I believe I have disproven Atheism. Tell me, do you see any flaws?
- Thread starter Jadebrain_Prime
- Start date
- Status
Hey... Where's (Q)? You'd think that he'd have come up with that list of times when I ignored people and all that stuff, especially since he seems to imply that they were obvious. I mean, not to change the subject, but he really is taking his time with this.
Rokkon,
This isn't a chat room, members post sporadically and often spend time in other forums. You cannot imply anything by intervals between posts.
But you do appear to have totally ignored all the flaws we have explained to you and you have not attempted to address them but instead continue to assert that your fantasy has merit.
This isn't a chat room, members post sporadically and often spend time in other forums. You cannot imply anything by intervals between posts.
But you do appear to have totally ignored all the flaws we have explained to you and you have not attempted to address them but instead continue to assert that your fantasy has merit.
This entire thread is the list and the flaws have been pointed out. Reading and comprehending the thread will provide you with the answers you seek.
Look, I don't know why you people think I'm entirely ingoring you, but I simply must say that I am trying. I am trying to see how you think I am ignoring you. I am trying to understand what these flaws that you point out mean, what the logic behind them is, why I am wrong, etc. I am trying to make complete sense of this whole 9 pages of posts (like I said, this is the first forum I have actively participated in). I even tried admitting defeat around four pages ago. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG?!?
Last edited:
Asserting a non-tenable position.
Alrighty, It was a fairly simple deduction.....
But I was trying hard to think of something nice to say.
I'd just lost five posts in the blink of an eye.
God is the first cause, I agree with you.
Look up Prima Materia on Google, then post your findings.
Help is what I came here for. I have multiple times said that I am looking for flaws, not trying to assert my theory. When I have appeared to assert my theory, I was just, in my own way, trying to say why I thought the flaw was false or not fatal to my theory, trying to basically say that I wanted more competition for my theory so that I could improve it by making it so that those flaws are no longer there. As a person diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, I am by nature inept at saying what I want to say. Even in real life, I had made impressions that I was rude, ignorant, uncaring, selfish, etc. without intending to make those impressions, most of the time not even knowing that people saw me that way. Perhaps I thought I would succeed in my goal of improvement for my theory because I seem to be the smartest among my peers (being able to read at college level, and being able to do math nearly as good, and I am only in the 9th grade). Like I said when I tried to admit defeat, I was defeated before, too (I tried to disprove every religion, save for Judaism and Christianity, by using what little knowledge I had of those religions I sought to disprove, and I didn't manage to disprove one).
Also, I do not like it when people let me win for whatever reason, because it takes away whatever dignity one gets from the victory. So when TheVisitor admitted to pretending to be on my side just to be nice, I was downhearted, even though his honesty when he admitted pretending pleased me.
Last edited:
No, again I'm just not having much luck getting my messages across.
I wasn't pretending to be on anyone's side.
I was genuinely impressed with your observation on eternity, and it led to my discovery of a deeper understanding of things through my subsequent investigation on the subject.
I was saying your deduction was fairly simple that led me to elaborate on it true, but without that initial part of your theory, I probably would have never thought of it.
The main thing I was "implying" to Cris was referring to my having a rough day due to some "out of bounds" comment I had made that cost me about five deleted posts before it was over.
Thats what the comment about being nice was hinting at.
You see Cris and the moderator that deleted the posts were online at the time and they knew what I was referring to, but you didn't.
It was kind of a joke.....on me I'm afraid.
Anyway, keep up the effort.
Your doing great.
Last edited:
Oh... so I see. Sorry for accusing you of being a liar. I'm afraid I'm not that good at taking hints.
If you wish to go back to my first post and ask questions as to the flaws, I'll be happy to discuss with you.
Okay, (Q). The first flaw you pointed out in my theory is something which I can only counter with an explaination that in my theory, in a stable reality, matter, energy, and other whatnot that this universe is made of cannot simply exist without reason, and the only reasons that I can think of right now are a. A natural process in which preexisting materials make/are turned into/otherwise lead to new materials, b. An unnatural process that involves the will of an entity (hence, the term 'unnatural'), or c. It just happens to exist outside of time. The second flaw you have pointed out to me is something in which, from my experience, would be denial on the part of atheistic theories because the three reasons that something can exist for do not include 'it has an infinite past, even though it exists inside of a forwards-flowing timeline.' The third flaw, being true, would only point out the fact that I usually don't care to look up a word after seeing it used a certain way that is new to my experiences, and instead assume that it means what would seem most logical to me. The fourth flaw is because I assumed that I should make things simpler for me and put the word 'flow' instead of what I really meant. Of course, I don't really know of any word in english that simplifies 'generating as it goes' or something like that. Like that rope analogy. As the ropemaker creates the new section of the rope, they put many strings together in a certain way, and if they did it correctly, they will make the strings into a new section of rope. Except in time's case, the 'rope' is put into use instantly after being created, and since time, along with the other dimensions, can be measured with as much accuracy as infinity goes on (meaning any amount, obviously), that would be quite a lot of rope. Existence basically rides on whatever part of the 'rope' was just made. The parts of the 'rope' that have yet to be made (or the future, if you were talking about time) depend on the parts of the 'rope' that are already there, which is basically one analogy of the cause and effect rule: The strings of the rope have to be able to be made onto the rope that already exists; likewise, the events have to be able to be put after the cause in a way that makes a sequence. And I just realized that the rope analogy might be getting old, so let's move on. Finally, the fifth flaw that you pointed out was only there because you apparently took the metaphor literally.
It is this type of reasoning that makes me shiver…with delight.
Taking a page out of Mr. G’s playbook I disprove you thusly:
You….let me remain civil here, poor fellow;
The concept of existence relies on temporality.
Something is said to exist when it has a temporal and spatial character.
Existence is the state of Becoming, Something or Nothing (absolute), but never actually getting there.
Once you take away one of these characteristics, such as a theoretical singularity - you poor fellow - the theoretical phenomenon drops out of time/space and ceases to exist.
To exist is to be in a state of flux – that is to have infinite potential, in a temporal/spatial context.
Thinking is a temporal/spatial phenomenon.
We think so as to more efficiently navigate or focus our wills. We create because we are imperfect.
A theoretical omnipotent being would have no need, and therefore no desire and therefore no reason to create or to do anything.
Thinking would be obsolete, because an omniscient, omnipotent being would have nothing to think about.
Why would perfection need to do anything?
Consciousness is a method unities use to self-realize.
Furthermore what
everything is in a state of change, flux, instability.
....and what would it mean for a God?
You poor fool, how do you know which way time flows?
And if it flows in every direction how would you perceive it?
But, of course, there is. An exception that makes you feel nice, no doubt.
Let us then also assume that little green men lived in my closet.
Jesus, this guy is whacked.
How does something exist outside of time and how is it then a something?
The biggest flaw I see rests between your ears. But don't sweat it, that isn't your fault.
Calling someone a "fool" or "whacked" really shows not only the lack of any intelligence whatsoever, but also having no manners, or common sense and reveals an utter disrespect for anyone else but themselves.
You can learn nothing from this kind of person.
Ignore them.
Do not let the closed minds of the few, outweigh the "needs of the many".
Some will debate anything.....and never admit your right.
-Yes, once outside of time existence should be static in the place where Eternity/God truly exists.....good call.
-I have heard many accounts of multiple levels of existence outside of this one leading up to that point.
-Places where people can exist and interact in physical bodies, and yet remain seemingly ageless, while describing the place where Eternity/God exists as still being "higher still" and out of sight from even there, and they were actually told they couldn't go there at that time.
-God is described as a Spirit, and as such may not even be bound by the limitations of mater in or out of time.
-It's possible this world is moving through time at a certain rate, but other dimensions exist which are moving at other rates, which compared to this might seem "forever" but are not completely static.
-Look up the definition of words like "evermore", or "everlasting".
They are used in scripture but are not the same as "eternal".
Even hell is not described with words meaning eternal, but has a beginning and end, and means "destroyed to the vanishing point".
- This could be taken to imply that this Space/Time/Eternity....relationship is not only a reality, but has already been observed and documented going back to ancient times.
-A lot can be learned by the comparison study of words we took for granted we thought we knew the meanings of.
Meanings don't really change over time, but their accepted usage does.
Last edited:
Stop thinking of materials, none existed in the early universe, only something like energy, vibrating at extreme temperature. But otherwise, a., definately a..
A. is the most likely answer.
(a)
A) natural process in which preexisting materials make/are turned into/otherwise lead to new materials.
B) An unnatural process that involves the will of an entity (hence, the term 'unnatural').
C) It just happens to exist outside of time.
How about .....D)all of the above.
What's it called?
The small forces...the little things.
Sub-atomic particles.
Energy is turned to mater like a dragon chasing its tail.
Turned in on itself...in a circular motion.
What force causes this?
The gravitation force, molecular attraction, whatever you call IT, is the same on micro, and macro scale......from nuclei to universes spinning around galaxies.
Break the chain that binds, and the energy is released.
Time/mater, energy/light.......
But the darkness perceived it not.
It is alive......it's you and everything else, becoming material, temporal, but when the "creation of God" is complete, capable of translating beyond bounderies and limitations set by the physical laws of this "reailty".
It is just an illusion, a prison for our minds.
Can not the author of any software change the limits, re-write the progam, or by-pass any security measures He put there to begin with?
He always saves Himself a "backdoor."
We are all made of the same things.
You can, if you believe.
It's a co-operation....you don't so much will it.
You ask it....
"Ask what you will, and IF you believe in your heart....not mind now.....you can have what you've asked."
The real you is not the physical form you see in the mirror.
You want to disprove Atheism?
Once you realize who you are.......what you are......
You won't have that problem anymore.
And the darkness perceived it not.
Some won't beleive if you raised the dead in front of them.
That's just the way it is.
We'll be walking on their ashes, just like Jesus walked on water.
As it is written, so it shall be done.
B) An unnatural process that involves the will of an entity (hence, the term 'unnatural').
C) It just happens to exist outside of time.
How about .....D)all of the above.
What's it called?
The small forces...the little things.
Sub-atomic particles.
Energy is turned to mater like a dragon chasing its tail.
Turned in on itself...in a circular motion.
What force causes this?
The gravitation force, molecular attraction, whatever you call IT, is the same on micro, and macro scale......from nuclei to universes spinning around galaxies.
Break the chain that binds, and the energy is released.
Time/mater, energy/light.......
But the darkness perceived it not.
It is alive......it's you and everything else, becoming material, temporal, but when the "creation of God" is complete, capable of translating beyond bounderies and limitations set by the physical laws of this "reailty".
It is just an illusion, a prison for our minds.
Can not the author of any software change the limits, re-write the progam, or by-pass any security measures He put there to begin with?
He always saves Himself a "backdoor."
We are all made of the same things.
You can, if you believe.
It's a co-operation....you don't so much will it.
You ask it....
"Ask what you will, and IF you believe in your heart....not mind now.....you can have what you've asked."
The real you is not the physical form you see in the mirror.
You want to disprove Atheism?
Once you realize who you are.......what you are......
You won't have that problem anymore.
And the darkness perceived it not.
Some won't beleive if you raised the dead in front of them.
That's just the way it is.
We'll be walking on their ashes, just like Jesus walked on water.
As it is written, so it shall be done.
Last edited:
The closest you'll get is with (a) a natural process. There is no evidence to suggest the will of an entity. There is no such thing as existing "outside of time." Time is not some physical quantity in which things exist.
Again, time does not "flow." Things do not exist "inside timelines." Your most prominent flaw is your misunderstanding of time.
There may or may not be good arguments to suggest an infinite past, I've yet to see one, but all indications point to the universe having a beginning.
The use of a dictionary will clear up the flaw almost instantaneously.
Again, a misunderstanding of time on your part. It is not a physical quantity, hence does not 'flow', it isn't made into rope or any such construct.
If you first gain a better understanding of time, you would find similar flaws in your theory and would then be able to adjust it accordingly.
Imbeciles usually construct hypothesis using imprecise definitions of concepts.
In this case the ‘existence’ outside space/time depends on the absence of a definition of what ‘existence’ means.
This absence of a definition makes the hypothesis feasible and comprehensible, and makes, any assumption dependant on it, an easy affair.
"God" "exists" "outside" "time" "space" because the words ‘exists’, 'outside' ‘time and ‘space’ remain ambiguous enough to make the indefinable word ‘God’ a possibility.
Existence, for me, means the possession of a temporal/spatial nature.
Something is said to exist when it possesses a temporality (movement, change) and spatial dimensions (potential, possibility) or either of the two.
In this case the author is attempting to prove a hypothesis by contradicting the basic definitions of existence.
He says in a nutshell that something exists without existing.
He is saying that God has a temporal, spatial nature but remains outside time space.
A singularity, drops out of perceptible reality when one of the two aforementioned characteristics is decreased to the point where it approaches an absolute without ever reaching it.
We can say that reality is the intermediate state between Nothingness and Somethingness.
The Big Bang, like the theoretical Big Crunch, are concepts denoting an event horizon. An event horizon of a singularity attempting to complete itself, but failing to do so, reverting back into another direction. This tumbling out of time/space and closer towards the absolute will be perceived by us temporal/spatial creatures, as an explosion or implosion of reality.
Absolute Nothingness is never reached and so the flow of change (time) and possibility (space) continues as absolute Somethingness/Nothingness is never reached (Ying/Yang).
Life exists as a reaction towards one particular flow of time - only in one direction because the opposite would make life unnecessary and impossible. Life depends on the storage and passing on of information (knowledge, genes, experiences, memories). The opposite would entail the elimination of information as a reaction to that temporal flow (ignorance, inexperience, forgetfulness) and so nothing like life or consciousness can come to be and relate to this temporal flow.
This resistance to growing entropy characterizes all matter, as unities in the process of Becoming a Something or falling towards a Nothing, but failing and and fracturing.
The mind is a sophistication of this process as the ephemeral unity focuses and directs its energies and tries to create a pocket of order within the growing disorder. It is a pocket of Becoming trying to self-realize and be something.
Nihilism is the recognition of the incompleteness of Becoming and the desire to fall into the Nothing or back into the attempted absolute or to find completion in a final resting place (inertia) of Something (paradise).
In this case the ‘existence’ outside space/time depends on the absence of a definition of what ‘existence’ means.
This absence of a definition makes the hypothesis feasible and comprehensible, and makes, any assumption dependant on it, an easy affair.
"God" "exists" "outside" "time" "space" because the words ‘exists’, 'outside' ‘time and ‘space’ remain ambiguous enough to make the indefinable word ‘God’ a possibility.
Existence, for me, means the possession of a temporal/spatial nature.
Something is said to exist when it possesses a temporality (movement, change) and spatial dimensions (potential, possibility) or either of the two.
In this case the author is attempting to prove a hypothesis by contradicting the basic definitions of existence.
He says in a nutshell that something exists without existing.
He is saying that God has a temporal, spatial nature but remains outside time space.
A singularity, drops out of perceptible reality when one of the two aforementioned characteristics is decreased to the point where it approaches an absolute without ever reaching it.
We can say that reality is the intermediate state between Nothingness and Somethingness.
The Big Bang, like the theoretical Big Crunch, are concepts denoting an event horizon. An event horizon of a singularity attempting to complete itself, but failing to do so, reverting back into another direction. This tumbling out of time/space and closer towards the absolute will be perceived by us temporal/spatial creatures, as an explosion or implosion of reality.
Absolute Nothingness is never reached and so the flow of change (time) and possibility (space) continues as absolute Somethingness/Nothingness is never reached (Ying/Yang).
Life exists as a reaction towards one particular flow of time - only in one direction because the opposite would make life unnecessary and impossible. Life depends on the storage and passing on of information (knowledge, genes, experiences, memories). The opposite would entail the elimination of information as a reaction to that temporal flow (ignorance, inexperience, forgetfulness) and so nothing like life or consciousness can come to be and relate to this temporal flow.
This resistance to growing entropy characterizes all matter, as unities in the process of Becoming a Something or falling towards a Nothing, but failing and and fracturing.
The mind is a sophistication of this process as the ephemeral unity focuses and directs its energies and tries to create a pocket of order within the growing disorder. It is a pocket of Becoming trying to self-realize and be something.
Nihilism is the recognition of the incompleteness of Becoming and the desire to fall into the Nothing or back into the attempted absolute or to find completion in a final resting place (inertia) of Something (paradise).
Last edited:
- Status