ti40k7UV

1***
2refutation of major points in theism
3***
4
5---
6
7(Preface):
8
9If you cannot be bothered to read any depth but a shallow preface and skimming for keywords, you will not probably get far in life when it comes to being introduced to a foreign piece of information...
10
11
12For the informative disclaimer to readers, I am am Agnostic Naturalistic Scientific-Pandeist; Secular Humanist.
13
14I equally support the stances of both Pandeism and Atheism.
15
16I wrote this article as a generally informed layman for other laymen, particularly those who are ridiculous enough to have irrational beliefs based on feelings, personal conviction, and woo.
17
18Though it is true that the "Burden of Proof" falls upon the claimant, in this case deists/theists, you can silence them with the rational proofs and factual evidence against their claim, which are provided to a great degree in this article.
19
20The arguments presented in this article are strong as possible and when possible backed with theories as well as proofs, which are held to a logical and scientific standard.
21
22This article is "open-source" that I compiled and wrote. Both sides are encouraged to read and dissect it, and potentially argue and improve upon it. For "lazy" atheists, here is a platinum opportunity to have your arguments "made for you" and fully formulated, making for easy copy-pastas to silence ignorance surrounding "the possibility or existence of god".
23
24To sum up my article, math is the construct that all else descends from, and it is the "structure" of mathematics and geometrical relations/proportions that enabled any universe to exist at all, which actually made an (un-tuned) eternal oscillating meta-verse instead of a ("tuned") one-go thermodynamic-death single-stage ["big-bang"] [literal] "universe".
25
26If you read my first section titled "The impossibility of a universe/multi-verse being created by a God, as well as a God "outside" of the multi-verse, time, and rules of mathematics or physics:"
27
28I say in the first paragraph:
29"A universe consisting of energy/matter, time, and space must precede or instantaneously arise simultaneously with the existence of a deity, otherwise there is nothing for it to be composed of and no place for a deity to reside; The necessity of a universe and energy/matter preceding rather than instantaneously arising simultaneously with the existence of a deity is obviously apparent when considering the synthesis of a "God" by the mechanism of Boltzmann Brains. God, if it exists, must either be the multi-verse or universe/s, or exist within them; Any supposition to the contrary is a violation of Information Theory."
30
31This in itself disproves any "God" as a first cause, which is only expanded and compounded the more you read in my article.
32
33It specifically addresses some prominent claims in Gnostic Deisms, particularly focusing on supposed attributed of the Jewish and Christian "God" Eloa/Elohim and their "Sun" Yeshua Ben Yosef or Jesus Christ. It also falsifies the claims of Islam and basically through inference also that of the Hindus religions. It does not specifically address the claims of for example Egyptian, Norse, and Babylonian mythology, but I the author believe the work extends to disprove these as well. Hypothetically, it also disproves most other extra-terrestrial or "alien" religions which invoke a Deity or [Alpha]-Omega, meaning the beliefs of a foreign organism from another place in the universe other than our own planet or solar system. It does not specifically attempt to debunk any Pandeisms but may infact affect and/or reduce the number of plausible Pandeisms. Pantheism and implicit Panpsychism is largely un-addressed, though the author does believe that only natural scientific explanations of these "phenomena" should be considered and given credit when/where due. The author intrinsically discredit any explanation that is not at a minimum physically plausible which implies its conformity to the definition of logic as directed by mathematics.
34
35BT - FIBONACCI SEQUENCE
36https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa0IJmSBW08
37
38---
39
40The impossibility of a universe/multi-verse being created by a God, as well as a God "outside" of the multi-verse, time, and rules of mathematics or physics:
41
42-
43
44A universe consisting of energy/matter, time, and space must precede or instantaneously arise simultaneously with the existence of a deity, otherwise there is nothing for it to be composed of and no place for a deity to reside; The necessity of a universe and energy/matter preceding rather than instantaneously arising simultaneously with the existence of a deity is obviously apparent when considering the synthesis of a "God" by the mechanism of Boltzmann Brains. God, if it exists, must either be the multi-verse or universe/s, or exist within them; Any supposition to the contrary is a violation of Information Theory.
45
46Some theists may say, "Why do you think God needs a place to reside within; That premise is not accurate/true". I have never seen or been given a single example other than their conjecture of god that consists of a "thing" ( as opposed to non-thing, which is so relational to nothing) without a place to reside in. How is god not subject to the formality of nouns but is used as one? It is simple, they do not conform to any rationality. Resting ones faith in such a god is delusional. Provide them with a logical/rational explanation for the conclusion, and they will have the burden of proof to say otherwise.
47
48https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node27.html
49https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node6.html
50
51The likelihood of a Boltzmann brain arising would, on average, take vastly longer than the current lifetime of the Universe. If it is indeed true that the universe conforms to the cyclic model, this is more likely to eventually happen at least once, given the increased span of time for the event to occur.
52
53https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
54http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Thought-Experiment-God-as-a-Boltzmann-Brain
55
56Time is a Prerequisite of any universe, such as in the meta-verse. Many theists have posited that time was created by "God", and that it is not an aspect of their existence. Please consider though that time cannot be created. Why not? Because creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a sequence of before and after. And any before and after sequence requires time. Time therefore is a precondition of any and all universes. Thus time itself cannot be created. Christian doctrines may describe a "God" creating matter and space, light and life, but not of time. BBC begins their "Before the Big Bang" program acknowledging that the notion of time coming into existence, "may be a logical contradiction." The scientific fad, with its ubiquitous acceptance, of claiming that time came into existence with the big bang, could effortlessly disappear if not needed by the next fad, the multiverse. For although the statement that "time came into existence" launched a million words in its defense, men have no way of even thinking about the notion. Why not? Because it is meaningless. If God indeed were atemporal and could experience no sequence and hence, no change, it could never decide to create time, nor could it ever move from a decision to the actual act of creating time. If such an irrationality were plausible, God would have had to always have created time, and all of creation, from eternity past. Yet this is all gibberish. Further, because time does exist, even if that time had been created, an atemporal deity who experiences no succession and no change in His knowledge could therefore only know Himself as co-existing with time. Thus for theologians to say that God exists apart from time would be positing something of them that it itself could not know. Instead, the simple truth is that a timeless God could not create time and does not exist.
57
58God "outside" of time is not logically possible; How can it proceed in any action if it is not bound by the progression of time? Would not any and all changes occur simultaneously and be instantaneous? How would it be capable of evaluating anything if there is no perception or experience in progression from one state to another?
59
60Theists will often say that because our universe and the multi-verse must have had an origin (it does not have to by the way), and that the multi-verse consists of space, time, and material, the "first cause" can consist of neither of these. They invoke "God". Math (geometric relations by this extension) is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Math from everything I have ever observed is strictly secular. It is wise to say that math (including geometric relations) and not "God" is responsible for the existence of the universe, being the "construct initiator".
61
62Theists may invoke hypothetical dimensions that are purely imaginary and "un-defined" for their deity to operate out of. Supposing that there is are some other type of dimension than energetic, spacial, or time is contrary to our experience in the universe and has no bearing over anything in our reality.
63
64God "outside" the rules of mathematics or physics is fundamentally impossible; How can such a being ever be considered logically consistent?; Would it not need to obey a set of rules and have consistency just to be able to engage in actions or to recall an accurate memory? How would it be capable of existing if there is no defining rule or criteria for any aspect of its existence?
65
66-
67
68To all theists:
69Solve the "god creates time" paradox [adequately] and I will be more willing to listen that "nothing" [is real] [and] is a possible state of "existence" or reality. Furthermore, I will consider that my "assumptions" about the state of "nothingness" requiring at least minimal attributes aside from "absolute nothingness" may be wrong.
70
71If you cannot solve that, why is a super-natural explanation necessary to have the meta-verse exist, why can the meta-verse itself NOT be eternal? I actually have an answer to my last question, I will wait for you to respond first, see if you come up with this, it is a kind of paradox.
72
73
74---
75
76Origin of existence:
77
78-
79
80Theists often insist that the universe/multi-verse and matter had a beginning, and that God begat the rest.
81
82I do have doubts about that sentiment, understanding the concept of an eternal multi-verse, a consequence of a zero-energy universe. It is about equally probable in my mind that the multi-verse either has a point of origin or always existed. If the universe/multiverse had a point of origin, then it may inevitably end up receding back to nothingness for another aeonic cycle.
83
84https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
85
86Problems With The First Cause Argument
87https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqarf1QFxfs
88
89Atheist Destroys The "Kalam Cosmological Argument"
90https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9ZIQ33a8c
91
92There may have never been a beginning, reality may overall be infinite.
93
94Pandeism vs theism: the Cosmological Argument
95https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBDJ7DMjLek
96
97Where did the energy from the big bang come from?:
98
99Introducing the oscillating universe model. Also, something can come from "nothing" in a zero-energy summed universe. Also, let us not negate the fact that there is zero-point vacuum energy in our observable universe.
100
101Sum and Difference Frequencies
102http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Audio/sumdif.html
103
104https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
105https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
106
107Ab nihilo: [apart] from nothing, as in 'the universe/multiverse was created from nothing'
108https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
109
110The result might seem to be, that out of nothing nothing is done, in exchange for nothing, and from nothing nothing has been separated. You can see the product of existence which is generated from nothing, for nothing, is separated from nowhere. What was wanted was to seem to be out of nothing something can be done, for nothing, and from nothing, nothing is at least two separate considerations, zero-sum or "0" and zip/zilch (absolutely nothing). You can see existence is a product which seems to be generated from nothing; We experience entities existing within reality because there is nowhere to be separated from it.
111
112On the Stability of Our Universe
113http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-7500783_23090.htm
114
115It is safe to say that the Universe is singularity-free, and was created ab-nihilo; in particular, zero-time infinite energy-density singularity are impossible.
116
117My supposition is that existence is actually nothing, it is the form in which nothing is possible, and there is not any other type of nothing than as determinable by empirical methods such as mathematics as well as information/data gathering from experimental evidence consistent with the maximum possible amount of materialist observationalism and at a minimum at all times maintaining scientific realism. It does seem to me that any other kind of nothing, say absolute or pure nothing, is not a testable or falsifiable hypothesis.
118
119If nothing simply means zero, then we have some mathematical proofs in favor "creation" without any need for a "creator".
120
1211+(-1) = 0
122x/0 = infinity-x = infinity
1230/0 = infinity-infinity = infinity
124infinity/infinity = 0-0 = 0
125
126The sum of energy across all universes may equal out to zero. Consider them all, add them together; This is their sum. It does not cancel out, however, it sums up over all the universes as zero. Universes do not interact with eachother in a way that subtracts or adds their energy, but that does not negate the possibility of their overall sum of energy equaling out to zero. This means that there may be diametrically opposed symmetric partner to our universe, an anti-universe that is the polar opposite but is otherwise equal in energy content to ours, and that together they are considered to sum out to net zero energy. Consider the energy values off all parallel universes and the multi-verse as a whole. There is evidence in favor of the zero-energy sum hypothesis in the form of correlations with virtual particle pair production.
127
128On the Zero-energy Universe
129https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf
130
131blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/28/why-are-atoms-mostly-empty-space/
132http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/06/if-atoms-are-mostly-empty-space-why-do.html
133
134Empty Space is NOT Empty
135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY
136
137https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
138https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
139
140The vacuum energy is a special case of zero-point energy that relates to the quantum vacuum. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission and the Casimir effect. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects.
141
142http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing
143https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/
144
145Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself?
146https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79LciHWV4Qs
147
148https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/
149
150https://phys.org/news/2011-06-researchers-create-light-from-almost.html
151https://phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html
152https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-make-something-from-nothing-with-virtual-particles
153
154Alan Watts On Nothingness - FULL
155https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmjFdnP7qCY
156
157You Can't Have Something Without Nothing
158http://www.debate.org/forums/philosophy/topic/20394/
159
160
161---
162
163Some extensions of our existence that are not immediately apparent/intuitive:
164
165-
166
167https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
168https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/
169
170Pandeism and Multiverse theory
171https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0QfFUlswU
172
173Many Interacting Worlds theory: Scientists propose existence and interaction of parallel worlds
174https://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html
175
176The theory of parallel universes is not just maths – it is science that can be tested
177https://phys.org/news/2015-09-theory-parallel-universes-maths-science.html
178
179Hard Evidence for the Multiverse Found
180http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907
181
182The Basics of String Theory
183https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-string-theory-2699363
184
185Making sense of string theory | Brian Greene
186https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M
187
188Super string theory may be possible without invoking any additional dimensions:
189
190The standard model and the four dimensional superstring
191https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0129
192
193Four-Dimensional Superstring Models
194https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9511456
195
196Physicists are working on experimentally testing the multi-verse and string theories. This work is complementary to the field of string phenomenology. A scientific theory can be proven false but never true.
197
198Scientists find a practical test for string theory
199https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html
200
201Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory'
202https://phys.org/news/2007-01-physicists-theory.html
203
204https://www.universetoday.com/12615/method-to-test-string-theory-proposed/
205
206String Theory Finally Does Something Useful
207https://www.wired.com/2010/09/stringy-quantum/
208
209-
210
211All dimensions exist simultaneously to eachother and are directly inter-connected. They are not the same as alternate universes; Everything within a universe probably exists within all of its dimensions at a time. Energy is a 1-dimensional string, which exists concurrently in time and space. Time and space are inter-relational and inseparable. More information about this can be found by investigating relativity and string theory.
212
213Scientists suggest space-time has no time dimension
214https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
215
216If there are indeed extra dimensions, it follows to suit that their number and configuration will be based on a radix with optimal economy undergoing a proportional geometric relation yielding the value. One of the first dimensions to add to any physical theory is a second dimension of time, making it holographic, and enables the existence and explanation of parallel timelines. The "lines" that are traced within this 2D plane should be considered a type of fractional dimensions or fractal [extension] of 1D lines which are in some sort of periodic "waviness" for "propagation" [forward] through time.
217
218https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy
219
220It is reasonable to suppose the number of possible dimensions that make up reality are based on the ternary radix, and are (n-base)*([{n-base}-{n-base/n-base}]*[{n-base}-{n-base/n-base}]) or (n-base)^(n-base), so that when three is chosen as the n-base (for reasons of balanced ternary and more), these dimensional values end up being 12 or 27 respectively. These numerical values are of geometric and computational importance.
221
222Though technically a conjecture of mine about string theory, but worth quickly presenting and minimally explaining is my 27D TOP and 12D bottom string hypothesis, which together are a "Merger" or M-theory. 12D = 1De 2Dt 9Ds AND 27D = 1De 2Dt 24Ds, where e, t, and s represent energy, time, and space, respectively. The theory uses 2D "slices" as its basic consideration of dealing with higher dimensions through what I can only describe as "hyper-surface bounding". The power of 27D TOP theory immediately is that 3D reality we observe is the "hyper-bound" configuration of energy across all dimensions of space and time. The 12D BOTTOM theory so far seems to give up on the 2D slice technique in favor of a 3D slice technique due to its use of 9Ds instead of 24Ds, that is unless using fractional dimensions of exactly 1.5D. This paragraph serves as just a basic and brief outline of my string conjecture, which is exactly as I stated, a conjecture, and at best a hypothesis, which is in no way formal, and is definitely not a physics theory or theorem.
223
224The Physics of Extra Dimensions
225https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512182
226
227How To Test for an 11-Dimension Universe?
228https://www.wired.com/2007/09/how-to-test-for/
229
230Hints of extra dimensions in gravitational waves?
231https://phys.org/news/2017-06-hints-extra-dimensions-gravitational.html
232
233-
234
235Retrocausal effects been observed in quantum mechanical experiments; They have been filmed happening on a macroscopic level using laser bursts.
236 
237The significant result was that after the path change occurred, a laser appeared from no where and struck the detection area where normally it would have been sent by the beam splitter. However, there was no laser that had been fired at the time, so this is evidence of the laser behaving as though it had been sent by the beam splitter, after the fact. Of great significance is the fact that when the path is changed, a laser appears out of nowhere and strikes the detection area, even though no laser was fired. This result causes a discontinuity from that moment and the time period before, showing the universe split. It is the first table top experiment clearly showing that parallel universes, from quantum mechanics, exist.
238
239However, as the author states in the paper, this is not a case where the past has been changed, so much as it is a new universe splitting off that has a different past - one where the laser did strike the beam splitter. Also, I argue that particles - whether they be photons or whatever, have no conscious awareness and it is the omniverse or whatever mechanism that causes decoherence, that is responsible. This ties everything together, using the work of John Archibald Wheeler, to explain the entire phenomena without violating causality.
240
241Retrocausality is a true phenomena but it most likely is a misinterpretation. The idea is that a photon or some other particle, can change its direction after the fact. This has been proven through a large number of repeated experiments. However, I believe that the past isn’t changed. What occurs is that, just as in Schrodinger’s Cat experiment, the universe splits. In this case, however in the present one - where the evidence of the path change is recorded, the universe is a new one, separate from the original where the path wasn’t changed.
242
243All the details are in the paper below, along with photos from the film:
244
245Retrocausality, Wheeler's Delayed Choice, and Simulation Theory Reinterpreted Via The Participatory Universe, 'it from bit', Time Travel and the Everett/Wheeler Hypothesis
246http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0254v1.pdf
247
248---
249
250Refuting the finely tuned argument?:
251
252Pandeism explains the stars and galaxies
253https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2wpSmjIHFw&t=43s
254
255It is conceivable that different types of multi-verse exist within the meta-verse due to differences in their values of e0 (vacuum permitivity) and u0 (vacuum permeability) or other constants; It is not known if this is indeed possible; We do not have enough information about how possible universes may vary.
256
257The Speed of light is derived by taking one divided by the square root of vacuum permitivity times vacuum permeability:
258c = 1/sqrt(e0*u0)
259
260Even pandeism is modest in its own supposition of an active creation by a deity, stating that it would would only need create a universe/multi-verse with minimal attributes to achieve a maximum effect; According to pandeism, evolution is not only possible but inevitable because of these minimal attributes.
261
262Let’s suppose that we allow, for argument’s sake, that the universe is intelligently designed. There are things that we can infer from the past, present, and future of the observable universe that speak to what this designer may be like. First, the designer seems to have wasted a lot of space. The observable universe is approximately 93 billion light years in diameter, most of this is relatively empty space, with approximately 100 billion galaxies consisting of an average of 100 billion stars per galaxy. Many of these stars have planetary systems. Yet most advocates of finely tuned argument seem to think that we humans are central to the designer’s plan. If that is the case, one has to wonder why the majority of the universe would not support our life. Our planet in our solar system is just a tiny, tiny fraction of the universe that we can see. So, why is the universe as large as it is?
263
264Second, our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. From this beginning, it took about 9 billion years for our solar system to form. It took about 10 billion years for life to begin on our planet. It took about 13.5 billion years for humans to evolve. This incredibly long period of time for the supposed goal of creation to appear doesn’t seem to support the importance of our species to this designer.
265
266Third, there are apparent imperfections in the design of life itself. For example, the sensory systems of humans are not optimized to accurately sense the environment around us. Our eyes have a hole in the retina, where the optic nerve travels from the eye back into the brain. We fill these holes in from the surrounding scene in the visual field during the perception stage. We are not even aware that these holes are there. To be able to articulate the sounds of our language, our risk of choking increased beyond that of most other animals, because the entrance of our esophagus and our trachea are so close together. There are other examples, but these should suffice.
267
268Finally, the most problematic aspect of our experience for the type of designer that we’d like to imagine is the apparent fact that this designer is trying to kill us. Since the advent of life on Earth, there have been 5 major near extinction events, plus many other smaller but still devastating catastrophes. It is estimated that over 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct. With the exception of plants, that get their energy straight from the Sun, life on earth must take energy from other life by eating plants and/or animals. This sets up a miserable existence of struggle and death for the majority of animals. Today, in our experience, we face many different natural disasters that take tens, hundreds, and even thousands of lives.
269
270From the former body of evidence, it seems that any designer that may exist is wasteful in both space and time, inefficient in designing, and at best absent from its design or capricious, and at worst bloodthirsty.
271
272---
273
274Heraclitus calls the entire cosmos "an ever-living fire". Fire is his first principle; all things are exchanged for fire and fire for all things. Fire changes into various other elements in a cosmic cycle, although the details of this cycle are unclear. Heraclitus equates Fire and God/Zeus as the divine ruling order in by referring to "the thunderbolt that stirs all things." He equated God to the ire. Fire is dependent on its change for its existence.
275
276Heraclitus - an inspiration to Pandeism
277https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNAGslC8YJY
278
279---
280
281Creationism after the beginning of the universe/multi-verse:
282
283-
284
285In order for God to have specifically created everything, it either had to have perfectly conceived initial conditions to direct chaos theory or intervene later as the random or psuedo-random progression of the universe/multi-verse unfolds.
286
287Sol, the sun of our Earth, is an entirely average star with the bulk of photons emitted comprising the green portion of the light spectrum.
288
289Size and location of earth is not unique to our star system. The position of planets in our star system is not special and can be explained well by astro-physical processes. It makes sense that Venus and Mars are other planets which would be suitable for terra-forming and colonization, given their proximity to earth and similar masses as well as incoming solar radiation, but they are not the only candidate bodies within our solar system suitable for for some form of human habitation; One other such place is a moon of Jupiter called Europa, which consists primarily of water.
290
291https://www.futurity.org/our-solar-systems-not-so-unique/
292
293https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone
294
295Chemical evolution may refer to: Cosmochemistry (or astrochemistry), the study of the chemical composition of matter in the universe, including complex organics, and the processes that led to those compositions; Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae; Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems; Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules.
296
297https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
298https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
299
300Life In The Universe; Organic Chemical Evolution
301https://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch1.2.htm
302
303What is Chemical Evolution?
304https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8
305
306Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life.
307
308https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
309
310Systems can be designed or self-organize to form protocells, which behave in certain manners similar to life.
311
312https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell
313https://www.popsci.com/researchers-make-artificial-cells-that-can-replicate-themselves
314
315The theory of protocells and abiogenesis explains how life came to be anywhere in the universe/multi-verse without invoking any creation by a deity.
316
317Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains the diversity and development of life that we encounter on earth, and conceivable life anywhere else in the universe/multi-verse without invoking any direction by a deity.
318
319https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
320https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
321
322How Evolution works
323https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
324
325An introduction to genetic mutations | Biomolecules | MCAT | Khan Academy
326https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g02RnGXCXrQ
327
328Gene duplication and its effects on evolution
329https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmqHY4opHOM
330
331Richard Dawkins Explains Natural Selection
332https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc2kFmJR2SI
333
334Alot of theologists will exclaim that they eye is too complex and sophisticated to have come about by "accident of evolution". The eye is obviously not an accident to anybody who understands evolution by natural selection:
335
336Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye
337https://youtu.be/2X1iwLqM2t0
338
339Pandeism vs Creationism: Evolution IS Intelligent Design
340https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFNA8Tmh-wU
341
342Life is not impossible without a god to create it, nor does it have to conform with the conditions we have on earth; It does not need to consist of or resemble much of anything like life on earth.
343
344https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
345https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenobiology
346
347It is likely that not only other life but intelligent and Sapient extra-terrestrials exist.
348
349Fermi's paradox: a more probable solution
350http://www.nobeliefs.com/Fermi.htm
351
352https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
353
354If we see life as a by-product of the universe being in certain states, then there is nothing left that requires explanation.
355
356The geologic record including fossil evidence of evolution along with radiometric dating disprove creationism as set forth in the Judaic account of Genesis in the Old Testament, and presumably most if not all other creation myths.
357
358A lot of the time theologists will refute the geological record and scientific method of attaining dates and timescales from them, often citing religious creationist websites as a references to inaccuracies such as instances of rapid petrification. They are not exactly reputable sources of unbiased and factual information.
359
360Scientists can accelerate the process of petrification and fossilization in a lab
361https://www.livescience.com/110-presto-instant-petrified...
362
363Because it is possible to accomplish petrification and fossilization in short timescales, should we discredit and throw out the entire established criteria and time involved in the process? Of course not. Exceptions to the rule do not become the norm.
364
365To them, evidence is not evidence. Because there can be exceptions to the rule, there is always a gap in knowledge for their god to fill.
366
367
368---
369
370There have been around five thousand gods worshiped in various religions in human history, but only yours is right? Then consider the possibility of aliens existing and their potential list of gods. How would you know that only your species has worshiped the real god? It is highly improbable that any conception of God is correct, infinitely more so if it does not conform to the rules governing the whole of the universe or multi-verse, as determined by secular mathematicians and physicists, and as illustrated by scientific testing and discovery along with the successes of engineering.
371
372---
373
374How can a god know how and what to create? There is a serious issue with assuming that it has infinite knowledge and wisdom; How can it have knowledge and wisdom if there is nothing other than it to gather and compare information from and with?
375
376According to many theologies, "God" knows all that has, is, and will come to pass... This is called omniscience. How can "God" have knowledge of the future if there is no past or parallel existence for an event to be correlated with or tied to?
377
378---
379
380The difference between Determinism & Pre-determination
381http://lesswrong.com/lw/i2r/the_difference_between_determinism/
382
383If God specifically created everything, having perfectly conceived initial conditions to direct chaos theory, it is required that they also are entirely responsible for any and all existences and events, including perceptions and experiences, that occur within their creation/s.
384
385If God specifically created everything by occasionally deliberately intervening with their creation as events unfold, they are to varying degrees (however, less than perfect conceived initial conditions) directly responsible (until entropy devolves their intervention) for subsequent existences and events, including perceptions and experiences, that occur within their creation/s.
386
387It is pretty obvious that this means they would be completely responsible for the entire experience of anybody in the entirety of existence. Would they be held accountable?
388
389Evolution and pre-decision along with pre-determination and pre-destination means that there is no being other than God that can have engaged in "original sin".
390
391Pandeism and the Free Will Paradox
392https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrPwN3u890
393
394Pandeism vs Theism: The Unevangelised
395https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CugVgOdaSvI
396
397-
398
399pre-determinism and predictability quantum
400
401It is a scientifically established fact that consciousness occurs within a body, particularly being rendered by neurons within a nervous system and better yet in conjunction to a brain. The brain and memory works in a holographic fashion. The brain is a type of computer that works like a classical machine.
402
403https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
404
405https://www.livescience.com/47240-ibm-computer-chip-simulates-brain.html
406
407Scientists scan brain using a machine interface to determine a persons actions before they happen, even before the person is consciously aware of the choice, and the method which determines decisions is about eighty percent accurate.
408
409Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal by experiment that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them. In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their right or left hand. The only condition was that they had to remember when they made the decision to either use their right hand or left hand. Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision. By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 seconds before the participant was aware of the decision.
410
411“Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” - John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist
412
413Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain
414https://www.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/portal/Haynes_UnconsciousDeterminants_NN2008.pdf
415
416It is possible to stimulate the brain to have profound experiences such as psychic interactions.
417
418Neuroscience and Free Will - Libet's Experiment
419https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJPwULN7cYo
420
421This Is Your Brain on God; Michael Persinger uses electromagnetic fields to stimulate the brain's temporal lobe to produce psychic experiences
422http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html
423
424Stimulating brain cells can make false memories
425http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/scientists-have-discovered-how-to-implant-false-memories
426
427How Physics and Neuroscience Dictate Your "Free" Will
428https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finding-free-will/
429
430So there is no free will. Now what?: Robert Speth at TEDxNSU
431https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH_VG_aqwoc
432
433-
434
435Human beings are not very good at coming up with random numbers. predictability of behavior
436
437
438-
439
440Everybody is different, but nobody is completely unique. If everyone is special, then nobody is. When everybody is somebody, then nobody is anybody.
441
442Let us consider that consciousness is common among groups but unique to each individual. Each individual has uniqueness, but it is well known there are practical limits on physical entities, and that would include the number of unique consciousness within that variety of entity. So it is possible that a another entity will have a similar familiar conceptions and even personal experiences of existence as you. Does this qualify as an afterlife? In parallel [timelines and] [in particular] universes, you have a double or doppleganger who is not only performing the same exact actions of you but just about to and just finished doing the exact same thing as you, though everything is shifted about forward and backward in time.
443
444Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion
445https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0
446
447---
448
449No evidence of objective meta-physical attributes to reality
450
451---
452
453The Case for Moral Nihilism
454
455-
456
457The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. “we need to eat because otherwise we die”), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism).
458
459The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.
460
461By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system – we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it’s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.
462
463Evolution is the origin source of moral standards, our sense of right and wrong evolved biologically and are the answer to moral questions. Morality has a lack of consensus; Most people do not follow objective standards of morality which are identical.
464
465If there is no God, is everything permitted?
466https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKGcZacCnls
467
468Game Theory and Ethics
469https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/
470
471Is Morality Subjective? | Nihilist vs. Philosopher!
472https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7CjHg9CV8o
473
474Pandeism answers the problem of good and evil
475https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agw-mArUWys&t=105s
476
477Dawkins on religion: Is religion good or evil? - Head to Head
478https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Xn60Zw03A
479
480---
481
482The subject of heaven and hell, and of the possibility of an afterlife:
483
484There is no evidence to support a belief in heaven or hell. There is no reason to believe in heaven because imperfection is everywhere around us. Mutations may be the key to innovation in evolution but they are also route for new illness and disease. Even though there can be an ample supply of resources to ease a burden and cause a general feeling of comfort, issues can still arise, even without people using power plays over resources or eachother. The closes that we can get to angelic existence is to respect mutual non-aggression principle. There is no evidence that a place like hell exists.
485
486https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell
487
488It is a scientifically established fact that consciousness occurs within a body, particularly being rendered by neurons within a nervous system and better yet in conjunction to a brain. When we are alive, we are capable of interacting with the world, thinking about the world and planning our actions, intuition and ingenuity, and retrospection.
489
490Let us consider that when people die, their brains release DiMethylTryptamine (DMT). The time compression and deep experience felt about the same time as death is due to this chemical release by the pineal gland. It is possible to stimulate the brain to have profound experiences such as psychic interactions. When your brain dies, you loose consciousness in your body at at minimum. What is your consciousness consisting of without a body and specific organ to orchestrate it?
491
492This Is Your Brain on God; Michael Persinger uses electromagnetic fields to stimulate the brain's temporal lobe to produce psychic experiences
493http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html
494
495Each individual has uniqueness, but it is well known there are practical limits on physical entities, and that would include the number of unique consciousness within that variety of entity. So it is possible that a another entity will have a similar familiar conceptions and even personal experiences of existence as you. Does this qualify as an afterlife? In parallel universes, you have a double or doppleganger who is not only performing the same exact actions of you but just about to and just finished doing the exact same thing as you, though everything is shifted about forward and backward in time.
496
497Let us consider that consciousness is common among groups but unique to each individual. This individual progresses through their life, gaining information and insight. Could they transfer information and insight to a further progression of their kind? It all depends if something known as a memory field or M-Field actually exists. At this point, it sounds like woo.
498
499Some theists will cite a piece of misinformation, that the human body fully replaces all of its cells and atoms within every ten years or so (This is not true), and their particular interest to this claim is to state that this means the brain is fully replaced too, therefore consciousness must transcend the brain. In fact, neurons in the cerebral cortex are never replaced. There are no neurons added to your cerebral cortex after birth. Any cerebral cortex neurons that die are not replaced.
500
501Indeed, there is no evidence of any type of transcendence of consciousness in the context of natural processes. The only type of transcendence that is scientifically reasonable is the cloning and subsequent porting of consciousness from one body to another.
502
503Supposing that consciousness can transfer to another body though a woo mechanism, it would need a body to reside in, particularly a functioning nervous system and brain to operate out of. We suppose it may be possible to port consciousness into clones and machines, but this is all dependent on them having a functioning body for the consciousness to reside and furthermore operate within. You could render them as a future hive mind universe with segmentation of separateness though all would be interconnected like a universal sized brain. That universe is entirely unlikely to exist, particularly in a naturally occurring (non-constructed) way.
504
505Richard Dawkins & Steven Pinker debate: "Is Science Killing The Soul?"
506http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/dawkins_pinker_index.html
507
508Pandeism and the Afterlife
509https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5U7w2ggzLU
510
511---
512
513A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception.
514
515They have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both general physical and mental) and are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.
516
517The God Delusion is a non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins. In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.
518
519The real God Delusion is vainly believing that the Creator of our vast Universe is especially interested in only one species in a minute place and time.
520
521The Real God Delusion
522https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0-CsHBCuBA
523
524"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." - Robert Pirsig, Lila (1991)
525
526---
527
528The God of the Philosophers, Part I
529https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZg9UCmRxE0
530The God of the Philosophers, Part II
531https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAWaKdQw5oo
532
533Five Easily Deniable "Proofs" of Jesus's Divinity
534https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkfm0DKboas
535
536How theists know about their god(s).
537https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA8eh5t19A0
538
539
540
541---
542
543God is Logically Impossible; The Argument for Atheism from Incoherence:
544
545-
546
547There is no direct evidence that any god/s exist. Likewise, there are no purely theoretical arguments that prove any gods either. In addition to the lack of reasons for a God's existence, the Argument from Incoherence holds that the very concept of god is self-contradictory and impossible, therefore, theism is false and atheism is true. Omnipotence and omniscience contradict free will and themselves are logically impossible; Its omniscience is impossible for it to validate and there are questions about its own being that it itself cannot answer (therefore, nothing can be omniscient). If it is a perfect being, then, there is no need to do any creating. If it is eternal and immutable, then its very thoughts are eternal and immutable - in other words, it has no mental states. If its basic emotional, behavioral and instinctive drives are all fixed (i.e., not created by itself, therefore, not under its own control, and unchanging), then it is hard to imagine how the being, existing in a world without stimulation nor change, can be conscious at all. Without free will, morality, omniscience the remaining "god" is only an automaton: a being that follows necessity and logic. But the concept of a creator god is even more problematic - for this 'creator of everything' must have inherent traits that it itself did not create. It must be intelligent and rational (therefore, it can't have created intelligence nor logic). It must have desire, drives, motivations, an amazing omniscient thinking mechanism, and it can't have created itself. So it seems impossible and untrue to say that "everything must have a cause, therefore there is a god". Each property of god is itself a contradiction of the idea that god is the sole creator. All those uncreated self-traits lead to an impossibly unlikely situation where a complicated and multi-faceted being is invoked in order to explain a universe that is said to be too complex to have self-created. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, and is impossible as well as incoherent. The First Cause of everything is not a god at all, it is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe.
548
549-
550
551God Cannot Have Free Will:
552
553It is known by four strong arguments that God cannot have free will, as other features and properties of God contradict the possibly of god being able to make choices.
554
555An omniscient being cannot have free will because it is predestined by its own knowledge of its future actions.
556
557A perfectly benevolent God cannot have free will because there is only one perfect course of action, which God, being perfectly good, must follow.
558
559The creator of time cannot have free will: if God exists outside of time then it is immutable, unchanging, and as such it has no mental states except one everlasting and perfect state. Choices require changes in mental states over time. An eternal being that created time cannot have free will.
560
561If God created free will then it cannot itself already have had free will before it done so: yet, an omniscient being already knew (before it created free will) everything it would do. Therefore any creator-god cannot have free will about any of its actions.
562
563-
564
565God Cannot Be All-Knowing (Omniscient):
566
567How Can God Verify Its Own Creator-God Status?:
568
569If you knew everything, then you should know that you know everything. If you do not know if you know everything, then you don't know everything. So, would a god know everything? How would it know? There are some questions that even a god could not answer. One question proceeds from a possible being that God could create. God could create a solipsistic being and make that being so that it thinks it created the universe. It could give such a being all knowledge except knowledge that it itself was created. Such a being would have no idea that it was, in fact, a created being and that there was another, higher, creator. If God wanted to create such a deluded being, it could do so. The problem is, our theorized God itself does not know if it exists in such a state of ignorance. In short, God cannot know if it does actually know everything. There is no way for it to even verify that it is indeed the true creator god.
570
571How Can God Verify That Its Knowledge is Complete?:
572
573All intelligent sentient beings must realize that without verification from other beings than itself or from science, it cannot know if it is correct in its world view. It doesn't matter how intelligent or knowledgeable a being is - if that being wants to verify its knowledge to make sure that it is correct then it needs to look to something more intelligent than itself, or to science. But what if you are the creator of science? You couldn't then use your own construct to test if your own construct was true, it would be a circular and invalid test. If god attempted to find out if it did indeed know everything, it would realize that it has no way to know. How does it know it knows everything? It merely thinks it does. God has no test, method or possibility of finding out if it does indeed know everything. God could itself be a created being, with another creator hiding secretly behind it. It wouldn't know. In short, it does not and cannot know if this is true. Also, what if God uses its power to intentionally forget something? For Christians, this is exactly what the Bible says God can do, in Isaiah 43:25. If an omniscient and omnipotent being has chosen not to know something, then it may, or may not, know that it doesn't know. The worst possibility is when it erases its own knowledge of self-forgetting. It can therefore never know that it doesn't know something. It can't check. God does not know everything and is not omniscient. In fact, no being can know everything because no being, however creative or perfect, can verify that its own knowledge is complete.
574
575Thinking Beings Do Not Know Their Own Substance:
576
577"I think therefore I am" is as true for God as it is for any being. But: God cannot account for its own nature. Whatever facet of personality, willpower or desire it examines about itself, it will find that it cannot find out why it is like it is. Why does God know everything? Why is god good-natured, or, creative, or loving? (If it indeed it is those things, of course). It seems that all-knowing is not an attainable state. Immanuel Kant says that it is impossible, through self-reflection, to know your own substance. He adds:
578
579“For as he does not as it were create himself, and does not come by the conception of himself a priori but empirically, it naturally follows that he can obtain his knowledge even of himself only by the inner sense and, consequently, only through the appearances of his nature and the way in which his consciousness is affected.” - Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals by Immanuel Kant
580
581An omniscient being is in the same boat: it cannot self-verify. Gassendi came to the same conclusion, as reported by Voltaire:
582
583“'It is true,' says Gassendi, 'that you know what you think; but you are ignorant of what species of substance you are, you who think. Thus although the operation of thought is known to you, the principle of your essence is hidden from you; and you do not know what is the nature of this substance, one of the operations of which is to think.'” - Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary by Voltaire (1764)
584
585Potential Self-Willed Ignorance:
586
587Assume that God does know everything. For some reason god chooses not to know something. It erases something from its own knowledge, and, makes it so that it hasn't known about it for all of time so it can't simply look into a different time when it did know. It then removes its own memory of having intentionally forgotten something. I argue in "The Four Dimensions and the Immutability of God" by Vexen Crabtree (2007) that God can't do such things. But I might be wrong, so here's the clincher:
588
589How would god know now if it had intentionally chosen not to know something? It wouldn't be able to contradict its own will in choosing not to know, but if it destroyed the memory of making such a choice, it also wouldn't know if it had actually forgotten anything. This is another (admittedly tenuous) class of self-knowledge that any being lacks and can never know. Without an answer to this potential source of agnosia, no being that aspires to omniscience can be truly omniscient.
590
591-
592
593God Cannot Be All-Powerful (Omnipotent):
594
595“Omnipotency is the state of being "all-powerful". In monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam God is said to be omnipotent many times in their scriptures. Omnipotency implies other super-powers too: if you are all-powerful then you have the means to instantly uncover any and every fact, so, it also implies omniscience. It also requires omniscience.
596
597However omnipotency has such theological and philosophical difficulties that it seems to be a self-contradictory and impossible concept. God itself is constrained by the laws of logic and rationality - it can't make a square circle or create an object that it can't destroy. Most people cede that "omnipotent" means only the ability to do any logical thing4,5. Indeed, in order to create anything at all then you must first be able to think rationally, in an ordered way, and therefore, to be subject to logical cause-and-effect6. Therefore, omnipotent beings can't be the creators of the fundamental laws. Omnipotency contradicts being the "first cause" of all reality. And if an all-powerful being created pain, suffering, the cycle of life (wherein most living beings must kill and eat other beings to survive) whilst it has the all-powerful ability to create eternal happiness for everyone, then, such a being cannot be benevolent (morally good). Millennia of theological and philosophical debate has not resulted in these contradictions being resolved.”
598
599Also, as omniscience has a number of problems, there can be no omnipotent beings (as omnipotency requires omniscience).
600
601-
602
603God Cannot be Perfectly Benevolent or Morally Good:
604
605That "God is Good" is a common assumption made by theists yet God could exist and be neutral (amoral) or malevolent (evil and immoral). But it cannot be "morally good". It if it perfectly good then it always makes the most perfect choices and therefore has no free will. A being with no free will cannot be morally good as it makes no moral choices; it can only be morally neutral like a robot. Also, if God's actions and wishes are automatically good by definition, then its morality is arbitrary and we ourselves have no moral reason to follow it, and may do so only out of fear of the consequences or of selfish want of reward. If God's actions are not by definition good, then, there must be an independent source of the definition of goodness. If God has always been good then God can't have been the creator of goodness; yet if it wasn't, then what was? The idea of a good god causes contradictions. If you do not accept purely logical, philosophical or theological arguments that god cannot be benevolent, then, the real-world existence of evil and suffering (of babies, etc) is also evidence that the world was not created by a perfectly good god. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and volcanoes appear to be universal and not linked to Human free will, yet they cause much destruction. It seems that morality and God are contradictory. God cannot be the author of morality nor can it itself be moral.
606
607-
608
609The Immutable Creator of Time: Robotic, Emotionless and Unthinking:
610
611To be an eternal being that is responsible for creating the flow of time itself, is to be immutable and unchanging. God has existed for all eternity before the creation of the world, and all of eternity after the demise of the world. The created world - from beginning to end - is like an object in the hands of God, that can be rotated and examined. God can view every timeline from start to finish, and knows the conclusion of every test. This First Cause of the Universe sits on the outside of time, looking it, effectively omniscient. But God is not subject to the laws of the Universe that it created. It holds all of time and space in its hands but it is not itself subject to time. For this reason, God doesn't change. And for another reason, too: God is a perfect being. Any change away from a perfect state in order to achieve some aim or goal must be a step towards a good purpose: but, god, in being perfect, has already attained all good ends. God doesn't consist of an eternal series of mental states: God is one mental state, unchanging, perfect and eternal7.8
612
613The conclusions that God is unchangeable has been reached by some of the leading historical Christian theologians. St Thomas Aquinas in the second book of his Summae Theologiae concludes that god cannot change itself, or repent, or undo the past. This is because these things are temporal events that require God to be subject to time itself; but as time is a dimension created by god, God is above and outside it. The Bible supports this in Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19 and James 1:17.
614
615The result is that God is immeasurably cold and emotionless; much more like an automatic process, rather than like the God that many people wish exists. It seems the very concept of God verges on being self-contradictory: It is more of a principle, unconscious and non-thinking. These and other theological problems have led many to the conclusion that God simply doesn't exist.
616
617-
618
619The Features and Properties of God Were All Non-Created, Which Contradict the Idea of a God as the Sole Creator:
620
621If god created anything according to a thought-out logical plan, or, if God had a desire to create anything that wasn't pure random chaos, then, god's thoughts must have been framed around logic. This logic allowed god to think and create, and, gave motivation to God. Logic must have been the first cause; but if logic is a requirement for God and existed before God could create, then God cannot be the First Cause, and therefore, creator-god theism is false, and atheism is true.
622
623We have seen how many of the properties of God contradict each other, and themselves turn out to be impossible. There is no possibility of any being existing with the properties that we would recognize as godly.
624
625But the concept of a creator god is even more problematic, for this 'creator of everything' must have inherent traits that it itself did not create. It must be intelligent and rational (therefore, it can't have created intelligence nor logic). It must have desire, drives, motivations, an amazing omniscient thinking mechanism, and it can't have created itself. So it seems impossible and untrue to say that "everything must have a cause, therefore there is a god". Each property of god is itself a contradiction of the idea that god is the sole creator. All those uncreated self-traits lead to an impossibly unlikely situation where a complicated and multi-faceted being is invoked in order to explain a Universe that is said to be too complex to have self-created. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, and is impossible and incoherent.
626
627-
628
629The Unwarranted Assumptions of Theism:
630
631An uncaused God is more complicated than an uncaused Big Bang. When it comes to comparing arguments where there is no hope of actually getting any physical evidence, there is a long-standing heuristic to help distinguish between theories, called Occam's Razor: it turns out that when all evidence is accounted for, the theory with fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. God requires many properties and complexities such as consciousness, thought, personality, creative drive, love, an internal logic ordering its thoughts so that it can think coherently and rationally, memory, etc: All of these properties must have been derived from somewhere. It turns out that God is a vastly more complicated thing than the Big Bang and the fundamental laws of the Universe.
632
633Theists and atheists both believe in some universal laws of logic and/or nature which exist as the first cause. But the theist position adds on a list of personality traits to this first cause, and, calls the result "God". Whether these additional assumptions are warranted or not is hard to prove, hence why we say that the additional assumptions under theism are based on faith. These theistic assumptions include attributes about God: it is all-powerful, omniscient, benevolent, it has memory, it has rational and ordered thoughts running along logical lines, it is emotional, it wants to be worshiped and other particular assumptions of various religions. Even if it was found that the First Cause must be a conscious god, then, it is not reasonable to assume that all those other assumptions are true too. In comparison to all that, atheists make far fewer assumptions about reality, meaning that their position is more likely to be correct.
634
635“The scientist, however, may wish to challenge the assumption that an infinite mind (God) is simpler than the universe. In our experience, mind only exists in physical systems that are above a certain threshold of complexity. [...] While it is possible to imagine a disembodied mind, there must be some means of expression of the pattern, and the pattern itself is complex. So it could be argued that an infinite mind is infinitely complex and hence far less likely than a universe. [...]
636
637According to our best scientific understanding of the primeval universe it does indeed seem as though the universe began in the simplest state of all - thermodynamic equilibrium - and that the currently-observed complex structures and elaborate activity only appeared subsequently. It might then be argued that the primeval universe is, in fact, the simplest thing that we can imagine.” - God And The New Physics by Paul Davies (1984)
638
639---
640
641If god exists and has a plan, as well as it being a given that god is incomprehensible and their plan is un-knowable, how can anybody understand what they do not have knowledge or comprehension of?
642
643What is the point of engaging in any theological discussion if "God" is infinitely complex and un-knowable?
644
645---
646
647"Science can't throw a supernatural god-like being out of the realm of possibilities because science only deals with the natural"
648
649I do not believe that anything is possible which does not obey the laws of nature, including inventions/technology, even if they are an anomaly, like being a god.
650
651What is the point in a non-falsifiable hypothesis, such as the existence and properties of a god?
652
653Why would god be subject to different laws than our own, and be excluded from our laws? At the minimum basis, any existence must obey mathematics, and it follows that they must be logically consistent.
654
655Theists tend to discard all evidence and reason in favor of their superstitious belief and explanations which which consist of and provide neither.
656
657"Out with the sturdy the logic and evidence, in with the flimsy contention and beliefs. God did it! You are just here to test my faith!"
658
659https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
660
661Pandeism vs Atheism: The God of the Gaps
662https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1WUhR2mEKY
663
664---
665
666
667Dialogue on "refutation against ... theism" 01:
668
669Just because theists reject my claims because they perceive them as untrue or they do not make "sense" to them, does not render them invalid or un-true. I find a majority of their rejections are due to mis-
670interpretations or mis-attributions of meaning.
671
672-
673
674" they aren't the same kind of being. We're talking about completely different things. ... none of them are transcendent beings; all exist within the universe."
675
676Information cannot exist outside of an information system, just as a "thing" cannot exist outside of a universe as an "enclosing envelope"
677
678-
679
680"Logic is convenient, I agree. Logically there must be a cause of the universe, since it began to exist. Do you mean, perhaps there is a creator, but it's not the God of the Bible?"
681
682Logic is at its core mathematically concise. Mathematics is logically a requisite of reality, as all of physics itself is mathematically concise. There is no need to invoke god in an eternal meta-verse, particularly when one understands this premise, which I have covered in my article.
683
684Not reading the article "fully", and then "refuting" itself as a refutation of theology, only to invoke "God" as the "best explanation", and argue about the article and its authors "logical fallacies", while simultaneously invoking "appeal to supernatural" fallacy, among countless others, is intellectually dishonest, and in itself, logically inconsistent, as the holder must be selective in their search for truth and discredit good arguments in favor of a personal conviction, furthermore, when they accept a piece of information which may conflict with their world view, they "seek God" to "ease" their cognitive dissonance, which actually in and of itself re-enforces that dissonance at a future point in time when they re-ponder the conflicting information. Excuse making and magical thinking is not a sturdy ground to occupy or tread.
685
686
687-
688
689"If there was a creator to the universe, who created the creator of the universe?"
690
691If there was a creator to the universe, "where" did "they" reside except within a universe. If the "creator " of the universe contained or processes information, where does that information exist except within an information system?
692
693-
694
695// If there was a creator to the universe, who created the creator of the universe? //
696
697“Your question is nonsense. Everyone who liked your comment is implicated in your irrationality. The question isn't implicated by the premise.”
698
699Depends on how you want to define the attributes and actions of god.
700
701It is special pleading that infinite regression stops here when considering "creations", and god is a "Creation" that requires an"initiating creator"
702
703-
704
705"Logic is convenient, I agree. Logically there must be a cause of the universe, since it began to exist. Do you mean, perhaps there is a creator, but it's not the God of the Bible?"
706
707Logically any "thing" needs an origin, and in this case, an initiation. At the minimum, mathematics and physics intrinsic to the construct initiated the first universe either before or simultaneous to "god's" existence.
708
709Please refute this factual assertion in a manner that does not invoke special cases of un-knowns and incomprehensibles to work around it, such as that it is possible for dimensions other than energy, space, and time to exist, that either god does not exist within any universe as a requisite of there being an information system for the information to exist within. God existing outside of the meta-verse is absolute non-sense.
710
711You will see that they simply neglect the "logical" conclusion on their end when it conflicts with their personal vested interests, yet attempt to evoke "higher logic" for the conclusions.
712
713-
714
715They are saying that god needs no "initator" and almost no claims of god require it to operate out of any formalized construct, (so “back to you”)...
716
717To me it is painfully obvious that mathematics and in that geometry along with relations and integral physics preceed all other situations that may come about, like the event of a universe that god can then exist within.
718
719Nothing can exist without the preceding construct of "math", and the most you can try to plead for is simultaneous creation of a universe, that also simultaneously fluctuates in[to] a "Stable" deity, etc... count the odds. special pleading, that is part of the issue with being a gnostic...
720
721Special pleading in this case in and of itself is saying that god needs no imitator, and is in fact the constructor of all constructs, etc... that would also mean god would preceed math and therefore information theory, etc... they are invoking some kind of knowledge gap fallacy for their ridiculous anti-skeptical conclusion.
722
723-
724
725I will spell this out [for them] one more time...
726
727"// Logically any "thing" needs an origin, and in this case, an initiation. //
728
729No, that's not a thing. What logical principle is that?
730
731// At the minimum, mathematics and physics intrinsic to the construct initiated the first universe either before or simultaneous to "god's" existence. //
732
733That doesn't make sense to me."
734
735Ok, the first bit...
736
737You invoke the need for an initiator of our universe, you call this god... We call this argument for first cause...
738
739"That doesn't make sense to me."
740
741You cannot have nothing without zero being a true state of information, which makes one state of information immediately, and information must exist within an information system, so not only is mathematics required but so is some kind of universe within a future potential meta-verse. This is basic stuff if you are versed in any way about these topics.
742
743God must exist "somewhere", and all somewhere are universes or interior to them. Things that exist also contain/are_composed_of energy.
744
745Need I say more? The conclusion one to come to using the "logic" you so readily try to induce is that no explanation is sufficient, or simple enough and elegant enough to not be accepted or retained/fly_over_head...
746
747Questions are not arguments of their being correct I hope they understand...
748
749They may show their understanding of a topic, if they are specific to it and particularly to a "sub-topic", but these are typically not the "What...?" responses that I get from them, theirs are mostly defensive, not about seeking information that they will internalize in some way.
750
751If they are just asking questions as some of defense of their position, and this alone is their response, they are conceding the argument, out of some appeal to magical explanations for current gaps in knowledge.
752
753-
754
755“
756// If god has any type of information, such as a state of being or transition of state, it must exist WITHIN an information system, such as a universe or object internal to it. //
757
7581. What does this mean?
7592. How do you know?
760
761// Viola, I at least showed you how to understand this as truth. Don't understand or not convinced? Go actually study... //
762
763How original. The argument to beat all arguments: "don't believe me? Then go study and prove me right, I certainly can't do it." Well done.
764“
765
766
767To their first what, it is painfully apparent they are in some way ignorant or pleading some form of ignorance, because most theological claims of god place it outside any constraints of physical reality, and furthermore they propose no construct for this, just attributes of god, etc...
768
769To their third question, they probably think math need to be created and try to use infinite regression arguments of some kind. Just don't people; They will never understand this stuff since all the technical feats like actually reading the "whole" paper and doing your own research to gain a comprehensive understanding are things you can't really bothered to do, and prefer other people do it for you and provide a concise synopsis, where information is lost and not exactly translated...
770
771To their final statement, "God needs no initiator is not a principle I violated. What principle did I affirm and then waive on God's behalf?"
772
773They are a christian, their christian arguments are that god always existed and needed no initiator, it was just intrinsic to existence that god would always exist "in all realities".
774
775The fact that they believe in the god of the "bible" brings with it every gnostic component with it. They are being evaluated on not only the ground of their god not being possible but most if not all other gods being impossible.
776
777I really do not want to spell any more of this out, it should be quite obvious.
778
779-
780
781Ok, since you cannot study information theory to understand it so you could even have grounds to then operate out of to debunk it, let us just enable you to concede the argument from ignorance.
782
783Seriously though, check out this link to get started in information theory and is 100% relevant to the discussion...
784
785https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node6.html
786
787And yes, I expect people to study, it is not on me to be the ultimate source of information, and even when I am, people won’t take any of it on board, let alone read anywhere into it...
788
789What does the fact they refuse to go to outside sources for information show here? Well I will tell you what it shows. It shows that they believe that there can be single authoritative sources that are entirely possible, which is the bible and god, and all else is somehow impossible, but furthermore, though no information I have ever come across is "complete", I have found plenty of truth in many sources of information because that is what I work for, My personality drives me into non-fiction and the fields of science, engineering, and technology.
790
791-
792
793"
794Nope. It seems I can talk about this with anyone but you. Your words individually are English words I understand, but by what randomn process are they brought together?"
795
796Not that they have any, but they should ask a "friend" who has studies cosmology and theoretical physics to verify the accuracy of my inference there...
797
798Talking among laymen about advanced concepts is not proof that their "consensus" about the information is correct. for example, a 50% +1 vote that a piece of information is true or false does not mean it is now true or false, it is true or false before there is any consensus gathered about it…
799
800-
801
802// You are a christian, your christian arguments are that god always existed and needed no initiator, it was just intrinsic to existence that god would always exist "in all realities". //
803
804"What principle did I affirm and then waive on God's behalf? You charged me with special pleading. That means something: please oblige."
805
806You must be new to this. Christianity makes pre-suppositions about the nature of god and according to their text, this nature does not change, and is immutable.
807
808"The question isn't implicated by the premise" Depends on how you want to define the attributes and actions of god.
809
810It is special pleading that infinite regression stops here when considering "creations", and god is a "Creation" that requires an"initiating creator"
811
812It is that simple:
813Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
814
815The claim is that all effects have a cause, and that through pondering infinite regression and wanting to resolve itself as a paradox, it is therefore posited that there must be a "first cause", which you then use as your platform to invoke god. You claim that an otherwise infinite regress stops at god, because there was nothing else before it and it came from nothing else. That is your special pleading. I am out.
816
817-
818
819"The question is: what principle is affirmed, yet dismissed for God?"
820
821Everything has a cause, but god does not, (because it is the first cause).
822
823Do you see it yet?
824
825-
826
827“Perhaps not everything has a cause. I just replace god not being caused with the universe not being caused and voilà: atheism.”
828
829xcept there are strong arguments in favor of accepting creation from "nothing" without invoking any god, and that nothing is in itself a paradox.
830
831My proof is basically:
832
833Nothing = 0 things
834
835For generic reasoning, there are three primary states of information: yes (known) OR 1, no (known) OR 0, un/not-known OR -1.
836
837What is the state of things when there is only nothing? it is 0
838
839nothing itself having the state of 0, therefore requires information to exist, as in a trit, being 0 out of balanced ternary.
840
841Therefore, even when nothing exists, there is one bit existing within an information system, and this "invokes" at least one universe to contain this information state. Not to mention that mathematics is "omnipresent" for this same reason.
842
843https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary
844
845there is literally 0 need to invoke a creator deity or any other creator to explain why there is something instead of nothing.
846
847-
848
849
850It is really simple about the nothingness. Take for example, an "Empty" or "perfect" vacuum. It is still teeming with zero-point energy. So, in our old world view the vacuum was devoid of all properties, one of those being inherent energy. The evidence did not fit our world view. In the objective field of science, including physics, we reject/change our views in their representation of our current models, in favor of better information and/or new evidence.
851
852The concept of emptiness, void, and nothing are limited human concepts that have no real bearing on the meta-verse. They are verbal visualization tools for our still young understanding of the universe.
853
854Nothing should be differentiated in your mind from "possibility" to "impossibility". Hell, theologists claim that "God" always existed. Therefore, by their world-view, nothingness is also "physically" impossible. "It" cannot exist, just like a vacuum cannot be devoid of everything ("everything" is "hopping" around in the vacuum). There is no evidence that nothing ever existed. There is only logical reasoning which shows that nothing IS "literally impossible".
855
856-
857
858"Supposing that universes have to exist wherever there is nothing, to contain the truth of nothingness, means that there must be infinite universes to account for every nothing that doesn't exist"
859
860You only need a minimal (one?) information state to describe nothing "itself", and I have already explained that. Once there is a state of "something", let us for this part of the conversation ignore the requisites of nothing to be considered a state of information. Once nothing is now an isn't, and there is something, then the information state of things changes directly to a 1 from 0. There need be no other information state about "nothing", only what currently is and currently isn't, relative to our own uni-verse within a vast multi-verse in the meta-verse.
861
862-
863
864"This is all very entertaining, and very absurd."
865
866The same would have been said back in the day about vacuum energy, or space expanding, etc... The absurdity is that we still use the old language casually in conversation and for plenty of un-informed people, attempt to refute a physical truth in the face of their inadequate language. It is an appeal to "established" paradigms of our speech and pseudo-logical deconstruction.
867
868-
869
870"Further, why is a universe required to store information, and how is it stored?"
871
872A universe cannot exist without space and time, and supposedly also at least [the dimension for] energy to exist. A universe without these is inconceivable. Of course, once you evoke space and time, you evoke quantum fluctuations. Even [random events] randomness [are]/is a type of information. Information in itself does not imply orderliness.
873
874All universes contain some unit of information, which can be called their state, or information can be considered an internal state of the "system". No universes can be fully "empty". In many ways, a universe itself is a type of "quanta" of information.
875
876To a theologist, all information must be "programmed" into reality, like a written source code, by a “programmer” who has no “programmer” or other source (being “the source of all there is”, including itself). This is of no requirement in a secular natural scientific world view. As an example, the information stored within DNA must be "created by a creator" in the world-view of a theologist, because their religion provides an "explanation" of the natural world that "God created the 'world' in 7 days". To any quantum scientist, information is simply a state of energy.
877
878Information, like energy, can neither be created or destroyed per se, can [only] be re-organized, change "formating" or "translation", and be copied/transported somewhere else. I may have missed a few things here, but as a rule, like energy, neither created or destroyed. So how can a "creator" create an "un-creatable", which if we are being intellectually honest, they must actually be made of energy/information.
879
880https://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
881
882If you are stuck on this whole information-universe thing, I recommend you study "Minimal encoding" in holography and physical theory and "quantum computing".
883
884-
885
886"i[s] a primitive computer displaying the current state of nothing in said universe? Is the information physical? No, it's not - so please explain why it needs to have a physical presence?"
887
888Some people consider the universe to be a type of computer. I am not going to invoke this here, except to say that it is at minimum a helpful analogy.
889
890A universe cannot exist without space and time, and supposedly also at least the dimension for energy to exist. A universe without these is inconceivable. Of course, once you evoke space and time, you evoke quantum fluctuations. Even random events are a type of information.
891
892Try to describe anything to me without using some reference to a state of information and by communicating this information in some fashion to me; By this, I mean, please help me know what noun you are thinking of without conveying any information about that exact entity, including contextual or relational information which I could use to infer more accurate random guesses. If I said, "there is no information about this object, so the noun is nothing or their is no noun", I would be completely wrong, unless you were "envisioning nothing" in your mind.
893
894Technically I am not a mathematician nor a physicist, I am an inventor who home-schooled some topics in engineering over many years and have some experience successfully applying these concepts. In order to get a "satisfactory" response, you would have to ask an actual specialist about some of my claims.
895
896-
897
898Just because somebody may make an [accurate] observation, does not mean they come to an accurate conclusion. My example for this will be that time must "preceed God" in order for "God to proceed", therefore, "God exists!".
899
900It seems to me a lot of their rejections are on purely theological, or at best, philosophical grounds, are in no way rigorous enough to be considered "reasonable doubt" in the "court" of science.
901
902
903---
904
905Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 6: Terrible Teleology
906https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD4eAMrkIlM
907
908---
909
910In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion.
911
912The argument:
9131) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
9142) The universe began to exist.
9153) Therefore, the universe has a cause (and then they take it from there to "God" by showing the logical necessity of the properties of such a cause; that's a different story).
916
917The argument can be simplified to:
918P1) Everything that exists has a cause.
919P2) The universe exists.
920C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
921
922What the argument really means:
9231) Everything has a cause except for my "God".
9242) The universe had a cause.
9253) Therefore, "God" caused it.
926OR
9271) The universe at one point started to exist.
9282) There is a reason why the universe started to exist.
9293) Let's call that reason "God".
930OR
9311) Every event is part of a causal chain
9322) Causal loops and infinite causal chains are impossible.
9333) When following the causal chains back in time, they all converge to a single point; the beginning of all causal chains.
9344) Let's call that point "God".
935
936One response to this argument, beyond pointing out the fallacy, would be to point out that nature itself could have existed eternally in some form just as they say God had existed eternally before creating nature. One modern philosopher who has applied this argument is Carl Sagan, though he wasn't the first to do so.
937
938It is special pleading to say "God" didn't "begin to exist." That, in itself, is special pleading. Why does "God" not need a beginning? If God doesn't need to begin to exist, then neither does the meta-verse.
939
940That being said, such a special pleading when discussing a "First Cause" may have some degree of merit; as any computer scientist will tell you, the root of a nested hierarchy may need to be handled as a special case anyway, although said computer scientist can probably also add that there are plenty of directed acyclic graphs that have multiple roots.
941
942
943Theologists in general haven't really justified why "God" is exempt from the rules. Definitions and appeals to history don't cut it. They may respond that "it is simple. 'God' is not a thing that begins to exist. The issue is they need some [adequate] justification/s for that assertion, which on the whole they do not and perhaps cannot provide. If we can just define what we like, I can say the Universe is not a thing that begins to exist. No need for God. See how silly this is?
944
945I think my biggest issue with the argument (and is certainly classified as special pleading) is the unspoken assumption that the uncaused cause must take the form of a sentient agent, and not only that but a "super-capable sapient" one. It seems to me, even if we were to accept the necessity of an uncaused cause, this seems a bizarre and untenable assumption to make. If we take "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and then argue there was an actor of the first cause, then we do need special pleading for that first actor.
946
947If something is required to fill a gap due to "everything in the universe" not fitting it then it is, by definition, special pleading. "This is totally unique and doesn't have to fulfill a/many criteria the rest of the universe does"
948
949If causality is not a hard relationship (cause TO effect, past TO present AND present TO future) which certain observations suggest, then it's possible that the effect can proceed a cause, or that an effect can occur without a cause. Additionally, we don't know enough about the universe yet to say infinite regress is impossible. Maybe it is possible simply because 'something' has always existed and just keeps changing. Bottom line, though our minds 'require' a beginning it doesn't mean there actually is one.
950
951https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading
952
953http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam#Special_pleading_that_the_universe_is_not_necessarily_existent
954
955---
956
957Objectivity in science is a value that informs how science is practiced and how scientific truths are discovered. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc. Objectivity is often attributed to the property of scientific measurement, as the accuracy of a measurement can be tested independent from the individual scientist who first reports it. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction.
958
959Problems arise from not understanding the limits of objectivity in scientific research, especially when results are generalized. Given that the object selection and measurement process are typically subjective, when results of that subjective process are generalized to the larger system from which the object was selected, the stated conclusions are necessarily biased.
960
961Abductive reasoning or retroduction is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.
962
963Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposed assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command to their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
964
965In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion. The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (variously propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science.
966
967In a typical deductive argument, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth. The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments, the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.
968
969The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic. Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric. An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.
970
971Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning; that is, claims based, soundly or not, on premises. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.
972
973The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence, or specifically, their incompetence, at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyze their performance, leading to a significant overestimation of themselves. In simple words it's "people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are". The inverse also applies: competent people tend to underestimate their ability compared to others; this is known as impostor syndrome.
974
975Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. It is common to call the knowledge gained a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge).
976
977Logical consequence or entailment is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements. A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.
978
979Logical consequence is necessary and formal, by way of examples that explain with formal proof and models of interpretation. A sentence is said to be a logical consequence of a set of sentences, for a given language, if and only if, using only logic (i.e. without regard to any personal interpretations of the sentences) the sentence must be true if every sentence in the set is true.
980
981Logicians make precise accounts of logical consequence regarding a given language L , either by constructing a deductive system for L, or by formal intended semantics for language L. The Polish logician Alfred Tarski identified three features of an adequate characterization of entailment: (1) The logical consequence relation relies on the logical form of the sentences, (2) The relation is a priori, i.e. it can be determined with or without regard to empirical evidence (sense experience), and (3) The logical consequence relation has a modal component.
982
983Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 3: The Null Hypothesis
984https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAR29P6L4rM
985
986"Burden of proof" in English or "onus probandi" in Latin is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim. After litigants have met the burden of production and their claim is being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.
987
988The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
989
990The party that does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption of being correct, they are presumed to be correct, until the burden shifts after presentation of evidence by the party bringing the action. An example is in an American criminal case, where there is a presumption of innocence by the defendant. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
991
992Some individuals will discredit a statement, argument, or thesis as "Gish Gallop". Making reasonable assumptions based on theory and observed reality as well as being concise does not make something a Gish Gallop.
993
994The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.
995
996Any statement, argument, or thesis may be inaccurately labeled as a Gish Gallop to discredit the author or the content.
997
998Labeling something including a tactic as logically fallacious does not mean the label is deserving and/or correct. Without providing specific examples with proof, it can be waved off as conjecture by the applicator.
999
1000Does God exist? - Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku Debate
1001https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB90bBL2pxk
1002
1003How do theists attack pandeism?
1004https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLJq9QE3sw
1005
1006Pandeism vs theism and atheism: Where are the counter-arguments?
1007https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnkFAenB1Qs
1008
1009The Burden of Proof as applied to Pandeism
1010https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxWpQSJ1Qo
1011
1012https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
1013
1014---
1015
1016"Logic is convenient. Logically there must be a cause of the universe (literally in this case the "one universe" which you and I exist within), since it began to exist. [Perhaps] there is a creator. If this god is not the god of the bible, it may be another."
1017
1018Logic is at its core mathematically concise. Mathematics is logically a requisite of reality, as all of physics itself is mathematically concise. There is no need to invoke god in an eternal meta-verse, particularly when one understands this premise, which I have covered in my article.
1019
1020Not reading the article "fully", and then "refuting" itself [as a refutation of theology], only to invoke "God" as the "best explanation", and argue about the article and its authors "logical fallacies", while simultaneously invoking "appeal to supernatural" fallacy, among countless others, is intellectually dishonest, and in itself, logically inconsistent, as the holder must be selective in their search for truth and discredit good arguments in favor of a personal conviction, furthermore, when they accept a piece of information which may conflict with their world view, they "seek God" to "ease" their cognitive dissonance, which actually in and of itself re-enforces that dissonance at a future point in time when they re-ponder the conflicting information. Excuse making and magical thinking is not a sturdy ground to occupy or tread.
1021
1022---
1023
1024In the end, any discussion of the supernatural is meaningless, but we assume that it is meaningful for the sake of discussing the argument.
1025
1026Though it is not possible to disprove the existence of a God, it is possible to disprove the existence of certain attributes this God would possess, and furthermore we may rule out others as improbable, on top of the improbability of there being any kind of God. It follows that an intellectually honest atheist will also be an agnostic.
1027
1028---
1029
1030Definitions and clarifications:
1031
1032--
1033
1034I once got in an argument with somebody over the use of the words "Ex nihilio" over the words "Ab nihilio". I told them that they are synonymous. They accused me of etymological fallacy because I do not research the ancient meanings of words in dead languages (I just look for a translation with a modern definition and I am good to go).
1035
1036They were arguing about the proper use of a word, the true definition, but all they would provide is the words "from nothing" for Ab nihilio. They insist that this is a great difference and correct over "out of nothing". The meaning of "out of nothing" is synonymous with "from nothing". "I got my argument out of the dumpster" VS "I got my argument from the dumpster". They said "they are not synonymous, There is a serious difference that should never be allowed to be conflated when talking about physics". Ridiculous.... See for yourself:
1037
1038-
1039
1040http://membean.com/wrotds/ab-away
1041https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ab-
1042latin Prefix "Ab": apart, away from
1043From Middle English of, from Old English of (“of, from”), an unstressed form of af, æf (“from, off, away”), from Proto-Germanic *ab.
1044
1045Definition of "apart"
10461. (a) : at a little distance
1047(b) : away from one another in space or time
10482. (a) : as a separate unit : independently
1049(b) : so as to separate one from another
10503. : excluded from consideration : aside
10514. : in or into two or more parts : to pieces
1052Definition of "apart from"
1053: other than : besides, except for
1054Definition of "away from"
1055: not at : at a distance : become detached : abandon
1056does not contain xxx, xxx does not reside, disconnected,
1057
1058Extension of latin "ab" as greek and english prefix, "apo":
1059
1060"apo" Prefix Greek
1061ἀπο- • (apo-)
10621. Indicating movement: away, from, off
10632. Indicating breaking one part from another: un-, asunder, apart, off
10643. Indicating ending or finishing, or almost like the negative ἀ- (a-, “not”), especially in adjectives
10654. back, again
10665. Simply emphasizing the meaning of the verb
10676. because of, owing to
1068
1069"apo" Prefix English
1070apo-
10711. away from, or separate
10722. without, or lacking
10733. (chemistry) derived from, or related to
10744. (biochemistry) the apoprotein form of the protein
1075
1076-
1077
1078http://membean.com/wrotds/ex-out
1079https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ex-
1080latin Prefix "Ex": out, away, throughout, (intensive) thoroughly, denoting achievement, up, denoting privation
1081
1082Definition of "out of":
10831 [a] (1) —used as a function word to indicate direction or movement from within to the outside of
1084(2) —used as a function word to indicate a change in quality, state, or form
10851 [b] (1) —used as a function word to indicate a position or situation beyond the range, limits, or sphere of
1086(2) —used as a function word to indicate a position or state away from the usual or expected
10872 —used as a function word to indicate origin, source, or cause
10883 —used as a function word to indicate exclusion from or deprivation of
10894 —used as a function word to indicate choice or selection from a group
10905 —used as a function word to indicate the center of an enterprise or activity
10916 -beginning at, coming out of, deriving out of, originating at, starting with, (by the whole of), in association with, in connection with, xxx
1092
1093Extension of latin "ex" as greek and english prefix, "ex":
1094
1095"ex" Prefix Greek
1096ἐξ • (ex) (governs the genitive case: Expresses possession or relation, equivalent to the English of.)
1097
1098"ex" Prefix English
1099From Latin ex (“out of, from”), *eǵʰs. Cognate with Ancient Greek ἐξ (ex, “out of, from”)
1100out of
1101outside
1102former, but still living (almost always used with a hyphen); ex-husband, ex-president, ex-wife
1103(biology) Lacking.; excaudate, exstipulate
1104
1105-
1106
1107"out of" and "(apart/away)from" are synonyms, "out of" matching at "away from", "apart from", "apart", and "(far) away" and "from" matching at "out of". Everything points towards these being interchangeable terms.
1108
1109Definition of ex nihilo
1110: from or out of nothing
1111First Known Use: 1656
1112
1113Further linguistic information can be induced from other romance based languages:
1114
1115https://www.linguee.es/espanol-ingles/search?source=auto&query=ab+nihilo
1116https://www.linguee.es/espanol-ingles/search?source=auto&query=ex+nihilo
1117
1118https://www.linguee.pt/portugues-ingles/traducao/ex+nihilo.html
1119https://www.linguee.pt/ingles-portugues/traducao/ab+nihilo.html
1120
1121-
1122
1123I have looked high and low for a definitive definitional difference to the words used in conjuction "Ab"+"Nihilo" and "Ex"+"Nihilo" and may have discovered something. It is clear that "Ab" implies the additional attribute of being apart, away, or separated from. "Ex" does not attribute this, and it could be implied within this context that it is the possessive opposite of "Ab", so it additionally means component of, present, and throughout.
1124    
1125I intend to convey "out of nothing", not "apart from nothing". One conveys that it "arose from", the other just says that it is "independent from". You can drop the "apart" from "apart from", leaving only "from", but according to the lingual purist who convicted me of etymological fallacy, you can't do that and get away with it, only original meaning, not living definitions... XP
1126
1127If you change the meaning of "Ab" a bit by removing the context of it meaning away or apart, it really comes down to preference in sentence structure, for example either "are generated out of nothing" or "comes into existence from nothing", or "generantur ex nihilo" and "ab nihilo existit" respectively. I see no good reason to prefer the use of "Ab Nihilo" over "Ex nihilo" except in the case of Ab Nihilo to say that the universe is a independent separate entity than nothing, but the Ex Nihilo zero-energy sum universe/multiverse origin I tout for my theorem is based on the supposition that nothing and reality are the same thing or that reality is of nothing, so there is no such thing as a state of existence consisting of true nothingness. Everything I have seen verifies that their shared operator is synonymous.
1128
1129-
1130
1131It does seem possible that Ab Nihilo should come first in a statement, followed by the conclusion of Ex Nihilo if appropriate: "To be made from nothing, from which a thing separated out of nothing." "Esse factum ab nihilo, unde aliquid re separari ex nihilo".
1132
1133The opposite can be true though: "Which product can be seen to be generated out of nothing, for nothing in return, which is separated from nothing" translates in spanish to "Qué producto se puede ver que se genera de la nada, a cambio de nada, que se separa de la nada" and in latin to "Quod videtur esse generarentur productum potest esse ex nihilo, quia nihil mutuo poscentes, in quo separata est ab nihilo".
1134
1135-
1136
1137According to them, "From nothingness" and "no input of energy" are not the same. In this manner, ex nihilo is not appropriate substitute for ab nihilo in cosmology." They provide no other explanation than this for their dispute of the proper use of a ambiguous word in latin.
1138
1139Here is the only partially scientific article I can find with the DuckDuckGo search engine that uses the word Ab Nihilo instead of Ex Nihilo:
1140https://medium.com/@rloldershaw/there-is-always-an-alternative-to-creationism-49fcd61eece7
1141
1142-
1143
1144I have thoroughly researched the disputed words and have found that the preference of the person who raised the argument does not dictate other peoples freedom of speech, and furthermore that their claim of inaccuracy (and incompetence) is without basis in context of my use of the word, which is precisely what I mean to convey.
1145
1146-
1147
1148There is no such thing as a total "nothingness" in physics. There is always "something" even in an "empty" vacuum. "Nothingness" is physically impossible but still a word worth using as a simple abstract term in the layman's context of the discussion of how the universe/multiverse exists. The very notion of nothing is idealistic. The scientific method cannot work with things than have no definition. As soon as you define "nothingness" then you ascribe it properties and it's no longer "nothing".
1149
1150Nothing is in itself a paradox.
1151
1152My proof is basically:
1153
1154Nothing = 0 things
1155
1156For generic reasoning, there are three primary states of information: yes (known) OR 1, no (known) OR 0, un/not-known OR -1.
1157
1158What is the state of things when there is only nothing? it is 0
1159
1160nothing itself having the state of 0, therefore requires information to exist, as in a trit, being 0 out of balanced ternary.
1161
1162Therefore, even when nothing exists, there is one bit existing within an information system, and this "invokes" at least one universe to contain this information state. Not to mention that mathematics is "omnipresent" for this same reason.
1163
1164https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary
1165
1166"Absolute nothing" cannot exist, namely the example I gave above and the fact that an "empty" vacuum is teeming with quantum fluctuations or "foam".
1167
1168There is literally 0 need to invoke a creator deity or any other creator to explain why there is something instead of nothing.
1169
1170-
1171
1172Some may say that this article relies heavily on arguments from ignorance. I have read about the "argument from ignorance", and while this may be true for some arguments and in articles of this nature, the fact that a thorough general knowledge has been attained by myself, the writer of the article, and that a meta-analysis of this information (which is regarded as fact to the highest degree attainable) yields a strong conclusion, [which at least at first pass] comes to a conclusion that agnosticism is intellectually honest while atheism is a reasonable position to take for general discussion; The equal possibility of "God" being completely improbable and never coming about in any variety, and "God" being greatly improbable and coming about in some specific variety which is actually possible, requires naturalism and scientific explanation as well as mathematical logical consistency. In fact the very article I read on "Argument from ignorance" specifically stated "This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma" AND "these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proved, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty."
1173
1174I do not say with absolute certainty that god does not or cannot exist, just that the probability of its existence can be drastically reduced when you constrain its properties to "greater powers" or "Omega point" [of a Zeno machine] and especially when making a special pleading of a modified "first cause". In fact, my only strong concluding arguments are that any God that does exist must conform to naturalistic scientific and mathematically logical constraints, or it is literally impossible, as well as that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take whether one is a [pan]deist/[pan]theist or an adeist/atheist.
1175
1176"Absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability and in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the positive evidence should have been there but is not."
1177
1178Hey, don't get me wrong, though I think they are mis-applying their skepticism skills here by labeling, I can appreciate the reminder to double check my arguments and pick my battles better, as well as know my strengths. The thing is, there is the counter argument that this label is evoked by a type of ignorance gap, which I happen to have the "answers" to, but any attempt to answer either way is always heavily disputed. How can logical fallacies be evoked if God itself requires violations of mathematical logic and has "appeal to supernatural", and requires evocation of "God of the gaps". It seems like they disagree that "God exists as/in an ever receding corner of scientific ignorance", and I basically as an agnostic agree that the only God/s that can/[and/or]/do exist are the one/s that are "physically possible".
1179
1180One slightly un-intentional purpose of this article is to affect the choice of pascal’s wager, and to weigh the decision with adequate information fitting the criteria of the "question at hand". It does not say which "pool to jump/dive into", just that you should not jump into any "Gnostic" pools, and that a "secular" worldview is entirely beneficial in any regard.
1181
1182I agree that with our current state of knowledge about the universe and meta-verse, and with extension by philosophical rhetoric, that "we can never know for sure" if God does or does not exist for 100% certainty. In balanced ternary we would basically say that this piece of information is in a perpetual state of -1, and is not only un-known but "impossible to determine" any further than the -1 state.
1183
1184This does not necessarily translate into "un-certainty" of a real "object", and if it indeed does is basically also stuck in perpetual -1 balanced ternary informatic state.
1185
1186Pleading that God uses Quantum effects to evade detection is ridiculous. In fact implying their [intentional] use in a way similar to the capabilities of their implementations as understood currently and in the not so distant future by our physical theories basically makes "God" un-able to affect this or any other universe, since their state and interactions are intrinsically "un-detectable", or particularly in this proposition "un-knowable", which some would say is a type of strawman argument, which is really oh so useful for the purpose of discussion and discourse. Of course, there are LOADS of individuals who would make special pleads for Quantum woo to attempt and salvage any of their irrational beliefs.
1187
1188Stating that I am making an argument from ignorance is basically breaking itself down because Godel's incompleteness theorem will say that all axiomatic systems are incomplete and will never be fully complete, and in this way, all is simply a state of -1, because we can never really know, as our measurements will never be "plank resolution" as well as "meta-verse resolution", and even if they were, no computer that a sapient being could make could operate to produce a usable output of some calculation using this kind of massive data; Simply importing the data into the machine would violate conservation of information, I am about ~99.999999999999% certain of that, and any "workaround" would be extreme and most likely not even plausible on any workable timescale, even if it was somehow physically possible.
1189
1190I am well aware that much of my counter-arguments are perhaps perceived as heavily lain/sewn with confirmation bias, but I am fairly certain that I have been objective as one can be.
1191
1192Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence
1193https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dntFBWfWMU4
1194
1195Mathematical Proof that Absence of Evidence *IS* Evidence of Absence
1196https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNiW4_6R3I
1197
1198-
1199
1200Arguing semantics like this is not really useful in discourse over this kind of article; It is only frivolous or nit-picky; It does not serve to further or diminish the propositions within it.
1201
1202--
1203
1204Could your views on God and immigration be changed by using MAGNETS? Study claims brain stimulation can alter beliefs:
1205http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3272289/Could-views-God-immigration-changed-using-MAGNETS-Brain-stimulation-alter-beliefs-study-claims.html
1206
1207A new study performed at the University of York used targeted magnetism to shut down part of the brain. The result: belief in God disappeared among more than 30 percent of participants.
1208
1209The specific part of the brain they frazzled was the posterior medial frontal cortex—the part associated with detecting and solving problems, i.e., reasoning and logic. In other words, when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result. Sounds to me it takes less effort to be an atheist then the additional brain power you need for confirmation bias when you believe in a god.
1210
1211---
1212
1213The [ignorant] [typically] "Gnostic" theists/deists will poke holes in this type of article or just ignore it. They will say "God doesn't work like that". There is no reasonable standard of "evidence" for them, nor adequate proof or affirmation, except that of "God" itself and of the sentiment that "[my] [']God['] is real".
1214
1215---
1216
1217Additional resources:
1218
1219-
1220
1221Logical Possibility - Where Do I Even Begin? (1)
1222https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Swsi9J5oQc
1223
1224List of common fallacies
1225http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
1226
1227The problems with beliefs
1228http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm
1229
1230Problems with Creationism
1231http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm
1232
1233The General Anti-Creationism FAQ
1234http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
1235
1236Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
1237http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
1238
1239THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION
1240http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
1241
1242The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion
1243http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
1244
1245---
1246
1247This article has a companion article:
1248
1249countering anti-scientific individuals
1250xxx (pastebin)