Monday, October 20, 2008

Einstein proved there is no God when he pointed out that all things which exist are relative to each other. Accordingly, an eternal God must, relative to this point in time (and whether or not the space time continuum commences from any set big bang event) therefore have existed at a point in time, an infinite amount of time ago. Therefore, God must traverse an infinite amount of time to reach this point in time and since an infinity cannot be traversed, God cannot exist.

"If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."
– Albert Einstein: The foundation of the general theory of relativity, Section A, §1

Thus, an eternal God that ever have had any effect on the universe at any point in time does not exist. There is only one thing that can be eternal as well as traverse an infinite amount of time because it is not relative to any other thing. Have a guess at what it is.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." A Einstein, 1954, letter to Eric Gutkind.

11 comments:

ozatheist said...

Dr Who and the TARDIS?

CASE - now with holiness said...

Ah - but Dr Who and the TARDIS are not said to be eternal.

Also, remember that in relative terms, when you travel to a point in the past you are technically travelling forward in time (relative to where you were before, albeit, that point is now in the future). This "backward in time" is not travelling backward but recording what has already been, relative to this point in time. (Time is uni-directional/dimensional in this way).

Is it any wonder that einsteins hair was always unkempt if he thought about this stuff.

Ryan Hemelaar said...

"therefore have existed at a point in time, an infinite amount of time ago."

That does not logically follow. God is still relative to the universe without being inside it. Just like I am relative to someone who lives in America, but I am not living in America.

Moreover, the universe had a beginning. Therefore, God cannot be 'in time' an infinite amount of time ago, because time did not exist an infinite amount of time ago.

Alex, you seem to think that this is the be-all end-all of proofs against God, but if it is, why does no prominent atheistic philosophers use it? I can answer that one for you, because it is illogical.

So you are going to have think up another argument for this Saturday night, Alex...

CASE - now with holiness said...

That does not logically follow. God is still relative to the universe without being inside it. Just like I am relative to someone who lives in America, but I am not living in America.

Both you and an american are subject to time (laws of physics, k->k1)- duh.

Moreover, the universe had a beginning. Therefore, God cannot be 'in time' an infinite amount of time ago, because time did not exist an infinite amount of time ago.

What existed 5 minutes prior to the "beginning" of time.

Alex, you seem to think that this is the be-all end-all of proofs against God, but if it is, why does no prominent atheistic philosophers use it? I can answer that one for you, because it is illogical.

It raises a more difficult problem - it means the universe is nothingness, please remember what humans would do if they all thought this. The good good, the bad.....

The truth is that almost all the atheist philosophers have made this argument, its just you can't see it. They usually say "Who created God?". Socrates, Kant, Hume, Russell. They all make the argument - the time effect is the same.

I won't be there on Saturday - my parents have returned from France and I am going to the coast to stay with them for the weekend.

Ryan Hemelaar said...

"Both you and an american are subject to time (laws of physics, k->k1)"

You totally missed my point. I was saying, I can still be relative to something without being in the system/laws that it is in. So for example, I am relative to someone who lives in America, even though I am not under American law. In the same way, God can still be relative to the universe without being under its laws.

"What existed 5 minutes prior to the "beginning" of time."

That is an illogical statement, for you cannot have time without time being in existence.

"it means the universe is nothingness, please remember what humans would do if they all thought this. The good good, the bad..."

So you do understand the implication of believing an atheistic worldview, someone doesn't have to live up to any moral standard. So then, why would you want to rid the world of religion? By promoting Atheism, are you not contributing to the deterioration of morality in society?

"They usually say "Who created God?"

I hardly see the two arguments as being the same. But either way, they can easily be responded to.

"I won't be there on Saturday"

Ok, thanks for letting us know. I'll hopefully see you next Saturday then. Keep safe, and we're be praying for you.

CASE - now with holiness said...

Im going to put this in really simple language for you Ryan. In the moments before you believe that time began, what was there? You believe that God existed? Well then he existed a moment before "time began". You may wish for a simple answer, but the truth is that relative to that point, there was a moment before that, and a moment before that - ad infinitum. Thus, your analogy is false.

Bertrand Russell tells the story of a woman who explained that the world was sitting on the back of a giant turtle. Russell asked what that turtle was sitting on, the woman replied, "another turtle". Bertrand pointed out the difficulty with her ideas, that there must be a bottom, to which she replied "its turtles all the way down". And, there is no perceivable fault to that logic.

Russell, like Hume before him, understood that the universe could not begin from a point of infinite complexity (God). That requires that at some distinct point in time (the beginning), that infinitely complex thing just appears from nothing. Any other conception requires limiting the potential infinity of time with no evidence or rationale for such a limitation (in your case, it is your faith and belief, but that does not actually create a logical argument and especially not a logical reason for then having faith [ie, its circular reasoning]).

The argument always leads to the same conclusion, who created God?

The answer is more simple, in truth, that the only possible beginning for the universe must be something that is not relative to anything else, totally simple, more simple than 0 and could not be once time appeared to operate, that is, nothing.


So you do understand the implication of believing an atheistic worldview, someone doesn't have to live up to any moral standard. So then, why would you want to rid the world of religion? By promoting Atheism, are you not contributing to the deterioration of morality in society?

Wilfully closing our eyes, and the eyes of society to the truth will not get us any further. This truth does not send people mad, it is only when people fill their minds with untruths and then see the truth that they would fall.

This is the truth to me, and yet I am not a mass murderer, I do not cheat on my girlfriend, I do not steal. I choose to live morally in the time that I am alive because that is my choice. I think it is hard to make those choices when you are confused and your mind is not at peace with the rest of the universe. Socrates did not believe in God (or at least left the question very silent - that is, saying no one could know). Yes, Socrates willingly sacrificed his life for his community. It seems that you think that a world with my views would act only is self-preservation, selfishly, but that is just not how it works in reality. I can understand why you think that, perhaps it is your lack of experience, or a reflection of yourself. Either way, it is a confusion that is blinding you.

Man can only really be heroic when he knows the sacrifice that he is making. A man that believes he is going to heaven is not nearly as brave as the man who believe he is about to cease. But it is also true that a man that believes he is about to cease will not be as selfish as a man that believes he is going to hell. Have you never considered that?

CASE - now with holiness said...

Just as an addendum, here are some of the social niceties spewed forth from your believing bretheren:-

In the Old Testament, God commanded that Sodomites be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV). Throughout the Old Testament we read about good kings who removed the Sodomites out of the land and bad kings who did not. The New Testament teaches that homosexuals have been turned over to a reprobate mind.(Romans 1, etc.) It's sad that they did not get saved while they still could, but unfortunately it is too late for them. Did you know that God actually hates some people? The Bible says God hated Esau. Try reading the Bible from cover to cover and maybe you will better understand God's holiness.

Since there is no hope for gays, we would be better off without them. They are recruiters and not reproducers so the safest solution would be the death penalty.

Some commented that only God avenges, but human beings have been commanded to enforce the death penalty throughout the Bible. The United States does not adhere to many of the laws that the children of Israel lived by, but since they are God's laws, we know that they are the ideal. Like I said, I don't advocate vigilantism, and we have to obey "the powers that be" in our imperfect society.

The purpose of my post was simply to warn parents of the dangers of sending their kids to public schools where homosexuality runs rampant.

For more Scripture references to help you with your study of this subject, visit this website:

http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/Truth_About_Homosexuals.html

Raani, Homeschooling Hints [Comments (25)] [2008-Nov-02]


Thats a policy deserving of Adolf Hiter. Speaking of Hitler, here is another:-

Almighty God punished sin time after time again in days of old. We are told how he rained down his wrath upon many wicked cities and civilisations - eg, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptians, the Hittites, etc. He has wiped out millions of citizens in more recent times too - the Black Death, the Great Plague as punishment for witchcraft and devil-worship in Europe. And need I remind people of the terrible fate of the jews in World War II?

How about:-

Truth be told, atheists have the lowest divorce rate only because they can never get married in the first place! Since when do pedophiles, homosexuals, prostitutes and other socially deviant individuals get married?

These are just a selection of posts from fundies say the darndest things (www.fstdt.com - 2 November 2008).

Ryan Hemelaar said...

"In the moments before you believe that time began, what was there?"

No, because there are no moments of time before time existed, because time would have to exist in order for there to be moments of time. But there is no time before time existed. So instead, I say that God existed timelessly without the universe being in existence, but at the moment of the universe's beginning, God came into time.

So God has not existed for an infinite amount of time, because there has only been a finite amount of time in the past. Instead, without the universe, God was in a timeless state. Therefore, your argument falls down flat on its face.

"The argument always leads to the same conclusion, who created God?"

Sans the universe, God was in a timeless state, therefore He was also in a changeless state (for changes can only occur in time). Therefore, He couldn't have ever gone in or out of existence (because that would involve a change), He therefore must be uncaused.

"the only possible beginning for the universe... is nothing."

Alex, what would cause the nothingness to become non-nothingness? The nothingness can't be something personal, so then how does the nothingness, which is in a timeless and thus changeless state (since the nothingness is not within time), change to create the universe?

"But it is also true that a man that believes he is about to cease will not be as selfish as a man that believes he is going to hell."

And why is that? A person who is going to Heaven does not desire to store up worldly treasures here on Earth, where moth and rust destroy, but rather wants to store up treasures in Heaven where moth and rust does not destroy. So in this life, you'll find Christians eagerly giving away their possessions to the poor.

CASE - now with holiness said...

Just quickly:-

No, because there are no moments of time before time existed, because time would have to exist in order for there to be moments of time. But there is no time before time existed. So instead, I say that God existed timelessly without the universe being in existence, but at the moment of the universe's beginning, God came into time.

So God has not existed for an infinite amount of time, because there has only been a finite amount of time in the past. Instead, without the universe, God was in a timeless state. Therefore, your argument falls down flat on its face.


If God is in a timeless state then he cannot transit from a position of not creating the universe into a decision to create the universe, so your conception is not valid. Furthermore, God cannot transit from a timeless state into deciding to begin time. Without time, such a transition is not possible.

Sans the universe, God was in a timeless state, therefore He was also in a changeless state (for changes can only occur in time). Therefore, He couldn't have ever gone in or out of existence (because that would involve a change), He therefore must be uncaused.

Again, you are ignoring the obvious problem in this statement shown above.

Alex, what would cause the nothingness to become non-nothingness? The nothingness can't be something personal, so then how does the nothingness, which is in a timeless and thus changeless state (since the nothingness is not within time), change to create the universe?

Technically, from outside the universe, the universe still appears to be nothingness. Albeit, saying still is a paradox since outside the universe is not subject to time thus, there has been no change to indicate the beginning and growth of the universe.

Furthermore, you betray your own logic by saying that nothingness only becomes nothingness. That insists on the existence of time in the first place (transition from K1 -> K2).

In other words, this universe only exists when you are inside it. Similarly, it is impossible to act in relation to the universe (IE observe it) from the outside without being part of the universe. Thus it is illogical to ask what caused the universe because you can never know from the inside or the outside of the universe the answer to that question.

The only way to answer why nothingness divested into somethingness is by observing nothingness. As denizens of this universe, such a study is impractical for the reasons given above. We could theorise that nothingness divests itself into reality all the time and creates infinite possible universes, it may be that when nothingness divested itself into this universe and then ceased to be capable of divesting into other universes - we can't know that without escaping this universe, something which is impossible for us.

(Note: the universe I am referring to here is the total system, including multiverses etc - not just our space - the actual mechanism for this space within the wider multiverse is knowable - but the larger multiverse is not).

My own personal thoughts are that nothingness is a special state of existence which has properties of evading general and special relativity. In other words, it can act in an uncaused manner because it is not subject to time. Of course, the flip side to that is that it does not choose to result in a universe. Rather, being an untimed thing, all realities are opened up, experienced, and closed if ever, simultaneously - even though it would appear from inside those realities to have passed over time. In other words, it would be something nearly incomprehensible to understanding. Again, something which could easily be confused with God (the Greeks actually confused it with a Titan, remember the creator was Chronos "Father Time").

On the other hand, we can know that a third party between the nothingness and somethingness is not possible for the arguments in relation to time given above. In other words, this argument relates solely to proving God/s do not exist but this argument does not provide a complete answer as to why the universe exists as you have requested.

"But it is also true that a man that believes he is about to cease will not be as selfish as a man that believes he is going to hell."

And why is that? A person who is going to Heaven does not desire to store up worldly treasures here on Earth, where moth and rust destroy, but rather wants to store up treasures in Heaven where moth and rust does not destroy. So in this life, you'll find Christians eagerly giving away their possessions to the poor.


Please re-read what I wrote and understand why your statement is not applicable.

Ryan Hemelaar said...

"If God is in a timeless state then he cannot transit from a position of not creating the universe into a decision to create the universe"

Why could not have God decided from eternity past to create the universe?

Your argument in no way disproves God.

"it is illogical to ask what caused the universe because you can never know from the inside or the outside of the universe the answer to that question."

No, it is not. For we have the universe today, and we have never observed nothingness becoming something all by itself. Therefore, logically a rational person will believe that it did not arise by itself, but rather had an external cause. For in our experience, everything that has a beginning has a cause, and there are no examples to the contrary.

We can know a few things about this cause as well, such as it's transcendent, powerful, uncaused, and personal.

"We could theorise that nothingness divests itself into reality all the time and creates infinite possible universes"

But that would be theorising contrary to the knowledge that we have today. Logically, it is impossible for nothingness which is in a changeless state to change in order to become something. That is a contradiction. Therefore, your theory is completely wrong.

CASE - now with holiness said...

Why could not have God decided from eternity past to create the universe?

Your argument in no way disproves God.


How does he transit from existing and not choosing the creation of the universe to choosing to create the universe. On your conception, God does not actively choose to create the universe. Remember, a choice is a transition between not doing something to doing something.

No, it is not. For we have the universe today, and we have never observed nothingness becoming something all by itself. Therefore, logically a rational person will believe that it did not arise by itself, but rather had an external cause. For in our experience, everything that has a beginning has a cause, and there are no examples to the contrary.

On that basis - you assert there are no uncaused causes - hence, no God. In any event, you have not truly understood the argument. I am merely pointing out that the total universe is nothingness in total, would appear to be from the outside, but is varied on the inside.

Furthermore, your statement "we have never observed nothingness becoming something all by itself" is nonsensical. After all, we have never observed nothingness. It is an unknowable, indeterminate state which is not relative to any other thing, including an observer within this universe.

We can know a few things about this cause as well, such as it's transcendent, powerful, uncaused, and personal.

I disagree. You are assuming the creation of a positive thing (the universe) whereas my notion is of a equal balance. Where that balance is always equal there is no need for an external agitator.

But that would be theorising contrary to the knowledge that we have today. Logically, it is impossible for nothingness which is in a changeless state to change in order to become something. That is a contradiction. Therefore, your theory is completely wrong.

I disagree, from the outside, nothingness which has become our universe has not changed at all (albeit, time outside this universe wouldn't allow for a comparative assessment). Nothingness, from the outside, is still nothingness. Rather, the internal workings in the universe have changed. In other words, nothingness remains nothingness to the outside observer, but from the inside it has diversified within its own balance:-

0 = 1 + -1.

The outside observer still sees the total as a single set ie 0. But relative to being 1, you can also see the -1.

Nothing has actually changed to the outside observer, hence your objection is invalid. To the inside observer though, relative to his point in the new space, there is something.

I think your difficulty is that you are still imagining the universe as being matter. Its not. The universe is all space-time-matter/ anything that is relative to or existent within the universe.

We can state with a high degree of certainty that that the universe is a spontaneous result of being on one side of the imbalance in nothingness. Equally, we can say with a high degree of certainty that the universe could not be caused by a third party agent. Furthermore, we can state with certainty that there is no evidence for such a third party within the universe.

Your arguments are all based on assumptions that have not changed in 1100 years. The fact is that modern physics has shone significant light on these issues. All of which point to a naturalistic universe devoid of a God.

On the other hand, you can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. That is your right. I am simply pressing what the modern thinking is, and why your ancient ideas are no longer valid.