Friday, February 12, 2010

Disproving God - No Sweat!! ;)


When I finally wrote out this argument back in July of '08, it had been something I'd been wanting to put down on paper for quite some time. I've added and taken away from it since then, though. And with it being Valentine's Day Weekend, I thought I'd make it red, being as it is my favourite colour, and 'cause I'm a sentimental guy. :) It always makes me shake my head when I hear a theist say that “God exists outside of time.” As if time is a fucking bubble you can jump in and out of. Such monstrous nonsense! - Mainly because it is being claimed about a living being. (I will explain why shortly). Their claim is often coupled with their rhetorical question, “how can something come from nothing?” But this is a straw-man, to be sure, for whoever said it did, outside of conjecture? It was never claimed as a scientific theory that the universe came out of nothing. Time began at the Big Bang, and to put it more precisely, the Big Bang is the shifting of time and energy. It is also the expansion of the black matter of space; something which is still expanding as you read this, and will continue to for quite some time. At the time of the Big Bang, all that existed were energy and elementary particles. In a televised conversation with Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, and journalist Magnus Magnusson back in 1988, Stephen Hawking actually refers to a "before the Big Bang," in the same paradoxical sentence that he states that time began at the Big Bang, which is very perplexing, but understandable, since we are so often confined to verbal language: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O9cYTZXekA. (Thank Dog for YouTube). Anyway, if time had not yet existed, they (energy and those elementary particles) are what would have existed “outside of time,” if anything ever did exist in this abstract, non-rational way. Meaning, it can be inferred from this alone, that something always existed, and never nothing. Putting God in the picture merely complicates things, and it is quite unnecessary. Therefore, Occam’s razor is fulfilled by there not being a God. But this argument is not nearly strong enough to show a devout theist the unlikelihood of God. So let’s move on.

For much more importantly, one only needs to observe the First Law of Thermodynamics as to clearly see why it is that there could have never been nothing, and that science in fact claims the contrary. For it states that – come on, everybody say it with me – “energy cannot be created nor destroyed.” Meaning, all the energy that currently exists in the universe has
always existed, and no god or first cause was ever required to create it. That is, under this natural law: something has always existed – and never nothing. But this is controversial, as well, as it is hypothesized by many that this law which energy lives by only came into existence after energy itself came into existence, after the Big Bang, and not before (and, once again, I don’t even know what “before” could even mean in regard to the Big Bang). After all, how could energy exist at all, if not along side time? Exactly. And I pose this question for God’s existence, as well. And you don’t have to repeat to me the mantra that “God is spirit and beyond our understanding,” as I don’t believe in sprits, and am trying to explain inductions and deductions which I and others have come to based on what we know about the natural world. Can you at least be serious till the end of this write, please, and put aside your petty, unfalsifiable metaphysics? I thank you for your cooperation.

So here is where the theist and even deist anxiously jump in. “But you clearly have not disproved God,” they say, happily and proudly stating the obvious. No, of course I haven’t. I have only shown his/her/its existence to be improbable and superfluous.
Disproving God, on the other hand - is what I am about to do.

The main two aspects of the theistic God are that he has a mind, and was himself not created, as he is the beginning of all things. That is, he is both sentient and the alpha. But a sentient being cannot
be the alpha! All sentient beings have a first thought, a first feeling, a first perception. God would have had to of had a first thought, feeling, perception. There cannot be an infinite regress of these things. There cannot be an infinite regress of a stream of consciousness. It is a logical absurdity. Awareness and thinking begin for all sentient beings at a point in time. God, like all sentient beings, would have had to have come into existence. He would have had to have evolved into existence, as all new species do, or he would have had to have been created by a being greater than he, which means he wouldn’t be God – in the first place. Therefore, though it is possible for a supreme being to exist, it is quite impossible – for God to. And let no one tell you that God cannot be disproved, or that he exists outside of time, ever again, especially since thinking (or simply awareness), something God does partake in supposedly, occurs in time, and we have now seen the consequences of that, as there cannot be an infinite regress of thoughts, or awareness in general. Sorry, theists.

Of course, we would be shamefully naïve if we thought it ended here. For they could just wave their pious hands at all this, as they are so good at doing, and say 1. God is all-knowing and therefore does not need to think, and 2. if it is plausible for there to be an infinite regress of time, then it is plausible for there to be an infinite regress of thoughts, and if time did not need a beginning, then neither would a sentient being necessarily have to (in this case, God). But of course this is just more nonsense:

1. Someone can know all there is to know about a subject and still have to think about it, and not merely to remember or analyze it either. Look: 2 + 2 = 4. You already knew that two plus two equaled four, yet seeing that made you think about it. Why? Because you're a sentient being and are therefore aware of the world going on around you. Well, God, if he existed, would be aware of the entire UNIVERSE that he decided to create. Thoughts are thoughts, and neither thinking nor awareness are not negated by omniscience. In fact, thinking and awareness are a prerequisite for omniscience. After all, how could our beloved supreme being in question know, if he could not even think? And if he wasn't aware of anything, how could he know anything? It makes no sense. His sentience is perpetual, as it is for all sentient beings until they die. And there simply cannot be an infinite regress of sentience. Again, it's a logical absurdity.

2. First, the burden of proof would be on the person saying that time did not begin, since the Big Bang Theory is so well established. However, open-minded as we are, let us accept that it is at least possible that time did not begin and that there is an infinite regress of it. This does not negate the logical absurdity of an infinite regress of thoughts or awareness (i.e., sentience), as thoughts are propelled forwards by a thinking being, not backwards. If then they reach for the bottom of the barrel for the old hat that God cannot be comprehended by our finite minds, then we can merely say, “But thinking can be, for it is something we, animals and birds do, indeed, partake in.” Here, then, is where they might desperately rebut that it could very well be that there is an infinite regress of God’s thoughts and awareness, but we just cannot comprehend that backwards stream of consciousness, as we cannot comprehend there being an infinite regress of time. However, in this case, God cannot exist within the realm of logic, reason and the natural sciences (a wicked game of hide-and-go-seek) and faith in his/her/its existence is merely and disturbingly illogical belief in the absurd and realistically impossible.

But, then again, we already knew that, didn’t we, my fellow atheists? I mean…what else could their faith be?

“Faith is believing what you know aint true.” – Samuel Clemens

3 comments:

  1. Thank for such a kind comments, darling. Your blog is wonderful, so much to take in. Keep in touch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ''as thoughts are propelled forwards by a thinking being''

    That is untrue. The correct position is thoughts are only propelled forward by a thinking being existing in time and space .Because thinking beings in time and space can only think forwards. They can't repeat the past and the future is uncertain.

    We have no proof how a mind would act if it could exist in the past and the future at the same time. & a mind that could think forwards and backwards would not need a starting pint to start it's thinking. It would be as eternal as what many scientists believe the universe to be.


    “Faith is believing what you know aint true.” – That is garbage I'm afraid. Faith is believing in something you can't prove.

    For example you can't prove logic works. Because you have to use logic to prove logic works. Ad to do that you have to have a belief that the logic you are using to examine logic works.

    Another example is the future. You have no proof it will come. But you believe it anyway. You can't prove the future will come.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't believe blogspot... How can it not email somebody when someone writes a comment on their blog? If I didn't suddenly decide to manually check my comments just now, I would not have seen this. It's a definite improvement that needs to be made around here, and it's not asking too much, I don't think. Anyway, sorry I'm only seeing this now. And now to respond...

    "That is untrue. The correct position is thoughts are only propelled forward by a thinking being existing in time and space .Because thinking beings in time and space can only think forwards. They can't repeat the past and the future is uncertain."

    Sorry, this last sentence is incoherent to me. What does repeating the past and the future have to do with what we're talking about here, be it certain or not? I never mentioned repeating the past and future.

    "We have no proof how a mind would act if it could exist in the past and the future at the same time. & a mind that could think forwards and backwards would not need a starting pint to start it's thinking."

    Are you being serious here with this rhetoric? Thinking backwards and forwards? What does that even MEAN? Even if that were possible, the very act of heading backwards and forwards would require time and and lots of it. Indeed, by your very description, God would HAVE to exist in time, just not the same way a a worldly creature would. And, yes, he WOULD have to begin at a point before he started heading both backwards and forwards (OMG, do you see how ridiculous this sounds?). The very act of thinking requires action, and action occurs IN time.

    '“Faith is believing what you know aint true.” – That is garbage I'm afraid. Faith is believing in something you can't prove.'

    Exactly Mark Twain's point! You know you can't prove it, and yet go on believing it. Unless you've gone completely insane, your conscience will always be there to remind you that you're believing in what you merely WANT to be true, as with all others and THEIR gods and fairytales.

    Here's a similar quote that puts it quite well:

    "Faith means the will to avoid knowing what is true." - Nietzsche

    As for logic, it works within non-contradiction, so, no, you don't need to use logic to know it works. As for the future, it comes every second. There's no need to prove infinity to prove that the future comes. It always does.

    ReplyDelete