• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Physics verify Absence of Real and True God?

questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Again, this is a failed analogy. How are scientists supposed to investigate the existence of God?
Click to expand...
Try to find Savior through same talken with any physical object. Look, Higgs Boson was not discovered. What was found are products of his decay.

God is Dark Energy, Paradise is Dark Matter.
 
The Kilted Heathen

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
You need to take an extensive hiatus from trying to blend science and theology. It's not working for you, and the two are like oil and water already.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Why can't you prove godlessness? Because it is impossible to prove the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

Nor is it necessary for atheism.

questfortruth said:
atheism cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

Atheism isn't a claim about gods or reality beyond a statement of personal unbelief. It is an opinion based in skepticism and empiricism, and in its agnostic form, cannot be right or wrong. I don't believe in any gods. That cannot be wrong unless I am lying about my opinion.

questfortruth said:
So atheism is anti-scientific.
Click to expand...

Agnostic atheism is the only possible sound position for an empiricist. Absent sufficient evidence to believe, he doesn't. Absent sufficient evidence to falsify the claim, which of course is always the case with unfalsifiable claims, he doesn't deny the possibility. I've ruled out the possibility of tri-omni interventionist gods, but I have no observation, argument, experiment, or algorithm that can exclude say the deist god. Nor is that an issue, since the existence or nonexistence of noninterventional gods would be irrelevant (apatheism).

questfortruth said:
I am speaking about GNOSTIC ATHEISM only. The other atheisms are ill-defined.
Click to expand...

To you perhaps. Theists have a difficult time with the nomenclature most atheists are using today. I still see a few say that they are more agnostic than atheist, which represents the nomenclature of the past created by theists, but most know what other people self-identifying as atheists are saying when they use the word, and it seems many if not most theists in these threads either can't understand the difference between lack of belief (I call this unbelief) and disbelief, or resist trying to.

For this type of atheist using this nomenclature, there all atheist have in common a lack of belief in gods. One can then subdivide them a few ways - gnostic versus agnostic, humanist or other (Stalinist or any other worldview lacking gods that is not humanist), apatheist or not, antitheist or not, etc..

PureX said:
Atheism is the denial of any supernatural form of existence, including any gods, despite so many atheists constantly insisting otherwise.
Click to expand...

Here's another atheist telling you that that is your definition, not his. You're one who refuses to countenance the distinction between unbelief and disbelief. I'm an atheist, and I just finished explaining why I don't assert that gods don't exist. I'm sure you'll continue to make this error for years to come, and you can expect some atheist to correct you when you do.

PureX said:
I say this because "dis-belief" is not the same as being undecided.
Click to expand...

Correct. We have both types of atheist, and they differ by one belief.

PureX said:
Humans have no means, physical or otherwise, by which we could determine the existence of any sort of god simply because our concept of God places it outside and beyond the reach of existence as we know it.
Click to expand...

That is true of every fictional creature and space. That is the very definition of nonexistent - not found interacting with reality, not detectable even in principle anywhere any time. Everything that exists can be found somewhere, sometime, somehow if one is in the right time and place and has the proper detector, which might be the unaided senses or devices to supplement them. All three of these are true for whatever is real, and none is true for fictional entities. There is nothing for which one or two of these things is true. All three in the real, none in the fictional.

Let me illustrate. Let's compare wolves to werewolves, one real, one imagined. Because wolves exist, there are times and places where one can detect and interact with one. Because werewolves don't exist, none of those is possible. When you describe a deity as existing outside of time and space and being necessarily undetectable to us (cf. contingently undetectable), you are also describing werewolves. And vampires, leprechauns, succubi, fairies, Santa Clause, and Superman. They all have the same properties - none - and share the same ontological status.

PureX said:
In fact, we can't even comprehend how anything could lay beyond it. It's logically incoherent.
Click to expand...

Yes, the concept of the supernatural is incoherent. That's generally a reason to reject an idea. The idea that something exists outside of time is incoherent, as @Ella S. suggested with her reference to causality. To claim that something that can modify nature but is not another aspect of nature is incoherent. To say that there is a realm that is causally connected to nature and can modify it but is undetectable is incoherent. When you say that something can affect us but is necessarily undetectable, that is incoherent, since we can detect those effects.
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Ella S. said:
There are a variety of proofs for why specific concepts of God contradict certain laws of reality.

For instance, an omnimax God is logically impossible due to various omnipotence paradoxes, the Epicurean trilemma, etc.

A God who created the universe is both temporally and nomologically impossible. It's temporally impossible because causality is contingent upon the existence of time, so you can't cause time to come into existence unless time already existed. It's nomologically impossible because, among other issues, it violates the laws of thermodynamics; energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

So, under epistemic logic, we can say that we know for certain that God does not exist.

There are also defeaters for the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, the Transcendental Argument, etc. In this sense, the existence of God has been logically disproven, since the arguments for God's existence have been refuted.

It's also possible to statistically show that the existence of a God is unlikely solely due to the fact that the existence of God is a supernatural and mythological claim. Every supernatural claim we have investigated has turned out to be false and mythological claims are notoriously unreliable, so it's likely that God does not exist.

So, under Bayesian epistemology, we can say that it's justified to claim that God does not exist and that this can be demonstrated through statistical proofs.

This is why I'm not a "lacktheist" that merely claims to lack a belief in God. I openly claim that there is no God and I really don't see how anyone could possibly provide a genuine counter-argument to anything I've said here unless they're going to fundamentally alter the rules of reality or revolutionize logic and the natural sciences.
Click to expand...

There is a way to explain God, in a way that can advance quantum physics. We live in space-time, where distance and time are coupled. For example, photons of energy have wavelength and frequency, which are measures of connected distance and time, the product of which equals the speed of light. This is the cornerstone of space-time, and the speed of light limit.

Say we separated space-time into independent space and independent time. I call these distance and time potential. respectively. If you wanted a visual, it would be like frequency without wavelength and wavelength without frequency; parts not yet combined. This is not energy anymore; void. Energy will only appear where these couple as space-time

If we could move in distance independent of time, we can be anywhere in the universe in zero time. This is the classic attribute of God called omnipresence. This simple math argument allows one to derive a classic attribute of God that has seems impossible to science using just the space-time assumption. But once you de-couple space-time, such things will follow, via math logic.

If omnipresence is hard to grasp, there is a simple way to explain it. If we were traveling at the speed of light, the universe and space-time would appear to contract to a point-instant. If you stood on this point-instant, you would essentially be everywhere at the same time, and all of time would merge into an instant. The God reference would need to be in the speed of light reference; God is light. We need to slow from the speed of light to get things to appear more spread out as space-time.

In quantum physics there is an observation of quantum coupling, where two or more particles can synchronize in time, independent of distance. This would be an example of time potential added to two particles in space-time. The extra time potential would allow coordinated movement in time independent of distance. This cannot occur in space-time alone, since any small gap in distance would involve a time delay in signal transfer. Synchronization cannot occur. But if we add more time potential, not connected to distance potential, then the rules change. Time potential is connected to omniscience. The laws of physics the same in all inertial reference is a time potential or omniscience affect; not dependent on red shift; wavelength.

Quantum observations help to prove this theory, while also giving its own observations a model for correlating and predicting data.

We can use this model to form the universe from nothing, as was claimed by the Genesis; start as being formless and void. If we had just time detached from distance; time potential, and distance detached from time; distance potential, then the limits within space-time would not yet appear. We would be in a state of infinite entropy; complexity, since any combination could occur. Energy would not yet appear, since photons require time and distance coupled as space-time. We may have zero point energy, as distance and time potential quanta periodically pass/touch for an instant, but then the energy disappears and/or appears to move in a quantum jump; new junction.

To create the universe we need to couple space and time into space-time. What that will do is lower infinite entropy, since now we added limits so there will be less complexity. Free energy is G=H-TS. If we lower entropy we get a double negative, therefore adding positive free energy; Boom!

Since the terms -TS is temperature times entropy which multiplies to the units of free energy, free energy can appear with a small entropy change at extreme temperature, or a large entropy change at near absolute zero. Either way, the loss of entropy due to forming space-time, will set a potential with the infinity entropy state. This creates the 2nd law; the entropy of the space-time universe has to increase.

Mass cannot travel at the speed of light. Mass is limited to space-time and appears to be the capacitance for space-time. Mass would be connected to the H or enthalpy term in the free energy equation; internal energy. The free energy output from the lowering of entropy, needs to become converted to enthalpy; mass, for space-time to persist. This can be done by adding extra time potential, beyond the distance potential needed to balance of space-time; persistence in time independent of distance. This is why acceleration due to gravity is d/t/t or space-time plus time potential. The extra time potential allows the universe to spread in distance and still stay synchronized in time while increasing entropy, everywhere.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Former Catholic @Estro Felino asked me: "What do you think Pope's relations with world politics, or politics in general are?"

He is head of the state. Real state, real county named Vatican. He is both King and Priest.
 
Last edited:
lukethethird

lukethethird

unknown member
PureX said:
Atheism is the denial of any supernatural form of existence, including any gods, despite so many atheists constantly insisting otherwise. I say this because "dis-belief" is not the same as being undecided. Belief and it's rejection are both actual philosophical determinations. Neither is being left undetermined or open to the other.

But that's not the question, here.

Humans have no means, physical or otherwise, by which we could determine the existence of any sort of god simply because our concept of God places it outside and beyond the reach of existence as we know it. So nothing within existence can tell us anything about what might lay beyond. In fact, we can't even comprehend how anything could lay beyond it. It's logically incoherent.

We are left with nothing but faith and imagination.
Click to expand...
If "nothing within existence can tell us anything about what might lay beyond," then there is nothing for atheists to deny.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The quote "we made massive progress" means "progress" in depopulation. The satan is one of elementary gods and god wants to murder people.

 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
lukethethird said:
If "nothing within existence can tell us anything about what might lay beyond," then there is nothing for atheists to deny.
Click to expand...
Well, they couldn't possibly know that. Which makes their denial both baseless, and pointless. It's why most of them lie and try to claim they are undecided when they are clearly not undecided.

The whole "belief/unbelief" business is just a smoke screen because the real defining factor is whether or not one has presumed to make a determination on the question. And the atheist, by definition, has obviously made his determination. Otherwise, he'd simply be 'undetermined'.
 
The Kilted Heathen

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
questfortruth said:
You feel that it is not working.
Click to expand...
No, I know it's not working, because you're trying to use a scalpel to write a book.

Understand that science cannot prove (nor disprove) a god or faith claim. That is not the purpose of science. "Proof of god" is nothing short of a deity being visible and evident to all, beyond doubt or ambiguity. Someone's poor grasp of science and misapplied metaphors and examples does not make for evidence, much less a sound argument.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The Kilted Heathen said:
a deity being visible
Click to expand...
God is Dark Energy. Einstein's equations describe all things. Two are: Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Recall that Higgs Boson is not discovered yet, but the decay products are found. God has not got Nobel Prize, but God's influence on nature is proven -- Dark Energy.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
God is Dark Energy. Einstein's equations describe all things. Two are: Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Recall that Higgs Boson is not discovered yet, but the decay products are found. God has not got Nobel Prize, but God's influence on nature is proven -- Dark Energy.
The formula of Dark Energy is the second term on the left-hand side of:
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia
And its properties has features of following religious dogmas:
Omnipresence, Unchangeability of God.
Click to expand...
My favorite number is 22. And we are almost in 2022 AD. I found out that God is Dark Energy in 2022 AD. This is my personal miracle year. I am Dmitri Martila, 1.December. 2022, [email protected]

 
lukethethird

lukethethird

unknown member
PureX said:
Well, they couldn't possibly know that. Which makes their denial both baseless, and pointless. It's why most of them lie and try to claim they are undecided when they are clearly not undecided.

The whole "belief/unbelief" business is just a smoke screen because the real defining factor is whether or not one has presumed to make a determination on the question. And the atheist, by definition, has obviously made his determination. Otherwise, he'd simply be 'undetermined'.
Click to expand...


Your statement, "nothing within existence can tell us anything about what might lay beyond" is agnosticism. If there is no way of knowing then there is no way of knowing, fair enough, nothing to confirm, nothing to deny.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top