Proving the foundation for God's existence

146 posts / 0 new
Last post
publicab12's picture
Dumb Ox

Dumb Ox

according to your logic and experiences,
two elementary particles(say,electron,photon,etc)or billions of particles can not be connected with one another across space,
if the particles are separated by the distance of billion miles or even billion light years(quantum entanglement).
however,for entangled particles,space doesn't exist.

would you argue quantum entanglement can not exist because your everyday experiences and logic lead to that direction?
every logic are not the same logic.
some are based on common sense.
some are based on experiment.
some are based on mathematics.

your logic are based on common sense(or bible?).
but,quantum entanglement is based on mathematics and experiments.
reality is built of mathematics rather than common sense.mathematical truth can not be denied by common sense.
--believers in god might argue that reality is built of god's word.--

Space is a real thing.
space is certainly a real thing for a human.but that doesn't mean space is a real thing for
omniconscient god(you can replace "omniconscient god"with "quantum entanglement") .
in fact, space is nothing to omniconscient god.god instantly knows all the details of every events
of entire galaxies in the whole universe even though the galaxies are separated by ten billion light years .
so,space doesn't exist for that god.

but if it is true that omniconscient god knows everything in the universe.
everything in the universe has to be connected with everything else(this is a logical
you might bet even your life that space exists if not for quantum mechanics and correct logic.

Time is similar to space.
particles could be entangled with one another across time.
However, entanglement across time has not been understood as much as entanglement across space.
entanglement across time means time doesn't exist ultimately.

in summary,
Zeno's paradoxes maintaining Parmenides'view,
special theory of relativity,
and quantum mechanics
all show that space and time don't exist ultimately.

RedleT's picture
More information is needed, I

More information is needed, I think.

Matter is a physical entity which has a certain form or nature. It is different from an idea of a mind in that an idea is internal to the being, and may not be composed of any matter if the idea is purely conceptual (as opposed to an image). Matter is material and mind is immaterial, at least to some degree.

RedleT's picture
Concerning electrons or the

Concerning electrons or the like, I don't see why quantum entanglement is a problem for my theory. It's analogous to gravity between planets.

RedleT's picture
"but if it is true that

"but if it is true that omniconscient god knows everything in the universe. everything in the universe has to be connected with everything else(this is a logical necessity). "

Everything is in so far as it has being. God is being itself, existence itself, so from this you can reason that God is all knowing, but I won't do that here

RedleT's picture
@ UV

@ UV

Do you believe in the principle of non contradiction? I need to know this before I respond further because otherwise I am wasting my time.

xenoview's picture
Dumb Ox

Dumb Ox
Do you consider the mind and brains to be the same or separate? I consider them to be the same. The brain is the seat of intellectual power, the brain as the center of thought, understanding, etc.; mind; intellect. That would make the mind, matter and chemical reactions.

Gary Williams's picture
Dumb Ox,

Dumb Ox,
I think there are some very basic fallacies in the logic of your initial post. First, you say that everything requires a preceding mover in order to move (I.e., to be affected and to affect anything else), based on human experience. But there is no necessity that human experience apply at the moment of creation...we have NO experience of moments of creation and, therefore, no knowledge of what is required or even of what occurs at such moments. Logic is if no help, either, since logic is based in human experience. Second, you assume that human experience (and therefore human knowledge) is complete, when we know it is not. That means that your statement that every mover requires a preceding mover is not provably correct, it is an assumption on your part. Third, you violate your assumption that every mover must be moved by positing an unmoved mover. That makes no sense logically---you have asserted both A and not A (violating the law of non-contradiction you say everyone MUST accept). Finally, even if there HAD to be a prime mover, you are assuming it is an intelligence (I.e., a god). This is an unwarranted assumption. You have discussed "movers" as objects (clay, etc.) but the terminology "prime mover" is anthromorphic or maybe supremebeingomorphic. The prime mover could just as easily be a black hole. You may argue that a black hole needs a preceding mover, but I would argue your prime mover (God) also needs a preceding mover. If you say it doesn't then I say a black hole doesn't either. Since we know nothing about the character of either, we are at an impass. (If you don't like "black hole" feel free to substitute "unicorn".). Sorry, but I'm completely unconvinced by your argument.

publicab12's picture
Dumb Ox,and other christians,

Dumb Ox,and other christians,

------Suppose a conscious being exists. There is nothing existing except for the being(A).
A has existed from the infinite past. sometime in the past,A created something(B)
everything concerning B can be controlled by A's will while A wants. and A always
knows everything about B. Is B the material thing or the part of consciousness bel
onging to A. or can't you decide what B is, because more infomation is needed ?
then,what are those(ie,some property) which differentiate matter from mind?-----------

I will explain why the assertion that B is matter is virtually meaningless
regardless of whether additional propery is necessary or not.

we can consider B a certain type of energy.
let's define B as 'mind' if it(B) contributes 100%(completely)of its energy to A's consciousness.
and B as 'matter'
if it contributes its partial energy to A's consciousness or doesn't contribute at all.

for example,
if B has 200 of energy.
to be called mind,it has to contribute its all energy(200) to A's consciousness.
in other words,200 of energy has to be consumed(used) to produce some parts(or properties) of A's consciousness.

to be called matter,it only need to contribute its partial energy of 199.344..or 199 or 130
or 47 or 2 or 0 A's consciousness.

all energy of B has to be contributed to A's consciousness if A is the all-knowing being. otherwise,
A can't know everything about B.

then,why is B called matter?although all energy of B is used for producing A's consciousness.

rather,B has to be called mind or a part(or parts) of god's mind

if B contributes its partial energy to A's consciousness or doesn't contribute at all.
needless to say,B is not mind.

whether or not B has additional physical properties doesn't matter at all.

---in the above case,if A corresponds to God in the bible,B corresponds to the universe.---

atoms or molecules in one's body has energy.
all energy in the body wouldn't contribute to one's consciousness.(e.g,all energy
in red blood cells would not be used only to produce one's consciousness.)
if all energy in the body is used to produce one's consciousness.then,the body has to be called mind(or soul)
,rather than body.

for example,
gravity might not be a property of human conssciousness.but that doesn't mean gravity is also not
the property of god's conssciousness.
a blind and deaf person since birth doesn't have the properities of hearing and sight.
How ridiculous it would be,
if the person asserts,after recognizing that other people have some properities the person doesn't have,
hearing and sight are matter because those properties don't belong to the person.

you can accept either one of the following,but not both.
1.god can not be omniscient if he created matter.
2.god is omniscient,matter doesn't exist ,all existing things including the universe are inside god's mind.

everyone knows mind exists(someone even deny this fact).
but no one knows whether matter really exists.

xenoview's picture
UV teM

UV teM
WTF! Word salad is all I have to say. So you believe that gravity is part of a god? Do you believe in a god?

publicab12's picture
I think you are more dumb

I think you are dumbER than Dumb ox.Dumb ox at least understand what i wrote,
How about reading my writing about 100 times to understand what i mean.
How on earth ....

publicab12's picture
dumb ox,

dumb ox,
do you understand space doesn't exist in one's consciousness.
then,i will write why spacetime in the relativity theory is not a nonsense or contradiction,when i have time.

RedleT's picture
Yes, but the idea does.

Yes, but the idea does.

xenoview's picture
What you wrote was a word

What you wrote was a word salad. Do you believe that gravity is part of a god? Do you believe in a god?

publicab12's picture
point out what's wrong .

point out what's wrong .
and explain the reason.
Don't you believe that gravity is part of a god even if omniscient god exist?

xenoview's picture
No I don't believe gravity is

No I don't believe gravity is part of a god. Gravity is part of nature. Do you believe that gravity is part of a god?

RedleT's picture
@ UV

@ UV
Energy is matter from an Aristotelian point of view and the intellect/mind cannot be matter. If by energy you mean existence then you have an interesting argument.
csn you explain what you mean by energy?

publicab12's picture
I mean all existing things

I mean all existing things,which can cause change other things or change itself when time goes by.

matter,mind,light and gravity etc....are energy.

publicab12's picture
Me,too.Gravity is part of

Me,too.Gravity is part of nature.
but,for christians, part of god(mind) and part of god's work(matter) is a different concept.
and wanted christians to recognize the two is not different,and only mind exists, provided god is omniscient.

xenoview's picture
UV teM

UV teM
Do you believe in a god, or have a lack of belief in any gods? If you don't believe in a god, then why do you argue for one?

publicab12's picture
The following is part of my

The following is part of my post above,
and is the only options left to christians according to my logic.
don't you really know it is not helpful to christians regardless of which one christians choose?

------you can accept either one of the following,but not both.
1.god can not be omniscient if he created matter.
2.god is omniscient,matter doesn't exist ,all existing things including the universe are inside god's mind-------

if you really don't have no idea of that,then i will give the answer.

BenCopson's picture


All Abrahamic religions rely on anachronistic texts as evidence. All these books have been debunked as nonsense by the most intellectual theists, instead they have regressed their arguments back to a god that created the universe and then left it to its own devices. However there is no evidence for this god, just sophistry created by theists and philosophers alike and even if there was evidence why do theists insist on it being the abrahamic god described in the antiquated texts?

If you honestly wanted an explanation for the universes beginnings, you would look at the far more plausible explanations coming from physics. Although it doesn't have the answers at the moment, it is the only discipline likely to shed light on the problem in the future. One of the more feasible explanations borne of inflationary theory, suggests the universe is one of many that arose from a phase transition occurring in an eternal medium. But to say that the universe must have had a cause due to it existing and then to immediately insert god is to neglect that your god also needs a cause by that definition, and you also have to ignore the revelations about reality that physics has brought us. We cannot make assumptions about the universe based on philosophy. Quantum mechanics taught us that nature does not abide by our rules of thought and to imply that you can merely think your way to the solution of the 'origin of the universe question' is to have delusions of grandeur!

bigbill's picture
As you read this post we do

As you read this post we do not know how things came into being, what caused the big bang. THe God or Gods hypothesis is something one aught to consider here, But not the only theory here. We just are not far along yet to determine such things We could only speculate on this matter. Maybe with further research by cosmologist and geologist will find an answer for us..

algebe's picture
@Science follower: "The God

@Science follower: "The God or Gods hypothesis"

You develop a hypothesis based on limited evidence or observations, as a starting point for further investigation. There's not a scrap of evidence for any god, so there's really nothing to build a hypothesis on.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Algebe - There's not a scrap

Algebe - There's not a scrap of evidence for any god, so there's really nothing to build a hypothesis on.

There is also the problem that "god did it!" can't be used to make predictions.

xenoview's picture
science follower

science follower
Why should we consider a god hypothesis? Is there any testable evidence that any god is real? Science doesn't know everything, and it is not afraid to say it doesn't know. When is the last time any religion has said I don't know?


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.