God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

Re: Re: God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

I think what was meant by this is that the idea of God has inherent logical contradictions. The idea of people does not have these contradictions. The point is that the logical contradictions inherent in the notion of God make his existence unlikely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The idea behind Occam's Razor is not that the simplest theory (e.g. God did it) is the preferred one. It is that the simplest theory that is based on the observed evidence is the preferred one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Re: God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

Taking a look at the post I qouted,
"{God created Himself out of NOTHING.}"
Or am I mistaken?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

God, by definition, is perfect. So self-contradiction is fatal to him.

 

Re: Re: God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

It's much simpler to take it for granted that world "simply existed".

 

I respectfully disagree. The natural is much simpler than the artificial. The theory of evolution, therefore, is the simplest of the TWO.

 

Re: Re: God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

If it is creation, then it should be applied to all levels, not just to selected few. Who created the CREATOR? That is the question.

 

Im saying that he simply existed the entire time. He wasnt created.

 

That's what I said. The natural is based on observed evidence.

 

Yeah but whats natural to some isnt to others.

Is a laptop computer natural?

Sure its made of whats in the universe,although if i took my 1.4ghz laptop back in time 150 years and you know maybe take a few DVD's and show it off running on battery power nobody at that time could possibly concieve that as "natural" even if its observed,they would not be able to understand anything about it,it would be a mysterous object.
In fact they would not understand even the theory of the object for another 100 years,as the device is a result of quantum theory and quantum cookery.

So you could say the universe is like that,but like the laptop computer it was made,or could a laptop computer come out of knowhere?

I can sorta see why people believe in god for this reason.

 

Personal View

I do believe this extract from UniKEF fits this topic.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm


UniKEF Origin of Existance



UniKEF proposes that "0" is linked to Existance via a form of mobius. This segment is an attempt to break down "0" into its constituant parts. The initial idea that 0 = (+1)+(-1) has now been modified to be 0 = (+n)+(-n) to mathematically signify a range of creations.

The idea of our origin or existance is a paradox.

Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.

That energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change forms.

That view creates its own paradox.

***********
The conventional view is that "coming into existence" from "nothing", or passing "out of existence" back into "nothing", clearly requires magic, a miracle, or a supernatural act of a God.

That is a logical impossibility by definition of "nothing", meaning non-existence or the total absence of forms at any scale.

Or that "Something" was never created from "Nothing" because it has always existed.
**********

My personal view and that imposed on UniKEF is purely mathematical:


0 = (+n)+(-n) provides a diverse sequence of origin forms.

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.

When accepted at face value it says many things.

Not that we can understand it yet.

1 - "0" is "NOTHINGNESS"; absolute absence of anything.

2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.

3 - The recipocal of "absolute nothing" is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Someting", no physical property will ever become Infinite.

Taken as an unknown and perhaps unknowable it has a comfortable feel.

In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are opposites with common origin. That White Holes are Black Holes. It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.

It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.

You want proof. Got none. But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.

And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance.

0---------->(+n)+(-n) = creation

(+n)+(-n)----------->0 anihilation



Dan K. McCoin

UniKEF Author

***************** Clarification of Principle ****************

Lets take a hypothetical case. We are going to assume that existance is anything that deviates from "0F" in a bucket of water at 0F (Universe). We cool a ball bearing to -60F using (-n) energy created as above and another equal size and density ball bearing to +60F by the same means using the + energy counter part.

You dunk them into the bucket and they will equalize at 0F. The +/- energy no longer exists. It cancelled, conservation is maintained. It is not stored as +/-F's they vanish and do not exist in the bucket of reality.

To try and clarify what I have said let me restate the above case.

The bucket, water and ball bearings are "Something", they consist of a condensed form of pure energy by E=mc^2. But it is the scientific view that energy can not be created nor destroyed that is in error here. The fact that we cannot yet do it doesnot mean that we may never learn how to do it or that the Universe is incapable of doing it.

The example clearly shows that energy contained in physical existance can and does vanish into "Nothingness". It is the simple act of conservation between +/-. When the ball bearings stablize at 0F there is no trace of their +/-60F it has vanished and can only be recovered or re-created by bifurcating "Nothing". That is splitting it into two opposites of equal value.

Existance is a mere reduction in entrophy, entrophy is an attempt to return to nothing. The energy contained (existance) in the pre-test temperature is not stored anywhere, it must be re-created from nothing.

And while man has not understood how to bifurcate "Nothing" to make "Something" makes no case for claiming that the Universe has no such capacity.

Having such capacity means our existance can be realized without the invocation of miracles, Gods or infinities.

The ball bearings in the above case are just for an analogy. We are not taking energy from one (cooling) and applying it to the other (heating). In that case energy would have only been transferred from one to another. Nothing was created.

But what the case shows is that assuming the "Creation" of +/- energy as stated from O (Nothingness) and applying that to each ball bearing will have the same affect on temperature. And placing them in the bucket of reality you can see them vanish or be destroyed. If assuming that this analogy shows energy can be destroyed then there is no reason to assume that energy could not be created by the reverse process.

The thought experiment becomes its own proof. Assume the energy was so created and you can show that it can be destroyed. Hence logically it can also be so created.

The issue of are we + or - is mute or arbitrary. Which ever we are there exists an opposite. It is a form of parallel universes but that does not imply (nor exclude) a mirrow immage Universe. It does require an opposite filled resovoir of energy which may or may not condense into matter and have life in some form.

It is the +/- energy that must be conserved, not the form that those energies take in their respective Universes.

 

I was referring to naturalism, the idea that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.

That lap top can be explained in terms of science; therefore it is natural regardless of what time period one sees it in.

This is analogous to the watchmaker argument. But who made the watchmaker then? You see, it goes on and on. Also, watches are made out of cogs and springs et cetera, things that already exist. Theists claim that God made the universe out of nothing. Therefore the analogy is flawed.

 

Well you could say the universe is a self working system,but i very much doubt it came from nothing,nothing means exactly that:
no forces no mass no energy,no physics,totally empty nothingness.

How exactly does nothing explode into something?
Id say that was supernatural if you didnt have anything natural beforehand.

So i dont believe that totally.

I go along with hawking,einstien,michio kaku,they all point to alternate histories,parallel universes,string theory,basically you cant go along with just 4 dimensions.

You gotta think that the universe started out in many dimensions,which would seem like nothing now as they have wrapped up to the point they are too small to ever see.

Parallel universes could fix the gravity problem,to accept theres at least another universe out there could sort out quantum gravity.

Parallel universes are frowned upon almost as much as god,believe it or not,mainly cos its not something we can ever see.

However unlike god,they could be proven a lot more easily,unless a better theory comes along and does it away.

You might not need god in multidimensions,many histories and universes and so on,seems the more dimensions and room you give to everything the LESS room or need there is for god.

 

Nothing is an interesting term. A complete vacuum still occupies 4-space. Time still continues in a forward linear motion within the vacuum. Motion implies energy. Therefore a complete "vacuum" must still contain energy, time energy. If you then accelerate the vacuum to near C the rate of time decreases, so does this mean this energy must be converted to another form, if so, what? and how can we harness it?
Anyway, back to the topic. If a parallel opposite energy universe exists would this mean time, being a form of energy, is running in reverse as well? As our universe expands, the other contracts and vice versa? Please forgive my uneducated ramblings

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Clarification

doom,

ANS: I do not proclaim the 0------->(+n)+(-n) as proof. I merely point out that mathematically it is as valid as assumptions made about Relativity. It remains to be questioned, tested and proven, if possible. In the intrim it removes the requirement for Gods and miracles which provide no answer, nor the opportunity to find an answer.

It becomes incumbent upon us to try and learn how "0" or "Nothingness" bifurcates into two opposites of
"Somethingness" which maintains conservation.

ANS: The parallel universe that I envision is an energy resovoir of opposites. It does not necessarily mean a mirrow image universe. That is such energy may have evolved into a form of negative matter in a negative universe but it need not function or exist in our frame of reference. There is most likely not a -doom in this universe replying to a -Mac on a science MSB.

ANS: Before one rejects ad hoc the concept of 0-------->(+n)+(-n)
they must justify believeing in a God that created everything out of "Nothingness, from a work shop before time-space existed and in a creature that also created himself from nothingness before anything existed. If anything existed before God then God is not the creator.

Introducing a God into the process resolves nothing and complicates the picture. It is counter to principles of Oscam's Razor, "The more simple answer is the correct answer".

 

The Babel Fish

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen it to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

Worms

There are worms being created in that dead fowl, There must be a God, where else could worms come from.

That is the intelligence of Religion. Based in ignorance of scientific understanding and superstition.

 

Actually, I think that answering of God exist or not is a non-issue, because all is based on: "What God is for you" if in your Universe, you believe in God, in your Universe God in fact exist.

Suppose you have a big rat in a 1 m^2 area, where you created its own Universe, for this rat, "its" Universe is that 1 m^2, this rat will be adapted to that Universe and see it as a normality, the day you will change few things in that Universe, you will change its Universe. We are living in a Universe, where we can not understand everything, because we are locked in that Universe, like the rat locked in its Universe, what there is more to that Universe we have no idea of, and as well we have no idea of if in fact there is more, in fact, maybe we know, because our brain is the limit and in the same time our Universe and beliefs are a part of this Universe, and since we have a part of our brain made specifically for beliefs and intuition(funny, the same part play both roles), then maybe in fact this Universe of our is not only composed of "logical explanations" but as well is "mystical" in a sense. And more and more we search for answers, and more and more we discover more weird things, like Quantum mechanic does just not explain human logic, the why we will never answer it, like the rat in its Univers will have no answer about the why of its Universe.

Afterall, maybe our brain is in itself a Universe of its own, afterall it has about 100 billion neurons, the same numbers of neurons as the Universe has Galaxies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bless

Brainuniverse,

Isn't that philopsophy much like "Ignorance is Bless"?

 

MacM-

Ignorance is bliss, not bless