creation, the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, being an Original Product, being born of an affect, a particular State or Condition, Being a Creation, being born of an Affect, rather than a series, a continuum, a Process, the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause being an Effect that was the First in a Series, the Beginning of a Continuum such as Space-Time, the Beginning of a Process such as the Evolutionary Process, the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause being an Effect born of an affect, being a Creation made manifest the Reality of First Cause.
Wayne,
“fatfist likes to sit on the 'throne' of knowledge”
First things first.....there is no knowledge. The Scientific Method is predicated solely on a Hypothesis (objects and initial scene) and a Theory (rational explanation of a consummated event). There is NO provision for “knowledge” in the sci method. Knowledge is subjective; Science is objective. Understand the difference? It is only in Religion where they already KNOW everything....and the body of “knowledge” (i.e. dogma) was written by the first Priest who was voted into office.
“The 'Shrinking Atom' theory debunks ALL of fatfists arguments.”
Again, I ask you: Please explain ONE scenario, with either your “shrinking atom” or any other argument, where it debunks this article. All you need is to establish ONE, and this whole article gets thrown in the garbage. Are you ready to kill this article so I can delete it once and for all?????
"Prior to the Moment of Creation”
Ummmm....wayne....are you feeling ok? I hope you didn’t make this post while binge-drinking with your buddies in the weekend. I mean, I double-checked the date of your post and it shows Thursday....so either time has dilated for you..... or you have saved this post from a weekend of binge-drinking and your brain-dead buddy with the shaved eyebrows decided to post it today as a joke. Which is it???
WAKE UP CALL: If there was ‘something’ prior to your alleged Creation, then there was NO Creation, as matter already existed. Creation is a VERB (i.e. action/motion). All actions require an actor (i.e. matter/object) to mediate them. Matterless motion is impossible....got it, or does this need some time to sink in after a weekend of binge-drinking?
Your argument clearly shows why matter is ETERNAL. Go ahead, formulate any argument you like....no matter how you phrase it, it will always show that matter is eternal and there was no alleged creation.
“My question being could something be Steady without being Static”
What do you mean by “steady” and “static”? I hope you understand what you are saying and not just throwing words around in the hopes of making strawman arguments, like all the other parrots do.
“Singularity”
There are no such beasts as 0D singularities in the universe. These ghosts only exist in the minds of demented mathematicians....and are no different than the 0D spirits that exist in the minds of demented religionists.
First Things first; thank you for your response.
I have no desire for you to Kill your article!
I have no Knowledge, understanding, of a shrinking Atom.
I reserve the use of the Word Particle to represent an Individuality, a Singularity so Infinitely Finite as to be Indivisible, Absolute.
The Hubb will limit the size of my response so I will post several responses.
The Reality of First Cause;
What was on the Mind of God prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Creation of the Universe, of the Reality of Everything?
Not a Dam Thing, Nothing was on the Mind of God other than the Creation, the Random Generation of the Reality of First Cause.
The Reality of First Cause, having been Randomly Generated, was a Creation.
Being an Original Product of the Mind of God, The Reality of First Cause although being an Effect born of a Affect, a particular State, Condition, of the Mind of God, was born of the Alchemically Transfiguration of a Singularity having no Relative, Numerical, material, value; the Reality of First Cause, being a mutation, a Transmutation.
The Reality of First Cause being an Effect born of an Affect being the First Singularity to have, relative, Material, value, a Numerical value of One.
Made manifest, having Material Value, the Reality of First Cause, an Effect born of an Affect, rather than having a direct material cause, being a Transmutation, ushered in the Relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time.
The Reality of First Cause, originally being no more that an product of the Mind of God, having been Alchemically Transfigured, being a Transmutation, was made Manifest a Singularity having a Numerical Value of One, was made manifest the Reality of First Cause, an effect made manifest the First, the beginning of the Four-Dimensional Continuum.
The Reality of First Cause being an Effect, being the First Singularity to have an Effect, being a Causeless Cause, being the Reality of First Cause.
Being an original product of the mind of God, Cause and Effect is not the Source, the Origin of, is not the Cause of The Reality of First Cause, The Reality of First Cause having no direct material cause.
Hi wayne,
“I reserve the use of the Word Particle to represent an Individuality, a Singularity”
Ummm, sorry wayne, you can’t do that. A ‘particle’, like a particle of dust, is a term reserved for objects, not for concepts. All objects have shape. Singularities do not have shape because they are concepts. All concepts have ZERO dimensions i.e. 0D. So it’s best if you just use the term ‘singularity’.
“so Infinitely Finite as to be Indivisible”
Wayne....please listen.....you should know that ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ are context-opposite terms. What is finite has shape, like a particle. What is infinite does not have shape because it is the context-opposite of shape. So your sentence is meaningless and contradictory at best.
The word ‘infinite’ is an abstract concept that is only consistently defined and used within the context of abstract mathematics, never in physical reality. It is impossible for anything to be “infinite” in reality. Why? Because if there was, we would not exist, as it would take up everything.
For example, if matter was infinite, there would be no space. The Universe would only be one single solid block of matter, and no life or motion would be possible.
In reality, ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ are adjectives that describe objects. You can try to say that a board is finite or infinite, but you must realize that it is impossible for any object to be ‘infinite’, because all objects have ‘shape’, and thus are always finite. In common everyday speech, people always say that objects, concepts, and verbs are infinite, but this is not only irrational, but impossible. Not to mention that it violates grammar.
In physics, we don’t use common everyday parlance, we are “precise” with our use of terms. It is irrational to say something is infinite, especially the Universe or space. Adjectives like infinite, cannot describe concepts. Only adverbs can describe verbs and concepts. So you can say that, ‘running’ (verb) is incessant (adverb). But you cannot say, ‘running’ is infinite (adjective). The traditional mathematical meaning of infinity is logically and grammatically incoherent, just as the idea of a four?sided triangle is incoherent. Hence, such sentences are meaningless and contradictory.
And remember....since infinite is an irrational concept, it cannot be said to be ‘indivisible’. What is indivisible is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity.
“Alchemically Transfiguration of a Singularity “
Huh? I bet you didn’t understand anything you just posted. Just random authoritative official-sounding jibber-jabber that is usually parroted by Priests who try to brainwash their congregation. I expect you to be an independent thinker, wayne. I know you are much better than just pretending to be a parrot for Priests.
Get this through your head, wayne: There is NO such ‘thing’ as a singularity. Because a singularity is 0D, it is just a concept....just an idea....and it is impossible to exist.....not in the past....not now....and not ever!
If you cant state your position in few words, then you don't know what your talking about.
@Taylor Dayne,
Are you preaching axiomatic rules, like a Preacher, or do you have an argument to make?
What is bothering you, my gal? State your grievances....lay your case on the table...
BTW...Love your songs. Do you still do concerts?
Wayne wrote;
When I first read some of you posts I thought that you might be a person that I might communicate with, However after realizing how you distort Reality, facts, to fit your need, I have all but given up hope.
“My question being could something be Steady without being Static”
fatfist wrote;
What do you mean by “steady” and “static”? I hope you understand what you are saying and not just throwing words around in the hopes of making strawman arguments, like all the other parrots do.
Wayne wrote:
I understand my question, but by your response I do not believe that you do.
fatfist wrote;
WAKE UP CALL: If there was ‘something’ prior to your alleged Creation, then there was NO Creation, as matter already existed. Creation is a VERB (i.e. action/motion).
Wayne wrote;
As stated by you above, that Creation is a verb is incorrect; Creation is a Noun.
fatfist wrote;
All actions require an actor (i.e. matter/object) to mediate them. Matterless motion is impossible....got it, or does this need some time to sink in after a weekend of binge-drinking?
Wayne wrote;
If by action you mean motion having displacement?
I agree.
Fatfist wrote;
Your argument clearly shows why matter is ETERNAL. Go ahead, formulate any argument you like....no matter how you phrase it, it will always show that matter is eternal and there was no alleged creation.
Wayne wrote;
Not so!
“I reserve the use of the Word Particle to represent an Individuality, a Singularity”
Fast Fist Wrote;
Ummm, sorry wayne, you can’t do that. A ‘particle’, like a particle of dust, is a term reserved for objects, not for concepts. All objects have shape. Singularities do not have shape because they are concepts. All concepts have ZERO dimensions i.e. 0D.
So it’s best if you just use the term ‘singularity’.
Wayne wrote;
I agree! Singularity is my First Choice; I only used the word particle because of your use of the Term Shrinking Atom; many others using the word particle to represent some erroneous whatever.
Fatfist wrote;
The word ‘infinite’ is an abstract concept that is only consistently defined and used within the context of abstract mathematics, never in physical reality. It is impossible for anything to be “infinite” in reality. Why? Because if there was, we would not exist, as it would take up everything.
Adjectives like infinite, cannot describe concepts. Only adverbs can describe verbs and concepts.
Wayne Wrote;
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
I agree, the term Infinite is an Adjective, but an adjective is not limited to being descriptive of only an Object.
I can see Infinite as modifying a Noun, but not being limited to modifying an Object, something that exists in the material sense of the world.
Fatfist wrote;
And remember....since infinite is an irrational concept, it cannot be said to be ‘indivisible’. What is indivisible is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity.
Wayne wrote;
I have no intention of trying to refute what you claim to be common everyday speech, people always saying that objects, concepts, and verbs are infinite, nor that you believe that to be not only irrational, but impossible. Not to mention that it violates grammar.
I do not accept that as being fact.
I agree that to say, that a material reality is infinite is no doubt an irrational concept, but then, as I said, a Singularity has no relative value, worth, carries no weight, is not a factor, has no Numerical value, no quantity, no mass, is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and or momentum, Motion, in Time and Space, does not exist in the material, Physical, sense of the word, Singularity also not being subject to the relativity of Time and Space, being Eternal, Everlasting.
I say that the Indivisible Singularity is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity, Singularity.
Wayne,
“However after realizing how you distort Reality, facts, to fit your need, I have all but given up hope.”
My dear Wayne, you cannot use words in metaphors....this is Science, not Opera.
Reality is a synonym for ‘existence’.
Exist: physical presence (an object having location) = object + location
Object: that which has shape
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects
Please explain what I have distorted. But you won’t. You just make strawman arguments and run away from them when they are scrutinized under a microscope.
“that Creation is a verb is incorrect; Creation is a Noun.”
Great, then the onus is on YOU, the proponent of the claim, to rationally justify that the term “creation” resolves to a noun i.e. an object.
Absolutely ALL nouns of reality are objects....they have shape. Do not confuse nouns of linguistic grammar (ordinary speech) with nouns of REALITY (scientific language).....otherwise you are confusing Religion with Science.
Please illustrate this object YOU call “creation”. A link to a picture of it will do. Could you send me in the mail a piece of this object you call “creation”??
I mean, these are questions that make or break YOUR bald assertion that creation = noun = object. You can tell me you BELIEVE it....but that’s not what I am asking. The audience wants you to JUSTIFY your claims with a rational argument and/or a picture of this creature you call “creation”.
“I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist ...”
Great, then Singularity is a concept, an abstraction, it has no shape and is thus not an object. It is impossible for concepts, like singularities, to exist. We’re done!
“I can see Infinite as modifying a Noun, but not being limited to modifying an Object,”
No you can’t....nobody can see or imagine this. I already explained to you that anybody who uses the terms infinite/infinity in a sentence, has absolutely no clue of what they are talking about. They are contradictory terms. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use them in any rational meaningful sentence.
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “Singularity is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity, Singularity.”
Ummmm.....Wayne....are you on drugs man????
You just told the audience that ‘a’ singularity has no shape, is not an object, and thus DOES NOT exist! Now you claim that matter is made up of a fundamental constituent, the singularity, which does NOT EXIST. Thus matter/objects/things/stuff/people/cars/planets/stars.... do NOT exist according to YOU!
Have you seen a psychiatrist yet? Do you even read what you type before you post it?
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
And yet atheist make fun of theist for believing in concepts. lol
Fatfist wrote;
And remember....since infinite is an irrational concept, it cannot be said to be ‘indivisible’.
Wayne wrote;
you say "and remember, since infinite is an irrational concept, it cannot be said to be ‘indivisible”, like it is a statement of fact, not so; besides I never used Infinite as a single term, I said Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity and I never reference to an object as being Infinite.
Fatfist wrote;
What is indivisible is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity.
What is the difference between a fundamental constituent of Matter, Matter ultimately made up of an indivisible entity and an Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity that is so minute, Infinitely Finite, as to have no quantity, no mass, to not be readily apparent, as to not be measurable as to location and or momentum in Time and Space, in Space-Time, a Singularity that is relative to NoThing, that has no Numerical value, that has a Numerical value of Zero-O.
Fm Wikipedia;
a noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing or abstract idea.
Webster’s defines Creation as being a Noun.
Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.
You said that I posted, “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”.
Just another one of you false statements.
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality; in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
Wayne: “Singularity is the fundamental constituent of matter. Matter is ultimately made up of an indivisible entity, Singularity.”
Fastfist wrote;
Ummmm.....Wayne....are you on drugs man????
You just told the audience that ‘a’ singularity has no shape, is not an object, and thus DOES NOT exist! Now you claim that matter is made up of a fundamental constituent, the singularity, which does NOT EXIST. Thus matter/objects/things/stuff/people/cars/planets/stars.... do NOT exist according to YOU!
Wayne wrote;
I said no such thing!
Perfect example of you nature to distort facts.
My post read;
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
Your distortion of my post leading to you conclusion.
Great, then Singularity is a concept, an abstraction, it has no shape and is thus not an object. It is impossible for concepts, like singularities, to exist. We’re done!
Wayne wrote;
In order to exist In the material sense of the word
something would have to have quantity, mass.
Fm Wikipedia;
Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.
Wayne,
“I never used Infinite as a single term, I said Infinitely “
Wayne, I hope this doesn’t offend you....but....you are a brain-dead troll. You really need to sue your mother quick before the statute of limitations runs out.
“What is the difference between a fundamental constituent of Matter... and an Indivisible Singularity”
Singularities do not exist. It was YOU who said that this is a FACT. Please go and re-read what you wrote....you are on the RECORD!!
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Was your mother on crack cocaine during her pregnancy???
“You said that I posted, “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist. Just another one of you false statements.”
Ok, that confirms it Wayne.....you are indeed a troll who escaped the insane asylum and came here to see his name in lights. You are done, Wayne.....finito.....have fun with your insanity!
(Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.)
Yeah, Fatfist, I can't see how you missed this - it's in all the Harry Potter movies. Harry waves his wand and says the magic word and presto! something from nothing!
MY first mistake was not being critical of you posts; you continuously distorting reality to fit your needs; Take your statement below for example.
Someone else, not me Wayne wrote;
“fatfist likes to sit on the 'throne' of knowledge”
You seem to be responding to above that does not belong to me.
Fatfist wrote;
First things first.....there is no knowledge. The Scientific Method is predicated solely on a Hypothesis (objects and initial scene) and a Theory (rational explanation of a consummated event). There is NO provision for “knowledge” in the sci method. Knowledge is subjective; Science is objective. Understand the difference? It is only in Religion where they already KNOW everything....and the body of “knowledge” (i.e. dogma) was written by the first Priest who was voted into office.
Wayne wrote;
Being all knowing is not limited to Religion.
Being All Knowing is a Trait belonging to anyone that believes, without it being a Fact, that Imagines themselves to be God Like, All Knowing, having Knowledge that Knowledge does not exist;
Said God Like Individuals being nothing more than a Know-It-All.
You falsely attribute several statement to me, in the body of your post that you can find in any of my posts.
1.
“I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality, in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist ...”
2. Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
I have posted numerous time that the statement in my post as you continue to pervert reads;
I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality; in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.
Fatfist wrote;
“I never used Infinite as a single term, I said Infinitely “; as attributed to me.
Wayne wrote;
again you distort my post.
My post reads, “Infinitely Finite”
Fastfist wrote;
Wayne, I hope this doesn’t offend you....but....you are a brain-dead troll. You really need to sue your mother quick before the statute of limitations runs out.
Singularities do not exist. It was YOU who said that this is a FACT. Please go and re-read what you wrote....you are on the RECORD!!
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne: “in fact I state that a Singularity does not exist”
Wayne Wrote;
You are not only Blind, Deaf and Dumb, you are double Dumb.
If you can not show where in the body of one posts that I made this state as posted, you will have proven yourself to be a Liar, FUll Of It!
AKA Winstion;
Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.)
Yeah, Fatfist, I can't see how you missed this - it's in all the Harry Potter movies. Harry waves his wand and says the magic word and presto! something from nothing!
Wayne Wrote;
The Statement; Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.) was taken from Wikipedia.
Although Accidents have no Single Direct Material Cause, Accidents do not just Happen; Accidents are Created.
You do not seem to Know, understand the difference between something born of cause and effect and something that has been created.
Wayne82587 Wrote
I'm Free.
Wayne....you're a brain-dead moron. You cannot even read or understand what you write. Here let me spell it out for you since you have monkey dung for a brain....
This is what you wrote in 2 posts above:
“I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality; in fact I state that a Singularity having no quantity, no mass, does not exist in the material sense of the word.”
Read it again with the caps, which hopefully stand out in your eyes....
“I never stated that an Infinitely Finite Singularity was a material Reality; IN FACT I STATE THAT A SINGULARITY having no quantity, no mass, DOES NOT EXIST in the material sense of the word.”
That is exactly what you said, you stupid POS troll: “IN FACT I STATE THAT A SINGULARITY DOES NOT EXIST”.
Matter cannot be made up of alleged entities which DON’T EXIST, like YOUR singularity, which is only a CONCEPT since it is 0D i.e. massless!!!
Now don’t post any more of your trolling repetitive contradictory lying crap because it will be deleted.
(The Statement; Matter creation is the process, conversion, of massless particles into one or more massive particles.) was taken from Wikipedia)
Oh, the High Priestess Wikipedia herself? I never knew. What was I thinking?
We are not worthy! We are not worthy! Shwinnggg!
(You do not seem to Know, understand the difference between something born of cause and effect and something that has been created.)
I may not know much, but at least I know not to capatilize the word know in the middle of sentence.
- The High Priestess Introduction to English -
@Wayne,
I told you that if you continue to lie and troll here, your posts will be deleted. I do not tolerate lies, especially when your own words are posted here for everyone to see. Who do you think you are fooling? A good liar NEVER leaves evidence behind which contradicts his lies.
Double-talk ain’t gonna erase or give other meanings to your post that a SINGULARITY DOES NOT EXIST. This is what you said. I did not misrepresent you in any way. Misrepresenting someone would be to represent them as saying “singularities don’t exist”, even though they clearly said in their post that they DO exist. This is not the case with you. So stop your f***ing lying and grow the f*** up!!
Now, having said that......you can amend your statement if you like. You are free to change your mind and say that singularities DO IN FACT exist....be my guest. But please......don’t f***ing lie IN FRONT OF EVERYONE’S EYES!
So, the ball is in your court. If you want to present your argument about your singularity, then you first have to tell the audience whether your ‘singularity’ is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT.....there is no other option.
Object: that which has shape
Concept: a relationship between two or more objects
Before we can even begin to address the issue of existence for YOUR ‘singularity’, you must illustrate it if you say it is an object. A reference to an image online will do. And if you say it is a concept, you must define it, as all concepts are defined.
Fastfist
Please take note as to what I wrote in my first post 4 months ago in reference to Singularity, the Reality of Everything.
Prior to the Moment of Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have meaning, to have relative, numerical, value, to carry any weigh;
---------------------------------------------------------
the Reality of Everything existed as a Steady State of Singularity, a State or Condition in which an an untold number of Individualities, Indivisible Singularities existed with none being relative to another, each alone in the Emptiness of the differentiated Singularity of Time and of Space; Time, Space,
---------------------------------------------------------
and Motion, each existing without meaning; Cause and Effect, the Evolutionary Process not being a factor in the existence of the Reality of Anything.
Scientifically speaking, is it possible for something to exist without being readily apparent, without being accurately measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space???
What is the Particle Wave Duality????
You do not have to accept my primes, of course, but you need to understand what I said.
In an attempt to clarify what I position on the existence or non existence of a Singularity, I will make the following declaration.
I say, "that a Singularity does exist (but not being readily apparent, not being accurately measurable as to location and momentum in Time and Space) Singularity does not exist in the material sense of the word; Singularity simply can not be Scientifically proven to Exist, does not Exist in the Material Sense of the word.
I offer up this post as proof that I did not lie!!!
@Wayne,
This is your last chance to present your argument, my patience has run out with you, so please LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY.
I already asked you this before, so I will copy/paste it again, FOR THE LAST TIME:
*****************************************
If you want to present your argument about your singularity, then you first have to tell the audience whether your ‘singularity’ is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT.....there is no other option.
Object: that which has shape
Concept: a relationship between two or more objects
Before we can even begin to address the issue of existence for YOUR ‘singularity’, you must illustrate it if you say it is an object. A reference to an image online will do. And if you say it is a concept, you must define it, as all concepts are defined.
*****************************************
So which is it.....is your ‘singularity’ an OBJECT or a CONCEPT??
Don’t post anything else.....don’t post anything from wiki....don’t tell me your life’s story.....don’t tell me what you had for lunch.....just answer the key question of YOUR presentation. Remember: you present, and the audience asks you questions.
Fatfist, you realize if you wrote a book or took donations for article requests, I for one would pay for the amazing shit you write, right? Seriously dude. Get on Lulu or iBooks or something. Or let me shout you beer money to write a very short article ona topic of my choosing. It's win win. We're al gonna die soon, and I can't get enough of your awesome articles. If you were ever to head down my way before the Zombie Apocalypse hits, I'll buy you a large beer or ten.
Fatfist,
Wayne brings to my mind an assembly of mathematicians who are only interested in talking about numbers but refuse to assign any values to any number.
There are only two choices: something or nothing. The fact that there is now something means only one of two things: something came from nothing, which requires rational explanation as to how this was done. Or, something is eternal and there never was a period of nothing.
The mathematicians want to preach to you about the first zero that preceded zero without explaining how zero was transformed into a positive number.
There are two simple explanations how zero transformed into a positive number: quantum and magic. Of the two, magic makes the best case.
@El Dude....sure, I can try. Send me a PM and let me know what you want.
@Winston....our friend Wayne want to make a presentation of assertions, but he doesn't seem to wanna answer questions from the audience. Let's hope his next post will tell us whether the 'singularity' is an object or a concept.
El Dude here, got a login now. No idea how to ping you via Hubpages, can't find a button.
Hey Dude, click on my profile and then click on 'contact fatfist'
Maybe I'm an internet moron, or perhaps it's made of 0d particles, but I swear I can't see such a button! This is what I see:
http://i41.tinypic.com/1566ems.jpg
:0
I want to thank Fatfist and AKA Winston for their questions!!!!!
This may sound corny but, I am thrilled with your two questions.
My answer to your question is only going to be as good as your two questions, which I believe to be Excellent.
I have been working on the answer all morning, at least 5 hrs., this being everything that I have ready to Post.
In trying to answer your question, the only thing that I have accomplished so far is to succeed in Opening a can of Worms, Pandora’s Box, Crap; I would have to go and look into the, Evil Eye, the Face the of Medusa, DAMN.
I want to stop right here and answer one of AKA Winston’s earlier questions before I get in to the conceptualization of a Singular Object, an Individuality, a Singularity that is so Infinitely Finite, minute, as to be Indivisible, as to not be readily apparent, as to not be measurable as to location and or momentum in Time and Space, Space-Time; Which in fact is not even subject to the Relativity of Time and Space, nor the Relativity of Cause and Effect, that can not be shown to exist in the Material sense of the word, that can not be shown to exist as an Object; said Singularity being shown to be nothing more than a concept, an Idea, an Illusion, a conjecture, a speculation a Theory; The Existence of said Singularity that exist alone in the Emptiness being Unknown, is at Best and Uncertainty, can not be shown to Be Or Not To Be a Reality, to exist or not to exist, One Way or Another.
What was AKA Question????
AKA Winston questioned my Intelligence because I seem to capitalize a lot of words right in the middle of a Sentence.
My Answer!!
In the Spoken word we use inflection in our tone of voice showing the passion that we have for whatever the Subject.
In the written word, a writer, the author, any and every One, Person, Male of Female, has the literary right to take liberty with grammatical rules, such as whether or not it is proper to capitalize a word in the middle of a sentence, in order to show their passion about a particular Subject, Word.
Wayne,
“I have been working on the answer all morning, at least 5 hrs., this being everything that I have ready to Post.”
This isn’t a contest, Wayne. There are no winners. There is no need for you to rush and give us answers. Take the content that is posted here, and the questions that are asked of you and go think about them. Take all the time you want. But make sure that any answer you give will be unbiased and most importantly, cannot be contradicted. But please, be intellectually honest....that is all that I ask.
Winston was not making fun of you for capitalizing words or for breaking any “grammatical” rules involving Ordinary Speech. This is not the issue. The issue has to do with Scientific Language which is crisp and precise to convey the meanings of KEY terms (not every term in the dictionary) along with their rational usage. Key terms are the words that make or break your theory, like: object, concept, reality, exist, motion, etc.
In LINGUISTIC GRAMMAR, all words can be nouns or take on different forms of verb, adverb, adjective, etc. depending on context .i.e. metaphors, figures of speech, parables, euphemisms, and secondary or hidden meanings. This works fine for literature and poetry and movies and drama!
BUT SCIENCE WILL HAVE NONE OF THAT!!
In Scientific Language, absolutely all KEY terms are defined precisely, unambiguously and can be used consistently within the presenter’s dissertation. In science only the nouns of reality (i.e OBJECTS) can perform actions/verbs. A noun in linguistic grammar, like a place (Houston Texas), for example....CANNOT perform an action. Why? Because Houston Texas is NOT an object for the purposes of Physics. Houston Texas is a CONCEPT – a relation between surrounding objects, like land masses. Land masses can perform actions/verbs, like shifting tectonic plates or rocks, for example.... you get the idea.
So Wayne....don’t confuse textbook English Grammar (ordinary speech) with Scientific Language. In ordinary speech, treating objects as verbs is acceptable for literature and poetry. In science it is NOT acceptable because it commits the Fallacy of Reification....it is contradictory. The nouns of reality are ALL, without doubt or question....OBJECTS. They all have shape!
The universe is a concept which relates matter (objects) and space (nothing).
In any language, whether English, Chinese or Alien....absolutely ALL words either resolve to an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other option. Only objects can possibly exist since concepts lack shape (they are relations established by beings).
So before you even talk about the existence of God or a ‘singularity’....you had better tell the audience whether this term is an object or a concept. The existence of the alleged entity is resolved later in the presentation.
This is your last chance to present your argument, my patience has run out with you, so please LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY.
I already asked you this before, so I will copy/paste it again, FOR THE LAST TIME:
*****************************************
If you want to present your argument about your singularity, then you first have to tell the audience whether your ‘singularity’ is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT.....there is no other option.
Object: that which has shape
So which is it.....is your ‘singularity’ an OBJECT or a CONCEPT??
Don’t post anything else.....don’t post anything from wiki....don’t tell me your life’s story.....don’t tell me what you had for lunch.....just answer the key question of YOUR presentation. Remember: you present, and the audience asks you questions.
Wayne wrote;
I want to thank for your time and trouble responding to my posts, your question is very important to me.
The answer being that My Singularity is both a Singular Object and a Concept.
I also want to thank AKA Winston for the Statement he made in his last post, which I find very impotant to my quest.
” The mathematicians want to preach to you about the first zero that preceded zero without explaining how zero was transformed into a positive number.
There are two simple explanations how zero transformed into a positive number: quantum and magic. Of the two, magic makes the best case.
You are correct AKA Winston, it is all about Magic,
An Alchemical Transfigurataion, Hocus Pocus, Abracadabra.
Alchemy; any magical power or process of transmuting a common substance, usually of little value, into a substance of great value.
It is all about zero, a Singularity having Numerical value of Zero being transformed into a positive number, a Singularity having a Numerical value of One.
O/1(n)
Wayne,
“The answer being that My Singularity is both a Singular Object and a Concept.”
This is impossible, Wayne....here’s why....
Object: that which has shape
Concept: that which doesn’t have shape
It is impossible for any word in any language to resolve to that which DOES and DOESN’T have shape. This is a violation of the basic ontology that an object cannot be ITSELF (with shape) and NOTHING (no shape) at the same time.
The folks over at the Logic Club will have a “field day” with you. They will tell you that your response violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.....not to mention that it also commits various Logical Fallacies, like: Reification, Non-Sequitur, Equivocation, Argument from Ignorance, Amphiboly, Inconsistency, Conflicting Condition, Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise....just to mention a few. So the logic guys would slaughter you if you were to make such a statement on their turf.
Clearly, it is impossible for a ball to be ON and OFF the table at same time....just as it is IMPOSSIBLE for any word, like ‘singularity’ to resolve to BOTH an object and a concept. All words are mutually exclusive of their categorization. The two CATEGORIES OF CLASSIFICATION are either OBJECT or CONCEPT. They are two columns on a table. All words fall into one or the other column....never both!
And this classification stems from the reality of the universe which embodies either matter (object) or space (nothing).....never both. An alleged entity can either be resolved to an object or to nothing....never both. If an alleged entity resolves to a ‘concept’, then it is NOTHING. It’s quite simple from a perspective of critical thought.
Wayne, didn’t I tell you to spend some time and think things through before rushing here to post a response? Clearly you didn’t.
Go think some more and try again.
Again I thank your for your response to my post, to include your criticism.
Whenever I find something in any of my concepts that dosen’t hold up I Junk it.
To date, even though my concept may need some refinement, I have said nothing that I am ready to toss to the Junk Pile
“The answer being that My Singularity is both a Singular Object and a Concept.”
This is impossible, Wayne....here’s why....
Object: that which has shape Concept: that which doesn’t have shape It is impossible for any word in any language to resolve to that which DOES and DOESN’T have shape. This is a violation of the basic ontology that an object cannot be ITSELF (with shape) and NOTHING (no shape) at the same time.
The folks over at the Logic Club will have a “field day” with you. They will tell you that your response violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.....not to mention that it also commits various Logical Fallacies, like: Reification, Non-Sequitur, Equivocation, Argument from Ignorance, Amphiboly, Inconsistency, Conflicting Condition, Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise....just to mention a few. So the logic guys would slaughter you if you were to make such a statement on their turf.
Clearly, it is impossible for a ball to be ON and OFF the table at same time....just as it is IMPOSSIBLE for any word, like ‘singularity’ to resolve to BOTH an object and a concept. All words are mutually exclusive of their categorization. The two CATEGORIES OF CLASSIFICATION are either OBJECT or CONCEPT. They are two columns on a table. All words fall into one or the other column....never both!
Wayne wrote;
I am going to refer to your ball as though it were a Particle, an Object, an Infinitely Minute, Finite, Indivisible Singularity; the Term Infinite used to mean immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time.
An Object, an Individuality, an Infinitely Minute, Finite, Indivisible Singularity Indivisible Singularity, a Ball, whatever you call it, for my purpose I will call it a Particle.
What is the difference a Ball that is on and off the table, an Indivisible Singularity that is both an Object and a Concept, and a Particle Wave Duality
I have been looking to find your classification of Words,
Object or concept and can not find that definition anywhere!
Could you direct me to where I can see this in writting
with my own eyes??
(Could you direct me to where I can see this in writting
with my own eyes??)
Wayne,
Do you realize all you are doing is asking for an authority to tell you what to think? You really do seem to miss the entire point of rational/critical thinking that Fatfist espouses.
I don't mean this comment as insulting, but only expressing my own perplexity as to why so many readers miss the entire point and get lost on tangents that really do not pertain.
I am now going to admit that I am a blithering Idiot.
I made the mistake of not reading Fastfix's complete Hubb before I posted a response.
In all honesty I simply thought that I was getting involved in open discussion
about The Reality of First Cause.
Not having read you complete Hubb I did not realize that I was involving myself
In someone’s person concept, Theory, conjecture, speculation, they knowing everything
is to know about the two categories of words, oncology, Scientific thought, they believing their Concept as to the Reality of First Cause being an absolute fact,
they knowing that All words categorized as giving definition to either an Object or concept.
Truly Stupid on my part because the author has no room in his concept, theory as to the Reality of First Cause, that the discussion is closed, with every statement his Hubb being an Absolute Fact, Truth, Reality, no part of his Hubbe being nothing more than his personal Concept as to the Reality of First Cause.
What a dumb shit I am.
Could you direct me to where I can see this in writting
with my own eyes??)
AKA Winston
Wayne,
Do you realize all you are doing is asking for an authority to tell you what to think? You really do seem to miss the entire point of rational/critical thinking that Fatfist espouses.
wayne wrote;
Well Fatfist must think he has the authority to tell me how to think.
Fatfist's Hubb is Filled with concepts that he considers to be an Object, absolute fact, a reality that exists independent of his own mind.
AKA Winston wrote;
I don't mean this comment as insulting, but only expressing my own perplexity as to why so many readers miss the entire point and get lost on tangents that really do not pertain.
wayne wrote;
AkA Winstion, you do not have the ability to insult me.
I appreciate you comments.
What the HELL is this guy on about.
Wayne,
“I am going to refer to your ball as though it were a Particle,”
A ball is a particle by definition because it is an object with shape.
Object: that which has shape. Synonym = exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk.
“ball....an Infinitely Minute, Finite”
Nonsense to the Nth degree!!!!!
Finite and infinite are adjectives which are CONTEXT-OPPOSITE TO EACH OTHER. An entity can either be claimed to ‘finite’ or ‘infinite’....NOT both!!! Again, I will refer you to the guys at the Logic Club who will slaughter you with a million logical fallacies which you are committing...not to mention the linguistic gibberish in such a statement.
And I already explained to you that the words INFINITE, INFINITELY, INFINITY, INFINITENESS, or ANY word which you can build with the consecutive letters “INFINIT”, is contradictory and is 100% meaningless....and has no application to reality!!!!
ONLY CLUELESS IDIOTS USE WORDS IN THEIR VOCABULARY CONTAINING “INFINIT” BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTRADICTIONS.
“Indivisible Singularity”
BULLSHIT!!!!
You said that a singularity is BOTH an object and a concept. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AS I EXPLAINED TO YOU BEFORE.
“Term Infinite used to mean immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time.”
No it is not! You are making up this BULLSHIT as you go along in order to keep your RELIGION alive!!!
The term ‘infinite’ is a contradictory adjective which CANNOT BE USED IN ANY SENTENCE BECAUSE IT IS MEANINGLESS AND IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY TO REALITY. And space and time are concepts which CANNOT be measured. We only measure OBJECTS....never space or time....got it???
“Singularity that is both an Object and a Concept, and a Particle Wave Duality”
An entity cannot be BOTH a ‘particle’ AND a ‘wave’ because a particle has shape, whereas a wave lacks shape. A wave is NOTHING. A wave is a concept, a process or an event performed by an object. There is NO such thing as a wave!!
A WAVE IS WHAT SOMETHING (ie. object) DOES, AND NOT WHAT SOMETHING “IS”.
Got it?
Wayne,
“In someone’s person concept, Theory, conjecture, speculation”
Oh, what is my “Theory” in this hub? Please explain or just STFU!
And what is my “conjecture” or “speculation” in this hub? Please explain or just STFU!
You cannot explain or support ANY of your nonsense you post here....not even your accusations. Because all you have to do is show one...JUST ONE contradiction in here which automatically elucidates my speculation/conjecture. YOU CANNOT DO THIS!
IN FACT, MY DEAR WAYNE....I WILL PAYPAL YOU $10,000 IF CAN DO THIS. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND MAKE ME EAT MY WORDS!
“they knowing everything”
What do you mean by “know”? What is “knowledge”?
Do you just parrot the “catchy phrases” your Pastor taught you and try to use them as “arguments” in here? You fool no one, Wayne. I am 1000 steps ahead of you. I have been doing this a lot longer than you or your Pastor! Collect your thoughts and try to make an argument for a change, ok?
“ the author has no room in his concept, theory as to the Reality of First Cause,”
Oh, what is ‘a’ cause? Is it an object or a concept? Do you even “know”? Can you even explain it the audience???????
Here Wayne, educate yourself.....
Aristotle’s Law of Causality is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B)
Its specific application in the context of Creation is stated as follows:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B). At even consummation, there is a resulting Output (object C)
For example:
Aristotle uses the example of a builder creating a house to describe the Causality of Creation. “A builder (object A) is using material (object B), to create a house (object C)”
All the concepts pertaining to the Creation event are:
Cause: The “act” of imparting action (surface-to-surface contact) with the material (object B), as performed by the builder. Synonym: “causal action” (a verb).
Effect: The “change” realized by the material (object B) during the duration of the “causal action” imparted by the builder (object A). Synonym: “change effect”.
Event: The phenomenon of Creation (house built) from initiation of Creation, to termination of Creation. An event is always consummated.
The ACTORS participating in the Creation event are:
Object A: The MEDIATOR object (builder) imparting “causal action”.
Object B: The TARGET object (material) undergoing “change effect”.
Object C: The OUTPUT object (house) resulting from the consummated event.
Cause, effect, and event are all concepts, and not actors participating in the Creation event. The actors participating in the Creation event are the following objects: A (the Mediator), B (the Target), and C (the Output).
We must not forget that the crucial ACTORS to any causality argument are the objects, like A, B, and C, shown above. Without a minimum of TWO “actor objects”, there is absolutely NO causality argument that can be established.
“ that the discussion is closed, with every statement his Hubb being an Absolute Fact, Truth”
There are NO facts, proofs, truths, lies, sex or videotape in this hub.
Fact = proof = truth = lie = OPINION! Same shit.
This hub only offers rational responses to the theist’s and atheist’s CLAIM that matter and space were created. Do you understand this simple sentence, Wayne, or do I have to pound it into your head with a baseball bat??
Wayne: “What a dumb shit I am.”
Finally....we agree on something!
“Well Fatfist must think he has the authority to tell me how to think.”
No, you stupid moron.....I am no authority, like your PASTOR is. I am just a friggin’ shoe shine boy who is EXPLAINING to you WHY your CLAIMS and BELIEFS and FAITHS on creation/singularity is founded on contradictions. Any contradictions elucidates what is IMPOSSIBLE!
Understand?
“Fatfist's Hubb is Filled with concepts that he considers to be an Object, absolute fact, a reality that exists independent of his own mind.”
STRAWMAN!
STRAWMAN!
STRAWMAN!
Please copy/paste where in my hub I make any of these claims.
Here is a wake-up call for you....YOU CAN’T!!!! You are a f***ing LIAR!!!!!
Wayne wrote;
Say what you will, I still find value in your criticism, your Hubb; Thank you for your responses.
I still have not read your complete Hubb.
I agree that you have a good Argument against a large number of erroneous arguments in favor of the eistence of the Reality of First Cause, however proving an argument in favor of the existence of the Reality of First cause to be, a bad, an invalid argument, does not proven your argument against the existence of the Reality of First Cause to be a good, valid, argument, you only having proven an Absolutely Bad argument to be invalid.
Fastfist wrote;
Wayne wrote;
at the very beginning of your Hubb you wrote.
This article will explain:
1) Exactly WHY Christianity’s beloved First Cause Argument is in complete violation of the Law of Causality. Whoever uses the Law of Causality in the context of “First Cause” or “Creation from Nothing”, is either embarrassingly foolish, or intellectually dishonest.
Wayne wrote;
The Reality of First Cause is not God, the Reality of First Cause is simply the First Singularity to have relative value, to have a numerical value of One; The initial space, Place e in a series being reserve for a Singularity having relative value, a
numerical value of One, another singularity being added to each space, place, that follows in the series, the continuum, the process; the Space, Place before the Space, Place, reserved for a Singularity of One being left Empty, Blank, being reserved for a Real Whole Indivisible Number, a Number having no relative, nada, nothing, zip, having no numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero,--O.
The decimal numeral system (also called base ten or occasionally denary) has ten as its base. It is the numerical base most widely used by modern civilizations, an empty space, place, before the First in a Series, the beginning of a Continuum, a Process being left Blank, Empty, void, being reserved for Zero—O, a real Whole indivisible Singularity have no relative, numerical, value.
The equation representing the numerical base most widely used by modern civilizations, the decimal system; being O/1(n)
Mathematics is god? Then man is above god as mathematics is an invention of man.
Wayne,
“...however proving an argument in favor of the existence of the Reality of First cause to be, a bad, an invalid argument, does not proven your argument against the existence of the Reality of First Cause to be a good...”
You have absolutely no clue, do you?
You come here spewing a bunch of nonsense, while you can’t even define ‘cause’. I already explained to you the Law of Causality and the meanings of all the terms....and you still come here to post your already DEBUNKED arguments. You have ZERO thinking ability, don’t you?
And you don’t even understand that this hub has NO proofs, truths, facts or lies. PROOF is what your Priest rammed up your ass.
“...is simply the First Singularity ....”
There was NO singularity. A singularity is an imaginary idea of an alleged 0D entity which is impossible to exist.
SINGULARITY = NOTHING!!
I explained this to you over 10 times, yet a stupid monkey like you still comes here to parrot your nonsense in the hopes of getting people to believe in your FAITH.
You are FINISHED, Wayne. Your trolling is over.
Don’t come back until you can post a rational argument as all your trolling crap will be deleted from now on.
I thought facts were assumptions and not synonymous with opinions? Or am I confusing a fact with a statement of fact?
The sci method has no facts. A fact is a term that is used only in ordinary speech as a synonym for a "truth" i.e. opinion!
The sci method only has "The Statement of the Facts". These are the assumptions which form the Hypothesis. Then the Theory uses the statement of the facts as a starting point to rationally explain a consummated event.
FOR EXAMPLE...
1) Ordinary Speech: It is a FACT that God created space and matter with a 0D singularity which exploded like a vest bomb on a terrorist. There is NO explanation offered....just a dogmatic decree of TRUTH. And if you refuse to accept this, then you are an Evil-Doer and part of the Axis of Evil, as dictated by G.W. Bush and his Republican Religion.
2) Scientific Method: The perpetual attraction of atoms is the statement of the facts in the Gravity Hypothesis. Then the Gravity Theory can rationally explain WHY the ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling.
poignant 14 months ago
This is one of the finest (philosophy of) science articles I have ever read. So consistent in your logic that I was hooked. You've made me excited about science and physics again! Apart from articles in your hub, are there any websites or books you'd recommend to learn more?
I feel like my whole world turned upside down, which is actually quite scary as well as exciting.