God is Impossible

[lightgigantic]

And your evidence for
(a) that there is anything other than material elements is.... ?

And your evidence that all that exists is inert material is?

(b) that "mere material elements bereft of consciousness" can not produce variety is.... ?

and your evidence that material elements bereft of conscious influence can produce variety is?

Stop spouting and support your claims.

stop making claims of confidence in the effort to avoid being introspective about your general principles

 

[swivel]

beyondspaceandtime, I thank you for taking my disproof seriously, and for the formal treatment you gave it. I want you to know that I extended the same courtesy by sleeping on my reply.

The first thing I would have to say is the obvious: You attempt to disprove my disproof by changing the concept of god that is disproved. As I state in the very beginning, this is not a global disproof of all gods, as there is at least one god for every theists, but merely a demonstration that gods may be disproved if theists are ever bold enough to define them. You have taken care to push my definitions around in a way that appears to free you of the shackles of logic, and while well-worded and obviously from a highly-intelligent source, I do not think that you have succeeded.

A major flaw in your re-defining is thinking that the speed of "time" is germane. It isn't. I have used as an analogy "God brewing a cup of coffee = One unit of time". The reason is clear, you can have a very "long" and involved set of actions, and if you are culling from an infinite set, you can take any subset of finite length, and still use those as units of another infinite set.

You finally lost me when you said that there was no time before God created the universe, because there was no change. That God "Contemplated Himself". What you have done here is invented a new god. And one that would be far easier for me to disprove, as the logical constraints on self-creation can be diagrammed quite easily.

Your god is a strange one, and as such, one that is not covered by my disproof. I am talking about the god that a few billion people worship. The main difference being that their god is ETERNAL, while your god had a BEGINNING. And in many ways, you have helped prove my disproof by demonstrating what is necessary to keep god safe, you have to rob him of one of the three attributes that I used, and you end up with something bizarre in return.

I sincerely hope that nobody is fooled into thinking that some technical-sounding discussion of infinities is enough to shake the logic of my disproof, but if you or anyone else is still unsure, I am very eager to continue this discussion. The more seriously the disproof is challenged, the more assuredly I feel that it has done its job.


Edit: Insertnamehere, you have re-defined god as well, and I don't think very many theists would agree with you in saying that their god has not Always Been. Besides, it contradicts the Old Testament of the Bible, which a good number of these theists hold to be true. It also raises some dangerous spiritual questions... if suddenly came into being, what caused that event? If such a complex thing can pop into being (or self-conceptualize as beyondspaceandtime suggests), then why have a god do this to create the universe? Why not just have the universe pop into being?

For both of you, the whole point of a god (one of the biggest ones, really) is to have some prime causer of all things around us. For that to work, the thing needed to have no cause himself. He needed to be around "always", just waiting to do all things. That was a cave-man idea that has survived a very long time by use of fear and peer-pressure. But we have progressed beyond cave-man logic. Haven't we?

And while I love Aristotle for what he was at the time that he existed, I will never use anything he, or any of the ancient Greeks ever said as evidence for anything. As brilliant as those men of old were, they were mostly wrong about everything. And the worship they received from future generations held scientific progress captive for over 1,000 years. Anything they were correct on has been said better by someone more contemporary.

 

[Godless]

The past, present and future all exist at once, as a single point of the eternal present. So, God's knowledge of the future exists now because God is experiencing the future now.

This is imposible! "God does not play dice" Einstein. meaning that not even god will determine the outcome of the roll of dices.

Time is a singular phenomenon, any entity that exist in time must follow that law of singulraity of time, no entity can live in the future, past, and present, this is what is not logical.

BT&S I've always known you have a very brilliant mind, I consider you most secular than any other theist I've ever met, that's why why chat often, I learned from you plenty, but not always can I agree with your assertions, though very intellectualy worded, in the end it's prety good rhetoric. I hope you don't take this wrong my friend.

And while I love Aristotle for what he was at the time that he existed, I will never use anything he, or any of the ancient Greeks ever said as evidence for anything. As brilliant as those men of old were, they were mostly wrong about everything. And the worship they received from future generations held scientific progress captive for over 1,000 years. Anything they were correct on has been said better by someone more contemporary.

Not all true, many philosophers after the time of Plato & Aristotle followed in their footsteps, yes they conseived better ways to explain their philosphical theories, but non the less the basis of their philosophy followed one of the two. Unfortunately the shool of thought Platonism is the one most religions base their idealogies, our form of governments, and ethics all are from the school basically of Plato. While on the other hand, means of production, bussiness, liberalism, consumerism, secularism, all stem from the shool of thought of Aristotle, correct that all their theories were not accurate, but non the less, all philosophers either base their theories on these two fellows.

Marx-Plato
Sartre-Aristotle
Hume-Aristotle
Kant-Plato
Dewey-Plato
Rand-Aristotle

And the list can go on, however the two main philosphical basis that these contemporary philosophers use are etiher a variation of Platonism or Aristotelianism.

 

[Sauna]

Did you even read my post? Everything is at once for the actually infinite being. Contemplation of Himself is simultaneous with His creation, with His union with created things, etc. Moreover, it isn't the contemplation of that which never changed, it is the contemplation of that whose infinite change is simultaneous, infinitely fast.

I must have missed the bit where it explained why God felt the need to create to to the extent us being presently conscious of the passing of time while pretending to measure it.

I want to know why God did that and if the Kingdom of Heaven is the same should I wish to apply to enter.

 

[Sauna]

Whos to say that an infinite amount of time existed before creation? "God is eternal" only means that god will exist for an infinite amount of time from the present, not before.

That is what the usual definition says:

1.without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eternal&x=53&y=23

 

[SkinWalker]

however what you don't get with mere eternal material elements bereft of consicousness is variety

Your statement is clearly false since variety is exactly what we have with a universe that has been around for eternity.

 

[swivel]

Not all true, many philosophers after the time of Plato & Aristotle followed in their footsteps, yes they conseived better ways to explain their philosphical theories, but non the less the basis of their philosophy followed one of the two. Unfortunately the shool of thought Platonism is the one most religions base their idealogies, our form of governments, and ethics all are from the school basically of Plato. While on the other hand, means of production, bussiness, liberalism, consumerism, secularism, all stem from the shool of thought of Aristotle, correct that all their theories were not accurate, but non the less, all philosophers either base their theories on these two fellows.

Marx-Plato
Sartre-Aristotle
Hume-Aristotle
Kant-Plato
Dewey-Plato
Rand-Aristotle

And the list can go on, however the two main philosphical basis that these contemporary philosophers use are etiher a variation of Platonism or Aristotelianism.

My big gripe isn't with any of the Classical thinkers, it is the homage we pay to them in the name of never questioning their pronouncements. The Middle Ages were stagnant, not because of religious oppression (as is the trendy cause), but because people never questioned the edicts of Aristotle.

I'm a huge geek on the history of science and philosophy. I could go on for ages and ages about this trend, and how much it cost the progress of humankind, but this is not the thread for it.

Back on subject: Gods are illogical!

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

beyondspaceandtime, I thank you for taking my disproof seriously, and for the formal treatment you gave it. I want you to know that I extended the same courtesy by sleeping on my reply.

The first thing I would have to say is the obvious: You attempt to disprove my disproof by changing the concept of god that is disproved. As I state in the very beginning, this is not a global disproof of all gods, as there is at least one god for every theists, but merely a demonstration that gods may be disproved if theists are ever bold enough to define them. You have taken care to push my definitions around in a way that appears to free you of the shackles of logic, and while well-worded and obviously from a highly-intelligent source, I do not think that you have succeeded.

I can agree with this criticism. However, only partly. I agree in the sense that I have changed the God-concept that you disproved, for, really, if the God-concept you presented were the one I have been taught, then I would certainly disbelieve it too. However, I only agree with this criticism to that extent. The God I argued is the kind of God that holds all of the classical attributes associated with God: Eternality, Omnipotence, Infinity, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Pure Actuality, Prime Mover, Prime Cause, Complete, Supremely Perfect, etc. Moreover, while it may not be a God that most people believe in, since all of these qualities are difficult to tie together (except if one can be introduced properly to the concept of actual infinity). This is God as understood in Catholic theology, but certainly not understood as such by most Catholics... unfortunately.

A major flaw in your re-defining is thinking that the speed of "time" is germane. It isn't. I have used as an analogy "God brewing a cup of coffee = One unit of time". The reason is clear, you can have a very "long" and involved set of actions, and if you are culling from an infinite set, you can take any subset of finite length, and still use those as units of another infinite set.

Understood.

You finally lost me when you said that there was no time before God created the universe, because there was no change. That God "Contemplated Himself". What you have done here is invented a new god. And one that would be far easier for me to disprove, as the logical constraints on self-creation can be diagrammed quite easily.

I have not invented a new God. I am completely consistent with the God I have always been taught. There was no 'time' before the creation not because God didn't exist before the universe, but because all of God's existence before the universe was simultaneous. In effect, all of God's self-contemplation exists as a single point, unlike what happens in temporality. Time is a measure between two temporal points, two, because between those points a change takes place, a movement from potential to actual. God is fully actualized, thus why God has been called "Pure Act." Yet, we understand that thought, and actions are movements between potential and actual. In God, an actual infinite, these movements are simultaneous, because these actualizations take place infinitely fast. It takes place at once. They all do. We recognize this possibility in mathematics with real numbers, and we recognize there are differences in thought-speed in psychology as intuition and logic (both of which follow the same rules of order and coherence, but which take different speeds).

Anyway, it isn't self-creation. God has always existed and will always exist, as an immutable singularity, across all space and time. I have removed nothing from God's attributes, I merely disagree with the way you define those attributes. God is eternal, thinking and He created the universe.

I sincerely hope that nobody is fooled into thinking that some technical-sounding discussion of infinities is enough to shake the logic of my disproof, but if you or anyone else is still unsure, I am very eager to continue this discussion. The more seriously the disproof is challenged, the more assuredly I feel that it has done its job.

It isn't merely technical-sounding. Perhaps I simply haven't been able to explain it properly, but it is clear to me. Not fully, as infinites are always difficult for finite minds to grasp, but it is clear enough for me to be certain. Moreover, I stated clearly that your logic is sound, given that your premises are true. It is the premises I question, and that questioning lies in your definitions.

 

[swivel]

Thanks for the reply. I'm still not sure what you mean by saying that god and the universe came into being at the same time. I would really like to delve into this further with you because it is exactly one of the outcomes that I mention at the end of the disproof. It is one of the escapes had by taking only two of the three axioms as true. Namely, you are taking away the "eternal" axiom by putting a limit on the past in general.

So, to clarify, I have a few questions:

1. Prior to god and the universe, was there complete vacuum and therefore stasis?

2. What event (if any) caused god's existence to come into being?

3. Where the two events truly simultaneous?

3. (A) If yes, then did god create the universe, or could it not be said that the universe created god.
3. (B) If no, then did god come into being in the vacuum, and then "decide" to create the universe, time, and all within it?

4. If god could come into being, either to create the universe, or alongside it, then why couldn't the universe also come into being from stasis, and have all of the (seemingly) godless attributes that it currently has.

Thanks in advance.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

This is imposible! "God does not play dice" Einstein. meaning that not even god will determine the outcome of the roll of dices.

God does not determine the outcome. His experience of the future is simultaneous with future events, not the cause (at least not directly... just, not the cause when we're talking about human free will).

Time is a singular phenomenon, any entity that exist in time must follow that law of singulraity of time, no entity can live in the future, past, and present, this is what is not logical.

No finite entity, correct. Time is the measure of progressive change in a system. If all change is simultaneously experienced (experienced infinitely fast), then all points of temporal sequence, past, present and future, then the actually infinite being exists at all temporal points simultaneously.

BT&S I've always known you have a very brilliant mind, I consider you most secular than any other theist I've ever met, that's why why chat often, I learned from you plenty, but not always can I agree with your assertions, though very intellectualy worded, in the end it's prety good rhetoric. I hope you don't take this wrong my friend.

Thank you for the compliment, and I also hold you in esteem for your own self-sought knowledge and intellectual pursuits. Good rhetoric convinces. I consider it bad rhetoric since I can't even make crystal clear the logic of my argument. It's bad rhetoric because I have not truly conveyed what I intended.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Thanks for the reply. I'm still not sure what you mean by saying that god and the universe came into being at the same time. I would really like to delve into this further with you because it is exactly one of the outcomes that I mention at the end of the disproof. It is one of the escapes had by taking only two of the three axioms as true. Namely, you are taking away the "eternal" axiom by putting a limit on the past in general.

I'm not taking away eternality. God is eternal. God did not "come into being," neither at the creation of the universe, nor ever. The best way to put it into words is: God simply is. I suppose this is a deeper meaning behind God's name: I Am who Am, as revealed in the Old Testament. The problem I think you're having, and I don't mean this in any kind of demeaning way, since most people make this mistake (and... though you're making the mistake I am sure it is unintentional), is that you're still thinking of "before" the universe as temporal. That is, when someone says "God existed eternally before the universe" in your mind you imagine a being who's existence extends backwards from the creation infinitely. God did not have a beginning, since beginning implies temporality, a first in a succession (of changes). Eternality, as opposed to temporality, is simultaneity. God's infinite existence is simultaneous, an ever-existing single point. Single, but infinite. It does not experience the passage of time, but causes temporality by actualizing potentials which, being actualized potentials, can only be potentially infinite, and therefore operate temporally, and are understood as reference points against other actualized potentials, which are themselves reference points set against other reference points. These actualities in turn actualize other potentials creating a sequence of actualize potentials. Beginning came by pure actuality actualizing potentials from pure potentiality, which is 'void'. This is change, measured in terms of time. To say God had a beginning, or that God's existence extends in an infinite direction from a single reference point is to say that God is a temporal entity, rather than an eternal one. It is to say that God is finite, an incomplete set, a non-supreme being, not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnipresent, not pure actuality, etc.

So, to clarify, I have a few questions:

1. Prior to god and the universe, was there complete vacuum and therefore stasis?

2. What event (if any) caused god's existence to come into being?

3. Where the two events truly simultaneous?

3. (A) If yes, then did god create the universe, or could it not be said that the universe created god.
3. (B) If no, then did god come into being in the vacuum, and then "decide" to create the universe, time, and all within it?

4. If god could come into being, either to create the universe, or alongside it, then why couldn't the universe also come into being from stasis, and have all of the (seemingly) godless attributes that it currently has.

Thanks in advance.

1. I do not recognize a "prior" to God. Moreover, strictly speaking, I do not recognize a "prior" to the universe, since I believe the universe and time exist as a single entity, one being an aspect or measure of the other. Outside of the universe, there is void and God, but no flow of time.

2. Nothing caused God's existence. God did not come into being. God simply is.

3. Creation is simultaneous with all that God experiences. So, in the perspective of God, creation and now are simultaneous. However, I can't answer the question properly, because the question of simultaneity refers to creation and God's 'coming into being,' the latter of which I do not recognize.

3a. God created the universe, for it is possible for the infinite to produce the finite. The universe could not have created God because it is not possible for the finite to produce the infinite.

3b. God decided to create the universe, yes, and this decision is simultaneous with all other decisions and experiences of God.

4. God did not come into being. An actual infinite cannot become. Therefore, the reason the universe could not have come out of void with all of God's attributes should be clear. Moreover, the universe, even without such attributes, but even as finite, could not have come out of void of it's own, or for not reason whatever. If there was void prior to the universe, then the universe must necessarily have been caused. The only thing that could cause anything from pure void is an eternally existing actual infinite. If there was anything else existing to cause the universe we see today, it would merely have been a microcosmic (assuming it was merely a single existing thing, or even a relatively few existing things) universe, an older form of the universe, but the universe nonetheless, and not void (though it might be said that void existed all around it).

 

[swivel]

1. Time is just a way of saying that something is changing. It is a way to talk about that change, to measure and sort it. Nothing else. If god is thinking, or existing in any non-stasis way, there is time. There's no way around this.

2. That means you think that god has been around for an eternity, which means an infinite number of discrete steps. Because if the number of steps is finite, then I can point to his original state, and before that state, he was in stasis. You can't have it all unless you play with words like "is" and "time" without understanding them fully.

3. I don't understand any of this.

3a. I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. I am a finite being, but I can go turn on a flashlight, another finite being, and send off a bit of energy that will fade, but never cease to exist. This seems like a bunch of made-up, feel-good, wishy-washy, pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Please be more specific so that I can understand.

3b. Everything god does happens all at once? Again, this is not the god of most people. Most people think that god is listening to their prayers, that he did things like send his son down (himself) to be crucified. The events of Jesus' life took place over some years, which god experienced (trinity or no trinity as they conversed). You can only escape my disproof by making up a new god, which I would have to write a new disproof for. This is exactly why I am asking you questions about "your" god, because I usually find that most people don't know what they believe in, and once they have to spell it out, they disprove the old man for me.

4. Please prove to me that all things must be caused. Then prove to me that you know how god can exist as something not caused. You can't have it both ways, and you can't say, "all things MUST be caused" and just hope that it is true. It might not be true at all.


Your unique god is fascinating, but even less logical than the Christian one. I would love for you to detail everything you know about your god in a list format so that I can disprove him as well. It would be a fun exercise.

Thanks for the banter so far, very interesting.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I must apologize, for I must place this discussion in a state of indefinite suspension. Please don't take this the wrong way. I understand that it appears that I am backing away from questions that are too difficult for me to answer. That may be so, indeed I think it truly is. However, don't believe that I am leaving in closed obstinacy. This discussion has brought profound questions to the surface which I had thought I understood well enough. I must reflect deeply, as well as do more research into the question of infinities and their meanings (if they have any).

However, as a parting token, I offer a thought for consideration. If the universe did not have a beginning, but can be shown to regress infinitely into the past, then for the same reason that God could not have created there could also not be a 'present' moment. If we understand this to be true, then on this understanding alone we can say honestly that the universe did in fact have a beginning. The question to be answered then is, what was 'prior' to the universe? Indeed, what caused the beginning of the universe? (here is a bit of discussion on infinites that is pertinent and probably helpful http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/noncognitive_nature_of_infinity/)

I understand that you are already thinking about my unspoken answer to these questions as God, and so disregard such belief off hand as a cop out. Please, set that thought aside and simply ponder the question. Ponder also, what could have initiated the universe.

edit** I also just wanted to indicate that what I have been presenting is not a conception which I have myself created, but that I was taught. To demonstrate this, I would like to direct you to the following web page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm

 

[lightgigantic]

Your statement is clearly false since variety is exactly what we have with a universe that has been around for eternity.

consciousness has also been around too

BTW as a side point - what makes you assume that the universe has been around for an eternity - how would such a claim, by dint of empiricism, be verified?

 

[swivel]

I must apologize, for I must place this discussion in a state of indefinite suspension. Please don't take this the wrong way. I understand that it appears that I am backing away from questions that are too difficult for me to answer. That may be so, indeed I think it truly is. However, don't believe that I am leaving in closed obstinacy. This discussion has brought profound questions to the surface which I had thought I understood well enough. I must reflect deeply, as well as do more research into the question of infinities and their meanings (if they have any).

However, as a parting token, I offer a thought for consideration. If the universe did not have a beginning, but can be shown to regress infinitely into the past, then for the same reason that God could not have created there could also not be a 'present' moment. If we understand this to be true, then on this understanding alone we can say honestly that the universe did in fact have a beginning. The question to be answered then is, what was 'prior' to the universe? Indeed, what caused the beginning of the universe? (here is a bit of discussion on infinites that is pertinent and probably helpful http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/noncognitive_nature_of_infinity/)

I understand that you are already thinking about my unspoken answer to these questions as God, and so disregard such belief off hand as a cop out. Please, set that thought aside and simply ponder the question. Ponder also, what could have initiated the universe.

edit** I also just wanted to indicate that what I have been presenting is not a conception which I have myself created, but that I was taught. To demonstrate this, I would like to direct you to the following web page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm

beyond, are you kidding me? You are apologizing for this? You have no reason in the world to apologize to anyone. You are a shining example of what this forum (and the world) needs. Instead of responding with a knee-jerk reaction, sticking to your guns even when you have grown uncomfortable with them, getting hostile... you are taking the very noble action of stepping back and consolidating your thoughts.

I applaud you for this, I don't look down on you at all. The same way I complimented you for reading through my disproof carefully and responding to it with thought. You and I disagree, but I hold you in very high esteem from just this brief discourse.

If you want to try and understand some of these concepts more fully, you can do a lot worse than this thread, actually. I'm not sure if you read all of the talk of infinities and coffee between me, One Raven, Sauna, and Sarkus, but some of the simple ways that we put things to each other made difficult concepts stand out for me.

Thanks for the link, I'll read up on it right now. I am always eager to absorb another epistemological system, you never know what parts of what system you will blend into your existing one. The quest for knowledge is dynamic, not static, and I am very willing to change my thoughts for superior ones. Just this year I have reversed my stances on some major issues that I really thought I had completely reasoned out. Just as in science, when it takes an overbearing amount of evidence to overturn an existing theory, such is the way of personal opinion. So when it happens, you can be almost certain that you are closer to an objective truth than you were before!

So, I have never felt shame in changing my mind about something, rather I feel the pride of a new acquisition. A new gadget to play with. And the same thrill accompanies the encounter of an idea that I must wrestle with for awhile. Even if I don't end up agreeing with it, at least I will figure out BETTER why I agree with something else.

You are my hero of the week. Take your time, while I look forward to your return.

 

[(Q)]

God is eternal. God did not "come into being," neither at the creation of the universe, nor ever. The best way to put it into words is: God simply is.

Funny how theists are able to accept such a notion yet are unable to accept the fact that, "The Universe simply is."

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

swivel, I also hope you gain a better understanding of the notion of eternity as I was attempting to demonstrate from this web page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm

 

[swivel]

swivel, I also hope you gain a better understanding of the notion of eternity as I was attempting to demonstrate from this web page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm

When you get your religion from science, I will start getting my science from religion. I have a better concept of infinity and eternity than the majority of math professors in the world. It is one of my passions. Check out this thread for how unique, revolutionary, and absolutely correct my interpretation of infinity and eternity are.

You will probably never come into contact with another human being that understands the concepts of Time, Infinity, and Eternity as well as I do. I'm normally a humble man, but not in this regard. Most physicists don't even understand time, many of them pretending that time-travel is possible.

I feel like I have to say this strongly in order to justify my reason for not giving the Catholic Encyclopedia a second glance. Sorry.


It was liberating to read the Tramblay article and see that my disproof has been put forward by others, I always feel vindicated by such findings, much as Wallace must have when he got his letter back from the great Darwin. An article that you presented as evidence for your side backs me up 100%. It put it best when it said, "Nevertheless, it remains important to restrict theistic arguments to finiteness, if they are to have any sense at all." Couldn't have said it any better myself. Gotta lose one of the axioms. God is not eternal.

 

[C6H Anion Prophecy]

For anyone here who thinks G-d doesn't exist, I ask you to prove that he doesn't.

Here, the question that stumps most in other forums I've visited:
If a single cell within your body doesn't know you exist, does that make it true?

Cells follow an instruction, but are they conscious? Possibly. Can they think?
Possibly.
Now if they don't think, can they know of you?
If they do think, can they know of you?

Regardless of the answer to that, the reality is that we are 'Of' something much greater than we, and we also know that we don't know how much we don't know. With that in mind, how can we be so conceitedly certain that G-d is not possible?
Yet, mankind seems inclined to believe in his own emminence, though he can't even keep his own bed kempt- for his weak Ego allows him to mess everything as he pursues material folly as a salve.

 

[swivel]

I have disproved god in this very thread. Please show me the error in my logic. Do not come into a thread on such a late page, without reading any of the previous posts, and pretend to have something to contribute.

I shouldn't give your insane babble any sliver of credence by replying to them, but I hate for you to think that you have made a point with your silliness.

For anyone here who thinks G-d doesn't exist, I ask you to prove that he doesn't.

Here, the question that stumps most in other forums I've visited:
If a single cell within your body doesn't know you exist, does that make it true?

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Please explain to me how the correlation between one of our cells and our nervous system is somehow the same as the link between our nervous system and a deity. There is no connection here. You are spouting the sort of pseudo-philosophical nonsense that stoned hippies giggle about around a campfire.

Cells follow an instruction, but are they conscious? Possibly. Can they think?
Possibly.
Now if they don't think, can they know of you?
If they do think, can they know of you?

Again, complete nonsense. None of these relationships have anything to do with religion, faith, or reality. You are just stringing words together and acting haughty. Cells are not conscious. Consciousness lies within the nervous system. Do some research on psychology and neurology. And please tell me what point you are trying to make. Give me some evidence for god. Disprove my disproof.

Regardless of the answer to that, the reality is that we are 'Of' something much greater than we, and we also know that we don't know how much we don't know. With that in mind, how can we be so conceitedly certain that G-d is not possible?
Yet, mankind seems inclined to believe in his own emminence, though he can't even keep his own bed kempt- for his weak Ego allows him to mess everything as he pursues material folly as a salve.

We are "Of" something much greater than we? This sentence is illogical. We are of We. We are We. We can't be of something greater than We or We would be of that stuff.

We don't know how much we don't know? This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from a theist, and that is an incredibly exclusive list.

Your last sentence is utter nonsense. I'm convinced that you don't understand the meaning of over half the words you are using. You give theists a bad name and will probably convert dozens of atheists in your lifetime. Please stay out of this thread unless you are willing to actually read it first, and contribute in an intelligent manner.