Supreme Knowledge

I keep hearing an argument for the existence of god that I absolutely must address. Supposedly, us humans are of such inferior intelect that to be able to perceive of god or know god exists is just a stretch of our plausible mental faculties. The reason we can’t see god is our brains are just too weak to work it all out, which supposedly makes sense since god is just so awesome and stuff.

I just want to point out here and now that this is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. An organism’s ability to think on the same level as another organism has no bearing on the existence of another organism. The way organisms know other organisms exist is not mental, it is physical. Ants know humans exist. We might just be a gigantic large object that will squish them, but they know we are there because just before getting squished, they scurry away to avoid being squished. They don’t have to understand math, philosphy, quantum mechanics, cosmology, rocket science, how to build smart phones, or create fine art to know we exist.

I don’t care if you believe your god makes a modern supercomputer look like an idiot. I don’t care if there is no way I will ever be able to understand his superior intellectual plan that includes child rape and leukemia. Show me his effect on the real world. Show me the proverbial “squished ant”, whatever that may be.

If your god is real, and can actually do anything at all in our real universe, then there will be a physical change because of your god. What is that change? Please tell me.

Also, ants can get squished by stuff other than people. They can actually get squished by stuff that isn’t even alive, like if a rock wears free from a hillside and rolls down. So after you tell me what you claim your god does, how do I know that it is because of your god, and not just something else? How can you tell the difference? Explain that.

I don’t need to see examples of godly-level math. I don’t need to listen to the insanely complex decision making process of your god. I just want you to show me that your god is capable of affecting anything in the real world. Literally anything at all.

I’ll be waiting right here for any religious person anywhere in the world to just show me what their god does. I won’t be holding by breath, on account of this sort of thing historically being such a disappointment. But spread my words far and wide, I’m here waiting to see this god of yours.

By the way, if all your god is able to supposedly do is create events that are just as likely by chance, then your god is a supreme weak-ass bitch, and even if real wouldn’t be worth worshipping anyway.

The Spartan Atheist

80 thoughts on “Supreme Knowledge

  1. Christians believe that God created the human being with the capacity to know, love and serve Him. Obviously, the argument you keep hearing comes from atheists not Christians. Consequently, you are arguing with yourself and losing, as usual.

    Like

    1. Well hello, Silence. You have one shot: Did Ananias die for the reason you said or the reason the bible said?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You mean, “Did Ananias die for the reason you say or the reason the Bible says. I’ll stick with the Bible which says that Ananias died because he was a greedy and tried to bamboozle himself into the Christian community.

        Like

      2. Wow! It is a new day! Silence actually answered a question. Will wonders never cease? So Ananias sold all of his property and gave nearly all of his money to the church. So maybe 90%? What do you think, Silence? So he gives 90% of his entire worth but held back a little, maybe 10%? And you think that is worth killing someone for.

        Silence, I want you to give up all of your worldly possesions, sell your house, car, furniture, pots and pans, clothes, electronics, everything, and give every penny to YOUR church. And let me remind you, YOU believe the penalty for not doing so is justifyably death…. Right?

        Like

      3. I answered that question weeks ago. You probably deleted it in one of your fits of rage and have accused me ever since of not answering the question.

        Like

      4. No, Silence, you never did. But now that you have, I want you to give up all of your money- every last penny of your weath- to your church. And if you even keep a couple hundred bucks back, you yourself said you should be killed. Right?

        Like

      5. Everything belongs to God. The Church tends to its own business. I tend to my own business. Both the Church and the disciple are obliged to be good stewards of what God has given them to tend. This comes from the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

        Like

      6. No, silence, you deserve to die if you dont give every last penny of your wealth to the church. You agreed the bible was right, and it said nothing of stewardship. Everything or you are a criminal that deserves to die.

        Like

      7. Spartan, Thank you for your concern. But as long as I don’t try to buy my into heaven, I think I’ll be okay.

        Like

      8. No, Silence! You said the bible was right. Ananias’ problem was not trying to buy his way into heaven, it was the exact opposite! He was fucking killed for NOT GIVING EVERYTHING. You are fucked.

        Like

      9. Spartan, Why ask questions if you are always going to supply the wrong answer? You are like a sober man who failed his urine test. How is that even possible?!

        Like

      10. Silence, YOU TOLD ME that the reason Ananias was killed was for giving ALMOST all of his money to the church as it says in the bible You also said not giving ALL of your money to the church deserves the death penalty. That’s what you answered. Would you care to change your answer or something?

        Like

      11. Spartan, It doesn’t make any difference what I think. It is what God thinks that counts. Ananias was trying to buy his way into the miracle power being displayed by the Apostles. He could have given 200% of his wealth and it still would not have been enough because Ananias was seeking worldly power not the humility, holiness and righteousness being offered by Jesus through his Apostles.

        Like

      12. Are you retarded? He gave ALMOST EVERYTHING to the church. Your turn.

        Like

  2. IMO, there’s simply no getting around the fact that “God” is nothing more than a amplified version of human beings. Everything attributed to “him” is identifiable in humans … just on a bit larger scale. And the fact that “the religious” fail to see this is the puzzle of the centuries.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. ACTS 5:1-11 NIV
    5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
    3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
    5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Nan, I get the feeling that SOM just realized why he fought so hard not to answer my question before. A month later, issue forgotten, he comes up with a quick and clear “bible version is right” like they are programmed to do, but then is now facing the consequences of doing so. God killed someone immediately for only giving most of their money to the church. That is pretty indefensible, and I think he is stuck in a corner now that he actually answered. You?

      Like

      1. Unfortunately, scripture does not provide a clear and direct indication that God is the one who killed Ananias. But in any event, he DID die because he held back money from “the church.” There simply is no debate over that part.

        I’m not sure what SOM is talking about when he says Ananias was trying to “buy his way into the miracle power” … ???

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Oh, it’s called “rationalization”. SOM does that all the time.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. chris schilling May 19, 2022 — 6:10 pm

    “Miracle Power.”

    Sounds like a brand of soap powder.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. “If your god is real, and can actually do anything at all in our real universe, then there will be a physical change because of your god.”

    And that includes talking to people. Human brains are physical objects, and any communication with a human is causing a change in a physical object. If we assumed there was a god, and we have two people who claim that god talks to them, but one of them is mistaken about that, how could we ever find out which one of them it is?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s the same bait-and-switch I’m encountering right now on an apologist’s blog. They claim god interacts with us, but when asked how they just shout that we have a “cartoonish” view of their god. Okay, then explain it I request. They don’t. They bitch more. They evade the question.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Hi 🙂 This is a very interesting post with some great arguments. You are an atheist that trust in things that can be measured and observed with predictable outcomes. The scientific method right. You seek someone from my side of the argument to provide some detectable proof of our God in this reality. The causes and effect of such an entity. You are looking for answers. Seek and you shall find, ask and you shall receive 😉 There are so many layers of information to my case, and when I write this it will be under the assumption that you are familiar with the science presented. No godly level math though I can assure you. For that I do not have the faculties.
    You mention quantum mechanics in your ants analogy, so let this be our starting point. Since atoms with their subatomic particles are the fundamental building blocks of our universe it seems like a fundamentally good idea. At this level all options are in superposition with one another unless we observe/measure. In other words, our physical reality is just waves of potential until we observe/measure. When we measure/observe though particles behave like particles with predictable outcomes. By the way, marbles are a good analogy for particles and water for the waves of potential. One particle (marble) alone spreads out like water into these waves of potential. The rules of space and time as we know them lose their function at the level of sub atomic particles. In the high tech version of the double slit experiment for instance the particles goes back in time and change their previous state. Quantum tunneling flips this around by borrowing energy form the future in order to penetrate a wall (paying back on the other side). Then, we have quantum entanglement. Stating that if you change the spin on one of two once connected particles the spin of the other change instantaneously even if they are light years apart.
    Now we are faced with the quantum enigma. Concluding that measuring and observing issues is not just merely restricted to our God. Our bodies and everything in our universe is made up of such particles which suggest we only measure and observe our reality into existence.
    Concluding that science as well as faith has a mystery on its hands. Just as particles God cannot be measured or observed, and there are scientific reasons it. You and I remember how space and time has no function at the quantum level. Well for us it is a different story. Our lives are organized around space and time. Enter Einstein’s theory of relativity stating that space and time is relative to the constant speed of light. My God is referred to as light/eternal light and this is no coincidence. To find answers one must first ask questions. So, what happens at the speed of light? Time stop as space has shrunk to zero. God being referred to as light means that for him there is no time and therefore also space. Excluding my God from our dimensions/frame.
    Our bodies have mass thus cannot reach the speed of light. These restrictions look like this: E=mc2, stating that mass and energy are fundamentally linked together. Therefore, the energy used to pushing our bodies forward are added to our mass. In the end requiring infinite energy as our bodies become infinite mass. Meaning that our bodies are restricted to the ground from which we were taken. A ground called the Higgs field (bosons) that scientifically speaking gives particles their mass. The more they interact the greater the mass. Photons does not interact with these god particles and therefore have no mass. God being eternal light does not interact with the Higgs field. That is why it is written he who found a treasure in a field and went out and sold all that he had to buy that treasure.
    We have now established that God does not have mass. What happens to objects that do have mass? Well they fall under gravity. An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force (Newton). Everything in our universe are constantly falling, but kept together by the fabric of space-time. Another layer to the fall of sin. To visualize how this works we can imagine our solar system on a big stretchy fabric in all 3D direction. On this fabric of space time our sun has the biggest mass and for this reason creates a big downward curve. This causes all the other planets to fall towards it, but since they themselves also create their own curvature they do not fall all the way in.
    The fabric of space time looks like a fisherman’s net in all 3D directions. That is why it is written that Jesus threw his fisherman’s net into (the quantum) sea.
    There are many more layers to my case for Christ, but the comment would become insanely long. If we enter a dialog/discussion I will joyfully provide you more information.

    Like

    1. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Please, in the future, present one concept at a time, because all you just did was say so many wrong things that I’m not going to bother explaining it all. But let’s start at the beginning, with you have a serious misunderstanding about the double slit experiment. Thus, your conclusion is made-up nonsense, and everything after is nonsense. Matter moves how it moves no matter if we observe it or not. Our observation changes nothing. The double slit experiment is a classic example of screwing up, not a classic ecample of the actual nature of particles and waves.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you for your reply. You point out that I am wrong and present too many concepts at a time. It is impossible to answer the request you specifically ask for in this blog-post without presenting an overwhelming amount of concepts at a time. Of course the concepts of an infinite God would become too many at a time. Supreme knowledge vs inferior. You proved your point. I rest my case.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. No, you are wrong again. One of the many ways you are wrong in your previous comment, and remain wrong still, is that logic builds one step at a time. You are proposing shooting as much inaccurate concepts at a time as you can to overwhelm the thought process, and by sheer volume of words make it seem like there is a god somewhere in there. This is very dishonest on your part, even if unintentionally.

        If your god, in any way, affects the real world, then we should be able to test this. Gish-galloping a word salad of smart-sounding but completely unsubstantiated baloney does not change the fact that if your god changes the physical world, it can be tested. This is ultimately why you fail.

        Like

      3. Let me rephrase, if you believed that there existed an infinite car. Add to that this car was a smart car to the point that it had supreme knowledge (probably infinite as it would align with the infinity dimensions of the car itself). Then, I found myself disagreeing with you and your group of infinite car enthusiasts and wrote a blog post. A common thread throughout my post would pointing out just how dumb and outright ridiculous it is that we humans supposedly have inferior intelligence an infinite car.

        Supreme intelligence vs inferior intelligence

        Trying to state your case you write a densely packed response in my comment section. Many concepts are put forth to support your claim.

        I found your tightly packed sequence of words cognitively overwhelming.

        Conclusion: My cognitive abilities are inferior to an infinite car, and I just unintentionally proved it. A smart car with supreme knowledge would not be overwhelmed by sorting through vast amounts information. Just look at AI in this world.

        Infinite

        An infinite car would have infinite number of parts. To describe it part by part along with its functions would be by all logic and reason include extreme amounts of information. In fact, it would take forever to describe it. If our claim is an infinite God, then there is no reason why it should be any different.

        Dimensions-Measuring the infinite car

        Our three dimensional universe with its mathematical properties do not allow us to measure infinity. When a function takes an infinite value such as in the singularity prior to the big bang or in black holes, math becomes gibberish.

        We could say: no godly-level math adds up.

        Like

      4. You have not demonstrated your infinite car has affected this earth in any way whatsoever. My cognitive abilities do not change that fact.

        Like

      5. Yes, that is true. In my previous comment the effects of such a car in our reality was not covered. Your specific request was followed, one concept at a time:

        “Please, in the future, present one concept at a time because all you just did was say so many wrong things that I’m not going to bother explaining it all.”

        Above you present two concepts. I choose to focus on the one in mention as it is related to the heading and quite a substantial part of your blog-post.

        Like

      6. Okay, well let’s focus on something- anything- in our physical world that has been changed by your god.

        Like

      7. “anything- in our physical world that has been changed by your god”:

        Humans. After being dressed in animal skins in evolution, our brains evolved and we got abstract thinking. Now having the ability to remove ourselves from the facts of here and now and “time travel” into the past and future. Giving us the capacity to plan and be creative. Avoiding being restricted to solely acting on blind instincts and emotional impulses. We also got language alongside abstract thinking. Planning: “I know what plans I have for you”. Creativity: “he who fashioned the earth and created it”. Language: “and in the beginning there was the Word”.

        As our brains evolved and became bigger our pelvis got smaller to support upright walking this brought about a very painful birth for both the mother and child. “In pain shall bring forth your children”. Intelligence and knowledge and the rise: The tree of knowledge.

        Like

      8. No, Isabella. You said god changed humans, then you literally in the next sentence say evolution changed humans. Try again.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Sorry for the late response. Summer break is an incredibly busy time. When I enter discussions with atheists it is to learn. Not to win the argument rather improve my arguments and communication skills. Just thought you should know that. We humans tend to think in simplistic ways when it comes to cause and effects. That it has to be one or the other. Creation and evolution according to my theory both happened. Creation would be truth, evolution our reality (matrix/illusion). That is why we bear both the image of the man of dust and God (evil and good). Evolution became our reality because those first humans did not listen to Truth and instead rejected him. They decided to listen to and trust in an animal outsmarting God, evolution in a nutshell. Reduced to our building blocks, we ended up with the subjective perspective.
        One scientific concept to this would be that we interacted with the Higgs field causing us to gain mass and fall under gravity (the fall of sin). Instead of interacting with this god particle field we should have interacted with a true God field. A particle that caused the start dust particles of our bodies to become mass less and rise upward in the opposite direction of time and entropy (that causes disorder to increase). Thus, creating more and more order towards infinity. This is not an unscientific concept. Such a “falling” upwards has actually been a theory regarding the missing antiparticles of this universe. «God is not a God of disorder, but of peace»
        Evolution with its survival of the fittest is comparable to weeds in the field. “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?”
        God and his work is the treasure found in the field: “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then, in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”
        God is light (an infinite constant) that we cannot reach due to our mass. We cannot reach the speed of light because of E=MC2. It would require infinite energy as our bodies became infinite mass. Concluding that we cannot escape the ground/the field from which we were taken.

        Like

      10. I am a bit pressed for time, so there will be some writing errors in my responses.

        Like

      11. Spartan I do think Sean Carrol, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Erwin Schrödinger and others, including Niels Bohr would disagree with you. The wave function is the underlying reality and and form arises by observation. Space time is an illusion and is doomed (google that) The current definition of a particle is “an excitation of a field” and there is no fundamental substance, but only that to an observer.

        Liked by 2 people

      12. Hi, Jim. I am most definitely not a particle physicist. But my disagreement was not with the odd “observation” effect. That is wierd, I don’t understand it. What is quite clear, however, is that literally any conclusion about “gods” is ridiculous speculation. This is the conclusions I emphatically state are gross misunderstandings of the experiment.

        Like

      13. What if you found that space and time could be tossed from the equation and you could discover the frame trip amplitudes outside that framework. Isabella is incorrect assuming this is e where god is, because we’re discovering what is outside space and time and it’s not Jesus.
        Here is a short video on where things are headed and it’s quite interesting.

        Like

      14. How so? Not sure what you’re referring

        Like

      15. Not sure what you’re referring to? Everything seems normal from my dashboard.

        Like

      16. Don’t think so. My dashboard is normal and I control it (I think)

        Like

      17. Okay, well, Isabella starts with an observation- the two slit experiment and particle v wave patterns in observed or unobserved conditions. But then, makes up a lot of shit and jumps to conclusions, none of which have a damned thing to do with the original point of my article, which is show me change in our universe attributable to the specific god she claims is real, in a way she says her god would affect reality. In this, she is an abject failure.

        Like

      18. I’m quite familiar with her argument. In all fairness—Although I think she puts her conclusions firstly (trying to scientifically explain an experience she had) her argument is in line with a lot of points with what is not yet known. Things are becoming stranger than ever, but what is outside space time IS being discovered. The calculations are becoming simpler and simpler because space time isn’t a fundamental property. She’s a tad out of date on her points.

        Liked by 1 person

      19. Strange and unknown is a fact of life. Every single time we did not know something, and now we know how it works, god is the answer 0% of the time, and natural processes are the answer 100% of the time.

        Isabella is as wrong as trying to extend evolution to a moral code of treating other “less evolved” humans like shit. It is a bastardization of the science, and I won’t stand for it.

        Like

      20. In all fairness, every scientific hypothesis is also granted an assumption…some type of miracle. Without that granted assumption there can be no hypothesis. Full stop. If you’ll allow me this…I can explain all that. Christians rely doubly on this feature primarily because faith came before intellect. Then they spend the rest of their lives trying to fit in their beliefs.

        Like

      21. Give me an example. I do not understand what you are talking about.

        Liked by 1 person

      22. Anything taken for granted is an assumption, and a hypothesis is at best a working assumption.
        It is assumed that matter is a fundamental property of nature and all hypothesis regarding that, take that for granted. But we’re finding out that matter is not likely fundamental, but something before that—something to do with the wave function and the observer. Consciousness will no doubt play a role in round 3.
        We have assumed space time was fundamental and that been a very useful tool, but even space time is doomed. We’re reaching the limits of its usefulness and can go no further with it. Nobody is certain what’s next, but you can look it up for yourself. It was an assumption that is proving to be false. When it comes to the hard question and the nature of reality, all the common terms you’ve come to know and love will go the way of the heliocentric model.

        Like

      23. Jim, you missed my question. You said miracle. Why did you say miracle? You equated an assumption with a miracle. Why?

        Like

      24. Don’t be too freaked out by the use of a word. Assuming an unexplained phenomenon is a fundamental reality without understanding how that happens. That is the miracle allowed by science. We can now suppose consciousness is a fundamental property (that is what the math is telling us) but we don’t know how that works. That’s the miracle (assumption) of the hard problem. We’ve always assumed consciousness arose from organic patterns. That is not likely to be true any more.

        Like

      25. No, I’m going to take hard exception to your wording. It is explicitly NOT a miracle. I don’t understand why you would even try to smuggle such a word in.

        I understand what assumptions are in science. They never, ever, ever mean “miracle”. They usually mean something that is SO WELL understood that it is not worth the time to rehash it again for the purpose of the experiment.

        My issue is there is obviously a limit to our current knowledge, and Isabelle is trying to cram her god into that gap, and you are giving cover for that. And at the end of the day, none of this addresses my fundamental point anyway. Stuff happening normally vs stuff happening after god did something will look different. Neither you nor her delineated any difference between these two occurrences.

        Liked by 1 person

      26. Should I use the word magic instead? You can decry the verbiage as much as you want but it is true. It’s the same thing.
        Here’s a short excerpt. Btw, you are going against the grain of all scientific inquiry.
        “There are miracles in every theory in the sense that every scientific theory makes certain hypotheses up front. These are the assumptions that you just are asked to grant up front, and then if you grant those, then the scientific theory says, well, given those hypotheses, we can now explain this range of phenomena. So that’s fair enough. I mean, no scientific theory explains everything. You always have to assume something. And the things that you assume are, for the purposes of your theory, they’re the magic. They’re what you’re not trying to explain.
        – So, the constants of the universe, the speed of light, those kind of things are assumptions.
        – That’s right. If you’re a physicalist, for example, you might say grant me space and time, and grant me quantum fields and if you grant me that, or grant me the Big Bang. If you grant me that, then I’ll explain the evolution of chemistry and biology and so forth, I’ll explain that. Or, if you’re a string theorist, you might say, or what they call M-theory, they might say, well, you don’t have to grant the Big Bang. Grant me these strings or these branes and I’ll show you that when two branes bang together, we can get a Big Bang. So maybe they don’t assume the Big Bang, but they’re gonna assume something else like the existence of branes. Every theory that explains something is assuming something deeper and that’s the magic for that theory. That’s gonna happen in every theory because no theory can explain everything. But what you don’t want to do is have magic coming up–
        – In the middle of the theory.
        – Later, exactly right. If you’re going to say that consciousness is real, then if your theory’s going to do that, you have to decide am I going to assume that up front or am I going to actually try to show from a physicalist assumption without consciousness that consciousness arises later on. If you’re going to do the latter, if you’re gonna say that I have only physicalist assumptions in consciousness, my experience of the taste of chocolate emerges from neural activity, well, you need to do that without any magic at that point. It’s just not fair to bring in magic. I’ve not seen any theory that starts with physicalist assumptions and doesn’t bring in magic when consciousness appears.”
        I don’t buy the knee jerk reactions and the constant avoidance of certain words. As I have stated, those that are doing the experiments and research are a lot less confident than you seem to be.

        Like

      27. Jim, I do not know where you got that excerpt, nor do I care.

        Bottom line: scientists do not consider assumptions to be miracles or magic. They consider them to be assumptions. That is why they use that word.

        Like

      28. Of course you don’t care. This much should be alarming to you. It seems your scientific edge is a belief mush more rigid than the physicists. I think you might want to relook at the process.
        Let us say space-time is the assumption —we take it for granted that it is reality yet it is looking more and more that it arises out of observation. It is an illusion and this has been known for quite some time. This is not trivial. This apparent gap was assumed without being tested and is indeed “the miracle” of the 20/21 century. No one can explain it. We’ve gone down this path for 100 years and made many useful gadgets with a phenomenon that arises out of the formless wave? “Why does it appear (according to our best science) that we live in a purely physical world devoid of qualities?”—Erwin Schrödinger

        Like

      29. No, Jim. I am 100% on board with calling something “the unknown”, or saying that something is wierd or crazy or highly interesting.

        Newton invoked god directly. He did so because he knew exactly what was going on to a point, then he did not know. So he invoked god. Turns out, he was wrong. That is the god of the gaps problem.

        “Miracle” and “magic” are attempts to smuggle in ideas or deities that have not been demonstrated, and thus can not be assumptions.

        And the reason I asked specifically where you were quoting things is exactly for this reason. Use of terms like “magic” and “miracle” can be useful if explaining the wonder of science, but they have no place in actual science. No peer reviewed papers refer to them. They are flowery language. And although they let humans engage in wonder, they also give specific cover for those that would bastardize their use to assume a god exists.

        Why on gods green earth (see what I did there) are you advocating to use unscientific words to help smuggle in a god?

        Like

      30. I haven’t implied any type of god at all. Simply pointing out there is room for that sort of interpretation and there always will be. As our knowledge grows so do the borders of what we don’t know. What troubles me is your certainty. More certain than Nima Hamed, Sean Carroll, Ed Whitten, and Max Tegmark combined, as well as the Physicist from the golden age. None of them share your zealousy or confidence. I think you might be a little more tolerant of dissenting opinions—these are all our people.. 🌎

        Like

      31. Jim, I have no certainty at all. That is why I do not use words that imply an answer. A god MAY BE the reason, but until we know, we don’t give the gods credit.

        Like

      32. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
        You don’t know what it is but you know it’s not that! I don’t believe in god either, but you are most definitely certain.

        Like

      33. Interesting. I specifically stated my objection was you using language that implies an answer because I am keeping the options open, and you tell me that I’m certain?

        Like

      34. Well from my observation these past few years you can get pretty pissy and overbearing about religion and overconfident in your belief in atheism. Not that that matters but I just noticed you missed some key understandings and were using some old information.
        This gist of all our accomplishments lay on a few, hundred year old discoveries and we make some pretty cool gadgets out of them. I’m curious what you were referring to when you stated “assumptions were made in science because we had such a high level understanding” on the subject? You do realize every single theory is going to be replaced, sometimes gradually and sometimes with a 180° bang. Nothing is fully known—you can’t even find a drug that works the same way on everyone all the time. We can mix a few polymers, rocket around on technology, but understanding what everything is, is a bit more challenging. Every element is made of the same substance, which is one big abstraction. The illusion is we think it’s real, but that is another assumption.Why does it appear (according to our best science) that we live in a purely physical world devoid of qualities? Where is the matter and the physical mechanisms promised 50 years ago to demonstrate any one part of conscious experience? There are none, even though a lot of people and the best minds in the world have been working on it for decades. They are no closer to knowing than they were when they started. That’s not very good progress.
        I’ll go with Tesla on this one. “My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists. The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

        Like

      35. Well, yeah. The religious folk don’t think of god as some unknown-as-of-yet way that subatomic particles do stuff. Their god is pretty specific about actually giving us rules and metting out punishment. And thst god is demonstrably bullshit, yet it causes a great amount of harm to our societies and to people. If you wanna call the fact that electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom a “miracle”, that’s fucking cute and all, but it in no way resembles what religious people mean when they say that their god caused a miracle. Their god did not heal anyone. Nor did their god lead anyone anywhere ever. Nor did their god get enough people to vote for something. Nor did their god save any people from death, ever. And you telling them that maybe a miracle happened doesn’t change that fact, no matter how cool and nonsensical quantum mechanics can be.

        I am very confident that what THEY mean is horse shit. THEIR claims are false. THEIR beliefs are wrong. If we discover tomorrow that a god causes photons to respond to observation, it will not in any way change the fact that their beliefs were still wrong.

        Science is amazing. Let’s quit giving it the same moniker as backwoods, ignorant deities.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. I have been following the discussion, between Jim and yourself. Why have you not address me directly on the treating the less evolved like crap? Kindly fill me in. Please give me specific examples of me doing that to you and how I arrived at the conclusion that you were less evolved. This is a fact: I am not superior, period! Not to offend you but: To avoid hypocrite behavior in the future you ought to examine your choice of wording towards those you disagree with prior to accusing others. I for one try to stay awake, alert and work on growing and learning from mistakes every single day. No, not experiencing superior results either.
    Heading back to the main topic: I think there is only one thing all three can agree upon: observation is ongoing.
    Not to mention the two of you can agree upon me being wrong 😉

    Like

    1. Isabella, I’m not sure what you are talking about. Treating less evolved like crap?

      If your god affects our real world, demonstrate that. Period.

      Like

      1. “Isabella is as wrong as trying to extend evolution to a moral code of treating other “less evolved” humans like shit. It is a bastardization of the science, and I won’t stand for it.”

        English is my second language, I probably interpreted this comment wrong. I am very sorry for the misunderstanding.

        God in the context of our reality is complex. Large amounts of science, research and an array concepts is vital to present the case. Excluding large portions of such information makes a poor case as the arguments are taken out the big picture they need to be in.

        If only one thing could be included though it would have to be the singularity prior to the big bang. A point with no space, time, infinitely small, infinitely dense and a place of extreme order. It is written I am the beginning and the end. This singularity in mention is the beginning and end of our universe. It was the start of our universe as we know it. It is also the end: Looking out into the universe is looking back in time (measured in light years). Although the singularity prior to the big bang is not part of the observable universe it is the end. We reach the end of our observable universe at the cosmic microwave background. I know that it is not the answer you were looking for, but all of our reality came out of this singularity in the big bang. Not diving deeper at this point to ensure that no overwhelming amounts of information is presented.

        Thank you for discussing with me ♡ ♡. I will leave you with a good equation: you=me

        Like

      2. You keep saying lots of crap that is absolutely wrong.

        First, I’d like to acknowledge that as your second language, there may have been a misunderstanding. I did not say you thought there were lesser people, I am saying some people do, and your statements are wrong in the same way.

        Second, no, the sigularity was the beginning of the universe, not the end. Your holy book is wrong. It fails. You are “cherry picking”. Please look that up.

        Like

      3. Despite my obvious deficits, I knew what cherry picking was prior to this conversation. This expression is actually included in a book I published five years ago.

        The singularity prior to the big bang is a theory as large portions of science is. Theories are always up for debate. Nothing is set in stone. There is plenty of shadow and variation in science and research. A general theme though has been and still is writing God out of the equation. This is the tree of Knowledge playing out. Wisdom without God (AKA truth), “and the fruit was desired for its wisdom”. My prediction is that science/research will reach its complete success of writing Truth out. In all probability this will be achieved with quantum computers and nano technology. This will include a nano chip/tattoo in/on the hand or forehead of people. So your side will have it your way in the end, but if you get what you want would you want what you get?

        As for the Bible (filled with parables) and my book it is written and interpreted by humans. Piecemeal imperfect humans not able to fully capture the source: the living Word.

        Like

      4. I forgot to write no prior to the word time in the previous comment. The singularity has no space and no time, but is infinitely dense, infinitely small and all the rest I wrote.

        Like

  8. Isabella, no matter how much of a “scientific spin” you attempt to put on your perspective of how the universe came to be, there is simply NO evidence that a “higher power” (i.e., the Christian God) had ANYTHING to do with it. In essence, as with so many other things in religion in toto, it is a BELIEF, not a fact, not a “truth.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry for the late response. My scientific spin does not do the trick in a universe where there are spins, orbits and rotations on the relative fabric of space time everywhere. As for belief just as much as I cannot believe a God into existence, nor can you or any atheist theorize him out of existence if he does exist. The truth is what the truth is. With my theory I can only point towards the existence of my God, not prove.

      Like

      1. Hi, Isabella. I’ll try and answer both of your replies in a very concise and understandable concept.

        Science uses very precise language precisely to avoid confusion and ensure accuracy. You are using flowery, muddled language, which leads to confusion and room for unsubstantiated statements.

        Nothing in reality, and I mean absolutely nothing, “points toward” your god or any god. Assuming and jumping to conclusions and logical fallacies do, but no actual information gained from observing our universe on any level anywhere points to a god.

        You do not have a theory. You have a mish-mash of some sciencey stuff mixed in with gibberish. And to keep this short and understandable, I will comment on one such example in the next comment.

        Like

      2. You said creation is truth, evolution is reality. Then you literally said “matrix”.

        The matrix is a movie. It is a work of fiction. There is nothing scientific or even real about the matrix. And I’m going to really lean on this hard for a minute, because the difference between science and made-up bullshit is actual understanding of what is happening. We can break evolution down to the smallest detail and explain that particular function. For example, offspring of sexual reproduction have mutations in their DNA compared to the parent DNA. This happens during replication. This is understanding. It is a piece of evolution we know to be true, testable, predictable.

        Compare that with science fiction. How do they walk on the floor in space? There is an excuse (artificial gravity generator or something) but no actual underatanding how that works.

        So in evolution, we have understanding. In creation, it is the same as fiction, in that nobody has ever tried to figure out the details. Further, it is not needed. If I jump on one end of a teeter totter, an object on the other end will be catapulted up, and obey mathematical equations on such matters. Neither fairies, gods, magic, spirits, atoms with brains, giants, bigfoot, nor cracks in the matrix are required to explain this. And evolution is the same. It is already explained, and smuggling in the matrix or god is pointless in understanding the process.

        Like

      3. Matrix as defined britannica.com: “matrix, a set of numbers arranged in rows and columns so as to form a rectangular array. The numbers are called the elements, or entries, of the matrix. Matrices have wide applications in engineering, physics, economics, and statistics as well as in various branches of mathematics.” Branches of knowledge on the fabric of space time. The tree of knowledge. I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth. Matrix the movie is as you point out is fiction, and that is why it fits nicely besides the word illusion. Not to mention it is about a fabricated reality pulled over our eyes.

        If we look at evolution it is evident that all the species including humans have common ancestry. Our origin was a single celled creature that lived in the ocean 3,5 billion years ago. It is the trunk of the tree of life that Darwin revealed. In small steps nature favored what gave an advantage in terms of survival. Random variations in nature made different traits favorable and this led to the variety of species. These variations can be seen as branches on Darwin’s tree. The branch that led to humans is called vertebrates. From fishes it branched out into mammals. That is where Jesus and the fisherman’s net comes in:

        “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.

        I know you do not agree with what I just wrote but: Would you agree that evolution is: An unplanned blind non guided process of natural selection acting on random variations in nature?

        Like

      4. No, I do not agree that evolution is as you define it. Mostly I do. Unplanned, yes. Blind? Depends. Natural selection, yes. Random variations, yes. In nature, yes. But I disagree with non-guided completely. The process of selection is very guided, and the guide is life or death, and the measure of success is reproduction. If you were walking blindfolded in a gigantic room with a tape path on the floor, you would be blindfolded and wandering randomly. But if you were slapped on the nose any time you wandered off the path, you would stay on the path. That is very guided.

        Of course, my analogy is not perfect because it is an analogy….. but specifically because in nature there is no thinking agent that executes a slap, it merely is a mutation that keeps an organism alive long enough to reproduce effectively or it is not.

        Okay, on to matrix. Fair, mathematical matrix. But then you keep smuggling in poofy imagery. Tree of knowledge? There is no such thing. Neither are angels. Not sure why you felt the need to interject that into the conversation.

        You then again throw more poofy but useless imagery into evolution because the character of Jesus once was around fishing stuff. Useless.

        Poofy imagery has no place in the search for knowledge. It has a place in the arts, surely. But our discussion is on reality, not feelings, desires, treachery, or heroism. So please leave the poofy shit at home.

        Like

      5. Life or death is the guide, I am on board with that. What is an advantage in terms of survival is favored in evolution, true. Evolution is not planned, we also both agree on that. The analogy you present is the best explanation for your view that I have heard. I am going to use another analogy when presenting my view. Namely a dice. Evolution throws dice, God does not.
        In our reality events line up like frames on the fabric of space time much like in a movie. The observer is always in the now frame. Future events line up in the arrow of time direction. One can also visualize this as a loaf of bread where we are always in the here and now slice. The reason that God does not throw dice is that for him it would be pointless as the result in infinity dimension is open and bare. You see when we use a dice we pick it up. Roll it in our hand. Throw it on the table. It rolls. Then, the dice lands and we read the result. All of those events are separated by time. From the perspective of an infinite God all of those frames vanish and everything happens simultaneously. Our reality is piecemeal due to events being separated by space time.
        Bringing us to evolution. Evolution works over mindbogglingly long periods of time. So, its frame is most definitely space time. Here, the past is gone and future events are always out of reach. The guided labyrinth on the floor of life and death (tape) is laid out based on past events predicting and adapting its way into the future. Concluding that our frame is based on forecasts all the way down to our fundamental building blocks. As mentioned earlier, in the quantum field one can only prognosticate outcomes. Making nothing certain in the direction of time. Only probabilities of future events can be calculated. In the midst of this uncertainty there is our game plan and ability to set goals for the future.
        Now you and I both agree that evolution is not a planned process. Yet, from it humans arose that with our self-awareness have the ability to plan. More importantly science and research requires such structured aims. Only yielding those desired results with a systematic methodical approach. In order to work systematically and methodically there has to be the foundation we call a plan. It goes full circle. Contradicting evolution itself.
        As for me smuggling in what you deem worthless in here; One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

        Like

      6. You said “evolution throws dice, god does not.”

        This is a very profound statement, because it is delineating two opposing hypotheses of reality. If evolution is the force behind the species, we expect things to be one way. And if a god is the force, we expect a different result.

        All observation, science, research, and reality nullify the god hypothesis and confirm the evolution hypothesis.

        Now, after the evolution bit you said a whole bunch of things about the reality of time. And, well, fun brain stuff. But none of it, and I mean zero, supports anything at all like the Christian god. Or Muslim. Or Jewish. Or Zoarastrian. Or Voodoo. Or Norske. Or Greek. Or Roman. Or Chinese. Or 99,991 other gods.

        In fact, the “god” hypothesis has been right zero times in a million. An actual million? Well, probably more like tens of thousands. But in the history of ever, once wr actually figure out how things work, it has never once been any god at all.

        And seriously, have we met?

        Like

      7. Hi again! Since you like to translate: Takk for diskusjonen. Det har vært svært lærerikt og interessant. Siden jeg åpenbart (med mindre jeg misforstår) faller så mye innenfor en forutsigbar og svært lite unik gruppe, ja så må du vel ha møtt meg før. Med andre ord er neppe morsmålet mitt ukjent eller en hindring for deg. Det burde vel være som man ville sagt på ditt språk: piece of cake.

        I am not running out of arguments, only time. However, at some point maybe we will enter a new discussion.

        Like

      8. Oversaet? Du forstaa mig ikke. Klarlaegge. Hvis du ikke har en praecis ord, saa er forstaaelse ogsa ikke praecis. For eksempel, du siger “piece of cake”, men de betydder ikke “kage”.

        “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.” mener ikke “evolution from water-based organisms.

        Paa samme maade, “the tree of life” er ikke yggdrasil, og er ikke beviser for norske varer.

        Det er alle sammen upraecis ord, der kun ka’ foere til misforstaaelser.

        Forstaa du det?

        Like

      9. I wrote in Norwegian to prove a point about labels and boxes (“have we met before”). Such “group think” falls short. Something my previous very naive self had to learn about both atheists and Christians. Also, remember we see things and others not as they are, but as we are. We have a “me” lens and filter and it is littered with traps.

        Now, let us try to round up this conversation:

        As mentioned, my main motives are to improve my arguments and communication skills. The lessons so far have been that my arguments need to be simplified, de-cluttered and clearer. A necessity to avoid misunderstandings in the future. Another thing I have learned is the lack of substance in atheism on the individual level. The biases and blindness are easy to spot. For instance stating repeatedly that I am wrong in abundant and creative ways does not make a good case. Yet, it is a predictable common thread. A solid theory of everything should be the foundation of non-believers case.

        Like

      10. And I replied in Danish for fun. But seriously, the fact that I was curious if I met you before has nothing to do with boxes, it has to do with you are anonymous but managed to do enough things that I was very honestly thinking you were someone I knew. A specific someone. But then I contacted that specific someone to find out. Anyway, enough of that.

        Atheism is completely devoid of substance. In this you are correct. Atheism has no beliefs, no tenants, no jargon, no dogma, no study, no no hypotheses or theories, and no conclusions except one thing- disbelief in a god.

        In the study of logic, atheism is the null position. Religious claims have to stand on their own merit, otherwise the null position is taken. So no, a solid theory of everything is not required. All that is required for an atheist to be an atheist is no religious claim is true. And that is the case.

        Now, there are any number of scientific theories that are true and directly contradict religious claims. Evolution contradicts the bible, for example. So while we can conclude that the bible is in error, it does not mean there are no gods. The lack of any evidence for gods is why we conclude there are no gods.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. Also, might be a totally random question. Do you play guitar?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close