Atheism: Why you can't Assert God Doesn't Exist Even If You Don't Believe | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » Philosophy/Politics
Brother Shamus
Brother Shamus Jul 17 '20

This was initially a response posted on a different forum, figured it could be a good topic, and one you might not expect from me. 


Can God Exist? 

I am going to start with the idea of Father Georges Lemaître (Big Bang Therory). 

From there the existence of god becomes an unnecessary abstraction. Even those wonderful synchronous things that are considered miraculous are actually guaranteed to happen given the number of possible outcomes, and to an equal degree the opposite of a miracle happens. 

Even the run of events that occur fall around a statistical median, a middle ground. If you ascribe positive and negative value to said events it will likely cancel itself out over the longrun like red and black on a roulette wheel, through subjective lensing. 


The apparent design of the universe exists in part because an excess of energy at the big bang caused an imbalance in matter and antimatter giving objects mass through the higgs-boson. 


With mass you have relativity and a coherent explanation for all the structure of the universe, save dark matter and energy, which could still be an aberration. Objects adhere to thermodynamic law and seek the most energy efficient structure possible. (See stars, trees, and cells) 


In my opinion nothing after inflation needs a god to exist. However, these are the leading guesses for what caused the big bang inflation:


M-theory brane collision, in a cosmic bulk that is infinite and needs no creation. 


A random Vacuum fluctuation is zero point field of potential energy that always existed, spawns an infinite number of universes, and needs no creation 


A bubble off a preexisting universe.


Intelligent creation of a god that always existed.


Unfortunately apologetics wins, as there is no way to observe before inflation, all those options are equivocal to one another, and are inherent abstractions, even if some of them have associated proofs. A preuniverse in any form always existing is the same as a god in any form always existing, and also both. And as much as I would like to say god is impossible, I can't. 


While I don't personally believe in intelligent design I can't even rule out we all exist in a hyper-intelligent alien race's civilization. But that has it's own chicken and egg thing going. 


With only WMAP and CERN to go on, I don't think anyone can truly prove anything definitively.


 In M-theory there are planes of other universes with different laws of physics we can only express on paper. And onwards in layered multidimensional explanations. And even that M-Theory proof doesn't definitely prove we exist as strings tethered to branes waving in an infinite cosmic bulk. 


 In zero point explanations you still have to explain why an ever present field of potential exists and if the random fluctuations in it (variations of the speed of light) are truly random.  


In short: vacuum genesis sans M-Theory is a lateral move, especially if you consider the zero point field as God - god is subspace (it fulfills all requirements of a god including allowing for specific laws of physics to form, omni existence, and initial creation), and M-Theory must allow for a universe where master-sentience is the initial condition and version of genesis. 


Still I don't see praying to subspace doing you any good.


It's an endless conundrum. 


So while an antitheist can argue for alternatives to divinity and hold a valid argument an atheist that absolutely asserts god can't exist has no valid position because they lack the very empiricism they often defer to. 


Fucking apologetics... 

The Forum post is edited by Brother Shamus Jul 17 '20
Share:
Dec 16 '20

I used to think M-theory was cool, those eleven dimensions consisting of our four dimensional spacetime plus those six little micro-dimensions, and to top it all off that one spatially extended dimension referred to as 'the Bulk'.


And then eventually I thought better of Calabi-Yau manifold my ass plus infinite space is equal to a lot of bullshit, at least that's the way I see it. The concept of infinite space is pretty much what killed it for me...


Used Occams' razor to murder that bitch although I wasn't thinking in terms of OR' at the time; just had this epiphany of what the truth was, so simple and elegant.


So what do I believe in? Not a goddamn fuckin' thing, and from there, everything. Obviously whatever the truth is most certainly defies reason, otherwise it would already have been proven.

Brother Shamus
Brother Shamus Dec 17 '20
The nature of theoretical physics is absurd. 


You can say almost anything and have it be partially valid.  


It's back to Hindu cosmology. Revival of the endlessly cyclical expansion and contraction.  Now dark energy will "reverse it's polarity" and begin sucking the universe back into a singularity to bang again. 


On higher dimensions: 


I actually appreciate compactification.  You can't imagine it for shit, but it's a nice contrived solution for gravitation.


Where gravity is concerned, occam's razor for myself is that it's all an artifact of mass existing, almost like the resulting regulator of the illgotten creation.  At the time of symmetry breaking most anti-particles were annihilated, and left a flat looking bubble universe of positive mass clumps that shouldnt exist. Maybe gravity exists simply because matter exists and nothing more. It has no standard answer because gravity is not of omnipresent universal law, which is geared towards hyperinflation "when released".  It was not condensened into a planck length, seperating prior to inflation. It is secondary to the electronuclear and the laws therein. Taking issue with the fundimentals. The "Planck Era", where electronuclear and gravity were one never existed as speculated, gravity came to be because of inflation.


And that's my insane layman (almost always wrong) theory on that. 


As far as infinity goes.


If you really get into M-Theory it's all hypothetical superpositions.  Every dimension has a parameter ascribed to it. In that is not only a requirement for infinity, but also a requirement for infinities of infinities.  An infinite plane of infinite possibilities to exist in the math. 


Regardless of any theories I think infinity has to exist, even nothingness is an infinity of nothing. Every idea about the universe requires something to be infinite. Fallacy aside, even a creator always existing can't be a "protochicken". That carries it's own conundrum of spontaneous self creation at a fixed point, and is as inconceivable as infinity.


Eternal god(s) = eternal multiverse = nothingness.


My favorite of these involve scaler fields. Vacuum related theories that reduce that "preuniverse" to a type of Bose-einstein condensate where it's that state of zero with unlimited potentional. The question there is do the same physical laws and constants apply? Could there be a speed of light, and a fluctuation of the speed of light within that field that causes that singular energetic disruption?


Gravity could be the unwanted bastard child of cosmic fluctuations. 


Strangely, I will take doing armchair physics dumbassery over I dream of Genie. Which is also why I make dumbass false assumptions. And this could certainly be one of those. 

The Forum post is edited by Brother Shamus Dec 17 '20
Dec 18 '20
The nature of theoretical physics is absurd.


Quotes of the day : truth transcending reason; reason transcending itself.


You can say almost anything and have it be partially valid.


Typically prior to and following the aethereal expansion or remnants of the former as well as any facets near or at zero mass/volume.


It's back to Hindu cosmology. Revival of the endlessly cyclical expansion and contraction.  Now dark energy will "reverse it's polarity" and begin sucking the universe back into a singularity to bang again. 


The movement of the pendulum which appropriately enough also represents a 'segment' of time serves as adequate analogy here.


Each swing of the pendulum is representative of one finite linear time segment, or, universe. The pendulum will 'progress' as the universe does, and then  'regress' to a static eternal state of 'nothingness', ad infinitum.


The pendulum never began this motion, therefore it will never end - the definition of eternity.


I actually appreciate compactification.  You can't imagine it for shit, but it's a nice contrived solution for gravitation.


Consciousness will create space by default, we do it all the time when we dream, and the dreamscape serves as analogy to demonstrate on a 'microcosmic' scale how the primordial creates this 'illusory' space on a 'macrocosmic' scale.


Regardless of any theories I think infinity has to exist, even nothingness is an infinity of nothing. Every idea about the universe requires something to be infinite. Fallacy aside, even a creator always existing can't be a "protochicken". That carries it's own conundrum of spontaneous self creation at a fixed point, and is as inconceivable as infinity.


And finally the logical tautology where you can either go one way or the other. Einstein made the mistake of going the one way because it was what he believed although his field equations indicated the contrary.


One is free to accept their lunacy of choice here and there is a fifty fifty chance that you will be right, however, if you choose to believe in a cosmological constant pertaining to spacetime then I would respectfully have to say it was 'tails'.


Edit : my formatting was "compactified" so had to reformat.

The Forum post is edited by Dec 18 '20
Brother Shamus
Brother Shamus Dec 18 '20
Well, it's a good thing I'm not trying to do Satanism...
The Forum post is edited by Brother Shamus Dec 18 '20
Dec 18 '20
Eternal god(s) = eternal multiverse = nothingness.


Yeah you kind of have to make decisions in the absence of reason, or perhaps you could call it an augmented form of reasoning. I try to observe parallels between models, or to aid in substantiating a precarious model with one that has a bit of science to back it up. So if observe models that share important similarities then I am more inclined to accept those similarities as truth.

Also observing microcosmic elements as possible reflections of their macrocosmic, or, primordial counterpart.

My favorite of these involve scaler fields. Vacuum related theories that reduce that "preuniverse" to a type of Bose-einstein condensate where it's that state of zero with unlimited potentional. The question there is do the same physical laws and constants apply? Could there be a speed of light, and a fluctuation of the speed of light within that field that causes that singular energetic disruption?

This does run parallel with the first nine numbers of creation where the tenth is a reflection of the first : 10 is 1 with a zero appended.

And zero is tantamount to absolute nothingness as a well as a symbol for eternity, 0 : nothing; 1 : God; so on and so forth.

Another problem I have with a cosmological constant, since space and time are understood to be two sides of the same coin, is that of infinite regression, and reduction to a state of nothingness solves that problem, for me.

Strangely, I will take doing armchair physics dumbassery over I dream of Genie. Which is also why I make dumbass false assumptions. And this could certainly be one of those. 

I would have just as soon take both back in the day. Had I been lucky enough to be Major Nelson space wouldn't have been the only thing I was exploring.

If memory serves I believe she used to call him 'master', what wouldn't she have done.

Edit : formatting

The Forum post is edited by Dec 18 '20
Dec 18 '20
I've always believed in the G-String Theory personally. Basically, there is a G-String in the crack between space and time. 
Dec 18 '20
There's also the Insane In The Membrane Theory, which posits that the universe is made of a film or membrane that is basically delusional of its own reality and existence. 
Dec 18 '20
It's one hell of a fuckin' show, somebody's doin' somethin' right.
Dec 18 '20

There's also the Insane In The Membrane Theory, which posits that the universe is made of a film or membrane that is basically delusional of its own reality and existence.


A spherical membrane, ergo, God is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.


The membrane would be the boundary that hypothetically separates positive existence from negative existence, or, you could say that there is no membrane or that it does not exist in the manner in which it is perceived.


- there is no spoon


Edit : formatting

The Forum post is edited by Dec 18 '20
Jan 3
I'm not sure what you're saying but, we still don't know about the existence or not of God. So if you accept there's just a single line, is there really a difference? The way it is conceived has no difference. A single line or a membrane, a difference of perception. 
Jan 3

Well the universe is perceived and understood to consist of three spatial dimensions. The fourth dimension of 'time' can be perceived as finite 'linear' - forwards and backwards.


In a few minutes after the psychoactive takes hold, you would have gotten a more attractive response, but it would still be the truth.

Jan 5
Speed is of matter, or rather velocity. Time flies as they say, or rather , time expands. I guess space would expand too, just a guess. But, the fourth dimension always appears as "linear". What makes the difference with the other three dimensions is that it cannot be manipulated the same way. Something is different.

   Time not seems to be absolute, in a sense that it is connected with space. It is like time should be out of the equation. 

Jan 12

So I would posit that God doesn't exist, or more precisely, undergoes instantaneous period to period(no time equates to no gap) of existing; not existing (0; 1(...); 0; 1(...); ad infinitum) throughout eternity which would be the most absolute and fundamental form of polarity, i.e. the never ending dance of that which is, and that which is not.


The 'acausal' would then be the 'magic' that facilitates manifestation of the one(from zero) via this 'absolute nothingness' - emergence from non-time paradox...


 If there is nothing that exists, then there is nothing to cause anything.


This would be the primordial emergence, or, an acausal to causal chain which results ultimately in creation as it is known today.


Of course there will exist an 'absurdity' regardless of whichever avenue is chosen, the other would leave one to deal with the problem of infinite regression which I have not bothered to do with any success.


Apparently this 'nothingness' is somehow unstable, otherwise all there would be is an eternity of it.


I have no reason to believe that this 'nothingness' will not continue to produce 'something', as it always has, as it always will.


No one (not naming names) need get their knickers in a twist here, this about wraps it up for me as far as this goes, although I do seem to have somewhat of a problem with cessation of writing in these forums.


And as always, yeah, I suppose the music is still good.


Cheers :)

Jan 14
Here's another take. 


If Atheism is only about re-asserting the non-existence of divine authority, what moral value would it have? 


Less focus on the divine and more focus to being a contributing and upstanding character. 

Jan 19
You can in some way think of constant instability as absurdity. Or that in some way this constant instability "produces" absurdity.  Causality has to do with time. In plain words, no arrow of time means no cause-result sequence. In a way cause-result is rather a simplification. But is it wrong or part of a greater scheme? Leaving time out of the equation, there is no infinite regression. If there's only one , concrete thing, there's only one, concrete thing you could say about it. So, the only differentiation would be time. Breaking down time into infinite small periods of time would produce a concrete idea about the infinite. It would be zero without time, but with time is infinite.
Satanic International Network was created by Zach Black in 2009.
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Spread the Word. Help Us Grow

Share:

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.