Disproving a Creator (God) ?

Author

Message

Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertsing.

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Post subject:

kafir forever
Senior Member

Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:09 am Post subject:

Tvebak wrote:

kafir forever wrote:

Tvebak wrote:

kafir forever wrote:

I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies.

Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm

And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm
What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist. Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet.

You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.

Hi KF

Yes that site seems definitly worth looking at. Thanks for the links. But will refrain from commenting on it untill I have read some of it thouroughly.

Cheers

Have you pondered on it yet, Tvebak?

Hi fellow kafir.

No sorry not yet. Been wind up with other things, but I promise that I will respond on the matter when I have read it. That is, if I have anything 'clever' to say about it

Cheers

Even if your thougts are not 'clever' I am still interested in your thoughts. The first 4 sections of the article are much more readable than the rest, which is highly technical, but well worth the attempt to understand IMO.

careperson
New Member

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 18

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:03 am Post subject:

kafir forever wrote:

careperson wrote:

If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.

I wonder if you realize just how correct you are. I am aware of a theory in physics that makes the case that space itself must have a positive energy in order for anything to happen. To have that positive energy, something must be in motion, but it does not have to be observable matter.

Quote:

If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it.

I am sorry, but I do not understand that sentence. Maybe English is not your primary language.

I meant that the fundamental transitory property that resulted in 'energy'- and its other forms (i.e., space, time, organic componds, matter etc) does not necessitate a 'being' to initiate it.
God, thus cannot be the 'first cause'- here i am closer to QS.
I hold that the 'motion-flow-flux-transition' is equiprimordial as the energy is.
In other words, 'energy' is the unstabilizable fundamental mobility that spirals into other forms of existance.
Please bear with my bad english. I am not a native english speaker.
_________________
I care

kafir forever
Senior Member

Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:26 am Post subject:

careperson wrote:

kafir forever wrote:

careperson wrote:

If absolute stillness ever existed then God cannot evolve from it!- Not just God- nothing would have been possible.

Quote:

If there existed a condition where flow and transition possible, then that flow and transition precedes having no necessary for a God to create it.

I am sorry, but I do not understand that sentence. Maybe English is not your primary language.

I meant that the fundamental transitory property that resulted in 'energy'- and its other forms (i.e., space, time, organic componds, matter etc) does not necessitate a 'being' to initiate it.

Got it, and I agree completely.

Quote:

God, thus cannot be

or need not be

Quote:

the 'first cause'- here i am closer to QS.

Yes.

Quote:

I hold that the 'motion-flow-flux-transition' is equiprimordial as the energy is.
In other words, 'energy' is the unstabilizable fundamental mobility that spirals into other forms of existance.
Please bear with my bad english. I am not a native english speaker.

You are doing fine, and I appreciate the clarifications.

I wish others on this thread would come back and post some comments and observations.

kafir forever
Senior Member

Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:57 am Post subject:

Tvebak and Careperson: Let's discuss this further.

careperson
New Member

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 18

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:38 am Post subject:

The god hypothesis gets disproved once the non-necessity of the 'starting point' is established. Further, God is necessitated when one tends to think that like one's own soul, there should be a super soul! The belief in one having a permanent soul arises from a egocentric aspiration to be everlasting. Mind, just a body effect- is misconstrued as if it were a bodiless being- soul- capable of existing without a body!God too is imagined as a bodiless being, an super form of the soul entity!Without body there is no mind! There is no soul- when there is no mind! A bodiless god can have no mind! Defined differently, mind is in whatever we mind! At this moment of writing my mind is the pc in which i am typing! Mind, then is not a thing in itself, but a phenomenon of being engaged with outside oneself! Strangely enough, nothing can be absolutely itself! Being absolutely itself is to be selfsame-immobile-mindless-static-changeless! selfsameness is a theoretical impossibility. Alas! God entity is a selfsame- ever remaining same thing! God, imagined to be having nothing outside itself, not even time, space or any possibilities is a phenomenon impossible! _________________ I care

Tvebak
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 277

Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject:

kafir forever wrote:

Tvebak and Careperson:

Let's discuss this further.

Hi KF

Sorry I'm trying to spend less time, overall, on the internet, so I'm have been cutting down my time debating different issues. I hope that I will have some time this weekend to read Smiths thoughts and try to chew on it. Then I will return. I'll be back

_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...

kafir forever
Senior Member

Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:47 am Post subject:

Tvebak wrote:

kafir forever wrote:

Tvebak and Careperson:

Let's discuss this further.

Thanks. Let me bottom line some of it for you.

He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4. The rest is the logic behind it.

Tvebak
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 277

Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:24 am Post subject:

kafir forever wrote:

Thanks. Let me bottom line some of it for you.

He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4. The rest is the logic behind it.

I must admit I haven't come about yet. Tried a couple of nights, but it turned out to be a perfect sleeping drug

and now I can't find my print-out. Which article was it again?

Peace
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...

kafir forever
Senior Member

Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:02 am Post subject:

Tvebak wrote:

kafir forever wrote:

Thanks. Let me bottom line some of it for you.

He makes these distinctions in sections 1 - 4. The rest is the logic behind it.

I must admit I haven't come about yet. Tried a couple of nights, but it turned out to be a perfect sleeping drug

and now I can't find my print-out. Which article was it again?

Peace

It is the article on Absolute Simultaneity and the Infinity of Time. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/absolute...eity_and_the_infinity_of_time.htm

I know it is very sleepy stuff. I have read this article 6 or 8 times. The first four sections are more readable than the middle sections, and the last section summarizes his conclusions, if that helps.

careperson
New Member

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 18

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject:

Thank you KF for the good discussion. The discussion already reached a conclusion on the non-necessity of God hypothesis to explain existence. Nothing needs to be originated from God as, the origin itself necessitates no starting point! there exists no such starting point! not just staring point, there is no end point either. Time never ends!So does space. Space never shrinks into an absolute zero! No moment of time is possible without its past and future extensions! Every nanosecond has its nanopast and nanofuture! Such is the vibrancy of existence. _________________ I care

FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT