Why The Christian God Cannot Be Proven Without The Bible

A thought experiment: Image you’ve never read or heard of the Bible and don’t know anything about religion(s). Now think about yourself and the world around you. Also think about the breadth of the entire universe while you’re at it. Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity? 

No.

The greatest problem facing the validity of the creator-god myth is something that doesn’t get brought up enough, if at all. 100% of the time, knowledge of a such a god precedes the alleged evidence found in nature for such a deity’s existence. No one ever in their right mind* with no knowledge of religion has ever looked around themselves and at nature and said, “This is all so incredible, a single entity of some sort must’ve created everything.” No one would say this having any knowledge of how complex things are created and built. While some complex objects can be built by a single designer and engineer, we know that this is no small feat and requires lots of time; typically more than six 24-hour days. There is also every indication that the more complex something is to design and build, the more people are required to complete that task. The Empire State Building in New York City had four architects and required hundreds of people to build it. No one, not even a person who knows next to nothing about erecting buildings would say of the Empire State Building that it looks like something a single person designed and built.

[*By ‘in their right mind,’ we should say ‘in possession of analytic skills’ as primitive men obviously possessed little in the way of reason. Modern man still doesn’t.]

Every single time, knowledge about a religion exists prior to viewing one’s self, the Earth, and the universe through that lens to conclude what one sees aligns with and affirms their beliefs. Here, we should ask why, then, are scriptures the only thing that establishes the existence of a creator-god? Why isn’t the existence of any such deity (and their plans) obvious from our existence and the world around us. A person left to their own devices, growing up alone and never coming into contact with another person would not come to the conclusion of the biblical god, for example. There is absolutely nothing about our bodies, our minds, the world outside of us, or the universe beyond Earth that specifically states that we should obey the 10 Commandments or accept Jesus as our Savior, for instance. No one is born with that specific knowledge. While Christians are fond of saying everyone is born a sinner (thanks to Original Sin), at the same time atheists are fond of saying everyone is born an atheist, the only difference being is that the atheist can’t be disputed and that’s no small thing.

It might be objected that, well, a book is just the way a monotheistic god goes about teaching people about his existence and the need to be saved. I can’t help but think, though, that imprinting his existence and desires directly into our minds without the need for other people’s input would be a much better idea, especially considering you risk eternal damnation for not believing in him. Considering that, God does not seem too wise to me when I can think of a better way of doing things, and particularly in the creation of humans. In creating a person, I would also re-design the knee, which is a poorly ‘designed’ joint. I would dispense with much of the universe as well, seeing how humans will never traverse most of that space. So why would I worship a deity I can outsmart on matters of design? Why would I worship a deity whose own book is the only way to ‘truly’ know them be so obtuse as to lead to numerous sects of Christianity that all profess to be the One True Religion? If this deity did exist, I wouldn’t have much respect for their intellect.

So the challenge to apologists stands: Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity?

I already know (because I’m omniscient) that at least one Apologist will chime in with DNA as their proof. Only, the complex structure of DNA does not speak to a single creator as I’ve already pointed out, nor does the complexity of DNA tell us anything about the plans or desires of any deity beyond the proclivity to reproduce.

I’ll be waiting a long time for a good answer because all apologists are already tainted by and biased towards their belief, unable to be objective. Meanwhile, I am willing to be objective because I am rational, open to the possibility a creator-god exists given the appropriate proofs, those proofs being arguments or evidence of that single creator as described in the monotheistic traditions that do not fail, that cannot be objected to.

Come, Watson, come. The Game is afoot.

Here we Go Again On The Teleological Argument

After tweeting a comment about the philosophical shortcomings of the act of praying, something I 'might' be wrong about, a Christian apologist offered to debate me in DMs. (And, for the record, I am tweeting and messaging as The Stranded Alien @TheStrendedAli2 because 1-More and more I don't believe I am from this planet and 2-Making comments from the perspective of an alien who seeks to understand humans keeps me civil.) What follow are the screen shots of our messages and additional thoughts as to what was going through my head as I was replying. 

Props to the Millennial Christian as he stays civil throughout this, or perhaps it is a ploy to gain  my trust and convert me. At any rate, once we pass the civility test, he comes across as your garden variety apologist who hasn't been in the game very long, as you can see in the very beginning when he refuses to define 'god.' I understand his reluctance, though. 

Rookie mistake; nature itself can't be evidence of things that are created when all we know about things that are created are the things created by humans.

His initial statement is silly. He's implying that having never been told about a god or creator, he has looked at the entire universe and thought, "One [entity] did this" which is a preposterous extrapolation. And no, knowing how we got here does not define our purpose, if any purpose besides reproduction can be said to exist. Animals don't posit the beginning of the universe to know they need to eat and take shelter to survive and reproduce. Second, why should I respect another person's life if I don't know about our origins? I can think of some good reasons. At least he concedes that his god could have been created (it's turtles all the way down) but goofs on the Fine Tuning Argument, not realizing that the second we find life on another planet, the Fine Tuning Argument goes out the window. Also, the earth is never in the same place.

(oops, goofed on the screen captures there...) The story of the Fall in Christian mythology is so ridiculous it boggles the minds. I might also add that nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam and Eve were 'perfect,' another word lacking description. I mean, I'm not surprised that another Christian apologist hasn't read the Bible they've allegedly analyzed, but c'mon. He started with the Teleological Argument, was shown it was faulty - thank you, David Hume - and then had to resort to scripture which no one worth their salt does. After this, the Millennial Christian no longer engaged, perhaps to practice his conversion techniques some more. Kid's got a long way to go. 

What Is Time? And Is Time Travel Impossible?

Before I begin, it should explained why understanding the nature of time is seemingly important. Unlike the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and to a certain extent, gravity, we have extremely limited control over time. To understand time would potentially allow us – or whomever controls the knowledge or technology – to gain one more advantage over nature. If the nature of time could be understood, it is assumed we could control or at least manipulate it. Based upon our current understanding of physics and cosmology, I believe I’ve come to understand the nature of time. Equally important is that in understanding how time works, this understanding destroys the extravagant notion of time travel* altogether.

[*Time travel into the past, that is. Time travel into the future is known to be logically possible, but this concept of time travel is not regarded as ‘sexy’ because it does not allow any control or interaction with the past, much less the ‘now.’]

Why would we think time travel is possible in the first place? Human beings have been the stewards of impossible ideas for a long time and time travel is no exception. It is an even more bizarre thing to contemplate time travel when you take some of the most popular theories of time into consideration. For example, in the B-Theory of Time aka Tenseless Time or Eternalism, it is hypothesized that the past, present and future exist all at once and this would certainly not allow time travel. The B-Theory of Time is most likely a false hypothesis given Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity as it relates to the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation due to the effect of gravity (it is well confirmed that time runs differently, say, near massive objects as opposed to further away due to gravity). A similar criticism can be leveled against what is called Block Time, in which it is hypothesized that the past and present are real but the future is not; that the future amounts to an ever shifting ‘now’ that somehow leaves a trail of breadcrumbs we could potentially go back to and pick up. There’s less of a problem with imagining that only right now exists given anyone’s perspective from any point in three dimensional space, though upon reflection, what now is there? For as soon as it is now, now is in the past. This last point brings us to whether or not there is a flow to time.

Does time flow? That is, does time flow like a river or it does it manifest as a series of infinitesimally small pieces, like a quantum-sized roll of film? While some scientists believe that the latter is the case and have scaled packets of time down to what is called Plank Time (trust me, a super-duper small measurement) there is no explanation as to how one frame of time ‘becomes’ or seemingly ‘flows into’ another. It also seems odd that any scientist would insist on dividing time into packets since this would make time appear to be unlike anything else in physics; the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity are not even matter are cleanly divided into packets. (Of course, just because the others are not a divisible ‘something’ doesn’t necessarily rule this out of time’s nature.) Where would solid matter even go during the intervals in which time changes in this view? If on the other hand time is part of a fabric that comes from the stretching of space, this would appear to make more sense as there would be a connection between space and time that makes it plausible that any interaction with gravity would have differing effects. These differing effects are what ultimately causes time to flow in the only direction we have ever known – forward. Thus, whether or not time flows is rather irrelevant; it’s the seemingly forward direction of time that matters*. And, the reason why time only goes in one direction is because it is an emergent property of the expansion of space and not a dimension unto itself.

[*On the macroscopic level of organization in which we interact with the world. Time appears to have little meaning in the subatomic world, though overall this has little impact on time as we experience it.]

In trying to understand time, people seem to overthink or want to complicate the answer as to its nature because time is so hard to pin down, metaphorically speaking. Anything so elusive must be difficult to understand, is what conventional wisdom seems to want to say. But the question and answer are not intractable. What is time? It is the perception or measurement of space and matter in relationship to each other. Time is observed as changes in the differences between these two aspects of nature. And these things change in relationship to each other – all the time – because space itself is always expanding.

We know that on both a cosmic and local scale, space itself is expanding and doing so in every direction (thus there is no ‘center’ to the universe). It is also expanding at a speed per distance in every direction that is faster than the ability of light to transverse already interstellar distances, which is about 70km/sec per megaparsec and accelerating (we’ll see what this has to do with anything soon). Because of this, most galaxies are getting further and further away from each other (and not themselves necessarily ‘moving’ away from each other). Keep in mind for a moment that the expansion of space at the subatomic and local scale is overcome – that is, not taking place or doing so imperceptibly – due to the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and even gravity whereas massive objects like a planet, solar system, or galaxy is concerned. In deep space, space itself is expanding (more rapidly than at the subatomic and local scale) and as it expands, the change of objects in relation to each other changes. These changes are perceived as the passage of time. For example, in the smaller confines of space, such as within the area of a galaxy – which is small, cosmically speaking – a galaxy’s position changes in relationship to everything else in the universe and because the matter therein changes in relation to space – which is not static in any direction – this is what we construe as time. Even if space were not expanding and instead were collapsing, we would still see the arrow of time go forward because of the different arrangement of matter in relationship to space. (Or in another scenario, we would be unable to tell if time were flowing backwards or forward since we’d be part of the changes taking place. And now you’ve just realized that, heck, that means time could be flowing backwards right now and we wouldn’t know it.)

Meanwhile, as space expands and matter spreads itself out (for the most part) on the cosmic scale, the Earth is moving through space around the Sun at 30km/sec, the Sun is moving around the center of the Milky Way at about 200-250km/sec, and the Milky Way is moving approximately 600km/sec toward the constellation Hydra. This, too, provides us with a positional change between objects that we can observe and measure. Notice if you will how often scientists assert that time and space cannot be separated; this is a bit confusing because it is an incomplete assertion: time and space and matter altogether cannot be separated if time is to be observed and measured. Time and space may exist on their own together, but to do so would be irrelevant to the matter of which we are comprised. You will likewise hear scientists say that time didn’t exist before the moment the universe came into existence. As space came into existence after quantum fluctuations supposedly caused the Big Bang (or Big Bounce depending on what theory you want to go with), matter formed as space expanded and cooled, providing the universe with time as we know it*.

[*We’re not exactly sure how the Big Bang or Bounce could happen as quantum fluctuation would suggest the necessity of the passage of time. But it appears that the so-called arrow-of-time means little if nothing at the subatomic scale or at least little or nothing to massless particles such as a photon. Empty space, teeming with energy – meaning it’s not really empty – doesn’t rely on a direction of time for changes. I do realize this seems counterintuitive for those of us who live at the macroscopic level since we perceive changes as going forward in time. Quantum physics doesn’t play by the same rules, apparently.]

What implications does this hold for time travel? It makes time travel, at least to the past, impossible. (How could you use ‘forward’ time to go back in time anyway?) Space and time and their relation to matter do not allow for a ‘map’ in which there are points in the past we can revisit on a whim. Due to the expansion of space and the movement of matter within space – which is a drive towards the equal distribution of matter and energy in the universe – the position of the matter within the universe is constantly changing; to visit the past would necessarily no longer be the past we knew, but a new past that included the input of (our) new matter into the initial position of matter within the universe at the time in question. Some might speculate that to do such a thing would result in a new timeline/alternate universe, but there is no evidence to suggest creating an alternate timeline or universe is possible. Hence, to “go back in time” would be paradoxical and paradoxes are by definition impossible.

As I alluded to in passing several times now, quantum physics doesn’t play by the same rules of time that we are used to. Massless particles such as a photon, light, do not have experiences in the traditional sense because they are not directly affected by the forces that dictate the behavior of particles with mass. A photon can be pulled into a blackhole because of the curvature of space due to extreme gravity, but gravity has no direct effect on a photon. The curvature of space is what appears to make a photon – something that experiences no time – to experience time, by changing the photon’s position because space around it expands and/or curves. Although a photon has no mass (and can therefore exert no gravitational force or, again, be directly affected by gravity) and is essentially ‘frozen’ in time, it is perceived to experience the passage of time due to space expanding through the photon’s fixed points. All of this is to once again say and add to that, that not only is time a derivative of the expansion of space, but is an emergent property of changes to the positions of mass and massless particles due to the expansion of space while gravity curves that space.

Time travel to the past is not possible unless we can reverse the expansion of space and un-curve space to put mass and massless particles back in their previously experienced positions. Even if we could do this, we wouldn’t know that we’ve done it because we would all be in the same state we originally experienced. Again, if time were actually running backwards right now and the so-called arrow-of-time is just a phrase for the direction time flows, we wouldn’t know it because it is normal to our experiences. In my conception of time, none of the legendary logician Kurt Godel’s (1906-1978) ‘light cones’ are allowed to ‘tip over’ due to extreme curvatures of space and allow information or you to travel to the past.

Given this conception of time, some questions remain (though all are not directly tied to the nature of time itself). If it is assumed by cosmologists that approximately 80-90% of the universe’s mass is missing, how does this missing mass affect time, if at all? (Perhaps it isn’t missing and something we haven’t thought of is overcoming gravity to drive the expansion of space, though, Dark Energy is the name of this clandestine force I suppose yet sounds too precise for something totally unknown). It would also be interesting to know how consciousness allows us to perceive the passage of time.

Naturally, this theory of time as I have formulated it is without a certain level of preciseness as I am not a physicist. My theory, though, makes far more sense and possesses more explanatory power than other theories such as the B-Theory of Time or Block Time, both of which are not confirmable.

Time only goes in one direction, expanding so to speak, and this doesn’t allow for time travel. But don’t shoot; I’m just the messenger. Go back in time and kill me before I figure all this out if you don’t believe me. (Or, more courteously, simply point out where my argument fails. Thanks.)