What's belief got to do with existence?
The topic of whether or not God exists has been debated for thousands of years, and yet, no consensus has been reached among the unholy trinity of Atheists, Agnostics and Theists. Is it possible for God to exist or not?Theists, atheists, and agnostics alike all take a similar position on the topic; a position founded upon subjective belief. Theists believe that God created matter and space (the Universe) out of nothing, agnostics don't have a clue what they believe, and atheists believe that God does not exist (but considers the Creation of the matter & space by a divine entity to be possible). In this article, I will explain why belief is irrelevant when considering any question regarding existence and I give an overview of the arguments which explain why God does not exist and why creation out of nothing is impossible.
------------------
Belief and Ontology
"If knowledge is the ability to predict a future event and belief is the degree of reliability you place in a past event, it would seem that existence is unrelated to either word." - Bill Gaede
In order to settle an argument objectively, the key words of the argument must be defined unambiguously. Once the terms are defined, we can determine whether or not the terms are consistent or contradictory. By defining the key term of the atheist/theist position: exist, it is easy to discover that such a position is irrational.
[Read more on why we need definitions in science: http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/04Hypot/03Definition.html]
Exist: Object with location; physical presence
Object: That which has shape (form, finite, entity, thing, boundary)
Does an object disappear if you refuse to believe in it Does belief have anything to do with whether or not something exists at all? Is belief a word to be invoked in a rational conversation about reality? NO! Reality does not depend on your beliefs, so approaching anybody with the position, "I don't believe in God." is essentially offering your subjective opinion with no rational justification whatsoever. Opinions are completely independent from rational conclusions. Either you can justify WHY it is possible or impossible for God to exist & create the universe or you get off the stage. A rational debate does not involve petty beliefs and opinions. Only rational, objective explanations, given without any observer-related (subjective) concepts, can be considered scientific.
Atheism and Agnosticism are irrational positions and they have nothing to do with philosophy or science. They only serve to confuse debates, provide ammo for theists, and prolong the discussion about an issue that could have been resolved centuries ago.
-----------------
Why God doesn't exist.
 |
| Source: billgaede.hubpages.com |
So, if belief plays no role in deciding whether or not God could exist, how do we determine the answer of this popular question? By using the Scientific Method, of course. Similar to a physicist hypothesizing (assuming) a certain model of the atom or of light in order to explain it's behavior, we can hypothesize God, theorize about this alleged creation event, and then conclude whether or not the event is possible or not possible. [See: What is a Hypothesis?]
Since concepts do not qualify for existence, hypotheses such as: "God is intelligence, love, wisdom, almighty, ect." exclude God from the possibility of existence. However, The Bible clearly states that God is an object; i.e. that which has shape.
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
Since concepts do not qualify for existence, hypotheses such as: "God is intelligence, love, wisdom, almighty, ect." exclude God from the possibility of existence. However, The Bible clearly states that God is an object; i.e. that which has shape.
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
-Phillipians 2:6
 |
| Fig. 1. God |
So far we've got a reasonable hypothesis: This guy right here with the beard? We'll call him God. That's all we know so far and there are no conceptual problems with this hypothesis. We have an object, a name for the object, and we are assuming that the object exists. Unfortunately for theists and atheists alike, the problem comes in the next stage of our investigation: the Theory of Creation.
------------------
The ToC is irrational for a number of reasons. See the image to the right. This is as close as you'll ever get to an objective representation of God creating the universe. The conceptual errors come on three levels.
1. In frame 2 there is only God and a background. One object and nothing else. Instantaneously, in ZERO time, the very next frame contains a second "object" alleged to be the Universe. This is inconceivable due to the fact that events are dynamic, i.e. an event cannot possibly occur without motion. Creation from nothing leaves no time for motion. In a single static instant, nothing must transform into something, contradicting the very definition of an event and simultaneously ruling out the relation of God to the event. God doesn't even have time to move, and the verb "to create" cannot be performed without motion.
[Read more: http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/03SciRel.html]
2. Actions and processes can only be performed by or on objects. The action of "to transform" or "to pop out of...", "to create out of..." ect. can ONLY be performed upon objects. It is fundamentally irrational to attempt to transform "nothing". An action is a relation between two or more objects, it is IMPOSSIBLE for nothing to perform any action or have actions performed upon "it".
[Read more: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-an-Object]
3. Finally, the alleged event is the creation of SPACE and MATTER, but if space is part of what He's creating, then what is surrounding God providing His Holiness with shape? An object is no object without shape and only objects can exist. An object REQUIRES space to exist, it's impossible to imagine anything without a background providing the object with shape. Since God's existence depends upon space, God could not have possibly created space either.[Read more: http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/03SciRel.html]
Since it's impossible for God to have created either space or matter, we can conclude that it is impossible for God to have created the Universe.
-------------------
------------------
The Irrational Theory of Creation
 |
The ToC is irrational for a number of reasons. See the image to the right. This is as close as you'll ever get to an objective representation of God creating the universe. The conceptual errors come on three levels.
1. In frame 2 there is only God and a background. One object and nothing else. Instantaneously, in ZERO time, the very next frame contains a second "object" alleged to be the Universe. This is inconceivable due to the fact that events are dynamic, i.e. an event cannot possibly occur without motion. Creation from nothing leaves no time for motion. In a single static instant, nothing must transform into something, contradicting the very definition of an event and simultaneously ruling out the relation of God to the event. God doesn't even have time to move, and the verb "to create" cannot be performed without motion.
[Read more: http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/03SciRel.html]
2. Actions and processes can only be performed by or on objects. The action of "to transform" or "to pop out of...", "to create out of..." ect. can ONLY be performed upon objects. It is fundamentally irrational to attempt to transform "nothing". An action is a relation between two or more objects, it is IMPOSSIBLE for nothing to perform any action or have actions performed upon "it".
[Read more: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-an-Object]
 |
| Source: youstupidrelativist.com |
3. Finally, the alleged event is the creation of SPACE and MATTER, but if space is part of what He's creating, then what is surrounding God providing His Holiness with shape? An object is no object without shape and only objects can exist. An object REQUIRES space to exist, it's impossible to imagine anything without a background providing the object with shape. Since God's existence depends upon space, God could not have possibly created space either.[Read more: http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/03SciRel.html]
Since it's impossible for God to have created either space or matter, we can conclude that it is impossible for God to have created the Universe.
-------------------
Conclusion
If we are to be a community of rational thinkers, then we ought to drop the irrational, meaningless labels of Atheism and Agnosticism. If we want to refute the idea of God the Creator, then we need to use the Rational Scientific Method. [Read more: http://monkeyminds.hubpages.com/hub/The-REAI-Scientific-Method] That way, we can objectively analyze statements and theories about reality and rationally determine whether or not they are possible or impossible. Opinions of belief, knowledge, certainty, ect. have no place in any rational explanation regarding reality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment