I believe I have disproven Atheism. Tell me, do you see any flaws?

[Jadebrain_Prime]

In a stable reality such as ours, the law of cause and effect governs much of what happens. However, some people, though they realize this, are unable to put it together with other facts. Facts such as time flowing forwards, and the many theories that attempt to explain our very existence. I, however, believe I have done just that. This is my new disproof of atheism. First, I must establish that nothing can just pop out of nowhere, lest this reality be unstable (a term I use to describe realities in which THERE IS NO 'cause and effect'). Contrary to the popular atheistic belief that every particle of matter, energy, and other whatnot in the universe had always been there (this theory is present in all of the atheistic start-of-the-universe theories that I have heard of, for without it, those theories would essentially assume that the universe came from nothing, which I had already established not to be the case), such would mean that the matter would have an infinite past. An infinite past inside the control of time is impossible if time does not (literally) flow backwards, which we all know it does not, for if it did, our perception of reality would flow backwards and cease to exist once the memories in our experiences are passed by. Now we've established that time does not flow backwards, and infinite pasts can only exist if it did. However, there is one exception to this rule. Let's assume that there was something that existed OUTSIDE of time. Outside of time, there is NO change, and when outside of time, you are in a state of constant being, where you are simultaneously thinking, doing, consuming, etc. whatever you would have done sequentially inside of time, and to add to that, you are immortal, therefore adding to what you are constantly doing outside of time. Since you are now knowing all that you will ever know, you are, at this point, potentially omnipotent. But let's not get too distracted by what it's like outside of time. Only when something exists outside of time can it exist forever, for in a realm with no change, if it exists at all, it existed forever. Anther way to put it is "If it is, it always was, and always will be" outside of time. This being that exists outside of time must be the omnipotent being that is depicted in monotheistic religions, and possibly several other religions.

If you see any flaws with this, please tell me, and I will see if the flaw is true, and post a reply accordingly.

 

[cato]

First, I must establish that nothing can just pop out of nowhere, lest this reality be unstable

why not? there is no (or at least you have not shown any) logical reason why things cannot appear from nowhere.

those theories would essentially assume that the universe came from nothing, which I had already established not to be the case

no, you didn't.

such would mean that the matter would have an infinite past.

correct.

An infinite past inside the control of time is impossible if time does not (literally) flow backwards, ...

that does not follow from anything. I have a past, that does not mean I must move backwards through time.

...which we all know it does not,...

who defines such a direction? read hawking's "a brief history of time" for more info.

for if it did, our perception of reality would flow backwards and cease to exist once the memories in our experiences are passed by.

where did you get this gem of illogic? that does not follow from anything rational.

 

[Fathoms]

For one thing you are assuming a priori knowledge. God is a redundant concept because the universe is perfectly functional without him. The only way you are able to support the premise that God exists is by pointing to gaps in knowledge or understanding (yours, in fact). Your reasoning is flawed because it's built on questionable premises and negative theology. It doesn't make sense to talk about anything outside of time and space because those are the only things that exist in reality, without of which the principle of 'cause and effect' becomes meaningless, just like God. It's perfectly conceivable that the universe has always existed in some form or another and always will because we can actually experience it and learn about it and come to understand it. A God that exists outside of space-time is no more useful an idea than anything else that is imaginary.

 

[spidergoat]

Atheism doesn't depend on knowing the origin of the universe. You may prove that there is no valid theory of the origin of everything, but it does not follow that theism is the correct theory by default. If one God can exist outside of time, then why not many? And why not an unconscious singularity?

How can a conscious structure arise where no structure can exist? Surely the early universe is a harsh an environment as a black hole.

 

[Cris]

Rokkon,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

If you see any flaws with this, please tell me, and I will see if the flaw is true, and post a reply accordingly.

LOL. It is wonderful nonsense that we saw posted a few weeks ago, feels like you are probably a sock-puppet. But, whatever!

This is my new disproof of atheism.

I think you mean a disproof of the claims of atheism. Atheism tends not to make any claims BTW. I assume you are assuming the strong atheist stance that gods do not exist.

First, I must establish that nothing can just pop out of nowhere, lest this reality be unstable (a term I use to describe realities in which THERE IS NO 'cause and effect').

Ok, although quantum events do appear to do just that. But if we accept the idea that nothing just occurs then the ONLY alternative is that it has always existed. If you want to claim that that breaks your rule of cause and effect then whatever you propose as a cause will also require a cause. Ultimately you will have no choice but to conclude that something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. Or in other words your assertion that everything must have a cause is necessarily false.

Contrary to the popular atheistic belief that every particle of matter, energy, and other whatnot in the universe had always been there (this theory is present in all of the atheistic start-of-the-universe theories that I have heard of, for without it, those theories would essentially assume that the universe came from nothing, which I had already established not to be the case), such would mean that the matter would have an infinite past.

If the universe has always existed then clearly it did not pop out of nowhere. You appear to be making a false assertion that the universe must have had a beginning.

An infinite past inside the control of time is impossible if time does not (literally) flow backwards, which we all know it does not, for if it did, our perception of reality would flow backwards and cease to exist once the memories in our experiences are passed by.

Time doesn’t flow, it is simply a continuous change of state. The concept of time flowing backwards is a meaningless strawman argument.

Now we've established that time does not flow backwards, and infinite pasts can only exist if it did.

LOL. Your concept of infinity is seriously at fault. Something that is infinite simply has no boundary conditions. That time may or may not flow backwards or forwards is irrelevant.

Let's assume that there was something that existed OUTSIDE of time.

Why? Justify how that might be possible.

Outside of time, there is NO change, and when outside of time, you are in a state of constant being, where you are simultaneously thinking, doing, consuming, etc.

Clearly all those activities would be impossible since they all require time to occur. If one is outside of time then one could be said to not exist. Since even the mere essence of existence requires a change of state, i.e. time.

whatever you would have done sequentially inside of time, and to add to that, you are immortal, therefore adding to what you are constantly doing outside of time.

Again, impossible since “doing” anything requires the passage of time.

Only when something exists outside of time can it exist forever, for in a realm with no change, if it exists at all, it existed forever.

A contradiction in terms. “Forever” implies that time has occurred.

Anther way to put it is "If it is, it always was, and always will be" outside of time. This being that exists outside of time must be the omnipotent being that is depicted in monotheistic religions, and possibly several other religions.

It appears to be an impossible imaginary fantasy concept that has no factual or logical support.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

To cato: If anything was to just pop out of abolutely nowhere and without cause, it would mean that this entire reality was unstable, in which case the cause and effect law would not apply, which would mean that anything at any given moment could happen for no reason, no matter how ridiculous it is. Also, you seem to have skipped the word "infinite" when you were reading the part about the infinite past. True, we all have a past, but not one that you can go into as far as you want and still reach no end (thus the term "infinite" is used.) Also, if time did flow backwards, it would only be logical that our perception would go through sensing the entire sequence of events that we have ever experienced, except in a backwards direction. Also, time is like a rope. As time progresses forwards, pieces of string are added to the rope to make it go longer. Should time go backwards, the rope would begin to unravel, leading to it ceasing to exist as a rope once it passes by the part of the rope it is at.

To Fathoms: You are assuming too much, and you need to back up your words quite a lot more if you want your arguement to be even CLOSE to valid.

 

[(Q)]

First, I must establish that nothing can just pop out of nowhere

First flaw - virtual particles 'pop' out of nowhere. That said, theism would also assert the universe was created from nothing.

Contrary to the popular atheistic belief that every particle of matter, energy, and other whatnot in the universe had always been there

Second flaw - science does not agree with that assertion. The universe had a beginning in which energy, particles and matter came afterwards.

those theories would essentially assume that the universe came from nothing, which I had already established not to be the case)

Third flaw - you did not establish that.

Now we've established that time does not flow backwards, and infinite pasts can only exist if it did.

Fourth flaw - time does not 'flow' at all.

However, there is one exception to this rule. Let's assume that there was something that existed OUTSIDE of time.

Fifth flaw - time is not a physical quantity in which something can exist "outside" of it.

If you see any flaws with this, please tell me, and I will see if the flaw is true, and post a reply accordingly.

Numerous flaws, virtually making your argument moot.

 

[Cris]

Rokkon,

If anything was to just pop out of abolutely nowhere and without cause, it would mean that this entire reality was unstable, in which case the cause and effect law would not apply,

two problems there –

(1) No one is proposing that the universe popped out of nowhere, so trying to disprove something that no one is claiming seems something of a waste of time.

(2) The perception of cause and effect does not justify the concept that something could be created. The cause and effects we observe through physics are the result of energy/matter transformation and where nothing is created or destroyed. This tends to support the concept that matter and energy have always existed in one form or another.

 

[cato]

To cato: If anything was to just pop out of absolutely nowhere and without cause, it would mean that this entire reality was unstable, in which case the cause and effect law would not apply, which would mean that anything at any given moment could happen for no reason, no matter how ridiculous it is.

we know that particles and antiparticles pop out of nowhere all of the time, with no cause. moreover, strange things can happen for no reason. there is a certain probability that my entire body will quantum tunnel to china right now. however, the probabilities and scale of things like pair-production and quantum tunneling make these effects hidden to the macroscopic world.

Also, you seem to have skipped the word "infinite" when you were reading the part about the infinite past. True, we all have a past, but not one that you can go into as far as you want and still reach no end (thus the term "infinite" is used.)

what makes a short past different than a long past? people seem to have no problem accepting that time may move forward indefinitely, why do people have trouble going the other way?

Also, if time did flow backwards, it would only be logical that our perception would go through sensing the entire sequence of events that we have ever experienced, except in a backwards direction.

backwards with respect to what? your perception? read hawking's book.

Also, time is like a rope.

says who? again, read hawking's book.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

Cris, you are also in need of correction. First of all, I have NO IDEA what you meant by the whole "sock puppet" thing. Second of all, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you did not read the whole thing before you typed up your response, and once you did, you did not edit what you had typed before, and you had submitted an idiotic-looking post, no matter how valid your arguement is. Third of all, in your third response, you assumed that I meant that either it has always existed or it doesn't exist at all, when what I did NOT say was that they were the only possibilities. Perhaps you underestimated my logic and thought that I couldn't possibly think of something having a beginning? Fourth of all, I must again suggest that you read the whole of my arguement before you make a statement that goes unedited afterwards. Fifth of all, I AM AWARE THAT TIME IS A CONTINUOUS STATE OF CHANGE!!! It seems that I assumed too much when I thought that you would realize that by time's "flow," I was referring to the direction in which the change goes (example: does cause go first, then effect, or is it the other way around?). Sixth of all, by infinity, I was referring to something that goes forever IN ONE DIRECTION! I know from simple algebraic lessons from ninth grade that mathematically, if the discussed thing goes forever in one direction, it is still regarded as "infinite." Seventh of all, I have a metaphor describing what it is like for someone who has exited time. Imagine you have a bunch of images in an image editor on your computer (such as Paint). When you skew them as much as you can, you just have one pixel of color to represent the average color in all of those images. When you stretch it back to its original size, it is still just a block of one color. Now imaging that that block of color were reshaped into an infinite line (I know you can't do that with paint, but whatever.). That would mean that so far, every image that you started with was converted into a single pixel, and then stretched infinitely. Notice how, as you go along the line, the line remains the same color, no matter where you are. Now do that with your life (past, present, AND future, except assume that you are immortal now, because you are now outside of time). If you have gone through this process correctly, you now know what I mean by NO CHANGE OUTSIDE OF TIME!!!

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

To Cato: I must repeat myself: If anything were to pop out of nowhere and for no reason, it would undeniably disprove the law of cause and effect, meaning that the entirity of existence up to this point was just one big coincidence. As for the book of which you speak, I would like to know where I can get it.

 

[spidergoat]

Don't you assert that God popped up out of nowhere for no reason?

 

[Fathoms]

To Fathoms: You are assuming too much, and you need to back up your words quite a lot more if you want your arguement to be even CLOSE to valid.

That's really good advice Rokkon.

 

[Cris]

Rokkon,

I read everything you wrote several times and my responses were well considered and accurate.

A key part of your argument is this quote -

Now we've established that time does not flow backwards, and infinite pasts can only exist if it did.

This is total nonsense. If we assume effects always follow cause then there is no reason to doubt that any event in the past also followed that rule, no matter how far back. I.e. there is nothing logically inconsistent about an infinite universe, i.e. one that does not have a beginning.

Since your argument rests on this initial invalid premise then the rest your argument is equally invalid.

Your analogy with the paint images is curious but entirely unconvincing of anything.

 

[swivel]

Most of Rokkon's problems stem from not even understanding the concept of Time. If he ever sorts our that Time is just a measure of the change in state of a system, a way for us to tell one state from another, an entire ton of nonsense would vanish with a soft *poof*.


He would still be left with 9 tons, however.

 

[KennyJC]

I believe I have disproven Atheism. Tell me, do you see any flaws?

Unless you are on the cover of 'New Scientist', I know full well you are talking utter crap.

I didn't have to read your thread to come to this assumption... I wonder why?

 

[cato]

To Cato: I must repeat myself: If anything were to pop out of nowhere and for no reason, it would undeniably disprove the law of cause and effect, meaning that the entirety of existence up to this point was just one big coincidence. As for the book of which you speak, I would like to know where I can get it.

like was already said, if everything must have a cause, then how can your universe not stretch back infinitely in time? moreover, particles can "borrow" energy from the universe and come into existence without cause. so perhaps the cause and effect relationship is not valid, or at least as clean cut as we like to think. perhaps the universe's existence is enough to cause matter to be. moreover, there is still no reason, that you have shown, that the universe cannot be infinitely old.



the book I refer to:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

To Spidergoat: I never did say that God just popped out of nowhere. In fact, what I did say was that God, or whatever other supreme being(s) that would get more believers should this theory become recognized as THE disproof of atheism (not likely, with these admirably determined people going against me), exist outside of time, where if it is, it always was, and always will be. In other words, if you are outside of time, if you exist, you always have existed, and always will, for outside of time, THERE IS NO CHANGE.

To Fathoms: I must say, in a way that is blatantly sarcastic as you were when you complimented me, thank you.

To Cris: I did not say that cause would follow effect in the past, although I do understand why you would think that I did. However, that is not the point. The point is that in no way can the universe have an infinite past if time does not flow backwards. This is because mathematically, infinite is essentially never ending. Therefore, we could go as far back as we wanted, and we would never reach any dead end. With this in place, the universe would have to have a past that keeps generating itself in order to have a cause for the effect. This would require time to literally flow backwards.

 

[leopold]

God is a redundant concept because the universe is perfectly functional without him.

while i agree that the universe can be explained without god there are things that defy explaination and proof thereof.
1. life itself. although life can be explained it has never been proved that it occured as explained.

2. conciousness has never been explained.

3. the sense of right and wrong cannot be explained with current understanding of the animal world.

it's also a fact that all myths have an element of truth in them.

 

[scorpius]

To Spidergoat: I never did say that God just popped out of nowhere. In fact, what I did say was that God, or whatever other supreme being(s) that would get more believers should this theory become recognized as THE disproof of atheism (not likely, with these admirably determined people going against me), exist outside of time, where if it is, it always was, and always will be. In other words, if you are outside of time, if you exist, you always have existed, and always will, for outside of time, THERE IS NO CHANGE.

dude when will you realize that outside of time is total NONSENSE?
everything that exists is indeed WITHIN time.

IF god existed it would be in time also.
WHY cant you just call god and tell her to SHOW up already,that would be ALL the proof we would need!