Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[Godless]

axilmar, have you read every one of those 36 pages in full?

I doubt that too.

I thank Godless for the times he's recognized it, but I'm a bit mad that he said nothing in the defense those who are religious and intelligent.

Hey buddy! you don't need any defending. And any religious thinker such as yourelf wouldn't either. But you have to admit, ingnorance is found in both sides of these debates, I've met some real dumbass atheists in my time, I'm one included. Compared to your level of education, I should be a complete ingnoramous. I'm a highschool drop out, no college degree, academically I've been a failure, C's&F's average while I was in highschool, drug addict, drunk, and a gambler. Why else would I move to Las Vegas? LOL.. I am however self taught thanks to Barnes&Noble and this here computer. . My grammar is laughable, I mispelled almost every other word, but I do get an idea across. So my friend, anyone with your level of education, and a theist, compared to me, does not need me to defend his/her's own intelligence.

Particularly M*W, who says she was once Catholic, but clearly ignores the fact that Catholocism holds doctrines like "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason), which upholds reason and logic as a foundation of thought.

Perhaps she thinks this is an oxymoron? who knows. I once defended her she got it from both sides of the debate, a bit radical, yes! she has fire in her loins, but once you get to really know her deep down she's a smart lady, that still got the desire to learn.

I abhore public Christian schools, but private ones are good. The one I attended taught both morality and ethics, ethics being the foundation of good action based on reason, not attached to any religion.

This is true, I attended a Catholic school when I was a child in South America, we didn't even pray at the start of school, but all the teachers wore robes. We also had our uniforms, this has been over 35 years ago so recollection is a tad difficult.

Already I can hear the minds of many scimembers who are reading this shouting "child molestation."

Hey! some of us know that there are bad apples anywhere you go. I'd be willing to bet some self proclaimed atheists may also be a child molester. Some of us know bette than to use "quilt by association" to judge all priests as child molesters. BTW you also commit a logical falacie here, by assuming that we would judge people whom we have never met, to be child molesters. A red herring I believe.

A great deal of us use our intelligence quite willingly and happily. Catholocism, and others, argue that reason is part of the beauty of the human being.

This is quite new though, because it is "reason" which had been the ultimate enemy of religious dogma, and one that theist sought to destroy in the early days of the authoritive churches. The stagnation of new scientific discoveries which contradicted "presumed" theistic generalizations. i.e. Geocentric vs Heliocentric theory for one, and many other exist. The authorative nature of early Catholicism stagnated scientific, philosophical doctrines that they presumed heretical and bias against their religious doctrine. Would you have called this reasonable?

It is "reason" that is still in the forefront of the debate wether the human mind can comprehend reality, and we are loosing the battle since our students today are being tought *that the contents of man's mind need bear no necessary relationship to the facts of reality* Nathaniel Branden**. And furthermore our debate is futile.

The two positions "There is a God" and "There isn't a God" ought not be both differing positions and premises in the same debate. Because, unless there's just one mutual premise upon which both positions are based there can be no rational debate leading to a meaningful conclusion based on logical argument. Either position stated as a premise would eliminate all argument to it and render the debate moot. So, we have to look deeper for underlying premises of the two positions.

click

**The Stolen Concept

The above link is were i stole the quote from Nathaniel Branden, this is a good article of the defence of reason agaisnt neo-mystics.

Godless

 

[cole grey]

Compared to your level of education, I should be a complete ingnoramous. I'm a highschool drop out, no college degree, academically I've been a failure, C's&F's average while I was in highschool, drug addict, drunk, and a gambler. Why else would I move to Las Vegas? LOL.. I am however self taught thanks to Barnes&Noble and this here computer. . My grammar is laughable, I mispelled almost every other word, but I do get an idea across...

For this, Godless is my hero.

Funny how you can usually find a reason to like everyone here (mostly).

 

[Godless]

The word has no meaning to you. That is ok. There is a lot of meaning in the word though - it has resonance in the minds of many, many people, therefore it has meaning.

The only meaning applied to this word, has been whose god of the land and which time in history was god for them. I.E. Zeus, Olimpus, Mythras they were all gods, Allah, and now the Christian god, just another word, a meaningless word, that only means what the believer wants it too. For the Islamist god is Allah, Jews YHVH, the Christian plainly God, who had a son called jesus, and bla,bla,bla.. A word with no identity, only the antropomorphical identity given by a particular group.

Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

The limits are unknown now, that is all we can be sure of.

Many ancient gods, were discovered to be just natural phenomenom, thus as science and knowlege progressed, gods were dying left and right. i.e. The god of thunder, god of the sea, god's whom you consider non-existent compared to the Christian god. Thus "it" is just one more superstition in the list of mystical minds of men.

The same can be said for our various scientific descriptions of our physical reality.

Reference please?

First there's an assumption, second the assumption becomes a hypothesis with further observation, then last it's a theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

That is why religious people shouldn't be so judgemental. I'm glad you agree with me on these points.

Neither should atheist be, however around here it's a sport..LOL.. No harm intended though, I do know who is off his/her rocker and who can follow a good logical argument.

My point was that our ideas have changed throughout history, and are therefore proven to be reliable only up to a point.

I very well understood your point, however I pointed out, because of secularised ideas hence the Reinesance, the change of ideas happened in the first place, because new ideas were acceptable by the people even though many contradicted church doctrines. If it had not happened, were would we be today? Better yet were would we be today if the library of Alexandria was never destroyed by religious zealots. I believe they were Christians!

You say God is a meaningless term, and the possibility doesn't exist for God to be real, you are saying that you know, and negate the subject entirely - you are enlisting in that camp by yourself, I am not forcing you into it.

Basically you misunderstand my stance. If the word god to me is meaningless that is I don't know what god is, neither can you tell me what god is. In order for me to claim, There's no god, I presume to have a defenition of what god is, it would render me in the same falacie as the theist claiming that there is a god, because neither of us have a defenition of god. So in conclusion, I don't claim there's no god, (I don't know what god is) in order for me to make such a claim, I would have to know the defenition of god, and furthemore since it's existence can't be known or is unknown I can't claim that X does not exist, since I don't even have defenition of X. Thus this is my stance: I don't believe any evidence has been shown to prove that X exists, no emperical proof exists, no defenition, other than empty claims (Of an unknown) entity who supposedly lives outside of time, and created the universe bla,bla,bla, but not one iota of claims have been proven factual in reality.

We are free to believe or not believe. Certain things can be accepted as evidence of how spiritual matters work, or not accepted. There is no proof. There is no proof of a lot of stuff in life, get used to it.

Basically here too there's a conflict, since the overwhelming majority of people are religious they then try and (force) their beliefs their code of morals, and doctrines in political cyrcles make laws that may hinder our freedom to "believe as we wish" Such as victimless crimes as prostitution for example is completely demoralised by religious sense of morals. So basically I too fight for the freedom to believe as you do, but the odds are well stock against liberal secularist.

Godless

 

[Godless]

(For this, Godless is my hero.)

Geeess thanks.

 

[c7ityi_]

Which one? click

There's only one Christ, with many names and many forms. The only real Christ is the self within us.

It's called death for a reason!

Life can't die, only bodies and persons must die. Existence can't stop existing. The feeling that "I am" can't go away.

There's no life after death, this is only wishfull thinking, which orinated from ancient Egypt of which the slaves HmmHebrews adopted as their own..

But I wish my life ended when my body dies... so it's not wishful thinking...

Excuse me? Is this not the reason why Lucifer was kicked out of heaven supposedly?

Yeah!... I think so... but we are the temples of God... so God lives in us... and we are God... like Jesus said...

 

[Medicine*Woman]

There's only one Christ, with many names and many forms. The only real Christ is the self within us.

Life can't die, only bodies and persons must die. Existence can't stop existing. The feeling that "I am" can't go away.

But I wish my life ended when my body dies... so it's not wishful thinking...

Yeah!... I think so... but we are the temples of God... so God lives in us... and we are God... like Jesus said...

*************
M*W: "Hello... hello in there... can you hear me... is anybody home?"

c7ityi_ says, "you're in there... somewhere in me... yoohoo... but you have a different name... tell me your name..." ***afraid to come out***

"I'm going to have to ask you to step away from my body... please put your hands on my ass and spread your legs... You do realize you were occupying my body without permission? I'm going to have to take you in for trespassing on private property... you have the right to remain silent... anything you say on sciforums may be held against you...".

 

[Godless]

There's only one Christ, with many names and many forms. The only real Christ is the self within us.

Sorry but that's delusional. Christ was the ultimate alturist, I will not sacrifice myself for the scoundrel down the road, for the child molester in jail, the murderer and rapist of women. These are all sinners in the eyes of god, to whom Jesus supposedly gave his life for, I wouldn't do that. I let the muderfuckers burn for the crime, though crimes of this nature is petty crap, compared to real criminals such scum-bag as the Bushes, Hitlers, Mao's kind of scumbags indirectly killed in droves, and are sometimes considered "heros". Where was christ in them?

Life can't die, only bodies and persons must die. Existence can't stop existing. The feeling that "I am" can't go away.

This is deluded nonsense. If one has life, and his body and person dies, then life is terminated for that individual. Can't you see how you contradict yourself in only one sentence? Existence existed before you became a being, and it will exist long after you are gone. The feeling that you are, will end, the day you depart this planet in death. You will live in the memories of others, but you will not exist in any other form, within this universe or any other assumed dimension suchas heaven or hell. That's just silly notions to manipulate the gullibility of stupidity.

But I wish my life ended when my body dies... so it's not wishful thinking...

Oh! don't worry your life ends when your mind and body dies, proven unfortunately in a daily basis around the globe.

Yeah!... I think so... but we are the temples of God... so God lives in us... and we are God... like Jesus said...

We may be gods, but not gods in the sense of mysticism that you mean, nor like jesus, who was an illiterate mystical demi-god, who's its very existence has been questionable for milliniums..

*(Research indicates that mankind is still going to undergo one more evolutionary leap into a far more competitive being called God-Man. That God-Man in the future will be so superior he might mistakenly think a missing link must exist between himself and 20th-century man in the chart of human evolution. Such a missing link will never be found, however. Instead, I believe soon we will make an unexpected evolutionary "jump" into God-Man. As God-Man, we will be as far beyond today's cognitive man as we, today, are beyond ancient animal man.)*Man's final evolution

Godless

 

[axilmar]

The description of God as illogical depends on maintaining that our level of understanding, as humans, is the only level that exists, and if we can't understand it, it can't exist.

If you need another level of understanding to understand God, then how can you claim you understand God?

This is quite comforting to believe

"Comforting" is not something that is involved in this discussion, from my part. I speak about this without any feelings whatsoever.

so by the way our logic and knowledge has changed over the millenia of human existence.

Our logic has not changed over the millenia. Our knowledge has changed though.

Humans do not work with logic, but with pattern matching. Logic requires absolute proof, which is almost never available...but since the entity has to survive, the entity's brain uses pattern matching to reach a "proof"...this proof is always related to the instinct of survival.

Also, 1/2 of your post is attacking beliefs that many christians don't hold. Can we all get past that soon?

I am not attacking beliefs out of hate, I am debating.

The world's progress is held back by religions...science and logic is the way forward.

Destroy half of the moon with atomic energy and see if the gravitational effect on the earth remains constant.

but atomic energy and gravity is stuff of our universe. They are both particles of the same "type".

By agreeing with cris, you join the group of people, who I consider fundamentalists - those who have decided that their perceptions are the only possibility for reality - an idea which i find completely illogical.

Not at all! I believe in quantum mechanics, for example, although I have never perceived it. I believe that there is a country named Australia, although I have not seen it. I believe that there are microbes, although I have not seen them.

You know why I believe in lots of things I have never seen, tasted, touched, smelled or felt? because they are logical. They are governed by mathematical laws and proven by experiment.

If God made this universe with mathematics, then he signed his death sentence!

Everyone has heard of "Christ", even though they may not call it with the same name.

People that have lived before Christ did not have a chance to know him. Or people in far away lands that could not been reached until recently.

In their next life.

The Christian dogma says that there is no reincarnation. Christian priests say that reincarnation is a concept propagated by the Devil.

Love.

That's why I said "most Christians' responses are a bunch of highly illogical emotional words".

There is no love actually...love is just a vague name that we humans have given to lots of things. But the common thing in all these things is that "we give" in order to "get".

axilmar, have you read every one of those 36 pages in full?

I read so much stuff every day in so many forums, that I may not be able to remember all. I apologise for that.

Well guess what, you've just offended me by stereotyping me as an illogical unthinker for the mere fact that I'm religious.

I apologise, but why did you find that offending? I simply stated a fact. I also said that "religious people are not stupid - they apply logic in all the other parts of their lifes except religion."

If you say to me "you are fat", I will say "I am". Because I am. I do not find it offending.

The point is, we're not all blundering idiots.

I never said you are. Thanks for the introduction. Of course you are not an idiot. You are just blinded by emotions.

Leaving the issue of the morality of computer hacking aside, it takes quite a bit of logic to understand and make use of the inner workings of a computer in new and creative ways. He taught Advanced Algebra and Physics quite intelligently.

Exactly. Many people are clever enough to tackle the most complex of things. But understanding a thing, and formulating a logical proof is something completely different.

I am a computer programmer. I have to construct logical proofs as part of my job. There are many times that human "logic" goes against mathematical logic, simply because human "logic" is not logic at all, but an assumption based on pattern matching.

Thanks everyone for replying. I will try to keep up with the posts.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I apologise, but why did you find that offending? I simply stated a fact. I also said that "religious people are not stupid - they apply logic in all the other parts of their lifes except religion."

If you say to me "you are fat", I will say "I am". Because I am. I do not find it offending.

The part I find offensive is that you treat it as fact, as truth, when it is not. If it were true that I was an illogical unthinker, then I aught to agree to it, as it is true. However, I do not believe it to be true, and I find it offensive that you treat it as such. Justice is a matter of treating things as they are, and as they deserve. If I am offended it is because I believe you have been unjust in your statements.

I never said you are. Thanks for the introduction. Of course you are not an idiot. You are just blinded by emotions.

In not precisely these words, but definitely in your meaning, as far as religion goes, I AM a blundering idiot, who is "blinded by emotions."

Exactly. Many people are clever enough to tackle the most complex of things. But understanding a thing, and formulating a logical proof is something completely different.

No doubt.

I am a computer programmer. I have to construct logical proofs as part of my job. There are many times that human "logic" goes against mathematical logic, simply because human "logic" is not logic at all, but an assumption based on pattern matching.

Logic is logic. If one form of logic contradicts another, then one is false, and not really logic. Pattern-matching can be applied in logic, but does no constitute logic. Mathematics doesn't need assumptions because mathematics doesn't try to explain causes or origins, it merely speaks about how things work. Because humans apply logic to attempt to understand origins and causes, assumptions are almost invariably used to "get it going." Any kind of theory makes use of assumptions. If the assumption is false, this doesn't make the logic false, it simply means the assumption is false. Logic can take any variables, presumed or otherwise, and function according to the same principles, which will invariably produce a truth-value of 0 or 1. This does not necessarily make such arguments true, it simply means that given the truth of the assumptions, the conclusion must be true. However, if the original assumption is false, then it is likely that the conclusion is also false (though, it may happen that a different set of presumed premises will produce an identical conclusion).

 

[Mythbuster]

An omnipotent god can limit it's own abilities if it wants to, same as it could occupy multiple realities if it wanted to. It just always has a way out of any situation it puts itself in.

Creating alternate realities is one logical means to escape eternal death. You and I could go back and forth conflicting eachother with ways to use omnipotence to end omnipotence, but we'd both eventually run out of ideas. Now imagine if our imaginations, intelligence, and possibilities were infinite. We'd be locked in this logical argument forever.

The point is that it can't really trap or kill itself with it's own omnipotence, because it can use it's omnipotence to find a way out. Then it can use it's omnipotence to reinforce the trap, then use it to find a way out again. It'd never end.

 

[cole grey]

The only meaning applied to this word, has been whose god of the land and which time in history ... A word with no identity, only the antropomorphical identity given by a particular group.

Many words are the same, some would say ALL words are merely approximations of meaning, subject to non-universal interpretation. The words still have meaning. The words "theory of relativity", are mostly misunderstood by everyone around the world, and only a small percentage of people, especially when you say it in english, understand what the meaning is behind the words. Universal understanding is something that HAS been proven not to exist.

Many ancient gods, were discovered to be just natural phenomenom, thus as science and knowlege progressed, gods were dying left and right. i.e. The god of thunder, god of the sea, god's whom you consider non-existent compared to the Christian god. Thus "it" is just one more superstition in the list of mystical minds of men.

I'm sure the modern representation(s) of what God is will also fare poorly as time goes by - that doesn't mean God has changed, or will.

Reference please?

Theories have developed and been changed or discarded over time - I don't need a reference to show that, obviously.

I very well understood your point, however I pointed out, because of secularised ideas hence the Reinesance, the change of ideas happened in the first place, because new ideas were acceptable by the people even though many contradicted church doctrines. If it had not happened, were would we be today? Better yet were would we be today if the library of Alexandria was never destroyed by religious zealots. I believe they were Christians!

Hello! The renaissance wasn't the first time civilization reared its ugly head. People have been muddling along with theories they thought were logical for some time now, off and on.

Basically you misunderstand my stance. If the word god to me is meaningless that is I don't know what god is, neither can you tell me what god is. In order for me to claim, There's no god, I presume to have a defenition of what god is, it would render me in the same falacie as the theist claiming that there is a god, because neither of us have a defenition of god.

A person has to figure that out for themselves. I have some defining ideas about God but I am far from having a complete definition, so what? Humanity works with ideas (like love), that are incompletely defined; ill-defined; undefined; relatively defined; and even incorrectly defined - those are the ideas we work with in our lives. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

 

[cole grey]

If you need another level of understanding to understand God, then how can you claim you understand God?

Completely? I can't and don't.
I am saying that some things lie outside the scope of human logic's ability to define it or understand it. Hatred, love, God, etc. None can be universally defined, nor do they need to be to be meaningful.

Our logic has not changed over the millenia. Our knowledge has changed though.

Our ideas about logic have changed significantly as recently as with Bert Russell, and Godel. Godel, in particular, changed (or should have changed), the idea of what types of problems logic can be capable of dealing with.

I am not attacking beliefs out of hate, I am debating.

I'm just saying that 1/2 of that post consisted of the expression of ideas which i believe are unimportant to the discussion because they are not necessarily part of a belief in a christian God. The term "christian" is so loose though, I can't blame you, i guess.

The world's progress is held back by religions...science and logic is the way forward.

The world's progress is held back by human hatred and stupidity - religion is only one example of how we can warp a positive concept into a hazard by this stupidity and hatred.

but atomic energy and gravity is stuff of our universe. They are both particles of the same "type".

God could be in our universe, permeating it and completely undetectable by scientific means, and also outside of it.
My particles exist in dimensions 1, 2, and 3 pretty easily. Perhaps they are wreaking havoc in another dimension I don't know about, or perhaps acting as a refining force. If we are going to say other dimensions exist, which many scientists and mathematicians do, do we not exist in them? Do we interact with these dimensions? We don't really know yet, do we?

Not at all! I believe in quantum mechanics, for example, although I have never perceived it...You know why I believe in lots of things I have never seen, tasted, touched, smelled or felt? because they are logical. They are governed by mathematical laws and proven by experiment.

the idea that an electron acts sometimes as a particle and sometimes as a wave isn't really that logical. We can't show how, but you still believe it. That is not based on any logic except your own personal logic, or what you ingest from outside experts. Some people believed these things were true before we had the experiments to prove them. They may not have said they "knew", but we shouldn't use that word when talking about God, other than as a personal "knowing".

 

[c7ityi_]

Where was christ in them?

They denied Christ. They denied their real self because they loved their persons and the world more.

If one has life, and his body and person dies, then life is terminated for that individual.

Individuality is an illusion, there is only one existence, one self, within many bodies.

Existence existed before you became a being, and it will exist long after you are gone.

But I never came into being because I'm the being itself. The bodies are just instruments I use.

The feeling that you are, will end, the day you depart this planet in death.

No, because the feeling of existence (me) still exists in you and our kids and their kids and on other planets.

You will live in the memories of others, but you will not exist in any other form, within this universe or any other assumed dimension suchas heaven or hell.

But I already exist in another form, in the form of Godless!

Oh! don't worry your life ends when your mind and body dies, proven unfortunately in a daily basis around the globe.

I really wish you were right but I'm not the type who believes in wishful thinking.

People that have lived before Christ did not have a chance to know him. Or people in far away lands that could not been reached until recently.

Christ is a "spiritual entity". He himself said: "Before Abraham was, I am." He has always existed. He is life itself, like he said.

The Christian dogma says that there is no reincarnation. Christian priests say that reincarnation is a concept propagated by the Devil.

I don't believe in that Christian dogma!

 

[Godless]

c7 I'll get to ya tomorrow.

 

[hypGnosis]

No, because the feeling of existence (me) still exists in you and our kids and their kids and on other planets.

...And the feeling of toothache still exists in me... (and in you and your kids and in their kids on other planets )

All just one big toothache...

 

[Godless]

Individuality is an illusion, there is only one existence, one self, within many bodies.

This is the sign of a true mystic. Then you are just a figment of my imagination, you don't exist, I'm the only individual that does exist, I am, What I am is consciousness!.

Godless

 

[(Q)]

I'm not the type who believes in wishful thinking.

Or any other kind of thinking for that matter.

 

[axilmar]

The part I find offensive is that you treat it as fact, as truth, when it is not. If it were true that I was an illogical unthinker, then I aught to agree to it, as it is true. However, I do not believe it to be true, and I find it offensive that you treat it as such. Justice is a matter of treating things as they are, and as they deserve. If I am offended it is because I believe you have been unjust in your statements.

If you are not illogical when it comes to religion, then tell me how explain logically the issue of free will and omnipotence.

In not precisely these words, but definitely in your meaning, as far as religion goes, I AM a blundering idiot, who is "blinded by emotions."

The words you use imply that I look upon you as a inferior being, which is not true. What I say is that people that do not see the inconsistencies are distracted by their own emotions.

Our ideas about logic have changed significantly as recently as with Bert Russell, and Godel. Godel, in particular, changed (or should have changed), the idea of what types of problems logic can be capable of dealing with.

Indeed. What you just said is that our knowledge about logic has changed. Not logic itself.

religion is only one example of how we can warp a positive concept into a hazard by this stupidity and hatred

How come religion is a positive concept? I say it is not. Do you have any proof? the world's history is filled with numerous examples of religions leading to bloodbaths.

God could be in our universe, permeating it and completely undetectable by scientific means, and also outside of it.

Undetactable by us, yes. Undetectable generally, no. Because if God can interact with this universe, then he is composed of particles that can interact with this universe, i.e. particles of the same category.

the idea that an electron acts sometimes as a particle and sometimes as a wave isn't really that logical.

No, particles are waves. It's proven, and you are using devices in your everyday life that were made possible because of that.

We can't show how, but you still believe it.

It is a proven fact.

That is not based on any logic except your own personal logic, or what you ingest from outside experts.

There is no such thing as "my own personal logic". Math proves it, not me.

 

[cole grey]

Indeed. What you just said is that our knowledge about logic has changed. Not logic itself.

According to your "logic", i.e. that which is mathematically "proven", our knowledge of logic is all that matters. Your conjecture about what logic is, that we cannot yet fathom, is not "logical", according to your rules. Therefore my point stands. Our ideas of what questions logic can encompass have changed. Now we know that logic used within a system is not the final word outside of any given system, and we also know that the current system of human knowledge does not encompass all future knowledge. This system's logic is fine for now, but it doesn't define the universe. Solid matter was mostly made of the space between the electrons before we knew that that was true - it wasn't logical, according to anyone's senses and ideas of the time, but it was true.

How come religion is a positive concept? I say it is not. Do you have any proof? the world's history is filled with numerous examples of religions leading to bloodbaths.

The idea of that there would be a community of people, which would go beyond the basic animal cooperation and care for and help people, is positive. That they would experience love through following a spiritual idea, is nice. The ideas of religion as implemented by greedy, prideful, power-mongering people has had some problems, but that is the way the world has worked for most of history, might is right, even when it is wrong.

Undetactable by us, yes. Undetectable generally, no. Because if God can interact with this universe, then he is composed of particles that can interact with this universe, i.e. particles of the same category.

detectable by who then? little green men?
Unless we can say God should be"detectable by us", you have no right to say math is on your side when you dismiss the idea.
Can you tell me how I interact with other dimensions? No. Neither can you tell me how those dimensions interact with us.

There is no such thing as "my own personal logic". Math proves it, not me.

As usual, your ideas are "facts", others' ideas are "beliefs". The things we know now are "truth", the things we have yet to know are "illogical". You have it all nicely; smoothly; and quite possibly, incorrectly; defined.

 

[Mythbuster]

That's not a good enough answer. Why exactly are we cursed? Oh yeah, because supposedly, the two first human beings ate apples from some "Tree of Knowledge". Let's not forget, they were led to their doom by an evil, talking snake. If the Garden of Eden was so good, why was there an evil snake in it in the first place?