How You Can Know There Is No God


Ha, as much as I would like to take credit for this beauty...

It's by Wayne Adkins:
There is no God. How could I just make an assertion like that? Why wouldn't I say "I believe there is no God" or "I don't believe there is a God"? After all, I am making a negative assertion, an assertion that something does not exist. To prove that something does exist, one need only provide a single example of a things existence. But, we are often told, to prove a negative assertion, an assertion that something does not exist, one must conduct an exhaustive search of the universe or have complete knowledge of everything. So to prove God does not exist, we are often told, one must possess god-like abilities. This is rubbish. A negative assertion can be proven.

Take the case of square circles. I can claim with confidence that square circles do not exist. I don't need to conduct an exhaustive search of the universe or be omniscient to prove this. Just a basic understanding of squares and circles is all that is required. From my basic understanding of squares and circles I can reason that squares and circles are, by definition, contradictory shapes which cannot exist in a single entity. No genius level intellect is required. No omniscience is required. Negative assertions can be proven by demonstrating that whatever is being proposed contains contradictory attributes which cannot exist in the same entity.

The same thing can be done with the existence of God. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." That verse refers to the beginning of the heaven and the earth while God is presupposed by the author and described elsewhere in the Bible as eternal. God is described as having no beginning and the existence of everything else is attributed to God. So according to the Bible, and just about every other creationist narrative, God has always existed and created everything else that exists. If true, this would mean that at some point, God was the only thing that existed.

I'll come back to that point in a moment. I want to talk a little about what thought is and what is required for thought to occur. I once asked a German woman who had been living in the United States for about twenty years if she now thought in English or if she still thought in German and translated on the fly. She told me that she still thought in German. I think in English, Russians think in Russian, the French think in French etc. We use words, audible sounds, to represent objects, people, places or ideas. We use those words as tools in our heads to form ideas or to solve problems. When I say the word "spoon" an English speaking person conjures up the idea of a spoon in their mind.

Some people have never heard the word spoon before. People who were born deaf rely on imagery for thought the way hearing people rely on audible sounds. But what of people who were born deaf and blind? Are they not capable of thought? Of course they are. Helen Keller is a remarkable example of that. But she had to be taught to use her other senses to compensate for her lack of vision and hearing. She learned to read Braille and eventually became a more insightful thinker than most.

But what would happen if a person were born with no sensory organs? What if they had a perfectly good brain, but no way to input information from their own bodies or the world around them? What if they couldn't see, hear, feel, taste or smell? Could they become equipped to think in that condition? Could they learn some kind of language to handle thought with? They would be completely unaware that they or anything else exists. They would be incapable of thought because they would be aware of nothing and they would have no language with which to describe anything whether object, person, place or idea.

Now turn that scenario upside down. What if a being had unlimited abilities to perceive the world around them, but nothing existed? That being would be in exactly the same predicament as the being with no senses. Now we are talking about the position God would be in prior to creating anything else. God could never have seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled anything. God could never have heard someone else speak or spoken to someone else. No one else existed yet. There would be no language to speak with. Remember, language describes things and no things exist. Could a being think in this scenario? What would He think about if nothing exists? How could language exist if there were nothing to describe and why would one exist with no-one to listen to your description? Without matter there would be no language. Nouns exist to identify people, places and things. But no people, places or things exist in this scenario. Verbs exist to describe actions. But what action can occur when nothing can be done? Without matter there can be no language and without language there can be no thought. Without thought there can be no intelligent beings. Some people assert that matter could not have come into existence without some intelligent being to create it. But the reality is that no intelligence could exist without matter.

Some would say God could think about Himself since He existed. What would He think about Himself? That He is mighty? What does might mean when you are the only being that exists? Mighty compared to whom? Mighty by what standard? God could have done exactly nothing for all of eternity past. After all, what can there possibly be to do if nothing exists and how could a being who had never done anything be described as mighty? Could He consider Himself holy? Again, by what standard? Because He hadn't sinned? Tell me what sin can be committed when nothing and no-one exists but you? He couldn't lie or steal or kill or covet. Holiness is meaningless without context because no sin could be committed. Every description of God would have to be made in the context of something else and if there was nothing else then there wasn't even a sufficient context for a God to think about Himself.

The knee-jerk reaction of most theists is to claim that I am describing the framework with which human beings think and then projecting that onto God who is not bound by such a framework. Our feeble human minds simply cannot approach an understanding of a mind like God's they would say. But most human minds are fully capable of  understanding straightforward logic and that is what I am presenting here. Intelligence requires thought. All thought requires language. All language requires something to describe and a means for communicating that description. Therefore, intelligence cannot exist without matter. So when someone says that we simply cannot understand how God was capable of thought before the existence of matter because we cannot understand how God's mind works, what they are really saying is that the idea that any being could be capable of thought before the existence matter is illogical. I would agree with that. It is completely illogical.

"Hold on!" says the theist. "In addition to being eternal, God is omniscient. God knows everything and He always has. So God never needed sensory input to learn about anything. And since God knows the future, all languages were available to him to think with. Since God is not bound by time he has always been aware of everything that would eventually exist." On the surface this appears to be a convenient way out of this conundrum. However, all it does is create a problem I like to call the Batman conundrum.

When my son was about six years old he was watching a Batman cartoon on television. Whenever Batman got into a bind he would retrieve some gadget concealed in his belt that would allow him to do something he otherwise wouldn't be able to do. After watching him pull several bulky gadgets out of his thin belt my son remarked that Batman couldn't really keep that much stuff in that tiny little belt. Even at his age he recognized that it just wasn't possible for all of those items to exist in the same belt. But to advance the plot, the cartoon´s writers kept on imagining more gadgets in Batman's belt. When monotheists first began describing a single deity to replace the myriad Gods people used to worship, they did the same thing. They kept adding attributes that they thought would ensure that their deity was the greatest deity ever conceived. They made him eternal. After all, if God is to be an acceptable explanation for the existence of the universe, He had to exist before the universe. And of course people would ask who created God, so He had to be uncreated and eternal or people would assume that God's creator was greater than God Himself. Then they added omnipotence and omniscience. He was all-powerful and all-knowing. But they assert that God was creative; that He designed everything that now exists. The problem is that attributes like creativity and eternal omniscience are contradictory. They cannot exist in the same entity.

If God knew everything and always had for all of eternity, then God could have never had an original thought. My former pastor once asked "Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?" I don't think he understood the significance of that question when he asked it. Despite what the Discovery Institute, the self-proclaimed leading proponent of intelligent design, would have you believe, a God who has always known everything can't be credited with designing anything. Everything would have always existed, at least conceptually, in the mind of God for all of eternity past.

I could take raw materials and produce a coffee cup. I could decide what size and color I wanted and what shape the handle would be and I could then use raw materials to make it. But I could not take credit for designing "the coffee cup" because I already have prior knowledge of what a coffee cup is and what it does. I can't claim the concept as my own original idea because the concept already exists and I knew that. My prior knowledge of coffee cups prevents me from taking credit for the idea. Likewise, if everything always existed in the mind of God, at what point could it be said that God designed anything? For God to take credit for designing something, for creating the concept of something, there would have had to be a point at which that concept did not exist. For an omniscient, eternal God there would have never been a time when the "design" for everything didn't already exist and God wasn't already aware of it.

Creativity and eternal omniscience do not mix to make a greater God. They tie His hands and limit His ability to create. They reduce Him to, at best, a kind of information storage system for the future universe, a sort of hard drive to which nothing can be added. God would have been bound to create everything a certain way, that is, He could not create anything differently than His prior knowledge allowed. If He wanted to create something differently than it currently is, then He would have known that for all of eternity past and the current design would have never existed. He would be locked in by His prior knowledge. That does not describe a thinking, creative God. A being who has always known everything cannot consider evidence and make a decision, change His mind or create anything new. Again, what is there for a being like that to think about? Everything would have already been designed, conceived, decided and planned for all of eternity past. Just picture this deity, alone in nothingness, incapable of thought, incapable of learning, incapable of creativity, powerless to change the way things will be without compromising His prior knowledge of how things will be, waiting for all of eternity past to materialize the universe exactly the way it always existed conceptually. Absurd isn't it?

There is no God. God is a square circle. The existence of matter is not dependent upon the existence of some intelligent designer. The existence of intelligence is dependent upon the existence of matter. Throwing attributes like omniscience at a deity doesn't resolve the issue. It only creates different and equally disturbing contradictions.


  1. Very good. I am often puzzled by theist's assertions that God exists 'outside' of time or that God created time itself. Either situation makes God incapable of performing any action, including creating or thinking, since an action is a series of events that occur one after the other in time. Without time nothing changes and therefore nothing happens.

  2. I recently wrote a piece called "Prayers for Nonbelievers"- it would be amazing to have a community of people come together and pray and do service and talk about love in action without God--- and UU doesn't count..not the same thing.

  3. Yes! isn't it so much easier to just be comfortable with accepting that there is no god? :P

  4. Maggie, why on earth would an atheist pray? Who would an atheist pray to? For what reason? That is amazingly counter-intuitive to me. I bow down to no man and no god.

  5. ???

    I doubt many would show.

    First off, a prayer is directly for attempting to communicate with a higher being. What would we be praying to and for? There is no reason to it. When you said service, I first thought you meant community work, but it seems you meant more like a sermon. Talk about love in action without god? And how do you suspect to go about this? And why really? I see no point to it.

    I don't understand any of the reasoning behind this.

    Yeah, social gatherings in general would be nice though.


  7. Very interesting. I agreed with everything except one statement: "All thought requires language."

    Actually Steven Pinker has a great book called "The Language of Thought" where he explains that english, spanish..any language is not the same thing as the inner language of your mind. If you had no formal language (like many deaf people and children who learn creols) they still have thought and think in the same way anyone else would...
    Think about getting the gist of something- if language were the same thing as thought there couldn't be such a thing as a gist

    Anyway this was awesome thanks-
    another good article about the problems with an omnicient god:

  8. anti_supernaturalistJuly 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM

    ** what is prayer? -- it’s not about what you want -- it's about what others expect

    The lack of God's direct response to prayer is not a response of 'no.' It's simply a non-response. Moreover, it is really important that “God” never respond directly. To hear God speaking to you makes you a likely schizophrenic, not a saint. (Obviously . . . how could a non-existent being respond?)

    Jesus admonished his followers against prayer as asking-for-stuff -- "consider the lilies of the field" -- or prayer as public performance -- "they have their reward."

    Ritual too often substitutes for religion as Quakers realized making central to their practice heeding an "Inner Light" -- the equality of all believers, without clergy or hierarchy, to be open to a supposed divine presence here and now. (Quakerism seems as mild a non-rational religious perspective as one could find in the West.)

    Getting rid of dead formalisms, prayer amounts to a purported alignment of a person's intentions with "the will of God." (Or Yahweh, Allah, Ahura Mazda. Pick your favorite from the big-4 near eastern traditions.)

    Prayer, basically, is one fat red herring. The word 'prayer' simply gets redefined until the action it points to is rendered into attitude adjustment. All that matters is your attitude -- are you prepared to submit to authority?

    Yes you have a problem with adapting to authority -- it's your problem. Or better yet, you are your problem.

    Religion and psychology are one in creating fictitious "illnesses" for which each offers sham cures at premium prices.


  9. Johnny, that Penn & Teller piece is awesome!

  10. Let's see here...

    Actually, I think it's much easier to not believe in a god. How about you try it? I already tried believing, nearly every atheist has done so.

    Pascal's Wager.
    Say, what happens if one of the other thousands of religions are right and yours is wrong? Didn't think of that did you? No. Believing in god just to get out of hell is a pretty weak reason to believe. It seems that's the only reason you believe isn't it? Just in case? Well, I'm willing to bet even if their was a god, that he would judge by actions and not just by a stupid belief. I'm quite sure even if their was another god, you've got it completely wrong any anyways. Also, your beliefs harm your quality of life in a variety of ways, which I won't cover here.

    I think that'll do. Turn off your caps lock next time. It makes you seem stupid.

  11. Language doesn't have to be verbal. Creole is a language. The main thing here, is that thought requires a language, not that thought is only language. Although I can see where you are coming from.

  12. That was a little hard to read, and I didn't understand what it was referring to until I read back over the comments again.

    I'll add this rather famous quote from somewhere:

    Praying is thinking you're doing something when you're doing nothing at all.

    Or something like that.

  13. Well now the caps got your attention didn't they? thats what I was aiming for. and thank you for replying to my comment. I don't want to argue with you first of all, we are just stating our opinions on beliefs. I am your average highschool athlete and was born into a Christian family. My gandmother was very religous and so is my family. So of course I would be too. I am not the greatest christian example for anyone, I make my share of mistakes just like everybody else does. And you can't sit there and say that I have never thought about my religion being wrong because it often passes through my mind almost everyday, but most of them are so stupid it's pointless to risk my faith. And you are way wrong on the "hell is the only reason I believe part". It's actually backwards... I am a christian because I want to sit beside god in heaven. And also... have you looked around you? have you looked at the stars lately? have you imagined the entire universe and what it looks like. how can you say there is not a god. thats what I don't understand. That stuff screams there is a god to me... and thats how I can't help but beilive. You have to have faith... and faith is believing in something you can't see.
    The worst words a person can ever hear when he is standing in front of god: "You knew me not yesterday, I know you not today"

    Throw the dueces =D

  14. First off, caps lock didn't garner any more attention than if you just posted regularly. In fact, I believe Johnny first skipped your post yesterday and ignored it for that reason. I almost did as well, if I could I might have just deleted it for it being such an eyesore.

    Believing so you go to heaven is the same as saying you believe so you don't go to hell.

    There is no difference.

    Pretty things don't prove god. If you think that's evidence for god, then I show all the starving kids, warfare, and the quite ugly side of life as proof of no god... and mine is much more potent than yours. For that matter, I don't have to look at the wonderful world around me and think it's wonderful because something created it. I think it's beautiful because it is. If you took time to understand the world around you, you'd find a creation argument lacking.

    Also, just by your stupid little last quote I can tell you never really think of your religion. It's not like many do. Stand before god? How do you stand before something that is omnipresent? Furthermore, how would god not know me? If he's omnipresent, created me, and omniscient? For that matter, he made me to do exactly what I did.

    a) god knows all
    b) god knew what I would do before he made me
    c) god made me, to do exactly what he knew I would do

  15. You hit the nail on the head in your last few sentences. Religious people do not think. They regurgitate. They believe that regurgitation IS thinking. I used to be a Christian. I was tinkering with the notion of becoming a minister. I was raised Christian. However, I figured if I was going to join the clergy, I should probably get serious about learning about my faith. The direct result of years of study? Atheism.

    You can't study religion seriously with an ounce of intellectual honesty and still conclude that it makes any sense. Once you really dig in, you start finding glaring contradictions and horrible logic everywhere. For me, the whole thing came down like a house of cards eventually. Interestingly, my life is pretty much the same, except that now I don't go around rambling like a damned fool about superstitious nonsense.

  16. I believe in God and I apologize for "the saved one"s selfishness and ignorance.

  17. This article, though eloquent, completely ignores the parts of creation that are not man-made. Do you know anyone who has created a mountain? or grass (and I don't mean someone who has grown grass...but actually created it)? or a planet? or an arm? I believe that God did and still does create these things. I believe he was the first to do so and though he was omnipotent enough to know these types of things would exist before they did, I still believe anyone would have to agree that if God does exist that this creation of these things is VERY creative.

  18. There doesn't seem to be any reasoning. I think the only reason to get together to pray and "do service" is to be religious and hypocritically call yourself an atheist. It makes my brain hurt to try to find any rationale to it.

    The social gathering thing is awesome. I belong to and we get together every 2 weeks to socialize and talk about books and find ways to spread education and critical thinking as well as show people that atheists are good people. It's very cool.

    Maybe where you are, GMN, you could start an atheist or freethinker group. :)

  19. Just because you don't understand geology doesn't mean that there is an invisible man in the sky that did it. Geology explains mountains quite clearly. It's only magic to you because you are uninformed and brainwashed.

    Just because you don't understand plant biology doesn't mean that grass is magic and made by your invisible sky daddy. Biology is understood quite well. At least scientists are trying to figure out the mysteries of the universe. They didn't just give up and believe ancient campfire stories from the bronze and iron age.

    There is no god. There is no evidence of any gods. Not a single one. Reality is awesome in itself. We don't need to turn to old fairy tales to make us feel better. Especially when those old stories aren't even close to right.

    Every time there is a concession made between religion and science, it has always been religion that has had to back pedal and change their tune. Read up on Galileo, Darwin and Copernicus.

    Plus, if god made everything, who made god? If everything needs a creator, then god needs one too. This is known as The First Cause Argument. Look it up.

  20. You missed the point completely.

    Your god is omniscient. He KNOWS everything. He knows everything BEFORE he made them. He didn't "create" anything, because he already knew what he was supposed to make. None of it's creative.

    You can't be creative if you know EXACTLY how everything is made and will be made. It's very much like god was simply some guy on an assembly line. Oop, right here on Earth I know there should be mountain. Grass should be here...

    Nothing creative happened. He only did exactly what he was supposed to because he knew he was supposed to do it. It doesn't matter if he was first, because the blueprints were already made.

    You seem to have ignored the rest. Which is funny...

  21. Should he apologize for your selfishness and ignorance? Tell me, how has he got it wrong? Is he not a "true Christian"? We like actual backup when we make completely inane and very much rude comments.

    I don't think I'd find your reasons any more compelling than his.

  22. The "true Christian" does not gloat about how he is going to heaven and shove it and everyone else's faces that they are not going to heaven. The Bible, if you've read it, never once condones such behavior. In fact, God is seen, even in the Old Testament, struggling to turn his back even on his chosen people (especially in the book of Hosea) because of their selfishness, pride, and ignorance. That's why I am apologizing, because you, based solely on your response to what I said, proved that this is where Christianity has gotten...where those that believe differently expect for Christian to be shove hell down their throats because "we" Christians are safe in our churches and couldn't care less if the rest of the world were to burn and go to hell. I am sorry I did not explain myself just bothered me because I completely and totally understand why people who aren't Christians would never ever want to be one. It makes me sick to my stomach that so many people don't give God or Jesus the light of day because of the way we portray ourselves. I wouldn't blame anyone one bit for reading a prideful ALL CAPS post from a Christian, who was bragging about how he's going to heaven and didn't really seem to care if anyone else was, and then never wanted to hear another word again. reiterate my previous post...I apologize.

  23. Let me get this straight, so your view of Christianity is the only way it is right? Your not making a better argument than him, you're making the SAME illogical flaw.

    Your saying your view of a Christian is the only true Christian way. That he's not a true Christian simply because he doesn't conform to your interpretation. Your being a jerk still, your just being a jerk to "the chosen one" instead of us.

    You're being a complete hypocrite.

    Let's put your argument into consideration here:
    1) No Christian gloats about heaven and hell.
    2) But "the saved one" is a Christian and he's doing it.
    3) "the saved one" is not a true Christian.

    The Bible, as I've read it, DOES condone such behavior. Maybe you should read it critically. What do you think any of the prophets are doing when they say everyone who believes goes to heaven and everybody else goes to hell? What do you think your faith says? Oh, so he's blunt about it. Big deal. How he portrays it doesn't change what it says. It's not any less worse. Pascal's Wager is used a lot, and sure, it's not blunt like that all the time, but what is said does not change.

    You sit there and say god doesn't turn his back on his chosen people, yet you then say that "the chosen one" is not a true Christian. Do you not understand how this is hypocritical?

    Who are you to decide who is a "true Christian" and who isn't? What makes you so superior to the rest? You are no different from him, your incredibly haughty to even say those things. Is their more? What else must a "true Christian" be? Your probably one of the ones who says slavery, rape, and such wasn't condoned in the Bible. That all the good parts cancel those out and nonsense like that. Let me guess, "true Christians" ignore those parts and only listen to fluffy happy parts.

    How about this, you aren't a true Christian. Now what do you have to say to that?

    Besides, were not Christians because it's completely illogical... not just because of the people. You should read the deconversion stories for more understanding of why people don't believe. Or, I mean, even read the article...

  24. That last part about Antony Flew appears to provide evidence that in some cases where there is a concession made between religion and science, that sometimes science "has had to back pedal and change their tune." Just a thought.

  25. ...

    He, hehehe, hahahaha...

    Amazing, did you even read the definition you gave? Your argument DOESN'T support the definition! god was not EVER creative! None of your examples gave somebody who ALWAYS knew what was going to happen or what they were going to make. Walla, you're proven wrong. HE DIDN'T DESIGN ANYTHING! Nothing was designed for an omniscient being! The plans ALWAYS had to exist, they never were designed. He didn't create them, he didn't design them, they always existed.

    Also, providing morons who think BS stuff like that doesn't matter. I don't care what Antony Flew says, especially when he's completely flawed in his logic as you are. Complex things do not prove anything.

    Really, read the article again. You need to, you obviously couldn't comprehend what it was saying the first time around.

    ALL your arguments are crushed by the article itself!

  26. Can you please read the majority of the prophets in the Old Testament more closely? Their prophesy of disdain is directed toward mostly toward the chosen people, not those who don't believe. The "chosen" people are the ones messing everything up...I include myself in that group of messing everything up. I even said that in my post before, which why I apologized...for us! I understand you definitely have a point to make with this site and I feel like I have presented views from an alternate perspective which are not haughty, but in fact humble. I've come before you to apologize for my actions, for our actions, as a body of believers. We've messed up...we've missed the mark. That's what I said before. "The saved one" and myself and all the rest. The type of Christianity I promote is the kind that actually acts as Christ did, which is not what the original post this is in response to did. I was attempting to hold my brother accountable, not build myself up. I am continually including myself in the group I am apologizing for. The slavery, rape, and such was done by people who acted out of pride and selfishness, apart from God. I have read the Bible VERY critically, in many settings, both educational and personal, in both varying and similar perspectives to my own. Please don't assume I've been force-fed what I believe and am now regurgitating it to you. I have sought my own faith and truth. I've found it elsewhere than you and I appreciate your perspective and your conversation. Just please don't act as though I am ignorant and blind.

  27. Science changes, you are correct. Religion doesn't. Their is no concession made between religion and science, ever.

    Religion doesn't concede. Because it doesn't change. New religions, however, come in to try to agree with new scientific breakthroughs. So religion does not concede.

    Also, he gave no actual evidence for his claims, which is funny. So he couldn't find an answer... And that's his reason for god? How absolutely ignorant! Could he not just say I don't know? Furthermore, god just adds more questions now, which he cannot answer.

  28. I've read the article three times actually.

    Didn't you say, "We like actual backup when we make completely inane and very much rude comments." I've been assertive but never rude. Please check the definition of hypocrite, as you have previously called me, and maybe check out double standard while you are there. I'm trying to have a conversation but you're apparently just trying to make me look like an idiot, without actually discussing what I present.

  29. Can YOU read the Bible in total more closely?

    You are absolutely wrong anyways, it is stated MANY times that nonbelievers go to hell, by Jesus as well.

    Your views ARE NOT HUMBLE. They are incredibly haughty. PRESENTATION DOES NOT CHANGE MEANING. It's amazing how many people don't understand this concept. You can dress up the words however you like, it won't change anything.

    There is no true Christian then by your standards. Then what's the point of a Christian at all? No, quit with the BS. Christians are Christians, there is no such thing as a more true Christian than the other. Your argument just concludes there are no Christians, which is absolutely pointless.

    Stop apologizing for others! That is an incredibly haughty act! How dare you apologize for others because they don't match your views! What do you think an apology is?

    You have read nothing critically. You read it to match your views. You explain away the negatives, oh, that's the human part. Yet what makes you think the other parts are any different?

    What use of the Bible do you have at all? You are saying you know which parts are true and false, your implying you know god's will thusly. What use do you have of the Bible then?

  30. I did provide backup. Read again.

    Also, I said I don't care if you provide some atheist who decided to become Christian. Why do you think that has any pull on anything? Why? It doesn't. Me pointing out a bunch of Christians becoming atheists won't have an effect on anything at all will it? Because that is a far greater number than atheists going Christian.

    You didn't actually present anything. What did you present? I already told you, your examples are whack and not a valid comparison. Your feelings about things don't matter and aren't valid proof. And complex things don't prove a god (which is discussed in the article).

    If YOU are going to present something that the article ALREADY covers, then you need to provide why the article is wrong! Your post just amounts to ignoring what the article says.

  31. I'm done. I address each thing you bring up with thought. You address my entire post with cut downs and say the same thing over and over without address individual ideas of mine. You twist my words and use them incorrectly when you actual provide points. You provide wrong information: Flew is not a Christian and, also, religion changes very frequently because religion can be defined as man's attempts to reach a heavenly being. Therefore, as people think of different ways they think they can reach a god, religion changes (even within certain sects). The ways of Christ and the views and heart of God do not change, only the people who claims to follow them. I am thankful for the opportunity to share my voice here but I'm not here to slander or be harrassed. Thanks, at least, for reading.

  32. No, religion doesn't change. See? You ignore the points because you simply do not like what they say. Religion doesn't change, new religions form. Get it? What do you not get about that? Why do you think there are thousands of branches of Christianity? Does the Bible change? No, it doesn't. The set of doctrines doesn't change, which is the religion fundamentally.

    You're implying religion is basically a relationship, which is nothing but a logical error--a false dichotomy."With a little critical thinking it's obvious that a relationship with God requires the framework of religion to answer basic questions about the nature of relationships with God. It is a religion. Religion propagates the idea of a relationship with a personal God. Religion tells you what the relationship will be like. Religion reinforces the concept that God communicates directly to you. Religion encourages evangelism and indoctrination. A relationship without the framework of religion is meaningless."

    Oh, sorry, you have to nitpick? Flew decided to believe in god. Why do you think an atheist now not means anything? See? You don't answer questions, you ignore what makes you uncomfortable.

    You ignored it all.

    Your examples are invalid. I told you why. Your feelings about things are not valid proof. Do you have a problem with that? Complex things do not prove your god, you have not given any proof to this claim so... it's been waiting on you to expand. Furthermore, I just told you, if you are dealing with issues covered in the article, you NEED to say why the article is wrong.

    This addresses each of your issues, you just don't like it. You are the one twisting things, you twist it so you can ignore it. It's been actually common throughout your whole visit here, you ignore everything and post a bunch of garbage yourself. You are the one ignoring other points here. You've given nothing to reduce any of our claims. You try to nitpick at things, without addressing the big things we pose. As in the Flew is not a Christian, yet you didn't answer the question of why you think some atheist suddenly believing matters!

  33. An interesting piece. The writer’s rationale is logic-driven, that is, nuts and bolts logic. Unfortunately for his argument the chasm between science and logic is deeper and wider than the Grand Canyon.

    For instance he argues, with perfect logic, that God can’t exist if there is nothing and therefore can’t create a universe out of nothing.

    Nevertheless, science can prove that the universe is a creation, and science can prove that it came into being out of nothing.

    We know that a singularity gave rise to the Big Bang which formed the universe. A singularity is a point too small to measure. In other words, using the writer’s nuts and bolts logic, a singularity doesn’t exist at all — not in any shape or form. Yet in that singularity out of which the universe was formed (the singularity that didn’t exist, don't forget) there was contained the mass of all the stars and planets and every other kind of matter in the universe today.

    If this makes your brain reel, go drink a glass of water and you'll be okay.

    You can’t use logic to describe the existence of God, the universe, humanity or anything else. If the writer knew anything at all about science he wouldn't have tried.

    I’m not arguing here for religion. Religion is an intensely personal thing. I can tell you, however, that some of the world’s most renowned quantum physicists past and present were/are mystics.

    They didn’t start out that way. Science inexorably led them there.

  34. Oh, and by the way:

    I explained how the universe came into being out of nothing.

    I didn't attempt to tackle the central premise of the discussion which is, is there a God? And I'm not going to. What I will say is that the universe conforms to mathematics, not the most obvious kind, but mathematics nevertheless.

    It’s not that we invented the mathematics to fit what we found. No, not at all; we stumbled across the mathematics that already was out there.

    That tells us the universe is a design. All designs manifest out of blueprints, virtual or actual.

    Who designed and drew the blueprint used to create the universe?

    Go figure.

  35. Chalk up your post to another "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about".

    A singularity is not nothing. Furthermore, nothing is too small to measure, it's all a matter of scale. For humans? Maybe. Your wrong anyways, a singularity exists, in shape and form. Just because you don't understand the concept doesn't change anything. A singularity, again, is not nothing.

    Furthermore, you'll be amazed that you are mostly comprised of, nothing. If I condensed and compressed all the molecules in your body... well, I think you get the picture.

    You must use logic to describe the existence of god. You do, you just used it. Your using your own twisted screwed up logic. Oh, by the way, logic explains the universe, logic explains humanity, logic explains the world... that's, duh, logic. Science is the direct pursuit to explain our surroundings and world using logic. What do you think science is? Just there to argue with religion?

    The Big Bang does not say stuff came from nothing. It gives our universe came from compressed stuff. It does not say were this stuff came from. Also, BS on the "most renowned", your using nothing but lies here. Give who. I can give you "renowned" ones who don't believe in god. The actual margin is that there are MORE atheist/agnostic scientists in ALL fields than religious. Science, typically brings them out of the mucked up mess of religion.

    god is not nothing. By the way, god is something. Nothing doesn't exist, nothing is nothing. You obviously don't get that do you? Make your brain reel? That nothing doesn't exist because the whole definition of nothing is the lack of existence? Drink a glass of water and actually learn something.

  36. No, you didn't explain anything. You did not explain how the universe came into being out of nothing, specifically because a singularity is not nothing.

    And your wrong as well. Mathematics conforms to the universe, not the other way around. Mathematics is created to do that. Solve pi, then maybe you can learn that mathematics is a close at best estimate and tool to help explain the universe to us.

    Who designed the designer? Obviously, he had a design in order to make the blueprints. You don't show any comprehension of the actual article. He didn't design it for that matter, if he is omniscient. He already knew about it, there was no designing. god has no free will, he knows all that will happen and he just follows what he already knows will happen. What changed in him? For that matter, your argument assumes one day god changing with absolutely no outside influence or anything else in the universe for anything, and then he decided to make a blueprint of a screwed up universe. It's obvious, it's too big a discussion for you.

  37. My, my, my, aren’t we rattling off … and so defensive!

    Your insults and blustering are a substitute for a lack of something substantial to say. All you do is reveal your inherent ignorance.

    Listen and learn:

    A singularity is too small to measure. Period. It’s not a matter of scale. If by shape and form you’re talking about a black hole singularity, you’re wrong again. A black hole singularity doesn’t have shape or form, in fact beyond the event horizon there are no physics to describe it. It does, like the Cheshire cat, leave behind its smile, gravity; but gravity has no shape and gravity has no form.

    You see, it’s not me who doesn’t understand a darn thing — it’s you.

    "Furthermore", I’m not at all amazed to “discover” that I and all matter are composed mainly of nothing. I can take it further: the subatomic particles which make up all matter, when broken down into their smallest units, are actually just pure energy. So, if we are talking “matter” we could quite correctly say we are composed not mostly of empty space but altogether of empty space.

    A singularity couldn’t be a point too small to measure if there was even a scrap of matter in it.

    And, “duh” logic does not explain the universe at the quantum level, which is what I thought was the central point of discussion here. Classical physics is logical … and as science now knows, mostly fallacious.

    You might be amazed to “learn” that the subatomic particles abovementioned are not only in one place — our bodies or in other so-called matter — but actually are in many places at once. Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to “duh” understand that for a subatomic particle to be in many places at once, it also is in many time frames at once.

    Would you call that logical?

    For instance, the electrons in your computer move from point to point without crossing the spaces in between.

    Would you call that logical?

    Steven Hawking is a renowned quantum physicist who doesn’t believe in God. But when I referred to scientists who were/are mystics, I wasn’t referring necessarily to belief in God. Those people, because of their work, came to accept the paranormal, again, because quantum physics is so much about the paranormal.

    I could go on to give you a comprehensive lesson in God and mysticism, but I think I would be wasting my “duh” time.

    You remind me of that one about the Quaker who said to his wife, “You know, dear, all the world is mad except thee and me, and even thee is a little queer.”

    And do go drink that glass of water, it’ll be the first constructive thing you do today.

  38. I notice you conveniently forgot to mention about the god can be nothing. Ready to admit you were wrong yet? No? You were. Energy, isn't nothing, something you don't understand. Photons and energy are the same. IE, matter is energy, energy is matter. There is no difference. Welcome to reality. Energy is not nothing. Nothing is not energy.

    A singularity, IS NOT NOTHING. That's why, huh, it's a singularity and not nothing. Is there something you just can't understand about that? And yes, it is scale, a singularity is the smallest thing measurable. It's so small, it's PRACTICALLY immeasurable. That doesn't actually mean it isn't. 10^-99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999, is still a measurable value, it's just so small it's impractical.

    Impracticality doesn't equate that it can't be.

    You have a real big flaw in your intelligence. Nothing, is quite literally nothing. It's not matter. It's not energy. It's not a singularity. It doesn't exist. It is nonexistence.

    The duh was that we use science to explain the universe. The duh part was that we use logic to infer everything we know. It's the process of understanding and coming to conclusions. Everything you said is based upon logic, it doesn't have to be correct logic. It seems you missed the point.

    You might be amazed to know that your subatomic particle rant is incorrect. How about you go actually learn what wave-particle duality actually is. That's nothing but a misconception of valid theory.

    But would even your misconceptions be illogical? No. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it illogical.

    You could give a big comprehensive BS spew of god and mysticism. And it would be wasting your time, because it would be nothing but bull.

  39. Oh yes, and when I said:

    "It’s not that we invented the mathematics to fit what we found. No, not at all; we stumbled across the mathematics that already was out there."

    I was quoting practically verbatim the words of the great Roger Penrose.

    But it seems that you, like the Quaker, know more than the people whose job it is to know.

    You really are out of your depth in this discussion. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your ignorance.

  40. Please try to keep it civil, gentlemen. I think we can do without the ad homimens and insults, can't we?
    I'm really enjoying this discussion, otherwise. :)

  41. Do you think I could really care who said it? What does that say about anything? No great philosopher or scientist has ever gotten everything right.

    For that matter, the idea must stand on it's own. Roger Penrose in more more special than Joe Nusterfor. Neither is Albert Einstein.

    It is the thoughts and ideas they bring to the table.

    And Roger Penrose in this case was wrong. His amateur philosophy stunts obviously failed him. Again, pi.

    You also, have no clue what my job is. Oh, copying others arguments for your argument without sourcing is plagiarism. What else have you plagiarized? Just because you can quote things also, doesn't give understanding.

  42. You have nothing of any currency to say, but as is your wont, you're saying it anyway.

    A last word on the Big Bang:

    I can’t tell you anything about before the Big Bang because science doesn’t discuss before the Big Bang. Space/time, everything, begins with the Big Bang. I am aware of a group of Italian scientists who now are delving into before the Big Bang. They say they have worked out that there were 26 fields — not 25 and not 27 — that came together and started to oscillate, but they also tend to trip over themselves when it comes to describing where were the fields before the universe began. In other words, what was the spacial position of the fields when space/time only began with the Big Bang?

    When you really get down to ponder the whole thing, the brain does tend to reel, and a glass of water does make you feel better.

    That is why in physics classes students are not allowed to ask unanswerable questions. Before the Big Bang is one such question that they mustn’t raise.

    Now let me get this off my chest: It is not in my nature to attack an individual as I have you, but you chose first to play the man and not the ball, and in so doing you evoked a similar response from me. That’s all.

    But having said that, I don’t mind a bit of how’s-your-father either.

    For my part, this subject is closed, I rest my case.

    I do like your blog, though. I find it interesting and entertaining, even the brickbats.

  43. By the way, I didn't copy anything written by Roger Penrose. I watched him say it, and just quoted from memory.

    Have you any idea how rediculous you sound when you lash out at someone of his stature?

    Is winning an argument more important than being right?

    Hoo boy!

  44. You like to hop around a lot don't you? What, just keep spouting things until you think you've come up with something? You have a lot to refute, and you have refuted none of it. Do you just lack the knowledge to defend random things you pulled from the internet?

    You can't tell me anything about before Big Bang, yet you just spouted nonsense off about before the Big Bang. Contradicting much?

    Give me your source, so I can read it for myself. You summary is unscientific, what type of fields are you talking about? Are we talking about quantum fields? I would assume so, since you think that just mentioning anything like that must immediately boggle any minds. Well sir, it doesn't boggle mine, your personal experiences with it don't dictate my own. What the hell would that matter anyways? How many "fields" are there now and why only 26?

    Science does discuss things before Big Bang. Of course, your just copying that from some article somewhere, so you thought it was a good idea to say. There are several theories of what before the Big Bang was like, and nearly everything you can think of for that matter.

    Time doesn't exist for one, at least by what you are trying to infer. Time is a psychological phenomena created by our memory. It is a concept, a measurement, it is not a dimension. It is not discrete, the present is gone as soon as it arrives. It was not created by the Big Bang.

    Space didn't occur with the Big Bang either. Space is nothing. Specifically, space is nothing between something. So tell me, how did the Big Bang create nothing? Quick answer, it didn't.

    My brain doesn't reel at it. Probably because I actually ponder about it.

  45. You watched him say it, so you quoted it from memory as your own. So yes, you did copy it from him. You have a strange notion of copying...

    I don't care who he was. So what? So what? His words spoken, probably inaccurately by you (you probably just couldn't understand it fully and removed the context). Like as Newton's laws aren't fact anymore, they are close estimates.

    The name has no matter. Great men have said stupid things. It really does not matter who said what, what matters is what they said. I haven't heard of him. Quite frankly, I don't care. Who he was is of no concern of me.

    The person behind the words does not matter. He could be a nitwit and still make the greatest idea. Or he could be a genius and make the most unfounded thoughts. IT IS THE IDEA THAT THEY SAID THAT IS OF CONCERN. Their words hold no more weight than anybody else's.

    Do you not get that?

  46. My goodness! I’ve just woken up and there you are, still rattling away, spraying froth all over the place.

    Is there no end to you?

    With such as you blowing the trumpet for atheists, they sure don’t need enemies. And the rest of us who believe in God — and yes, I do believe in God — just sit back and smile knowingly.

    You keep telling me to read the comments. Well why don’t you take your own advice; read them, read what you’ve been saying.

    Don’t you understand that you’ve already destroyed your argument and along with it, any shred of credibility you may once have had? You really should shut up now, before you take things from the ridiculous to the sublime.

    Hoist with your own petard. It’s embarrassing, Mr Quaker.

  47. I do find your blog "interesting" and "entertaining" but you can only take so much "entertainment" all in one shot.

    Oh, my aching ribs!

  48. Mr Quaker (… all the world is mad except thee and me, and even thee is a little queer), I’m going to respond to your calumny.

    I (and probably many thousands of television viewers) heard Professor Roger Penrose tell someone sitting beside him on a park bench that the universe is mathematically exact, that we didn’t invent the mathematics, but that the mathematics already was out there.

    In the course of this discussion I repeated as near as dammit those words without ascribing them to the professor. A couple of comments later, on the same page, and without any prompting from you, I volunteered that information.

    Now how in blazes was I claiming the professor’s words as my own? But you, to fill a gaping hole in your argument, immediately seized upon that statement and called it plagiarism. I say to you, Mr Quaker, go fly a kite.

    That’s what you do when you are lost for something comprehensible to say, which is most of the time. You play the man and not the ball. Don’t you know that that is a red card offence, in sport, in debate and in life?

    Everything I’ve ever learned about quantum physics, and most other subjects, was from books (not the internet, which is capable of spreading almost as much misinformation as oil from a holed supertanker) written by other people. Therefore every word I utter or write about any subject on earth originated from someone else. Therefore, according to your warped definition, if I don’t trot out a plethora of names every time I open my mouth, it’s plagiarism.

    Your blatant assumptions show your arrogance. You admit to never having heard of Professor Penrose but you brush him aside like a bothersome fly. You really are a piece of work.

    Now I’m sure we’ve provided the readers with lots of entertainment, but enough is enough; to go on like this will bore them (and me) to tears. So let’s agree to disagree and call it a day. No hard feelings.

  49. You intentionally repeated his words, not in your own words, in as exact possible as you can. And then to defend said words when they came under attack, you simple said, "Oh, somebody great said those, you can't argue against them."

    No. You directly plagiarized. There is a difference between arguing with what you know and copying. Do you understand the difference? If you went to a university and pulled a stunt like that, F. You'll be kicked out. You source it, or you use your own words. And you better be able to back it up... you obviously, cannot do so.

    Also, I went to school for quantum physics, and a bunch of other subjects. I was taught, I worked on problems associated with it, I took tests on it. But I'm sorry that you can't come to your own conclusions about some things. While a lot of information I posses comes from sources, I think on it and form my own conclusions. Indeed, many of my conclusions match others... IE, I'm not a parrot, which seems to be that you pride yourself as being.

    Also, you should check your stuff against the internet. Or read your books again. Because you obviously have missed a lot. It's probably why you think quantum physics is "illogical" and reels your brain... I think you need some simpler material to ease your passing.

    Again, the person does not matter. I guess you really just don't understand, that who and what somebody was does not dictate the truthfulness of their ideas. Should I judge your word by what you do? Basically a manual laborer? Can I ignore everything you say simply because the man Marvin Caldwell-Bar has no business in this topic? I outrank you. I have a higher education, I'm in a field closer to the sciences, you word means nothing compared to mine in this case.

    How do you like that treatment? You should take a step back, and analyze the consequences of your argument.

    Again, maybe you should just stop hopping around. You drop points as quick as you realize you cannot defend them. It's pretty fast. The fact of the matter is, you cannot even backup Penrose's argument. Probably first because you misconstrued the context, and for that matter, don't really comprehend the full aspects of what he really said.

    I'll ignore your other two comments. They contain nothing but brash insults that do not stand on their own.

  50. I agree. Prayer is what people do to feel like they're doing SOMETHING in an unfortunate situation i.e. coming together to pray that a lost child will be found. A friend of mine seen such a situation recently on the news and her husband exclaimed "A vigil?! Why the hell don't these people come together to help SEARCH for the missing child?!" Another friend showed a mobile phone-uploaded photo on her facebook page depicting her son's entire football team on bended knee during a practice. One of their team mates had taken a hard hit and was carried off on a stretcher, not feeling his legs. The entire team was praying for well-being. My first reaction is "how sad that someone so young may be cut down with a disability so early in his life, BUT he did play a sport where this is known to happen... and of course, my second thought is "Pray!? How about you hope like hell that the hospital he is going to has excellent medical minds and technology at work?! Also, why are you praying to a God that allowed him to get hurt in the first place?" Praying is in total opposition to what an atheist is about: taking full responsibility for our life and destiny and our impact on the rest of the world. I know that I get out of life what I put into it, and that Karma isn't all fluff; if I'm lazy or I purposely hurt someone, those "sins" could come back to bite me in the ass, just not in the afterlife... but here on earth, during the only life I will ever have.

  51. Thank you GMNightmare.

  52. there is no god, there was no jesus!

  53. While I agree that there are no gods, I think critical scholars agree there was a historical figure named Yeshua that the Jesus stories are based on. I think denying Jesus as a human who lived would be denying history. I don't need to deny god because god doesn't exist. Denying Jesus as the son of God though, again, I don't want to deny something that doesn't exist.
    Atheists get accused of denying God all the time, but it is inaccurate, and we shouldn't play into that falsehood.

  54. This is quite interesting. For whatever reason, I remembered commenting on this 8 years ago and thought it would be worth looking up (which took quite a while, which is fine when you have insomnia). I too would also like to apologize for my comments. It was very immature of me, and I'm pretty sure I had just got back from church camp. I have matured, not a lot but a little, since then and I still believe in God. I don't try to rationalize it with science or physics anymore since I am neither a scientist or a physicist. I just accept it as my belief and go on about my day and strive to be a good person, and even a good "Christian." I like to believe that a God that created this universe isn't bound by its laws and mathematics, if he was then what use would he be? In short, just wanted to comment on here and see how all of you were doing. GMNightmare, thank you for reading my ignorant post and replying. Going back and reading it, you do have great points that I simply can't argue, and I'm okay with that. Anyways, this "little" comment of mine is already longer than I intended, and no one will probably read this anyways. Just wanted to hop on here and say hello and hope all of you and your loved ones are doing well. Y'all stay safe out there and enjoy the rest of you year!

    The Chosen One (lol)