God disproved / Eternal energy created everything else / What happens after you die?

God disproved /

Eternal energy created everything else /

What happens after you die?

By Tom Fearnley

EDIT: Whilst I'm now almost sure that God as a logical contradiction is wrong (we don't know if there is such a thing as a no-energy intelligence; there might be we don't have an understanding that all intelligences are made of energy/matter) the word God is still a contradiction: What is immaterial? What is "no energy" made of? It's something we have no understanding of. If we don't know anything about it we can't conclude that it is intelligent or even that it does or does not exist with certainty. It is a contradiction to say "I know nothing about it but I do know it's intelligent". We must at the very least all be agnostic and, I would argue, with a strong leaning towards atheism. Hence we should all be agnostic-atheists.

RE: "Theists don't define God as immaterial": William Lane Craig doe as do many of the theists I've spoken to.

 

1. God=an immaterial intelligence. 2. Immaterial=no energy/something we have no understanding of whatsoever. 3. God="a something we have no understanding of at all something we do have an understanding of intelligence". Conclusion: God is a logical contradiction like saying a married bachelor. #God_disproved.

God is defined as an immaterial intelligence. Immaterial means not made of energy/matter (I argue later that everything is made of energy) or no/without/sans energy/matter or not material which just means no energy/matter. What does no energy/matter mean? It’s something we have no understanding of at all. So God becomes a “something we don’t have any understanding of at all intelligence” this is a logical contradiction, an impossibility, like saying an unmarried married man. In other words what I’m saying here is that God is a [immaterial] “something we have no understanding of at all…something we do have an understanding of intelligence”: See the contradiction? Something we don’t have an understanding of something we do have an understanding of. This is the basic argument and now I’ll go into more detail showing why the agnostic and theist counter-responses to this argument are false.

 

 

The agnostic response: 

 

Agnostics can try to respond by saying if immaterial means “something we have no understanding of at all” then we can’t say it’s not intelligent and we can’t say it’s not non-intelligent we have to say we don’t know whether it’s intelligent or not. But this is false because we have at least some understanding of intelligence and we have at least some understanding of non-intelligence. So “something we have no understanding of at all” can’t be intelligent and it can’t be non-intelligent (because we have an understanding of both.) In other words “something we have no understanding of at all” can be defined in one word: Nothing. What does nothing mean? Nothing is not-non-intelligent and not intelligent at the same time. It’s neither intelligent nor is it non intelligent. So the agnostic is saying “immaterial might be intelligent or not I don’t know” when immaterial/nothing is defined as something which is neither intelligent or non-intelligent so therefore it can’t be either. The agnostic position is a contradiction also. It’s like saying it’s not intelligent or non-intelligent but it might be intelligent or non-intelligent.

 

 

The theist response: 

 

Theists have responded to me by saying that immaterial means no energy/matter. Then when I respond by saying if immaterial is “not energy/matter” and not “nothing” then what is it? They will respond by repeating, as a mantra, that it means “no energy/matter”. They will never give a definition because clearly they don’t understand what it means. It’s something they have no understanding of at all. Theists say what immaterial is not - not energy/matter, not nothing - not saying what it is. This is like saying a cat is “not a tree, not a bicycle, not a pen, not a dog” without ever getting to what it is - a cat. They’re saying what immaterial is not and not what it is, what it does mean, thus avoiding giving a definition. First say what immaterial is, then give an explanation of what you understand about it, then give examples of immaterial. Theists will just jump straight to the examples stage by saying e.g. spacetime is immaterial or consciousness is immaterial without even saying what immaterial is and then what they know about it.  

 

Another response I have got is that immaterial is “information”. First of all this is just attempting to redefine the word and secondly, from the little I understand about the word information, I do understand that the dictionary definition ends in the word “thing”. A thing is something material, made of energy/matter. Thus immaterial cannot be information but this is not how the word is defined generally. Anyway that you put immaterial/something we have no understand of at all/nothing/something meaningless, God becoming a meaningless meaningful intelligence in that case, we can see a logical contradiction is created and we can know with 100% certainty that no God/Gods/”immaterial” intelligence exist. God is therefore disproved.  

 

 

“Nothing” disproved:

 

Nothing means not non-intelligent and not intelligent at the same time. But a Not-non intelligence - the “not-non” - is a double negative. So a not-non intelligence becomes an “intelligence”. Nothing now reads as “intelligent and not intelligent at the same time”. But you can’t be intelligent and not intelligent at the same time - you are either intelligent or not. One or the other. So nothing is just another logical contradiction like saying an unmarried married man. This rules out nothing as a possibility - with certainty - for what created everything else. There is really no such thing as “something we know nothing about at all” because we have an understanding that all things, now nothing is disproved, must logically be either intelligent or non-intelligent. We know at least something about them; about all things. This is the case even though there are no doubt things we haven’t discovered, observed, scientifically yet.

 

“Something we know nothing about at all” is a logical impossibility and becomes “impossible or non-existent”. God is thus an immaterial - impossible/non-existent intelligence. God is the ultimate married bachelor.

 

 

Eternal energy created everything else (except itself):

 

We have ruled out God as a possibility for what created everything else with certainty, we have ruled out nothing with certainty, agnosticism is certainly wrong and matter was created. This leaves only one possibility: eternal energy created everything else. Energy can’t be created or destroyed, energy - according to Victor J Stenger in his book God: The failed hypothesis, William Lane Craig in his debate with Stenger and Imperial college - creates minute amounts of matter - particles. So energy creates matter. What is inside an atom? Strings of energy. What is the “casing” of an atom made of? To the best of my knowledge: particles. Where do particles come from? Energy. We can know therefore that an eternal source of energy we scientifically yet know little to nothing about, other than logical telling us it must be energy with certainty, created everything else by itself.

 

 

What happens after you die?

 

I don’t know. But we have ruled out God as a possibility so there is certainly no heaven or hell that a “God” or “Gods” created. There are four main possibilities that happen after you die: 1) As the brain is where human reality comes from, the mind is part of reality therefore the mind is in the brain when the brain dies then so do we going into “nothing”/non-existence. We won’t have memories/brains etc so how do we live on? 2) If the mind is indestructible energy encased in an atom or molecule then we could get reincarnated billions of years from now as single cells on to other planets. The single cells don’t have brains or central nervous systems so can’t feel pain. We would keep coming back as single cells for eternity even when/if the new universe is formed after heat death. 3) If NASA gets the technology instead of becoming single cells and being reincarnated we get resurrected - not reincarnated - as very advanced cyborgs which feel no pain for eternity. We would die the suddenly then wake instantly as these cyborgs having no memory on the transition between death and our next life. 4) Evil, rogue A.I. resurrects us and tortures us for control of us for eternity. I very much doubt this would happen as I have not blind faith but evidence based faith based on history of past human survival experiences that we will make sure that A.I. doesn’t turn out to be evil. Remember after you die you have no brain or central nervous system so how can you feel pain after you die if we defeat artificial intelligence if it even needs to be defeated?

 

Thank you for reading:

 

I’m Tom Fearnley:

Reincarnation Entertainment on You Tube.

Atheism_is_True @AtheismTrue on Twitter.

Why Atheism Is True on Blogspot.