God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Miscellaneous General
, , ,
61

Actually, singularities have been proven to exist in the strong sense of proof according to the known laws of physics (in this case, general relativity). That is, the proofs of this are theorems, i.e., apodictically true if the known laws of physics are true, specifically, general relativity. And these physical laws have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date, so there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. For the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that singularities exist according to the known laws of physics (i.e., general relativity), see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548.

Regarding your second claim, Donny, attempting to carry on this conversation with you is akin to having a conversation with a schizophrenic person: you ignore what I said and come out with something nihil ad rem and logically fallacious.

I already explained the reason no physics whatsoever can apply to a singularity in a way that even you should be able to understand. The reason is because physical values are at infinity in a singularity, and it is not possible to add or subtract from infinity, hence making any physics whatsoever impossible to be applied to a singularity. It’s not a limitation merely on current physics, it’s a limitation on any form of physics whatsoever.

As well, you’re advancing a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. Of course if God exists then that means God physically exists. That’s what it means to exist. Anything that has effects on reality is physical and is real. Singularities are physical and real: they physically exist and they have effects on reality, it’s just that no physics whatsoever can apply to a singularity itself. That is, the laws of physics prove that something exists to which no form of physics whatsoever can apply.

Moreover, according to the known laws of physics, God is existence itself, i.e., the totality of existence: God is all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. Below is the biblical teachings on this matter:

  • We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
  • We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46.
  • We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28.
  • God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24.
  • We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25.
  • We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28.
  • God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
  • God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12.
  • We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34; Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21.
  • Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24; Revelation 13:8.
  • The reality of multiple worlds: Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3.
  • God is the son of man: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:18; 12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27,28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:13; 25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64. (This is just listing how many times Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew, althought He refers to Himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that He used to refer to Himself.)
62

Ah hah. So you are pulling a Spinoza. You cad! Are you suggesting then that the laws of physics prove that “all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist” exists? Or are you actually trying to say that physics proves the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being that created the universe and mankind in His image, spoke to Abraham and Moses, and sent his only son to die on the cross for the sins of mankind? Because if the former is what you’re trying to prove, then I am in total agreement: By the laws of physics, existence exists. If the latter, then: Bullshit.

(And no, physical existence need not be synonymous with existence. If the physical universe exists in the context of some other plane of existence, as is hypothesized by some theists, then it would be coherent to speak of an entity existing in some sense “outside” of our physical universe, with the capacity to affect our physical existence in a non-law-bound manner. It’s sort of like the Flatland thought experiment.)

63

Great thread! I’m subscribing. [:P]

64

That sounds like a flat out contradiction no ?

65

More than that even. The Greeks were pretty advanced technologically.

66

Erm, no. The Greeks were thoroughly systematic, even if wrong on some things.

67

Yes, they even supposedly created the first mechanical analog computer, the Antikythera mechanism.

68

[8-|]

Nothing like philosopher jokes. And anachronistic words.

69

Ok hang on …isn’t saying that “God is the son of man” just another way of saying that “man invented God” ???

70

No, it is pretty close minded to think that our description of cyanide is actually cyanide.

There is quite clearly a framework in which those two statements make sense. What framework bounds God supposedly?

No not really. It isn’t as though what I have been saying hasn’t been said by various thinkers from all walks of life for a millennia. I’m sorry you can’t understand the concept of transcendence.

Well good thing I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything and just stating my view on the matter.

No sorry.

A description of a tree is not the tree. I never said they cannot describe reality, I said they cannot capture reality. They certainly serve their purpose within various frameworks of knowledge and implied understanding, but God has no such framework.

71

But he is pulling a Spinoza! This is…like…the definition of pulling a Spinoza!

72

djhgl;akjsd g;jasas.,gl i4356t drsf.n,e;9075.ls gh;lkjdfr;rlkgjh45

Was that gibberish? If so, then you’ve refuted yourself.

The framework of fiction.

Arguments from antiquity and numbers. Wow–2 fallacies for the price of 1. Transcendence is just a version of the age-old “I am making this up as I go along” under different names, whether it was Plato and his Forms, Hegel and his Geist, Kant and his Noumena, or the Supernatural. It’s all the same–only the names have changed.

No one ever said it was. Please don’t strawman.

Looks that way to me.

Now then, “god” certainly can be studied if one remembers to stick to the realm of fiction, as it were. That is: we know it’s just fantasy. Made-up. Not real. It’s the same as how we “study” unicorns, vampires, elves, and the like. We have those fictional frameworks to help. If you wish to actually say that we can’t study god because we have no framework, then either you do not believe that there are books of fiction, or you’re saying god does exist, but we can’t describe god at all because you just want to have some mystery and forever block something off from humans without any reason at all to do so other than your own hatred of thinking. Which is it?

73

Of course it was gibberish and that has hardly refuted anything. It refutes an argument about as much as just saying “No you are wrong” does, which is to say not at all.

Sorry you don’t get to determine something is fiction by merely saying so, which is really all you have done here.

No fallacy, just pointing out that it isn’t something I’m just making up, it is not some made up concept or idea that I just came up with, it has been around for a very long time. This fact in of itself doesn’t confirm it as correct, but it shows that I am not “just making this up as I go along” or anything of the sort.

And you sure refuted thousands of years of philosophical thought with that sentence. You seriously can’t be that full of yourself that you think that just because you say that “oh they were making it up as they go along” that it makes it so.

You have implied that the nature of God (and everything for that matter) can be captured with words and descriptions.

Then perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

Then you are studying an image of your own creation in thought, which leads me back to atheism/theism being attachments to your own mental positions and nothing more.

I don’t deny works of fiction, and I don’t hate thinking so stop being absurd. I simply do not see thought, words, etc as being able to completely capture reality and particularly not the transcendent whole of reality. This isn’t that hard to grasp.

74

Oh you’re just being closed-minded.

Nope. If you believe I have, then you can be the first person in history to show that there is a god. Please do so. Now.

Yeah, it was.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I didn’t say you made up the concept of transcendence. I said that it is code for “I’m making this up as I go along”. How in the world could you possibly create such a strawman from what I wrote? Are you deliberately trying to hamstring yourself? Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid and dishonest?

Argument from antiquity fallacy. Please stop using fallacious arguments. Thank you.

Yes, and how does that mean that the description is the thing qua physical, which is what you’re implying. Please do learn English.

Or perhaps you should start being honest, as you clearly have stated above that you don’t believe words can describe reality. Should you wish to lie and say that you didn’t say that, I will refer you to:

for the evidence that you do not believe that words can describe reality.

Which it isn’t. Of course, if you would like to demonstrate the veracity of your claim…but wait. That would mean you’d have to admit that your words would accurately capture reality. And that would mean you’d have to be a hypocrite. Oh darn. You’ve painted yourself into a corner.

Then you admit that we can describe god in the framework of fiction. Thank you for at least being that honest.

Now that’s a laugh.

Silly mystic.

75

Not at all.

Well since it was never my intention to try and show you there is a God and my whole point has been that it is impossible to speak of what God is, then that would be pretty silly of me to attempt to do so. You made the claim that “God is fiction” without doing anything to back it up.

No sorry it wasn’t. Never did I say “Because this is an old concept, it is true.” You need to learn how to read, seriously.

Are you deliberately reading things incorrectly?

Wait so you don’t have to demonstrate the veracity of your claims but I have to mine?..Hmm…

Atheism and theism reject or accept an idea or image in thought of God. Ideas and thoughts are mental positions. To reject this idea (atheism) you must first accept “God exists” as a meaningful proposition.

Yeah I suppose we can in the same way that we can describe a tree within the framework of fiction as well. I don’t see what the point of this is at all, as it says nothing of “God” de facto.

For more, see: your reasoning.

Silly Ad Hominem.

Please feel free to show how dualistic symbolic human language can describe all things and experiences and the totality of reality.

76

Sure you are. You must be open to it being intelligible.

Then you admit that you lied about what I was doing. Thank you.

No, I didn’t. And you just admitted that I didn’t. So please: start being honest.

That was the entire reason you wrote what you did. You simply stated it in a passive-aggressive manner. So please: start being honest.

You clearly are, which is why I asked the question.

Except I have. So please: start being honest.

That’s actually what you’re doing. You have refused to back your claim about words not being descriptive of reality (yeah, you claimed that. Don’t lie and say you didn’t). You have refused to back your claim about god being some transcendent idea which can’t be explained. So please: stop projecting your behavior onto me.

Such projection. I don’t know where you learned logic but just saying “Oh, words don’t decribe reality accurately” and "god is transcendent and can’t be explained " don’t cut it.

That was the reason behind your passive-aggressive mention of it.

Sure. Not a problem at all. It’s called “wavelengths”. Whether or not they understand it isn’t the issue; that it can be described is. And since it can be described, you’re simply straining to cover your religious agnostic theism. Silly mystic.

No problem there either: it’s what we feel both in a base-sensal mode and the mental feelings that induces when we sense things.

Hit me with something more difficult.

You said they cannot descibe reality. See below.

Then you have lied. Not my problem that you can’t keep your story straight.

I never said I didn’t have to. Please STOP LYING.

Of course. But in doing so, you will refute yourself. It’s so beautiful to watch people attempt to justify self-refuting garbage.

Not necessarily. Atheism is simply not having the belief that there is a god. Only if you wish to incredibly narrowly define atheism solely and only as the rejection of the idea of god can you claim that. But since atheism is lacking or without the belief that there is a god, and that applies to things so capable of belief which haven’t even heard of god, you’re clearly wrong.

QED

No you don’t. See theological noncognitivism! Read George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God, which I consider to be the premier explication of theological noncognitivism.

The point is that you’re wrong when you say that there is no framework in which to describe god.

Except it’s not. It’s a conclusion.

Please feel free to show how you can communicate with me and not believe that the words are capturing reality. Silly self-refuting mystic.

77

I really do not see how positing God exists in some otherworldly realm solves any problems. It certainly does not prove God’s existence, it only tries to extricate him from being subject to the laws of logic, if such a thing even makes sense. Why should I believe though, that this being exists, that its existence cannot be described let alone proven, any more than I should believe in the possibility of square circles? If anything its positive resignation to the fact that there is no logical argument in favour of a god.

78

It is only intelligible because we have a point of reference to infer meaning from.

What? No.

Umm you quite clearly said that God is within the framework of fiction.

Not at all. The reason I wrote that is because you didn’t do anything at all to address these things.

No sorry.

No you haven’t.

  1. I said they cannot capture reality, and they cannot describe reality in toto. Quit building strawmen.

  2. You need to demonstrate what you mean by the word “God” (you know, the thing you are rejecting and saying doesn’t exist) before anything.

Good thing I never said the first, and the second is certainly implied as if god is taken as the creator or source of all being he would transcend being and explanation. This is hardly a unique view.

Because you fail at backing up anything you have said or refuting anything with substantial reasoning.

Understanding is central to purpose. You could present a question and I could respond with “askdalsvnalwhejamvnasj” and say “see, I described it.” It is incoherent and pointless. Some things must be experienced for their nature to be understood, and language cannot convey that understanding without a frame of experiential reference.

It is incoherent and meaningless to describe the nature of sight to a person who has never seen before, or to describe the nature of smell to someone who has no olfactory glands, etc. In the same manner, it is incoherent and meaningless to describe the nature of God (whatever image of view you may have of what that means) to someone who has never experienced or related to God.

No. I said they cannot describe it in total. Difference.

No, Everything and God are all inclusive words (i.e. reality in toto).

Then what has stopped you from doing so thus far?

Not at all “self-refuting garbage” but w/e.

No atheism is the affirmation that there is no God or the rejection of theism. In both cases you must hold “God exists” as a meaningful proposition.

Perhaps you should read a more about theological noncognitivism as it is exactly what I am talking about. What do you mean by this word “God” that supposedly doesn’t exist? See Theodore Drange and Ignosticism.

No meaningful framework. Or it is at least as meaningful as discussing the Lord of the Rings as a framework for reality.

As I have already said communication relies on a framework or referential point to infer meaning. I have never said we cannot communicate, and you have yet to show how language can capture reality (or at least an objective reality) as it is.

79

You’re being closed-minded.

Then you contradict yourself.

Yes. And I’ve also said that no one in history has shown that there is a god (fact). And I said that we can put god in the realm of fiction and actually describe it. You said that I never backed my claim. I did. STOP LYING.

Yeah, it was. It certainly couldn’t have been that I didn’t address those things, because I did address them.

Then you contradict yourself. Please quit while you’re behind.

Ok, then you admit that what I have written about your stance is what you say. No strawman. Perfect.

No I don’t. I’m not the one claiming it exists in reality.

Yes, you did.

And yet that’s just garbage ontology, as I have repeatedly stated.

Lying won’t help you.

Not in this case. You simply wanted it described. No goalpost-shifting is allowed.

Ah, now you’re understanding why that whole “transcendent” garbage is just that…garbage. It is incoherent, pointless, vague, inchoate, and ontologically specious at best.
Thank you for refuting yourself. You see, you believe that atheism is wrong because it’s just a position based on a mental attitude (if you lie and say otherwise, I’ll quote you and show everyone your lie). Yet because you wish to have god as transcendent (as others do), that in no way means that atheism is wrong. Only someone using a flagrant non sequitur would state otherwise.

So what? Crap apologetics will get you nowhere.

It is fallacious to presume that there is a god when that is to be demonstrated.

Yes, you did. Stop lying.

And you said words can’t describe reality.

Nice lie. You have now capitulated.

Yeah, it is.

No, atheism is lacking or without the belief that there is a god.

a-: privative prefix meaning “lacking or without”

theos: god/s

-ism: belief.

atheism: lacking or without the belief that there is a god or gods.

Don’t tell an atheist what atheism is, bucko.

Yes, perhaps you should, since I have just schooled you on it.

You simply said framework. No goalpost-shifting.

jhl;kajh l;kmng al;skjgdna slk;gn ad;ksdfjk hs;dkjhy 7lwm,ndf./ sd

Silly mystic.

80

Not at all.

Not at all.

You still are assuming all things can be held in thought.

To “show” that there is a God, one would have to first define God.

Hardly. Simply stating they were “making it up as they went along” hardly counts as addressing those things.

I haven’t contradicted myself at all. I have contradicted what you are proposing I have said, which isn’t actually what I have said.

No. Describing aspects of reality and describing reality in total are two different things.

You are claiming it does not exist. What is this God that isn’t existent to you?

I said in total. Very important words that you keep choosing to ignore.

Ok now show, not just merely state, show how it is such.

Continually making empty statements won’t help you.

If there is no understanding the description is empty and meaningless. I assumed you would understand that. Perhaps I assumed too much.

Transcendence isn’t an incoherent or pointless word as it is defined: to pass beyond the limits of. Words can point, and in this case using the word “transcendent” is to point to something beyond the limits of human knowledge. I’m sorry if you have problems grasping this, but you shouldn’t mistake your troubles and ignorance with actually refuting things.

Where exactly did I say “Atheism is wrong.” I merely pointed it out for what it is: a mental position.

And I hardly “wish” to have a god that is transcendent, as I do not care if god exists or not, but this does not mean that I cannot recognize the concept of transcendence and how it relates to this idea commonly held as god.

VNKDLKASRNVKDLKJR

There I just explained how I am the universe. I’m sorry if you don’t understand it and that above description is incoherent to you but it has meaning.

It is fallacious to presume that everything can be demonstrated with language.

Describing aspects of reality =/= describing the totality of reality.

Actually, you first said I said that, when I actually said words cannot capture reality, and then I went on to say that words can describe aspects of reality, but not reality in toto. If you cannot understand the difference between this then there is nothing more that can be said here and this discussion is futile.

You must have been using invisible font then because the totality of your argument thus far has been just unsubstantiated statements.

No.

You must first have a concept of what is meant by “God” to deny it’s existence.

No you haven’t, you simply mentioned some book about it. I could mention several books that deal with that topic that have pretty much said exactly what I have been saying. Language, Truth, and Logic by Alfred Jules Ayer is a good one, as are pieces written on the subject by Theodore Drange.

I acknowledged anything can be within a fictional framework, I rejected that such a framework brings anything meaningful to the table.

vadknvailnekfanlvnakdnvlkadef

See that is where I just refuted your above statement.