Search the Community

The subject that currently interests me is omniscience, and the reason is that the common understanding of the word may be a contradiction. The word means "all knowledge", and is often referred as a pastiche of Bret Hart: knowing everything there is, everything there was and everything there will ever be. This implies determinism and a mechanistic universe that plays itself and abolishes the concepts of free will, morality, responsibility and such. That is because to hold someone responsible one would have to have the ability to do otherwise and in a mechanistic universe that simply is not the case. I instinctively recoil from this understanding of the word as it is in direct contradiction with how I, and everyone else, approaches life. It would also mean that God is the sort of monstrous puppet master who first creates beings He knows to mess up and then tortures them for shits and giggles while being the only one ever making a choice of any sort and thus directly and alone responsible for everything. You know, the sort of God atheists reject, and if it was real, Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter, would make absolutely no sense at all. So my question is: what if "all knowledge" cannot encompass the future, as it does not exist? Sure, one can calculate those things that depend on mechanisms, but not, say, what I shall eat tomorrow, for I have yet to decide that. Having all knowledge cannot mean having knowledge that is not there. This leaves open the possibility of having a free will, moral responsibility et al. It is also supported by our empirical experience of life. If the suggestion my question implies is correct, then God can be both omniscient and omnipotent without being omniderigent (ie. all-acting puppet master). And if so, the Bible would also make sense. PS. I do not subscribe to the usual attribution of God as omniscient, because the Bible strongly implies He isn't. He may well be voliscient (knows what he wants to know) and I'm perfectly ok with that. PPS. No wonder most atheists are so hell bent on determinism; their faux-moral rejection of God depends on it.

Well... As the title states, recently (as in June 2nd) was my first time going to Church. Now, having said that, I was taken to Church by my grandparents when my mother was in the hospital a decade or so ago back when I was a single-digiter. However this was the first time I, by my own will, attended Mass. And it was an otherwordly experience... First off: my initial intent was simply to find out when Sunday Mass is--so at around 2:00pm I headed out for my local Roman Catholic Church. I knew where it was because, a year or two ago, it was a place I handed my resume to back when I was green in the work world and I remembered how beautiful the church itself was; with twin statues guarding the front entrance, a tall and proud cross high above, and stained-glass windows facing the dirty streets around it. It was like a pear among a mine full of coals. However the office where one would "sign himself up" (so to speak--I am still quite ignorant of the proper terms and procedures) was closed and I noticed Mass would be held at 4:30. I was curious about whether or not I should wait (by the time I got there, it was around 2:30) so I checked out the beautiful interior architecture; from a wreathed statue of the Virgin to the massive cross bearing Christ over a tabernacle (also the day I learned what that word meant and what it represented) to the portraits of various saints along the walls that framed the upper church (there was a lower-roofed "lower church" underneath!). A church boy told me that confession was going to be held at 3:00, so I waited and then spoke to the reverend who helped educate me about how I can properly officiate myself as a Roman Catholic as well as gave me a brief confession which is when I briefly introduced myself as someone who was seeking wisdom and virtue after having left Socialism a few years ago. I don't recall much of the moment as it wasn't all that special, as it was more an introduction and guidance to entry rather than a proper confession. I then sat an empty pew and contemplated in prayer what I was doing, what it meant, and why I was doing it all. Ultimately I was going to Church not because I believed in God but rather because I believed in the word of God and the wisdom and power behind it. Eventually, Mass was time and sadly I was perhaps the only young person in the audience. It was mostly old people, surprisingly nearly all white. The only young people were a couple converts from India or Korea, though I kept to myself and mostly just spoke to the old woman behind me to help me keep up with the Mass (like what page number the priest at the podium was reading from, or the singer was singing from). Perhaps the most meaningful part, however, was when the reverend I spoke to earlier taught about the desire for recognition. He opened rather simply; "Have you ever spoken to someone, and then they look over your shoulder as if looking for someone more interesting? Or perhaps speak 'hello' to someone only for them to look away and ignore you?..." and from there proceeded to talk about the desire some have for recognition and then tied it to Jesus; stating something like: "Jesus did not do what He did for fame, but rather so that others might learn from Him". At the time I thought little of it as... isn't that common sense? Isn't it better to focus on doing good rather than seeking recognition for it? However when I spoke to my Father later on about it, he helped me realize how relevant it actually was. You see, the 4 reasons as to why I decided to go to Church were: Wisdom, Faith, Family, and Fraternity. Basically I wanted to improve myself and perhaps make some friends from among the parishioners over time. However... I was pulling the cart before the horse. I was going not for the strictest reason of seeking God (or wisdom) but rather for the effects of this. And that's why, when I went to Mass today (Sunday), I went with the singular purpose of leaving with wisdom rather than for the secondary gains that might come with seeking out the best folks in my area. And today's mass was largely the same as yesterday's but with a younger man (perhaps the pastor) giving it and sadly without the wise sermon in between the songs and readings. I focused more on the readings this time as they were the same as yesterday's so I could absorb it more. I think they were under "Corpus Christi" or something; I know the story went something like Moses sacrificing half his livestock to an altar of God and then sprinkling some of it onto the disciples followed by Jesus sending forth a disciple to arrange for passover in another disciple's house in a city. Not sure what wisdom I ought to extract from this, other then take it as part of a larger story on both sides. Perhaps next Sunday, when I go for Mass, the story will continue and become clearer to me (I ought to mention the masses are mostly scripted a year in advance, apparently). Overall it was a very enlightening experience with few distractions. I was quite anxious for today's mass as I was thinking last night whether I was doing it for the right reasons and whether or not I was being honest with myself. To be clear: I don't know if I believe in God or not. I am tempted to say I don't, yet a part of me is inclined to believe there is either due to an instinct to believe or the logic that something must have caused the Big Bang... ...And, if I don't really believe in God, then why I am going to Church? Quite simply: for wisdom, guidance, and a place to think over my week and prepare for the next. These things I got for myself and I am happy though still hungry. Tomorrow I'll be making a call for a meeting and stuff to properly initiate myself back into my ancestral church, and I will make it a regular thing for me to attend mass on Sundays. And, to be clear on the point of sharing this, I am curious what folks think around here. Both the atheists and the Christians. Am I doing the right thing in seeking wisdom from the Church and broadening my fountains of wisdom or am I perhaps being deceitful by not being fully a believer yet going to Church?

In an answer to my "Where is proof that God exists?", a superstitious person said: "True statements can exist without proof. You don't prove that a straight line always is 180°/1pi it just is. Mathematicians didn't prove that a line is always 180° they defined it as such. It's a mathematical statement, albeit but the none the less a statement that no mathematical principle will logically prove because it is axiomatic. But it is still considered "true". How would you as an atheist answer that argument? Thank you.

In "Against the Gods" (available from https://freedomainradio.com/free/). Stefan gives four reasons why gods are contradictory. These are described in the section "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?". The first reason is that: "Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." The premise that gods are portrayed as complex does not correlate with the concept of God as historically developed in the West. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy begins its article on "Divine Simplicity" by bluntly stating: "Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God." (Para. 1, Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/).The Encyclopedia stresses that the concept of Divine Simplicity is not unique to Christianity but developed from Plato and Aristotle: "The Platonic idea of a highest principle, combining supreme unity and utter perfection, strongly influenced Jewish and early Christian discussions of God’s supreme unity and perfection. . . . Aristotle’s first mover is a simple, unchanging form that still causally affects other beings... The Platonic notion of a supreme perfection at a remove from all things and Aristotle’s causally efficacious, disembodied mind would combine to suggest a powerful model for Western theologians seeking language to describe God’s nature." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Divine Simplicity", section "1. Origins", para. 1). God is specifically described as simple, not complex in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts — a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God." (Catholic Encyclopedia > G > The Nature and Attributes of God, "Simplicity of God", Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC). Radio Replies Vol. 1 also specifically defines God as being simple: "God is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, absolutely simple or lacking composition, immutable, happy in Himself and by Himself, and infinitely superior to all that is or can be conceived apart from Himself. He is incomprehensible in His infinite perfection by all lesser intelligences, although knowable as to the fact of His existence as Living Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, and distinct from all that He has created. That is what I mean by God." ([emphasis mine] "8. What do you mean by the term God?", Retrieved from http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=2). Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?

"Often we are so busy thinking about how much is wrong with the Church, that we forget to consider what the World would be like without it" - G.K Chesterton Full disclosure: I am a Roman Catholic, but this is not an attempt at trying to prove anything. Simply a description of what a world without God is like from a strictly personal perspective. My parents both grew up in the Communist block, my mother in Hungary, my father in Mongolia. Before the communist era, Hungary had been a multicultural country for 900 years with Catholics, Protestants and Atheists , while Mongolia was also a multicultural country with Buddhists, Animists, and Atheists. Both my parents grew up atheists, then they both became protestants seperately, then both gradually converted to Catholicism in my lifetime. The People's Republic of Mongolia had not seen a single Christian Missionary on its territory since the collapse of the Mongol Empire. Mongolia was the second country in history that adopted Marxism-Leninism. When the republic was declared in 1924, countless thousands of religious men and women were executed in the first five years. Even today, if you go on a road-trip to the Gobi desert, you can find hundreds of bullet shells scattered around in the ruins of old monasteries. I myself have picked up a pair. After 70 years of communist rule, in 1992, a year after the fall of the Soviet Union, hundreds of protesters took to the streets of Ulaanbaatar to demand freedom from from Communism. Admittedly, unlike the Hungarians, the people of Mongolia knew not what they were asking for instead - all they knew, was that whatever they had currently was not ok. My father was among the protesters, he saw scores of aroured vehicles line up in front of the parliament,ready to open fire. He also spotted a few of his old friends among the soldiers who were tasked with dispersing the crowd, Mongolia was a tiny country with only 700 000 residents in the capital, so it was inevitable that there were friends and families among the soldiers and the protesters. The president of Mongolia heard the demands of the people, and triggered dismantling of the Socialist System without much delay. One of his first acts as the leader of the free country was to write a letter to the Holy See, requesting missionaries asap. He was a smárt man, as he knew, with the collapse of the Communist Value System in people's lives, the vacuum that would be left in its stead would be catastrophic - he was right. The missionaries took a while to arrive, but they were not too late. The people of Mongolia were indeed thirsty for a replacement to the old failed values, thus they were most eager to listen to anything coming from the west. Mongolia, behind Kyrghizistan, is unofficially the last modern country on the planet to host Christianity. The People's Republic of Hungary officially granted freedom of religion in the constitution, but of course, that was far from reality. Every priest, who was ordained before 1985, most certainly had spent at least 3 years in prison, 1 year in solitary confinement, gone through sleep-deprivation interrogation for a month, and many were executed for conspiring against the state. Lay people who were christians were not allowed to hold public office, but were not actively persecuted to excess. My mother became a Christian during communist rule, and became active among believers, smuggled russian bibles into the Soviet Union, where people copied the few bibles the had gotten by hand, and distributed the copies in the vast Siberian territories. With the fall of communism, the people of Hungary needed no encouragement to reclaim their old Christian/Catholic national identity, and start rebuilding what was destroyed in the past 40 years. I grew up in Mongolia in a most atheistic milieu. My brothers and I were the only christians at the schools we attended. At the very beginning of the millenium, christianity was still regarded as the culture of the pathetic, poor, stupid, unintellectual people. I was most confused by those labels as a child, since I was born in Hungary, and knew what thousand years of christianity really looked like. Christianity was the most beautiful thing in my life - the churches, the music, the nicest people in the World, and most important of all, Hope. The sore lack of Hope, is something that westerners do not immediately notice, but it is the only thing consistently present in every part of the World that was not built on Christian foundations. The lack of Hope is something every Mongolian feels, once they return from their vacations to Europe. It is a phenomenon that I cannot explain in words, but it is something that makes me value what Christianity has given to the World.

There are many playful coincidences found in nature that appear to tease the question of intelligent design. Probability is a scale of measuring what we can reliably know to be in existence that begins and ends in an illusively infinite place.

I will mention right off, this post is not a proof or an attempt at proof of God's existence. And yet, I wonder if I can make godless atheists a bit more....god-full. I heard Stefan Molyneux offer a bit of a personal theory of what happened after Jesus Christ died, more or less presuming his tomb was raided by thieves and maybe--just maybe--the first Christians concocted an elaborate hoax to inspire universal morality and destroy moral relativism in what may have been the most crucial point in Roman history before the Fall. Personally, I've always thought that either Jesus was a Roman philosopher (like say, a 4th philosopher to take the torch from Aristotle) whose philosophy was made into a religion by his disciples in order to unite people too dumb to think philosophically, or he was a Roman politician who managed to become the object of worship because of his perceived boundless virtue. As to whether my or Stef's theories are even remotely true, I cannot say. It stands to reason that most likely if there is a God, he is very absentee and the Church greatly embellishes his involvement in man's affairs, or....well, either he is the God of Whites or the God of Jews in particular as both general groups of peoples grew to become the dominant races of the world (at least until recently). If there isn't a God than the raw horse power of the European genetic survival set was simply the best out there, and God was simply the simplification as to why Whites were so great in a time without genetic scientists to give definitive reasons for the behavioral and physical traits of the races. Around the same time as Jesus Christ was arguably the greatest ruler in European history: Augustus Caesar, First Emperor of the Roman Empire and the very basis for the word "Emperor" in most European languages. When the Roman Empire fell after 250 odd years of decay and ruin, the Holy Roman Empire was formed by Kaiser Charlemagne, the first Christian Emperor of Europe whose empire would last nearly 1000 years (if you include the Austrian and German Empires as being successor states of the old Holy Roman Empire). Christianity's purpose was essentially that of a bully pulpit used to propagate moral values to the illiterate and low-IQ masses. Whereas the three philosophers of ancient Greece attempted to use reason to enable rational activity, Christianity, perhaps from inception, realize the simple fact that all people are irrational and yet believe themselves rational, and that the majority of people will always find themselves subscribed to someone else's theory of ethics or dogma. Therefore, rather than attempting to convince the world to be good for goodness's sake, the Church essentially said "Be good or be damned", which was of course irrelevant to the good people who do good regardless, but critical for the "bad" people and the "morally relative" people who either could not be bothered or were too uncaring to work for a bigger picture. To conclude the topic's purpose, I have a simple set of questions; "Is Christianity a benefit for European civilization?" "Is it better for many people to do good as a result of a lie, or for a few people to do good as a result of a truth?" "Do the ends justify the means, and is Christianity a good means for spreading reason and virtue?" "If we are created in God's image, assuming He is real, who is "we"?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIxSeiqyGXQ

Today while working with my retail job I had a Muslim coworker talk to me about books she read in class. One book she mentioned was 1984. This spun into a conversation about statism and a state not allowing you to think, question things, telling you what to do and when to do it etc., We both agreed an oppressive state was not the place we would want to live in. However, she has a God that tells her what she can eat, who she can marry, how many times she has to pray, that it is wrong to question him, if she abandons him she will be killed and send her to hell etc. etc. I feel like the real difference between 1984 and Islam is that in 1984 you can hunt down your tyrants where in Islam you have an imaginary tyrant that was stolen from the Christians. I didn’t feel the work place would be the right place for a religious debate. My question is how do you get religious people who claim they are against tyranny to wake up and realize they have an imaginary tyrant calling the shots for them?

Religion teaches it's followers to follow God without question. So whatever God says must be obeyed. I am wondering if there is a parallel here with the NAP. Is the NAP subject to debate? In other words, is the NAP derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith.

Hey everyone, I have read Stefan's book against the God's on three different occassions. I accept the arguments but I do have a problem with this argument as I do not believe it to be valid: Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow. I consdier myself to be a rational empiricist and I am not an athiest anymore than I am an agopherist(someone who believes in an invisable gopher in the sky with no mass) or aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky with no mass). I am an athiest but I do not think the word is nessisarry as a word isn't needed for the acknoledgement of not believing in the non existent as being rational and empirical fits the bill. Your just not dillusional. If I have missed something in my critque or made an error please let me know and I would love to be corrected. If however you believe my critique to be rational and on point please let me know. I have attached it in the file: Omnipotent vs. Omniscience Rebutal.pdf

I have only read the abstract of the article so I can not say whether it is founded on good science, although the impact factor of the journal is pretty high (1.348 in 2011) which generally means good quality. However, it is from 1990 (meaning old), it has cross-sectional design which can not prove causality, and the sample size is not that great. Nonetheless, thought it had interesting information and theories that you might find intriguing too. From the abstract: Link: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1386461?uid=3738744&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104330173367

So, sparked by curiosity I've gone on an epic search for God through critical thinking, here is what I think I have "discovered". Propositions: 1. Consciousness exist. It must exist because I am thinking and thoughts are proof of consciousness. I think therefore I am. 2. Consciousness is the route of creation. I must think, consciously or subconsciously, before I can paint a painting, build a house, lay down a road, chop down a tree, breath or create any action, product, thought or effect my environment in anyway. 3. If am able to concede that other people also do exist, they too must have consciousness because they too create. 4. All things that exist must of been created and must have a source of creation or an origin. 5. Therefore consciousness must have been also created and must have a source. 6. Consciousness must exist outside of the human mind because consciousness is the source of creation and the natural earth was not created by us, therefore must of been created by another consciousness. 7. Before consciousness there must of been no creation and therefore nothing at all or vastness. 8. As one becomes progressively more conscious one is able to create more. Ex. A toddler can create a wooden block house but not an atom smasher, a 30 year old physicist can create a wooden block house and an atom smasher. Theory: "God" is the source or original consciousness. This consciousness came about when vastness became aware of itself. As this source consciousness became more aware it was able to create and effect it's environment more. Over a nameless amount of time it had created the universe, the planets, gravity etc and eventually other consciousnesses (Life!) which in turn were able to create, grow in consciousness and effect their environment in a already previously created environment. "God" saw our consciousness as competition to it's previous ultimate power and tried to influence us in order to "deter" our conscious expansion. Represented through "Don't eat the apple guys, you're gonna die!"(Genesis 1:17) or "I'm going to confound your language because you can create anything you imagine like me and I don't want that!"(Genesis 11:6-9) among other various acts that can be argued over. Just some weird thoughts, please tell me if any of this doesn't seem logical to you but so far I cant find holes. Not to be too sure of myself of course I submit this to you. A Secret Identity

I've discussed atheism with several Christians I know, including two of my brothers. A common question that comes back at me is "what if you're wrong?" My reply has normally been along the lines of, "I'll take responsibility for my life, if I'm wrong then so be it." However, after some further thought, I think it is important to understand what motivates the question. For those who believe in hell, being wrong on the question of god means you're screwed. Pascal's wager comes into play for many people, and one of my brothers actually said words to the effect: 'If I'm wrong then what? I live a happy life and die, no real consequence. If you're wrong, well then you'll face judgement and potentially eternal suffering.' The implication is that you should hedge your bets and believe, just in case. This is, of course, a face-palm situation, but after some thought I'd like to just share what I think is a better answer to the original question. Q: "What if you're wrong?" A: "What are you afraid of?" Exposing the fear behind the question will likely lead immediately to a defensive stance. Most, if not all, people who believe are motivated by emotion, so engaging those emotions is necessary in order to have any impact. I recall Stefan Molyneux saying people cannot be reasoned out of a position they weren't reasoned into. So where reason fails, my thought then is that engaging the emotions might have some effect. From here, the conversation could basically go anywhere but I think there are two lines: 1. Believer denies being afraid, "I'm not afraid, what are you talking about?" In this case remind him, "the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom," and "do not fear those who can kill the body and not the soul, fear the one who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell" (typing this quickly I'll put in scripture reference later if people want them). If that doesn't work, then make the obvious connection for him, "you aren't afraid of being sent to hell?" At this point whether he accepts that he is afraid or not is irrelevant, you've made the important point and connected the dots, so even if he ends the conversation he will come to a challenging conclusion later on if he thinks back over it. Once he accepts that he is afraid, provided he hasn't ended the conversation then: 2. Believer accepts he is afraid of god, "Yes I fear God, as should you." Now is the point where you might make a moral argument against the god concept, stating that threats of violence and coercion are immoral. Perhaps tell him that he has been manipulated, and that fear leads to irrationality. The original question "what if you're wrong?" is a sign of stockholm syndrome, or the uncle tom epithet. It reminds me of Theon Grayjoy in Game of Thrones and his relationship to his torturer, his fear of 'master' caused him to resist when he had the opportunity to be rescued by his sister. I think it is important to show empathy, most Christians have buried their fear so deep that they no longer remember it. I recently reconnected to my fear of God and hell from childhood and it wasn't pleasant. I hope someone finds this helpful. Best regards, Josh

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause. For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics. This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion. The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article. Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold. Below one can download the article for free. I encourage everyone to generously share this article with others. By all means, please save it to your hard-drive and give others copies of it. Also, feel free to share the text of this post. The article is in PDF format. James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf Below is the abstract to my above article: "" ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions. From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology. "" Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68. http://webcitation.org/6GjhT6t52 , https://mega.co.nz/#!JkVQWLZT!GNIDgVWPCCb72G6LLijSinf_6u9zc0a20gXBfAVE4MA , https://amazon.com/clouddrive/share?s=bTI58F1dSAIjSrxJ26R7d8 , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4r80YepnxNjNOX2x0XzBOV00/edit , http://ubuntuone.com/0VMqN7rnJzXVsJCUXkj6lY ) * Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs * Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W * Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd * Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I * Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz * Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 * Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 * Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT * Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS * Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB * Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W. * Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 * F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 * Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals. Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers"). Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion. Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , http://archive.is/pKD3y ) Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website: Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist. http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct. ----- Note: 1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics. #################### In the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos. James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

I've recently read a lot about these things called tulpas. A tulpa is basically a second consciousness that you create inside your own head. This consciousness has an own personality and other sorts of traits, and optionally also an imagined form but that's secondary. The way you do this is by beginning to talk to yourself as if some second person is actually listening. It's fuelled by attention. Eventually, as your tulpa develops itself more, you will begin to hear its voice inside your head and it works like a separate consciousness that has access to your thoughts, feelings and memories, but nevertheless is uncontrolled by the consciousness that is you. You can talk to it, it can help you with thinking, memorization, self-knowledge, accessing your subconscious, etc... eventually in an advanced stage you can even let it "switch" and control your body, that sort of thing. It sounds pretty mad and mystical, but I think it's plausible, because first off, the brain is elastic. If you do a lot of math, you'll develop circuits in your brain that make you really good at math. There's no reason (as far I know at least; I'm not a neurologist) why the same can't apply to consciousness. There are also detailed guides on how to create and treat a tulpa so you can empirically prove it to yourself. There is also a whole community discussing their tulpas, etc... Anyway, now, as for my point: doesn't the first paragraph sound a bit familiar? Is God a tulpa that religious authority figures make children create in their heads for the purpose of giving them an authority figure in their own head, effectively making them control themselves? They form his personality, make children pray as if he is listening, and then follow the claims of God being omnipresent and omniscient (and indeed; a tulpa is everywhere in your head and knows everything about you). This could also explain why theists are so unreasonable when presented with arguments against God. To them, God IS real, it's a tulpa (and they're unaware of that). Why would you agree with all these abstract philosophical arguments, if the empirical evidence, to you, is right here with you? Surely the philosopher must be making some mistake...! He just doesn't believe in God because he doesn't let him into his heart... Just a little thought I had. Perhaps some more research into tulpas could bring us closer to an understanding of theism? Anyway, I don't know to what degree you guys are aware of the whole tulpa thing, but I'm interested to know what you all think of this.

Double-blind scientific studies have shown that the archetype psychedelics induce genuine religious mystical insights. See the Good Friday Experiment at Boston University's Marsh Chapel on April 20, 1962, conducted by Walter N. Pahnke and assisted by Timothy Leary using psilocybin. See also the 2006 Johns Hopkins University's experiment with psilocybin conducted by Roland R. Griffiths et al. All the below works are available in full for free at the website of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) at http://www.maps.org/books/pahnke/ . Walter Norman Pahnke, Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drugs and Mystical Consciousness, Ph.D. thesis at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (June 1963). Rick Doblin, "Pahnke's 'Good Friday Experiment': A Long-Term Follow-Up and Methodological Critique", Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1991), pp. 1-28. R. R. Griffiths, W. A. Richards, U. McCann and R. Jesse, "Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance", Psychopharmacology, Vol. 187, No. 3 (August 2006), pp. 268-283, doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5. R. R. Griffiths, W. A. Richards, M. W. Johnson, U. D. McCann and R. Jesse, "Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later", Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 22, No. 6 (August 2008), pp. 621-632, doi:10.1177/0269881108094300. There is an ultimate insight provided by the archetype psychedelics (e.g., LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, etc.), but most people only catch glimpses of it, and are unable to hold on to that insight as they come down from the psychedelic. Which, even so, is still an utterly profound and life-transforming experience. Those who have had an entheogenic dose of an archetype psychedelic are typically familiar with the experience of having a transcendental sense of understanding, of everything in the universe making perfect sense, of there being a deep interconnectedness and purpose to all things, but as they come down, the typical case is for that deep sense of understanding to be lost, and to be merely left with the impression that one once understood the great secret of existence. If one is able to give the correct name to this ultimate insight, and further, to properly understand one's own relation to it (i.e., to give the correct name for oneself), then it is possible to bring this ultimate insight down with one: for then one has the terminology, the label, for this ultimate insight and one's own relation to it, which greatly facilitates apprehension and cerebration of the matter. That ultimate insight is this: You are God. It's all just You. You are all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. You are the totality of existence, forever and all times. Now of course the conscious portion of your presently limited viewpoint is not the totality of existence, it is just a finite subset of the infinitely greater consciousness of God. But at the ultimate level, you are that greater consciousness, i.e., God. You are God experiencing and discovering Yourself. Thus, the word "entheogen" is quite an apt name for the archetype psychedelics. An equivalent formulation of this is that God, who is existence itself, is the Logos: i.e., computation, logic, thought, reason, cogitation, ratiocination, cerebration. That is, God is logic itself, i.e., mathematics itself. And mathematics is infinite. God is Georg Cantor's Absolute Infinite. And the set cardinality of God is that of the continuum: 2^aleph-null. Interestingly, God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-Weinberg-DeWitt quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God): F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , http://archive.is/pKD3y ) Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point cosmology has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc. For a great deal more regarding the physics of this issue, see my following article: James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos. James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

One of my favorite things to do a long time ago was find quick ways to prove the non-existence of a god using traits described to me by other people. It would frustrate them, but if you're going to believe in an existing God then he had better not have self-contradictory properties. Well now that I'm Christian, I'll have a go at attempting to define traits which do not disqualify themselves from existence. If no one can point out reason to believe in non-existence, would that not mean the question is 'up in the air' or 'on the table' until proven or disproven one way or the other? I'm not saying we should treat an unproven question as though it is true, I'm saying that we should treat an unproven question as though it could be true, at least theoretically, given assumption of specific non-contradictory traits. Before you ask what reason there is for entering these assumptions (basis in reality, evidence, fact, research, etc), or what reason there is for evaluating a hypothetical being which emerges from the traits assumed, let me explain. Let's say someone designs a new invention called 'the printing press'. Now, at this point in time no printing press can be seen, examined, or used, because there are none anywhere. The only evidence that the printing press works as the inventor claims is a mechanical drawing he made on a large piece of paper. All we could do would be to enter the assumption that, with all parts shaped and put together, this machine would do what we think it would do. And we would also have to evaluate this hypothetical device using its assumed traits before building it, or else we cannot design it and then we cannot build from a working design. To do anything otherwise equals abandoning the pursuit of building the printing press. Now let's ask, why even bother evaluating the possibility of God existing? We have many books claiming to be messages from God. Many people have near-death and OOB experiences, some have astral projection experiences. Some people think dreams are from a different level of reality. Some people claim memories of past lives. Some people claim to have experienced miracles. If any one of these things happens to a person, why should that person not then consider the possibility of God? Should that person really just find the first sentence they don't understand and snap the book shut and say they've disproven the whole thing? I mean, everyone does what they want to. It just seems to me that some people give very little consideration to ideas that are not instantly self-terminating (possibly valid ideas) because they don't like that particular subject, but when talking about other subjects, a lot of consideration is expected. Or perhaps it's that one subject is already delcared moot, no matter what new arguments are brought forth? Instead of the common idea of omniscience, let's say that "God can find out anything about anything in His universe." This trait also places the information elsewhere, as an accessible medium, instead of requiring it to all be stuffed into one mind and all be conciously thought of simultaneously forever. This also draws closer the claim that "we were created in His image." Instead of the common idea of omnipotence, let's say that "God can do anything possible except sin." 'anything possible' rules out logically impossible feats while preserving the infinite range of potential valid actions. We know that God hates hypocricy and therefore would not practice hypocricy, thus God who tells us to not sin should also not be sinning. Instead of the common idea of omnipresense, let's say that "God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants." This is carefully worded to allow God to be in more place than one, simultaneously, yet still be logically possible. Some people like to define God as invulnerable to logical attack, or existing where A can equal non-A, or existing with an inpenetrable barrier between Him and us, in order to evade good arguments against their claimed traits. Defining anything that way makes it self-implode, so we have to add the trait "God exists within the boundaries of reality," and the trait "God is at least one unit of something," and the trait "God can reach out and intervene here." #1. God can find out anything about anything in His universe. #2. God can do anything possible except sin. #3. God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants. #4. God exists within the boundaries of reality. #5. God is at least one unit of something. #6. God can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it]. Are any of these traits contradicting each other or themselves? Is there a trait that must be added or else the whole thing falls apart? Is there a trait here that must be removed or else the whole thing falls apart? If you can show me something wrong here I'd try to fix it or abandon whatever trait needs to be abandoned. Disclaimer: Keep in mind that these are just assumed traits for a hypothetically existing God, or for a God whose existence is still possible or 'on the table' based on described traits. This is not an attempt to prove the existence of God - only an attempt to put the possibility of His existence back on the table.

I'm not a physicist, nor a theologian. (or a philosopher for that matter) I'm just a dude with free time. /disclaimer I've been YouTubing physicist Lawrence Krauss and his lectures/debates about how the universe came into being out of "nothing". There was a debate between him and theologian William Lane Craig. One of the things that Craig kept harping on was the definition of "nothing". While watching that debate, I found myself agreeing with Craig. This led me to realize that either Krauss was wrong, or I just didn't understand what he meant by "nothing". Fast forward through many of his lectures and debates and I think I finally understand what the problem is and why he runs into so much resistance when trying to convince others about the universe arising from "nothing". Indeed, the problem is in the definition of the word "nothing", which is simply "not anything". A synonym that is much more revealing is the word "void" which is defined as "being without something specified". Now up until very recently in the history of the human race, we have understood the "void" of space to contain absolutely no matter or energy. If you wanted an empirical example of what "nothing" and "void" were, all you had to do was create a vacuum in space. And of course, the vacuum of space happened naturally and made up most of the universe. The creation myth says that God created the universe from nothing, out of the void. Iron age myth makers would look at an empty sack, empty cup, or up in the sky and say there is nothing in there. They would have a concept of what nothing actually is. Therefore, they could imagine "a great void". As mankind became more technologically advanced we began to understand that while a sack or cup may appear to be empty, in fact there are billions of microscopic particles dancing about inside them; and the sky we now know to be an atmosphere full of all kinds of particles. The concept of "nothing" arose out of the human mind's inability to directly experience something that appeared to not be there. In other words, "if I can't physically see it, it's not there. PEEK-A-BOO!" The way that scientific advancement played out, though, created an overlap between what we previously believed to be empty to a new concept of empty. No longer was the glass empty or the atmosphere empty, outer space was empty. Then later, the space between electrons and the nucleus of an atom was empty. As long as the concept of nothing had empirical evidence to show that nothing was a valid concept, then theologians would always be able to claim that before the universe there was nothing, with full confidence that "nothing" was something that could be fully understood by even the most mentally challenged individual. Enter quantum mechanics. We now understand that all of the visible matter/energy in the universe makes up about 1% of the total matter/energy in the universe. If you are to look at the vacuum of space, where we once thought we could look into nothing, we now understand theoretically and empirically that there are "ghost particles" popping in and out of existence. The void of space is not void. And since space is everywhere, there is no such thing as "nothing" or a "void". Everywhere in the universe, there is something. Nowhere in the universe can you find an true example of "nothing". What does this do to the creation myth "God created the universe from nothing"? Well, it relegates this to the category of creating an alternate dimension to define God. "nothing true can be said about our reality, because another reality may exist where truth equals falsehood." (Against the Gods? pg20 describing the agnostic argument) The truth about our reality is that it is completely full. We are fish becoming aware of the water. The human race has had a concept of what "nothing" is for so long that it seems obvious that it is a valid concept. Is the glass half empty of half full? It's always full! It is either full up on beer or it contains half beer and half atmosphere. There is always something there. The concept of "nothing" is completely invalid. It is no different than talking about pink polka dotted unicorns orbiting Saturn on a unicycle while whistling Dixie. So both concepts in the creation myth are now gone. God and Nothing. Both imagined fantasies that cannot be logically derived from observable reality. The difficulty that even non-believers have with the idea of a "Universe from Nothing" seems to be a psychological attachment to the idea that "nothing" is a real state of being. Lawrence Krauss would do better if he were to rework his approach to include the psychological implications of these findings. Being a total layman in these matters, I'd love to hear what you all think.

So I was a bit surprised to see this argument presented by none other than the self proclaimed "Doctor of Common Sense" who also said in the same Video that "Atheists should Love Christians because they tolerate us and don't kills atheists" This guy is logical enough to see through the obama & political thing.. but misses the scam of religion completely.. I had to respond to it & I hope I didn't come across as disrespectful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGeSsnwX-0s I do agree that muslims do commit far more murders in present times... but doesn't mean christians don't do the same thing when they have the political influence. He seems like a cool person... and his channel is thetruthdamit. but how can he be the doctor of common sense when he can't see through christianity..