I've decided to try my disprove of atheism flaw search again. This time with rules.

Okay. For those of you who have seen the embarrassment that was the last time I tried to find flaws in my disproof of atheism, I have new rules for this thread.

1. Please try to post what flaws you find without anything provocative or competitive (I once tried to kill myself with a pencil due to a loss in a small competition in 8th grade social studies).
2. Remember that this is a search for flaws in the theory itself, not with the presentation (for example, do not comment on the things that simply could have been worded better for its only improvement. Things such as when I say "time's flow" or similar things when we all know that time doesn't actually "flow" at all, or when I say "outside of time" when we all know that time is not a spatial thing, and thus things cannot literally be inside or outside of time. In other words, don't be too literal.)
3. Take great care not to change the subject; many times people have done this in my discussions, and the results were not pretty.
4. Read VERY carefully; to say that I said something that I didn't say or to misinterpret what I say would be to waste time for both of us.

Now, here is my theory, copied directly from the old thread with some changes:
In a stable reality such as ours, the law of cause and effect governs much of what happens. However, some people, though they realize this, are unable to put it together with other facts. Facts such as time flowing forwards, and the many theories that attempt to explain our very existence. I, however, believe I have done just that. This is my new disproof of atheism.

First, I must say that nothing can just pop out of nowhere, lest this reality be unstable (a term I use to describe realities in which THERE IS NO 'cause and effect', which instead of 2+2=4, it could be 2+2=Mount Rushmore, or 2+2=Miyamoto Musashi, history's greatest swordsman, or it could be 2+2=Miyamoto Musashi, the 123,456th giant dictionary ever made by a two-headed purple monkey, or whatever other nonsense.). Contrary to the popular atheistic belief that every particle of matter, energy, and other whatnot in the universe had always been there (this theory is present in all of the atheistic start-of-the-universe theories that I have heard of (such as the big bang: there were materials that formed the big bang, which assumes that there were any materials at all, and that would mean that there had always been materials, resulting in an infinite past (one could argue that the universe goes through time in cycles that all start and end with the big bang; however, that still assumes an infinite past because any positive value multiplied by infinity would equal infinite)), for without it, those theories would essentially assume that the universe came from nothing, which I had already stated not to be the case), such would mean that the matter would have an infinite past.

An infinite past inside the control of time is impossible if time does not (literally) flow (first time you should be careful not to take things too literally) backwards, which we all know it does not, for if it did, our perception of reality would flow backwards and cease to exist once the memories in our experiences are passed by, because once we pass by those memories in a backwards direction in time, they would never have happened, so remembering such things would be impossible for any ordinary being. Now we've stated that time does not flow backwards, and infinite pasts can only exist if it did. However, there is one exception to this rule. Let's assume that there was something that existed OUTSIDE of time. Outside of time, there is NO change, and when outside of time, you are in a state of constant being, where you are simultaneously thinking, doing, consuming, etc. whatever you would have done sequentially inside of time, and to add to that, you are immortal, therefore adding to what you are constantly doing outside of time. In other words, this existence is both simultaneous and eternal, unlike our sequential and constantly changing in-time existence. Since you are now knowing all that you will ever know, you are, at this point, potentially omnipotent.

But let's not get too distracted by what it's like outside of time. Only when something exists outside of time can it exist forever, for in a realm with no change, if it exists at all, it existed forever. Anther way to put it is "If it is, it always was, and always will be" when outside of time. This being that exists outside of time, in my theory, must be the omnipotent being that is depicted in monotheistic religions, and possibly several other religions.

If you see any flaws with this, please tell me, and I will decide if the flaw is valid, try to fix the flaw, and eventually (not necessarily in a reasonable amount of time) post a reply.



Moderator's Note: I will attempt to satisfy Rokkon's Rules. Normal rules of moderation will be replaced by Rokkon's Rules for this thread only. Please post here only if you are willing to accept this limitation. Thank you.
Violations will be highlighted in blue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps cause and effect creates an illusion of time passing, which it doesn't, there are only events happening. This is an illusion of flow, like the illusion of motion in a movie film.

We "know" alot of things, one of which everything that exists is subject to cause and effect and therefore time, and if it isn't subject to time, a theoretical entity can not be a cause of anything, and nothing can effect it (no senses, no perception).

what does this mean?

This idea is precisely the theistic view, which states that God has always been there, thus getting around the implications of cause and effect- that there can be no first cause. It is less a stretch of the imagination that something like non-living matter or energy has always existed than that a particular kind of entity has always existed.

Why not? How about the notion that time seems to flow into the future, and it always did?

If this is true, then nothing outside of time can effect things subject to time. Since it is reasonable to assume all things are subject to cause and effect, there can be nothing outside of time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Finally, someone responds.
Anyway, right now I have a couple things with which I will respond. The first two things you mentioned will have to be explained further in order to determine the validity and significance of them. As for the third one, inside the control of time essentially means that you are in a sequential existence, in which there is change, obviously. Next, I must say that I personally find it to be far less of a stretch of imagination to think that anything that exists with different rules would be subject to different things than to think that anything obeying our rules would be subject to different things. You will have to explain better the next thing that you said, and finally, the belief that anything that exists is subject to time is very questionable.

Perhaps you should try and imagine what it would be like without any change. If you need help with this, read further. With no change, there is no sequence in which things happen; it is all simultaneous. Being without change, things that happen at all are always happening, and they always were. Think of it this way. Take a timeline, or any sequence of anything for that matter (in this case, it would be preferrable to think of an image on a computer). If one thing changes to another, is replaced by another, or if there is any change at all as you look at different parts of it, it is similar to an in-time existence.

Now is where it is more convenient to think of a computer image: You open up an image editor, take the image that has change, and use the image editor to squish the entire image down to the size of one pixel. Now the image has every part of it combined into the same space. Now you edit the image again and you strech that one pixel to infinite measures (not that you could actually do that on a regular image editor). Notice how no matter where you look on the image, it is entirely the same. This image is now similar to an out-time existance because it is infinite and unchanging. This is converted into out-time existence by replacing the x and y dimensions with the dimension of time (rather hard to imagine two dimensions converted to one, I know). No matter what time you travel to, it is all the same, and it is all there. The only thing missing now is the image as it was before you edited it. Make either of the images transparent, and then place one above the other (not in front of, above). Pick any point on the x axis, and see how while the unedited version of the picture (in-time) changes as you pick points, the edited version never changes.

By this time, you may be confused, bored, or any other emotion, or you might have stopped paying attention long ago. Either way, I'll stop typing now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everything that can be considered to exist moves, except for information. Moving takes time. Therefore, nothing that is not subject to time can exist.

 

<message deleted>

 

Actually, spidergoat, I must once again say that to exist is simply to be. Also, we have not actually proven that everything, save for information, is moving. If one object just happened to somehow remain in the same exact spot and position for the rest of eternity, what you say means that it would not exist. Besides, whether something moves actually depends on one's frame of reference. Taking this into consideration, it might even be possible that the Earth is the center of the universe after all. Of course, I don't believe that it is, but that is not important right now.What is important is that, my apologies if I seem rude, what you claim has just about nothing to back it up.
And to southstar, you'll have to explain yourself better.

 

The premise of what you are trying to do is flawed. Expand the word atheism and take a look at what you are saying:

"I am trying to disprove [not accepting the assertion 'God exists' as truth]"

The only coherent interpretation that comes out of that statement is you're trying to disprove the existence of atheism... but even that is only so coherent as you can't disprove the existence of something proven to exist.

I think what you might be after is finding flaws in some of the reasons people choose atheism; however, the one key reason that is shared by most (if not all) atheists is that there is no supporting evidence that 'God' exists and there is contradictory evidence against specific claims of 'God'.

The only way I see of finding flaw with that reason is to find some pretty concrete supportive evidence that 'God' exists.

 

All matter and energy is defined by some sort of movement.

Perhaps. At least it would be at absolute zero, and incapable of any action, much less thought.
An object is made of atoms. Atoms that don't move don't exist. The vast majority of the volume of any matter is empty space. It appears solid because the atoms are all moving around, repelling other material with electromagnetic forces.

 

<message deleted>

...I hope I have not missed something interesting.

 

The only thing I have to say right now about the fact that things that don't move are considered nonexistant is the fact that out-time existence is far different than in-time existence. I know, it is a rather simple thing to say, but it is still important that you remember it.

 

Isn't "out-time" existence just a made up concept, like a flashlight that shines darkness, or a sweater knitted out of diamonds.

 

Flaw: "An infinite past inside the control of time is impossible if time does not (literally) flow (first time you should be careful not to take things too literally)"

Flaw: "Contrary to the popular atheistic belief that every particle of matter, energy, and other whatnot in the universe had always been there (this theory is present in all of the atheistic start-of-the-universe theories that I have heard of (such as the big bang: there were materials that formed the big bang"

Flaw: "those theories would essentially assume that the universe came from nothing, which I had already stated not to be the case"

Flaw: "Let's assume that there was something that existed OUTSIDE of time. Outside of time, there is NO change, and when outside of time, you are in a state of constant being"

Flaw: "Only when something exists outside of time can it exist forever, for in a realm with no change, if it exists at all, it existed forever. Anther way to put it is "If it is, it always was, and always will be" when outside of time. This being that exists outside of time, in my theory, must be the omnipotent being that is depicted in monotheistic religions, and possibly several other religions."

Then, you can make up anything you want and consider it perfectly valid.

<message deleted>

 

To spidergoat: I have indeed thought very much about out-time existence, and I believe I have explained it very well. However, if you think I haven't adequately explained it, I will gladly tell you more.

To (Q): I have multiple things to say to you. 1. I already have decided that your flaws are not valid. Essentially, what you said has the same validity as someone who claims what they say is right because they say so (you have done this, in a way, for you give no reasons why you are correct). 2. I consider myself a modern paladin, (yes, I know I'm wierd and I AM VERY PROUD) and paladins do not use those decietful methods of winning, lest they get castrated (or something along those lines). 3. I am very displeased that you should bring your hypocritical self into my thread. In the last (and first) of my threads you participated in, you claimed that I was completely ignoring your comments as I blindly asserted what I had said, when not only did I admit defeat around four pages earlier (making me unable to assert anything), but the dubious flaws that you had pointed out were mostly founded on the fact that I could have used better words to describe what I meant. After I had tried to address those flaws in a way that was blatant as I could make it, you only focused on asserting the flaws in the presentation of my theory instead of the theory itself, and completely ignored the times I tried to address the flaws that were less dubious.

 

I mean, 'what is wrong with being called out if you have been vague somewhere or something isn't clear', in regards to "..Things such as when I say "time's flow" or similar things when we all know that time doesn't actually "flow" at all, or when I say "outside of time" when we all know that time is not a spatial thing, and thus things cannot literally be inside or outside of time. In other words, don't be too literal."

 

<message deleted>

 

Called out means they noticed an apparent flaw.

 

<message deleted>

The flaws made the theory nonsense.

 

<message deleted>

 

<message deleted>

 

I see plenty of flaws, yet I am given absolutely nothing wrong with them. Perhaps if you'd be so kind as to inform me why you say that these are flaws <message deleted>
I do suppose, however, that the first 'flaw' you found could have been quite less confusing.