What is your take on this article on "Who created god"?

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
fruyian's picture
What is your take on this article on "Who created god"?

https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/ It basically says : "Real God is a bunch of several zeroes; zero does not have to come from anything."

-- This is an interesting perspective... but me not being a scientist or a physicist cannot verify my suspicious nature when I read it.. something seemed a bit off, too me. So if there is anybody who has a basic level of physics that can help me out on my suspicions and justify why I feel like such?

-- Link below could also help but not necessary (which is what Ben from the comments thought about it): https://ben-bennetts.com/2015/01/19/the-religion-business-extract/#comments

-- This article with MICHIO KAKU on Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design will help out our position. It outlines that is is more logical to think that our universe could have created itself and slapping a supernatural cause in is just laughable and not needed. As Hitchens always says.. We have a better and more natural explanation for many of these questions without going to absurd assumptions of the supernatural. Everything works without the assumption of a creator. Occams Razor. http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-o...

My thoughts on the subject:
-- Every time I look back at this argument: It always boils down to: So the theist used a rule of science to explain god but then denounces that rule in the same sentence to also explain god.

-- But if a theist can say "God made the universe" and not need any real evidence, why can't I say "The universe made itself". Theists always say "well where did THAT life come from?". In which case, why can't I ask the same about God? Where did God come from? It's a two way street, the only difference is science does not claim anything it doesn't know to be certain truth. Science is always under question and skepticism and inquiry and never make a truth claim without logic and evidence.

-- The simple answer to all of this, in my opinion is, that we do not know if god exists and let alone who created god and to say he always existed is special pleading when theists don't consider the fact that their reasoning that something cannot come from nothing (or everything must have a cause)... and not apply it your your god (which is unproven).. is what we call special pleading and in turn illogical and laughable.

-- That is my answer but as you guys can see I have not related it to the article in question. Any thoughts on it?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

mykcob4's picture
I think it's a bunch of hype

I think it's a bunch of hype and bullshit.

Sir Random's picture
I agree with myk. Its hype,

I agree with myk. Its hype, baked at 350° until blackned, and served with 1775 vintage horse shit.

Nyarlathotep's picture
There are some pretty crazy

There are some pretty crazy stuff in the article. Just some stuff I noticed on my first read:

1) He (or she?) is using two different versions of mass:
"If the total energy is zero, then the total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence."
"And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light."
For example: a photon has mass by the first usage, it does not have mass by the second usage.
2) This statement is mathematically false:
"So the fact of the matter is this: if God is really there, then the total mass and the total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero."
Rephrased: A + B + C = 0, therefore B = 0. No, I'm sure you can see the problem with this. Can you imagine if you ran your finances like this? I make $100 a week, and I spend $50 on my bills and spend $50 on entertainment. 100 + (-50) + (-50) = 0, therefore -50 = 0. Therefore I have no bills!
3) The whole argument starts with the assumption god exists:
The hand-waving argument given by Hawking (although Hawking is not the original author of it, fyi) is that observed conserved quantities of the universe appear to be 0 today, meaning they were 0 in the past, and will be 0 in the future (that is what conserved means in this context). No one knows what the conserved quantities of nothingness is, but it isn't hard to imagine they might be 0 as well. There is non 0 probability for any system to change into any other system so long as it has the same observed conserved quantities. Rephrased: the fact that the conserved quantities of a system can not change determines what is possible and what is not possible. So the argument continues that there is a non 0 probability that the universe came from nothingness.

Now lets consider the authors version of this argument for god:
"I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about his origin."
Notice that the argument presented by Hawking starts with observations/measurements today, and then extrapolates backwards from there. The author however has no observations/measurements of god today. He assumes god exists today, and then tries to argue therefore god does not need a cause (or something like that). Well it is pretty easy to make a case for god when you start off assuming he exists...
4) Author is confusing values of 0, with conserved values of 0:
"I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about his origin." (yes the same quote, it has that many problems).
The argument from Hawking relied on the conserved values being 0. The author here assigns several 0 values to god then co-opts Hawking's hand waving punchline saying it applies to god. Well the values he assigned to god are clearly not conserved, so we are pretty deep into apples and oranges territory.
I really only skimmed the article after this point, I'm sure there is a lot more non-sense further down the page.

fruyian's picture
Cheers for that man.. I knew

Cheers for that man.. I knew there was something off especially with only a high school level of understanding of physics. ha This really helps a lot.

I tried to make heads and tales of it and I think the over all summary would go like this:
It would seem to me that the writer has a very poor understanding of physics. He mentions Einstein’s Special Relativity but does not explain much of why he does. He should be talking about General Relativity which is completely different. He should also have considered Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle within quantum theory.

He states that “God is a being”. He has made the usual assumption that “God exists” and then gone and butchered Science to try to prove his point. If the scripts on the page were reliable I might criticize his “reasoning” further but it starts so badly that I don’t think it merits too much time.

"Just some stuff I noticed on my first read:"
- So are you going to bother with a second read? ha... I'm fine with what you have gathered as it's all I need to satisfy my suspicion on the blog post. Cheers :)

Nyarlathotep's picture
fruyian - "So are you going

fruyian - "So are you going to bother with a second read? ha..."

An interesting piece near the end:

"Thus it can be shown that The Whole, by virtue of it being The Whole, or simply by default, will always be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without a beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite...Here it should be mentioned that actually God is The Whole"

I can't see the reason a Christian would want to argue their god into existence with the stipulation that he is timeless (or changeless, which means the same thing as far as I can tell). This restriction prevents the deity from acting in any way. That means he can't talk, he can't punish or reward, he can't answer prayers (or even hear them!), he can't destroy, and he can't create.

Consider the stories in the bible, where god does things all the time (like Noah's ark). Perhaps this isn't a criticism, but I can see no way this isn't going to lead to massive contradictions later down the line.

CompelledUnbeliever's picture
Forgive my extensive complex

Forgive my extensive complex reply. Man created God. There is no point in further wasting our time contemplating it or discussing it.

Sir Random's picture
The above person wins the

The above person wins the comment of the week award.

Toast's picture
Love this Site. Lots of

Love this Site. Lots of information and things to ponder....or not.


Attach Image/Video?: 

CompelledUnbeliever's picture
Thank you Sir Random you are

Thank you Sir Random you are truly a thinker I enjoy reading your post!

Sir Random's picture
*Politely bows*

*Politely bows*

Dave Matson's picture
His attempt to make space and

His attempt to make space and time disappear from a photon's viewpoint misses a key point. An ordinary observer, with an equally valid viewpoint, does see that photon traversing space at about 186,000 miles per second. It's space-time that must be considered, that being the invariant, and it certainly doesn't disappear! The photon travels within it.

"Scientists have shown that the total energy of the universe is always zero. If the total energy is zero, then the total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence."

The total energy of the universe (zero) includes a negative component if I remember correctly, perhaps from gravity or the expansion itself. Hence, the total energy-mass equivalence would not be zero. Obviously mass does exist, and it can only go to energy, so how does that add up to zero energy, zero mass by itself?

The rest of that odd essay is not worth commenting on.

"Forgive my extensive complex reply. Man created God. There is no point in further wasting our time contemplating it or discussing it." - compelledunbeliever

Granted that our obligation to supply an answer to such horse manure is no greater than our obligation to supply an answer to the latest flat-earth diatribe, but then fruyian did ask for assistance. Others might find it useful as well. And, why give idiots a free shot unless they are totally harmless? On the other hand, debunking could be done just for sport or even as a mental exercise. Doing lots of them has improved my writing skills over the years. Different strokes for different folks!

Sir Random's picture
And, to you sir, I hand the

And, to you sir, I hand the "Best Commenter of the Past Two Months" award.

Dave Matson's picture
After that, I won't feel

After that, I won't feel quite so bad if I make a stupid post!

fruyian's picture
Thanks man. I appreciate you

Thanks man. I appreciate you taking a bit of time to look over the article and explain and your obligation to carry out aid when a person asks... although I do get where compelledunbeliever is coming from in both serious and humours way... I like to take on board what Hitchens wrote in Love, Poverty, and War... “There can be no progress without head-on confrontation.” :)

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.