Why God Cannot Exist (logical proof)

[Moontanman]

 

I have 400 posts with evidence of God, and my reason for why I think Moontanman would not listen... I don't think you'll listen though.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64226-christian-evidence/

 

And, one more thing. A little while ago I was sick. I prayed, and two hours later I was better. Is there a two hour sickness? I have never heard of one.

 

 

 

You have a good sense of humor even if you have no evidence njaohnt, 400 posts, 21 pages and absolutely no evidence whatsoever of god and yet you claim it is evidence... njaohnt that is just sad... ever hear of the 9th commandment?

 

as for this....

 

I see no reason to do that. Why not believe the Bible, if God is real and can do anything?

 

 

If is a mighty big word njaohnt, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bust their little asses each time they jump...

John,

The distortions and confusions surrounding the currently popular God-concepts make discussing an alternative creator-concept in the depth that you request impossible on a blog. I've tried it before. New ideas get quickly smothered in hate and false assertions by individuals clinging to their trusted beliefs, atheists and religionists alike. However, I did write a 500 page book that deals with these ideas, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul that includes an exhaustive presentation of my ideas, and others. I'd be delighted to discuss them at length with anyone who has taken the trouble to study them.

 

Should you be one of the few with the mind and curiosity needed to honestly evaluate ideas that differ from those you've chosen to believe (very, very difficult), please read the book no faster than one chapter at a time. Even better, reread the previous chapter before perusing the next. Those who do so invariably discover ideas they had missed on their first reading.

 

 

Greylorn, asserting something over and over does not make it any more likely to be true... be honest and give it your best shot, some of the best minds you are likely to run into are here, if you can convince them my nattering will be inconsequential...

Edited July 22, 2013 by Moontanman

[Didymus]

:

• God is the origin of all that exists.
• All that exists, exists within space-time.
• If 1 & 2 are true, then God is the origin of space-time.
• If 3 is true, God cannot be within space-time.
• If 2 & 4 are true, God cannot exist.
• Therefore, God does not exist. God transcends existence.

So there you have it. God is a self-refuting concept.

You realize this applies equally to the big bang theory?

 

If the universe, including space and time, was generated at the big bang, where was the singularity before space existed for it to explode I to? How long did it exist without time? The singularity had nowhere to exist, therefore Could not exist, therefore did not exist to poof the rest of the universe together.

[Moontanman]

You realize this applies equally to the big bang theory?

 

If the universe, including space and time, was generated at the big bang, where was the singularity before space existed for it to explode I to? How long did it exist without time? The singularity had nowhere to exist, therefore Could not exist, therefore did not exist to poof the rest of the universe together.

 

 

You are making some unfounded assumptions based in pop science, first of all the "singularity" is a point where the mathematical description breaks down, I would not bet the farm we will not know more at some point but to say that is the end of our investigation would only happen if science worked like religion, no scientist worth his salt would say well we got to the end, "the big bang did it" so why are you so eager to say "goddidit" with no evidence what so ever???

[Thorham]

I have seen no evidence that definitively proves that god doesn't or cannot exist

There is no evidence that points to a creator existing or not existing at all. We've only just begone to look at the tip of the iceberg, and have absolutely no clue whatsoever how deep the rabbit hole really goes (and that's assuming the thing actually comes to an end). We can't even see the whole universe that we're a part of, let alone know everything that exists.

 

As long as we can't answer the question 'What was the initial state of everything?', we really can't say anything about the existence or non-existence of possible creators, and we can in fact not say a whole lot about the true nature of reality as we know it, either.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Thorham

[Didymus]

Moon... "the basis of the entire theory is where math breaks down".... Is -exactly- saying "we know what we're putting our faith in defies logic and physics and we have no supporting evidence.... But we believe it happened."

 

Even very weak evidence is stronger than none at all. Documented eye-witness accounts... No matter how sceptical you are of them... Is stronger than "the big bang did it because it's the only way I can avoid a theory I don't like."

[Thorham]

"the basis of the entire theory is where math breaks down"

That just means that at a certain point scientists don't know what really happened, yet. You can't expect scientists to come up with a theory that explains everything just like that.

 

we have no supporting evidence....

The expansion of the universe is the evidence.

 

But we believe it happened.

Believe, or think it's plausible?

 

"the big bang did it because it's the only way I can avoid a theory I don't like."

It's not about avoiding anything, it's about the finding the truth.

[Moontanman]

Sorry about not using your full handle. It evokes images of an old gentleman exposing his posterior to the full moon, then inviting someone to admire his moon-tan. I just cannot handle that.

Actually that's pretty close to how i got that handle but I wasn't old then...

 

In no way would I have implied a reference to Mary Tyler Moore. She showed class, and a modicum of intelligence. I apologize if you were offended.

you're forgiven...

 

You have no idea what my ideas are, yet feel qualified to dismiss them. Therefore I have zero respect for either your intelligence or personal integrity.

Now that sounds more than a bit like sour grapes to me greylorn, you made your case and no one agreed with you but to suggest that i am somehow responsible for your book being debunked is kinda cool...

 

Evidence will never change your "mind." Your brain's axons have been myelinated decades ago, and your brain is limited to defending the beliefs fixed therein.

You really do a good insult greylorn, too bad you can't defend your position as well as you insult...

 

I would like to again suggest you make your case, in another thread of course, my brains axioms will have nothing to do with the success of your argument on this forum...

[WWLabRat]

To refute the existence of God, I must first define what I mean by God. It seems to me that God, defined in the broadest terms, is simply: the origin of all that exists. I think most theists could agree with this basic definition (with the exception of Mormons, who believe God to have evolved from a human being). It presupposes nothing of God's alleged qualities such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Neither do we presume any attributes to God such as personality, gender, emotions.

 

Having defined God as that which is the origin of existence, we naturally move to our second definition: what is existence? Again, we will go for the broadest definition possible and say that existence is anything within space-time (including space-time itself). This definition covers not only what exists at present, but all that has or ever will exist. It includes not only the physical realm of sensible phenomena, but all that is metaphysical as well; since even something as impalpable as a thought must take place within a period of time and must arise from a brain which occupies space.

 

Having defined our terms, we will proceed with the following arguments:

• God is the origin of all that exists.
• All that exists, exists within space-time.
• If 1 & 2 are true, then God is the origin of space-time.
• If 3 is true, God cannot be within space-time.
• If 2 & 4 are true, God cannot exist.
• Therefore, God does not exist. God transcends existence.

So there you have it. God is a self-refuting concept.

 

 

I first want to apologize to those with different religious beliefs from mine, especially if their creation story is different from the one presented in the Bible. I use it because when most people talk about the beginning and mention a creation story, it is the creation according to Judeo-Christian beliefs. And I know there will be those that say that the bible is not a reliable scientific source and that it serves no authority outside the belief systems of which it is a part. This is merely to state that the definition the OP provided us with is incomplete/incorrect and therefore all following presumptions were based on incorrect data. So without further ado…

 

“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

 

Nowhere in this quote does it say that “God is the origin of all that exists”. To create implies that materials were present and then formed into the final product. The origin implies the beginning of something. To say that God is the origin of the universe, in the present understanding of the word, is to say that God is synonymous with origin. But as I just pointed out, taken directly from scripture (albeit translated to English) it says that God created the heavens (sky and everything not of the earth) and the Earth. It then goes on to say that the earth was formless and … etc. At the time that the scripture was passed down it was still by word of mouth among a people, whom the majority was unable to write or read and who had little to no scientific advancement. The Earth was all that was known at the time. The Earth was the entirety of their universe. The second verse says that the earth was formless and empty, and that darkness was over it all. This is a likely ancient understanding that before all of existence was created, there was nothing that would be recognizable but God was there to bring it all together. Then from these individual formless pieces, everything started to come together, expanding and filling up the “darkness” so that it was no longer empty. And from this formlessness, when it was brought together, emergent properties came up. This caused things to be more than the parts that comprised them, ie life.

 

I could go on to explain the rest of the creation story in this manner, but this post would go on too long without me getting to my other points. So to get back to the OP, point 2 states “All that exists, exists within space-time.” This statement assumes that there is only one dimension of space-time. In seven words (six if you count the hyphen as being only one), this statement rejects any possibility of a multiverse, bubble universe, or any theory along those lines by assuming that what has happened in our understanding of reality is the only way that it happened or could have happened. This is a deterministic way of viewing the world and, in my opinion, ignores the view that there are other possibilities of things that could have been different.

 

The making of different choices is where the multiverse would come into play. This would allow for every possible permutation of every possible fraction of what we know as time to exist, both separately and simultaneously. The bubble universe theory simply put states that a universe could potentially exist inside of another. Within these bubbles, the known laws of nature could be wildly or mildly different from what they are in our universe. From this theory, other possibilities arise, one being the origin of the big bang. The bubble universe would allow that at a certain point within a larger bubble, matter could have become so dense and so infinitely small that another universe was created. This creation could be what we know as the BB. Also from this, one could hypothesize that an entity of unknown nature could have harnessed the power (for lack of a better term) of the universe and thus have the ability to create new universes. I don’t mean ability in the superhero sense of the word, but rather that the potential to manufacture a universe could be present in a larger bubble.

 

Getting back on topic… Point 1 was an incomplete or inaccurate definition of God. Point 2 was presumptuous of the nature of the universe. Both of these are incomplete and without them being complete the entire argument falls apart. I’m not advocating or denying the existence of God. If the Big Bang were to be true though, some force would had to have started the universe in motion, as per Newton’s First Law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force. By this right, some sort of force had to have acted upon the matter to create the Big Bang and thus get the universe in motion.

[Thorham]

So to get back to the OP, point 2 states “All that exists, exists within space-time.” This statement assumes that there is only one dimension of space-time.

It's worse than that. It assumes that everything exists in a system of space-time similar to that of this universe. A system where space seems to be made of 'stuff'. The OP forgets that space-time has to exist in something, or rather, that it may just fill up nothingness. Not to mention that space-time doesn't exist in it self.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Thorham

[ydoaPs]

The OP forgets that space-time has to exist in something, or rather, that it may just fill up nothingness.

Dear gods, no. I don't even know where to start as your post is essentially gibberish.

[Thorham]

Dear gods, no. I don't even know where to start as your post is essentially gibberish.

Instead of just saying my post is gibberish, you could also explain why

[imatfaal]

Moon... "the basis of the entire theory is where math breaks down".... Is -exactly- saying "we know what we're putting our faith in defies logic and physics and we have no supporting evidence.... But we believe it happened."

 

Even very weak evidence is stronger than none at all. Documented eye-witness accounts... No matter how sceptical you are of them... Is stronger than "the big bang did it because it's the only way I can avoid a theory I don't like."

 

But the big bang theory has lead to scientists thinking about the events ramifications, making predictions on those calculations, and many years later having those predictions verified by independent researchers. It isn't proof - but we have been through ever so many times how proof positive is very difficult - but it is very very persuasive. And on the eye witness accounts - as someone trained in the law I would say; did you see that gorilla?

[Moontanman]

 

But the big bang theory has lead to scientists thinking about the events ramifications, making predictions on those calculations, and many years later having those predictions verified by independent researchers. It isn't proof - but we have been through ever so many times how proof positive is very difficult - but it is very very persuasive. And on the eye witness accounts - as someone trained in the law I would say; did you see that gorilla?

 

 

Do we even have independent eye witness accounts of god?

Moon... "the basis of the entire theory is where math breaks down".... Is -exactly- saying "we know what we're putting our faith in defies logic and physics and we have no supporting evidence.... But we believe it happened."

 

Even very weak evidence is stronger than none at all. Documented eye-witness accounts... No matter how sceptical you are of them... Is stronger than "the big bang did it because it's the only way I can avoid a theory I don't like."

 

 

What is this theory you speak of? goddidit is not a theory...

[Didymus]

You can tell when a person has no valid points when the best point they can make is a baseless insult. Yes, the concept that some sort of being (probably the one who said he did it) played some role in how the universe formed. Whether he set some chain reaction that began the big bang or used any other method to manipulate energy to form matter.... It's a possible cause.

 

The big bang is inherently causeless because the theory postulates that all matter/energy/time/space came from this source.... And then science has no explanation of what this source is that created everything or how it functioned or where it came from.... Only that it is a source which could not have conformed with our understanding of math and physics. ....thus the big bang is a nearly identical idea of a miraculous universal creation event.... Except that it makes additional assumptions with no basis whatsoever.

 

... Also, if a single explosion sent all matter into motion, the conservation of angular momentum would cause all matter to rotate in the same direction.

 

....look at our own solar system for a minute or two and you'll see why a single explosion seems unlikely.

[Moontanman]

You can tell when a person has no valid points when the best point they can make is a baseless insult. Yes, the concept that some sort of being (probably the one who said he did it) played some role in how the universe formed. Whether he set some chain reaction that began the big bang or used any other method to manipulate energy to form matter.... It's a possible cause.

 

The big bang is inherently causeless because the theory postulates that all matter/energy/time/space came from this source.... And then science has no explanation of what this source is that created everything or how it functioned or where it came from.... Only that it is a source which could not have conformed with our understanding of math and physics. ....thus the big bang is a nearly identical idea of a miraculous universal creation event.... Except that it makes additional assumptions with no basis whatsoever.

 

... Also, if a single explosion sent all matter into motion, the conservation of angular momentum would cause all matter to rotate in the same direction.

 

....look at our own solar system for a minute or two and you'll see why a single explosion seems unlikely.

 

 

So because science can not explain it now it must be goddidit?

[Iota]

 

 

Only that it is a source which could not have conformed with our understanding of math and physics

 

does not mean

 

 

 

the big bang is a nearly identical idea of a miraculous universal creation event

 

what it does mean is you can't use intuitive thought to solve theories like the Big Bang. For example:

 

 

 

... Also, if a single explosion sent all matter into motion, the conservation of angular momentum would cause all matter to rotate in the same direction.

 

....look at our own solar system for a minute or two and you'll see why a single explosion seems unlikely.

It certainly takes some arrogance to honestly think that you've spotted something that leading physicists have missed, purely by means of your own intuition. If it were that simple we wouldn't need physics, or physicists for that matter.

 

 

[iNow]

on the eye witness accounts - as someone trained in the law I would say; did you see that gorilla?

Not even that, but in the bible there aren't really even any first-hand accounts. Even though most of us recognize the problems and limitations with eye-witness testimony, it's not even eye-witness testimony we're talking about here. It's second and third-hand accounts (at best), and those were usually written a few generations after the event in question supposedly took place.

 

It's a bit like me describing something my grandfather allegedly saw when he was a toddler before I was even born. That's not eye-witness testimony. That's hearsay, and it's not evidence no matter how strongly I believe it and no matter how genuinely I think it's true and no matter how much faith in the story I profess.

[Moontanman]

You can tell when a person has no valid points when the best point they can make is a baseless insult. Yes, the concept that some sort of being (probably the one who said he did it) played some role in how the universe formed. Whether he set some chain reaction that began the big bang or used any other method to manipulate energy to form matter.... It's a possible cause.

 

The big bang is inherently causeless because the theory postulates that all matter/energy/time/space came from this source.... And then science has no explanation of what this source is that created everything or how it functioned or where it came from.... Only that it is a source which could not have conformed with our understanding of math and physics. ....thus the big bang is a nearly identical idea of a miraculous universal creation event.... Except that it makes additional assumptions with no basis whatsoever.

 

... Also, if a single explosion sent all matter into motion, the conservation of angular momentum would cause all matter to rotate in the same direction.

 

....look at our own solar system for a minute or two and you'll see why a single explosion seems unlikely.

 

 

If you feel you've been insulted i suggest you report it to the mod squad, if you feel I make no valid points it should be easy to discredit me with data not claims of persecution...

[mattrsmith88]

Space has no time. only the physical objects within the space seem to age. space does not age, it just changes. It has always been there, and always will be. Thats the thing humans will never be able to comprehend, there is no creator, because you cant create something that has no beginning or end, just like it has no boundaries, it will be endless.

[s1eep]

What if it is an organism that represents non-existence? I picture this as a type of excited putty at the outer limits of space that encircled space-time. I don't only believe in one God, I believe in many. I think a God may have came before that created another God; one that was God to a universe or to universes. The first God may still exist, the one that created the one that is God to a universe(s), something that has body and form. It's probably representing infinity, and the possibility of different lives. And the God before that may exist, we can trace God's back to the beginning, and imagine Gods even further back, or at least sense them.

[WWLabRat]

How can something exist if it is non-existent? Just the fact that it is there would mean that it exists and ceases non-existence.

[Moontanman]

What if it is an organism that represents non-existence? I picture this as a type of excited putty at the outer limits of space that encircled space-time. I don't only believe in one God, I believe in many. I think a God may have came before that created another God; one that was God to a universe or to universes. The first God may still exist, the one that created the one that is God to a universe(s), something that has body and form. It's probably representing infinity, and the possibility of different lives. And the God before that may exist, we can trace God's back to the beginning, and imagine Gods even further back, or at least sense them.

 

 

So it's turtles all the way down?

[WWLabRat]

Space has no time. only the physical objects within the space seem to age. space does not age, it just changes. It has always been there, and always will be. Thats the thing humans will never be able to comprehend, there is no creator, because you cant create something that has no beginning or end, just like it has no boundaries, it will be endless.

 

Sorry, I missed this post when I replied earlier...

 

Without time, change couldn't happen. Nothing happens instantaneously. It has to occur in a progression of frames, though those frames may start to be smaller and smaller cuts of time.

[s1eep]

I like to think of God as a type of platform; it is what everything is in the image of to co-exist. An Operating System like Windows; everything therein must obey the laws of what it can operate. It's all windows. Therefore, we are all Gods, but there is, or was a greater God before us; the system itself. You can imagine this God as a type of life-force, but you wouldn't call it God, you would call it life or living. You should respect life more so than you should define life, it has many important associations that make it great and therefore it has great user-potential.

Edited October 29, 2013 by s1eep

[petrushka.googol]

I think it is best left to the individual to define his / her belief system.

 

Each person has his / her own experience profile in life and views God differently.

 

If I say "God exists is false" , then if the statement is true, God does not exist and if God exists the statement is false. (circular reference).

 

It is difficult to make an assertion without proper knowledge.

 

It is better to live and learn and arrive at our own conclusions.

 

Which is worse an atheist or a fanatic?

 

That is a matter of debate.