Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cookie Monster

The Atheism Delusion

772 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro
On 8/14/2020 at 8:44 AM, Cookie Monster said:

I will start by setting out my views.

1. Nothingness can never exist because in order for a thing to exist it needs to be made from something. Hence, nothingness is an impossible state. It has never existed and will never exist. The minimum that could ever exist would be one thing (which is the starting place of my views on Monism). Now if we think about it in order for one thing to exist then it needs somewhere to exist at, needs a point in time to exist at, as well of course as being made from something. That is the creation of space, time, and matter.

Science says energy cannot be created, or destroyed. So energy is not nothing. Evidently energy can transmute into simple matter, and time along with what molecules do we have our current universe. As far as we know there could be an infinate number of universes that expands then collapses and repeats. People just want to insert a God when their mind will not let them explore that it's a far less probable hypothesis given our current understanding.

Quote

2. The Hebrew translation of the first line of the Bible does not say in the beginning God created everything. That is a miss-translation leaving out a carefully placed - used to indicate interdependence rather than cause and effect. So God didnt exist and then create the universe. God along with space, time, and matter, came into existence at the same time as they are interdependent on each other.

In the beginning according to the Bible there was preexisting water, and dirt. The sky is blue because the creation myth has the creator separate a portion of the water to the sky, and hold it up there with a molten glass dome.

Quote

3. If we think about it things cannot partially exist, they either exist or they dont. If we divide something up repeatedly we eventually find building blocks or quantities which cannot be divided any further. Those are the fundamental quantities which exist or dont. There is no partial existence of them. This reveals a fourth structuring principle for that universe in that a thing is made out of a precise quantity. So God is one thing, one quantity. Quantification infuses space, time, and matter too, as things cannot partially exist. They either do or they dont.

This only works for the uninformed, or the wanting to believe (usually goes hand in hand). 

Quote

4. So we have a God which through interdependence has its existence supported by a quantified space, time, and matter. Space consists of two components which both have an interdependence with God. That is the location that God exists at, and the only way to have a location is if its relative to everywhere else where God isn`t at. Time consists of four components. To have a God existing at a present moment in time, a present moment can only exist if there was a before and after. And continued existence of the one thing creates a flow of time in one direction. Something similar with matter too. To be made from something also requires the existence of matter the one thing is not made from.

You're just on the presupposition of God existing without actually proving it.

Quote

5. Quantified and relative space, time, and matter, also need to tie up their own existence through interdependence. That requires populating the universe with matter across the present in time, backwards in time in a way which its existence is tied up nice and water tight with a Big Bang, and forwards in time to what is presumably a big crunch (if the physicists are right).

I suggest using a credible citation for this.

Quote

6. We are left with a universe which was created `in motion` rather than at the point of the Big Bang. Its existence is tied up going back in time to the point of the Big Bang, but it didnt start there. It started with God causing the universe to exist though interdependence. I`m going to put my head on the chopping block and say that occurred 5500 years ago, because that is the point at which civilization started. The universe in the past before then is building up to the point of civilization or to view it correctly the interdependence reduces the universe before that point until it eventually reaches the point it is all tied up water tight with the Big Bang.

Holy Cr@p!

This is why the Bible does not belong in the classroom.

Quote

7. The one thing has final form of interdependence needed to support its existence. It has to backwards create where the entity came from. That populates the universe backwards in time with life. Life which reduces as we look further into the past until we eventually reach the Big Bang. Hence evolution is not the progression of lower life to higher life. Its is the backwards creation through interdependence where the one thing as an entity is reduced down to a point it ties up nice and water tight at the point of the Big Bang.

The Bible makes people think backwards through interdependence of easy answers and the feels.

Quote

So I reason God is a physical being on planet Earth that has through interdependence created the universe and all of us. He might not realise he is God but he is here somewhere. I say he, it might not even be a human or life as we know it. It could also be hidden from us if we consider extra dimensions too.

He's also a bad pilot.

5d8.jpg

Infinite number 

 

  • Like 6
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso

the Op is correct that "nothing" cannot exist. But math is a quantitative and qualitative method of observation. its only qualitative if its quantifiable, if i understand math. therefore even in math, because math exists there can be no true "zero" in the sense that the OP means. Sure you can have zero apples. the absence of the apple does not relate to zero as "nothing" just that relatively speaking the observer does not have one. the apple still exists. maybe someone will state that the conservation of energy dictates that nothing cannot exist. ONLY RELATIVELY can nothing exist....locally. and still, you have to imagine the apple to even quantify it as "not present", but that which cannot be imagined does not exist. FURTHERMORE, scientists and physicists need to imagine in order to hypothesize. one cannot simply imagine true "nothingness" as soon as you imagine it, youve created it and then it becomes "something". maybe thats why we are even here. to create, thus populating the universe with new things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, pbarosso said:

he Op is correct that "nothing" cannot exist.

You might agree, but that does not make it correct.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
Just now, Tatetopa said:

You might agree, but that does not make it correct.

oooo youre so wise. YOU ARE WRONG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, pbarosso said:

oooo youre so wise. YOU ARE WRONG

 

Prove it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
Just now, XenoFish said:

Prove it.

prove me wrong first

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, pbarosso said:

prove me wrong first

 

This ain't my argument. Pony up on why you are right. Prove you are right. If you can't well......I won't be surprised. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
Just now, XenoFish said:

This ain't my argument. Pony up on why you are right. Prove you are right. If you can't well......I won't be surprised. 

here we go. the first reply to my post said i was wrong. you defend his post. go ahead. ill wait for your quasi intellectual drivel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
5 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

oooo youre so wise. YOU ARE WRONG

Not trying to be wise friend.  You or I or anybody else can say we agree with something and that statement stands on its own merits. When you say something is correct, you need to back it up with facts and a chain of logic that can be followed from beginning to conclusion. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

here we go. the first reply to my post said i was wrong. you defend his post. go ahead. ill wait for your quasi intellectual drivel.

You're telling him he is wrong. It is up to you to support your claim. Which you obviously seem incapable of doing. Maybe unwilling. Instead you resort to petty insults as if that makes you more "in the right". You're not. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Not trying to be wise friend.  You or I or anybody else can say we agree with something and that statement stands on its own merits. When you say something is correct, you need to back it up with facts and a chain of logic that can be followed from beginning to conclusion. 

the chain of logic is there. i guess youre not a vulcan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

here we go. the first reply to my post said i was wrong. you defend his post. go ahead. ill wait for your quasi intellectual drivel.

And by the way, I did not say you were wrong, just that you offer nothing but your assurance as proof.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
Just now, XenoFish said:

You're telling him he is wrong. It is up to you to support your claim. Which you obviously seem incapable of doing. Maybe unwilling. Instead you resort to petty insults as if that makes you more "in the right". You're not. 

sigh. lets hear more about how intellectually right you are about why there is no god, religious people are stupid etc...ad nauseum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, pbarosso said:

sigh. lets hear more about how intellectually right you are about why there is no god, religious people are stupid etc...ad nauseum.

Maybe later. I currently don't give a **** right now. 

Just to add. I consider God and all god type constructs to exist within the human imagination. Objectively I am doubtful. God is an idea.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
Just now, Tatetopa said:

And by the way, I did not say you were wrong, just that you offer nothing but your assurance as proof.

telling someone agreeing and then maybe your read the rest after that part? IDK, but its pretty logical, my original post that is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
Just now, XenoFish said:

Maybe later. I currently don't give a **** right now. 

sounds good. maybe youll get in a car crash later though.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, pbarosso said:

sounds good. maybe youll get in a car crash later though.

You're an ass today ain'tcha.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

the chain of logic is there. i guess youre not a vulcan.

No I am not.  If you have a chain of logic that few can follow, then good for you.  If you want your chain of logic to be followed by average dumb guys like me, you have to lay it out more clearly.

2 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

sigh. lets hear more about how intellectually right you are about why there is no god, religious people are stupid etc...ad nauseum.

Why are you straying off into these weeds?  I applaud your personal beliefs.  You have no need to justify them to anybody, they are yours without challenge or question.  If you want to enter into a discussion about the universe, a few facts would be handy.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You're an ass today ain'tcha.

fight fire with fire. ive had it with the atheist crowd. time to thin the herd a bit and get back to basics. the world was better when people had a purpose. now its all soft nihilism and no purpose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
11 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

fight fire with fire. ive had it with the atheist crowd. time to thin the herd a bit and get back to basics. the world was better when people had a purpose. now its all soft nihilism and no purpose.

Have fun with that. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

I'm pretty sure nothing can't and doesn't exist.  I think that's why we call it "nothing". ?    Can I prove that nothing does not exist ? .  .    . No.       Can I prove that nothing does exist ? .     .      :lol:. No.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
43 minutes ago, lightly said:

I'm pretty sure nothing can't and doesn't exist.  I think that's why we call it "nothing". ?    Can I prove that nothing does not exist ? .  .    . No.       Can I prove that nothing does exist ? .

Nothing is kinda the antithesis of matter, energy, motion, and the measure of change (time). You can define existence as the combination of those things  It becomes axiomatic, a postulate, something that you accept as true without further evidence.  "Nothing" cannot exist in that definition. You can't use that axiom with any certainty to imply what came before or will come after or if the change of state was caused by a primal will.   There are no "therefore" or "it must be so" corollaries that follow from that axiom.   We just know what is evident in the observable universe.  

If there is no mass, no energy, and no change of state, is that nothing?  Maybe, but by our axiom, it is not part of existence  in our universe.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area

The concept of nothing is one of those things akin to the use of the term infinity.  It is used carelessly and in most cases simply as a tool to dismiss a particular aspect of something.

The true nature of ‘nothing’ cannot be conceptualised and is one of the areas physics becomes  philosophical in nature.

When we talk about the period before the Big Bang and we ask what did the universe expand into?  The obvious answer is nothing.  However, by simply stating that the universe expanded into nothing, makes nothing... something.

Does ‘nothing’ actually exist, a total and complete lack of anything?  I don’t think our minds are able to handle such a concept.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
40 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Does ‘nothing’ actually exist, a total and complete lack of anything?  I don’t think our minds are able to handle such a concept.  

I like the term no-thing. Which doesn't make no-thing a thing, but that some-thing isn't necessary a thing. Like a star for instance. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Why do we call something we don't understand, a "thing"?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.