Why I’m Pretty Damned Sure God Does Not Exist – Part 4

Posted: April 21, 2010 in Evolution, Existence Of God, Religion, Science
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Today’s post is part 4 of a series on the arguments for the existence of God.

The First Cause

I’ve often heard the religious bring up the subject of cause and effect. Everything that moves is moved by something, they say. Everything that happens is the effect of an earlier cause.

In its simplest logical form this argument states that everything which exists has a cause and because the Universe exists it must also have a cause. Therefore the cause must be God. The argument is an example of infinite regress. With every effect having a prior cause the ‘chain’ continues backwards forever. The religious argue that only God can break that regress and so must be the first cause.

The flawed logic is immediately obvious to me and it raises more questions than it answers. To claim God breaks the infinite regress makes the assumption God himself is immune to having a cause. We have nothing to suggest this and so it is an example of special pleading.

Even if it could be said that the Universe did have a cause, to assign responsibility of that to a ‘God’ is another jump in logic. God is not the only available explanation; the big bang provides a much more likely explanation.

“God exists because the Bible says He does”

Anybody who bases their belief in God on nothing more than because of what a book says clearly has some mental issues. I’ll just get that out the way first. There is no helping these people, they’re completely devoid of any ability to process thoughts logically so don’t waste your time with them. I wasn’t even going to comment on this argument because it’s so stupid.
So this is here purely for the sake of it. I mean come on, is it even worth wasting my time on people who make the above statement? I don’t think so but I guess I have to justify what I’m saying. Having to justify my belief these books are full of shit is like having to justify my belief the Sun exists. I am referring to every single religious text here not just the Bible.

Still there appear to be many of these people. Most deny evolution because the book says, some murder people because the book says and all base their entire life on what the book says.

It’s quite clear that all the religious texts cannot be correct. They all contradict each other too much for that to be true. This then throws plenty of doubt over all of them. While aspects of them have been historically verified the vast majority of the scriptures are the writings of some pretty confused people thousands of years ago.

The single biggest problem with all the religious books is that they were written by humans. In the 23 years I’ve been alive I’ve learned that some humans are totally fucked in the head and some have a tendency to think and believe complete rubbish. I’ve especially learned to keep well away from people who believe God has revealed something wonderful to them and only them. A man two thousand years ago who believed God was speaking to him is likely to be even more untrustworthy than the crazy nuts now. These people lived in a time when they thought the Earth was flat and the centre of everything. They thought the stars were the ‘heavens’ and that hell was under the ground. They had no knowledge of the billions of planets and stars or the detail of DNA. But yet some wish us to believe them? Given the track record of total bullshit in the Bible, Qu’ran, Book Of Morman and all the rest, I think we can safely say their authors were definitely a bit off the mark.

It saddens me occasionally when I think of the misery and death caused by religion. I have met so many who’ve experienced unnecessary turmoil as a result of conflicts between their religion and their life. Right now the single biggest cause of instability on the planet is religion. Religion can be found somewhere in every major war. For me personally the biggest problem I have with religion is that it turns our eyes upwards. It makes us look for favour with God and forget that we have a short time on this Earth. If we could rid the world of religion maybe we could realise we are all the same species and must rely on each other for survival. Perhaps we would stop obsessing about an imaginary ‘after life’ and make the most of our only life on Earth.

At times I think this is an impossible dream and that religion is too deeply seated. But it is important to remember we are only 150 years from the publication of The Origin Of Species. We are witnessing “New Atheism” in its infancy. Every day science discovers new things and our knowledge of the Universe increases. I do genuinely believe it is possible for the Earth to sort itself out although I don’t expect to see it in my life time.

One thing I do know is that time will tell. History will vindicate today’s ‘sceptics’.

  1. vajrakrishna says:

    Premise: The universe is infinite potential energy manifesting as finite kinetic energy.

    Alright. Firstly, I will validate the premise. The Universe that you see before you is finite kinetic energy – it always will be finite, there is no possibility of it ever being infinite in kinetic energy because to become kinetic in and of itself comprises of depth and space, and more specifically, distances. It comprises of an “edge” to the physical Universe, no matter how much or how fast it is growing. It may have started from nothing and exploded out, but there will always be that outer-edge to its growth. This is an aspect of empirical science. “Energy is not created or destroyed, merely transformed.”

    Which leaves us with the first part of the premise – when energy lies in potential it is infinite.

    Manifested energy, that is; kinetic energy, can only ever be finite, but that does not speak for unmanifest energy. You cannot use the finite nature of manifest kinetic energy as proof of finite potential energy, as it is not necessarily so.

    Seeing as even empty space is seen to contain energy per cubic centimeter, and that empty space is infinite (because it is after all, pure void), that does posit the possibility of infinite potential energy.

    Further to the point, the very fact that any amount of kinetic energy is allowed to create vast distances (thus giving depth and space to the void), it is plausible that kinetic energy could expand outwards continuously and never reach a “limit” as the void that it is filling up is infinite.

    Infinite potential energy is no less reasonable or probable than assuming finite potential energy, however infinite potential energy holds a lot more answers for the wisdom of gnosis. You’d be closing yourself off to an entire avenue of investigation for no good reason, especially an avenue that focuses on Self-Realisation.

    To add to that, also consider that attempts to apply the second law of thermodynamics to the Universe has never quite worked out, because the Universe is not behaving as a closed-space.

    “It has been claimed that the second law means that the universe as a whole must tend inexorably towards a state of entropy. By an analogy with a closed system, the entire universe must eventually end up in a state of equilibrium, with the same temperature everywhere. The stars will run out of fuel. All life will cease. The universe will slowly peter out in a featureless expanse of nothingness. It will suffer a “heat-death.” This bleak view of the universe is in direct contradiction to everything we know about its past evolution, or see at present. The very notion that matter tends to some absolute state of equilibrium runs counter to nature itself. It is a lifeless, abstract view of the universe. At present, the universe is very far from being in any sort of equilibrium, and there is not the slightest indication either that such a state ever existed in the past, or will do so in the future. Moreover, if the tendency towards increasing entropy is permanent and linear, it is not clear why the universe has not long ago ended up in a tepid soup of undifferentiated particles.”


    “The reason why our universe remains Ordered is simply because it is part of an infinite perpetual system, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to Closed systems (not infinite systems)”


    So now – the implications:

    1. It is simultaneously infinite and finite; Well, that sure would explain the thousands of years of intuitive Eastern wisdom, which, in a nutshell, urge us to drop the finite nature of distinctions, distances and thoughts and focus on the gap between the thoughts until we experience that infinite potentiality. The claim is that there is a different kind of knowledge within that infinite potentiality, but experiencing it requires the use of introspective faculties. What makes the claim worthy of investigation is that it has been corroborated independently by several sources, making it empirically verifiable, albeit with some effort.

    2. In its kinetic reality of cause/effect and distances between points in space, it is bound by time. In the reality of its infinite potentiality, it is timeless; Gather that in Eastern wisdom, which is actually not polytheist, God is another term for this unborn – unmanifest… potentiality. This potentiality is not simply an energetic state, but a state of awareness. Of being conscious and still (not riddled with a mass of jumbled cyclic thoughts). In its potentiality, it is timeless and thus ever present. It is simply that the notion of past and future are rendered redundant, because they are elements of kinetic distance, and thereby not wholistic.

    3. Objective and subjective simultaneously; That is to say, kinetic reality is about points of view and perspective. Within the realms of a kinetic universe, only subjectivity is possible. Objectivity, however, is to not be saddled with a point of view. As mentioned, several methods of practice are given for a sentient to experience the dropping of “points of view.” It only takes investigation on your part to see for yourself. At this point I can understand that the dropping of points of view seem like an impossibility. But not in an infinite potentiality. It renders the possibility, but also the necessity for Self-Awareness.

    Terms like “Know Thyself” aren’t a reference to knowing what ice cream you like or what your favorite color is. It is a reference to Gnosis.

    • Thanks, vajrakrishna, for what can only be described as an essay. I’ve approved your essay but it’s the only one I will approve. If you took the time to actually write these 924 words, just for my comments section, then I must say you are very dedicated to your ’cause’. But whilst I may be wrong, I’m going to hazard a guess here that you just copied and pasted this. I’ll go further and guess that you’ve probably pasted it in other places too.

      Perhaps, then, I could make a suggestion. You’d have done well to offer some sort of comment (as this is, in fact, the comments section), rather than just climbing on your self-created soap box and broadcasting your theory. I recognise that the ability to comment is obviously here to offer debate, but I’d draw your attention to Before You Comment, Read This!.

      I don’t have enough time to listen to preachers and I’m not providing you with a pulpit. You are welcome to comment if you wish to engage in meaningful conversation; to which I would gladly respond.

  2. vajrakrishna says:

    Hi Johnny,

    Yes I had a look at your prerequisites for commenting, which makes reference to one thing that you would wish to avoid; a person bantering an idea based solely out of their own “belief” (or faith), and with no real cause for rational and reasonable debate.

    My post to you, however, if you look carefully, is not one of those. Granted it was pasted from a previous discussion I had in an extremely philosophical sense on the existence of God, but to have re-written it would have been to say the same thing all over again. In it’s logic, I believe the argument is sound. I presented it to you for no other reason BUT to engage in meaningful conversation. Philosophy of course relies on rational argument.

    You have a lot of reasons why you are sure God does not exist. I presented a reason WHY he/she does, one you can disprove to me via the deductive process.

    As you probably know, there are four different possibilities for any deductive argument:

    * Invalid and unsound: at least one premise is false, and conclusion does not follow from the premises.
    * Invalid: premises may be true but conclusion does not follow from them.
    * Valid but unsound: conclusion follows from the premises but at least one of the premises is false.
    * Sound: all premises are true and conclusion follows from the premises.

    An invalid and unsound argument may have a true statement as its conclusion – its just that the conclusion may not follow from the premises, or that the premises that the conclusion is based on are not true. This would be a a non-sequitor.

    * Arguments themselves are neither true or false, they are to be judged on their validity and soundness. It is the statements within an argument, namely the premises and conclusion that can have truth and falsity.

    In this context, sound deductive reasoning is impeccable. If there is a flaw within the reasoning, it can be pointed out through logic. Empiricism can exist to validate the reasoning, but the reasoning in itself is self-contained.

    • It is not “a person bantering an idea based solely out of their own “belief” (or faith), and with no real cause for rational and reasonable debate” I wish to avoid. It is people making what I see as speeches; long rambling rants about how they think the world is. Or people writing a philosophy lesson when it was entirely unsolicited. I allow comment on my articles because most people offer an opinion on the content of the original article, which then leads to conversation. Conversations are usually easy to follow. What I have no time for is the trading of rants between two opposing viewpoints. It never ceases to end and serves no purpose.

      So thanks for the philosophy lesson. Unfortunately your original post is rather difficult to follow. It is littered with grammatical errors and they make it frustrating to read. At the same time it reads like it’s out of a philosophy book and has the tone of someone trying to appear intellectual by blinding their readers with excessive use of fancy wording. It seems to be a problem I find quite regularly and usually, on further inspection, the said writer turns out to be someone interested or schooled in philosophy. I have attempted to follow your theory but it doesn’t really make sense to me. Quite a number of my very intelligent friends have also failed to deduce much from it.

      Part of the problem in getting people from different sides of the religious spectrum to talk to each other is that some sides make themselves completely unapproachable. Whilst I acknowledge that you are probably trying to open up a debate, and that I respect, you do it in a way that alienates those you speak to.

      At the start of the article on Arguments for God I said:

      “I’m not a philosopher, neither do I have a degree in ‘Biblical Theology’, I’m not a biologist or a particle physicist. I have no intention of fully explaining the process of evolution, those who do not understand it can find a wealth of information on it. What follows is not a PhD paper and will likely not have covered every angle of possible logic nor will I cite everything I talk about. I may be wrong, I do not assume I ‘have all the answers’. It merely stands as my observation of how the world appears to be.”

      It is for this reason that I have no desire to draw into a deep philosophical debate on the comments section here; I have asked for conversation and I think I’m entitled to insist on this.

      Plain, intelligible, standard written English, would go a long way to ensuring your readers understand what you are actually trying to say. Fancy sentence structure and long words are not the fruits of intelligence.

      • Firstly I will apologise for my delayed response. You will notice there have been no updates to the blog in general due to
        situations in my family life.

        You make the assertion that I don’t understand your terminology, this is not the problem I have with your comments. I am familiar with the laws you cite and familiar with every word you have used.

        My problem stems from the fact your premise makes no mention of God, or how the laws you mention relate to the existence of God. After talking about the laws of thermodynamics, and offering me a quote from a political web site, you then slip in the word God at the end saying:

        “Gather that in Eastern wisdom … God is another term for this unborn – unmanifest… potentiality”

        At the start of my post on the existence of God I said “God is universally viewed as the creator of the Universe, the being responsible for the existence of everything we know. God is therefore superhuman. This is the definition according to most religious believers, and it is this definition I will use.”

        I mentioned that this definition is used by most religious believers because I am aware that some religions have adopted different definitions for what God is. As this is the case within eastern “wisdom”, as you put it, I am not really concerned with arguing out such theories.

        It is not difficult to take scientific laws, call aspects of them “God”, and then say “therefore God exists”. My concern is with what the majority of people call God: a being with absolute power over the universe that must be worshipped, prayed to, obeyed and that directly controls everything that happens in the universe.

        Is this the God you were arguing for?

  3. vajrakrishna says:

    Hi, though it be true that fancy words and sentences are not the sign of intelligence, neither are they a sign of lack of intelligence. Basically, it doesn’t really matter if a person writes in a way that is intensive or if they write in a “philosophy for dummies” format; as you mentioned at the most all an intensive piece will do is alienate a reader who isn’t familiar with the terms.

    However, I was extremely polite to you in my reply where I laid bare my intentions in what I shared with you, and what is unwarranted is the number of accusations you insist on making. You say you want to have a conversation, a discussion… but a conversation includes considering points of view and perhaps even sources for that point of view. What I presented was points of view, not a speech. It was a premise followed by validation followed by implications.

    You speak of sureness, why you are sure of something; you are using the faculty of reason, and maybe all your gripe here is that you’d rather it be “easier” to read, but you could just ask me politely, instead of setting a good example of the “sour grapes” fable.

    My intention is not in the least to “appear intellectual”, not in the least. I would appreciate it if you would be a little more open-minded about that. For instance, I have a passion to learn, to understand points of view. Your post title begins with “why I am pretty damned sure…”, but to be sure of anything requires at least an INFORMED opinion. And to have an informed opinion requires some degree of investigation.

    Which is why, when I want to come to some understanding on a topic, I investigate what’s been said about it, and you better be sure at the forefront, not all of it comes in “easy to read” format. I’ve had to get used to that. The philosopher and sociologist Foucault, for example, is enormously difficult to read, to digest, but there is so much insight and fresh-thinking there that to give up just because it isn’t presented in a way you demand is to miss out on being informed.

    Again, not all the great ideas are easy to read. But what is your concern here? Do you really want to have as objective as possible an understanding of the topic you are discussing? Or by saying “you are pretty damn sure” are you just flinging your own beliefs that have no real credit or backing because you haven’t fully investigated.

    If you look at my first post to you, there is only two main terminology used; “infinite potential energy” and “finite kinetic energy”. That terminology was necessary for the premise. I proposed it to you as something for you to consider and start up a discussion from which perhaps both of us could learn.

    What you could have done, out of goodwill on both sides, is pointed out at least where you begin to not comprehend the logic (instead of using grammatical errors as an excuse for dismissing an entire deductive process – that was thoroughly unfair on your part). If you had said, “this is where I start to loose you”, I would very well have tried to explain differently. I don’t find that premise and post to be so complicated. It just requires an understanding of certain “NECESSARY” terminology.

    Otherwise how can you profess to be damned sure of anything? That would require a tremendous arrogance, don’t you think? In all fairness, some great thinkers are not so easy to read, but are very worthwhile for their ideas (particularly on things like God). I also am not a philosopher, that is not my specialization.

    But I value conversation, I value discussion – and any good discussion is based on logic, even if it requires some effort to understand terminology.

    I was discussing God with you in terms of the laws of physics, the terminology is definitely required. How are you discussing God, by faith and imagination?

  4. vajrakrishna says:

    My concern is also with what a majority of people call God:

    1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
    2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
    3. Of or relating to a deity.
    4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
    5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

    Of relative to existence outside the natural world; the natural world is by standard definition the finite kinetic world. Infinite Potentiality is outside of the natural world. It is supernatural in its impossibility – because of its paradoxical nature. By probability it is both impossible for the Universe to have ever been created, and simultaneously completely possible.

    Do you get the logic here?

    If, out of an infinite number of possibilities, one possibility is taken, then the probability of that possibility is ∞/1. Therefore, the universe being one finite response out of infinite possibility, the probability of its existence is also ∞/1

    When we discuss infinity, there are two possibilities:

    1. The probability is infinitely non-existent (absolutely impossible); yet we are here! Yet we exist!

    2. The probability of one possibility happening is infinite; meaning it is absolute possibility!

    The first creation in itself was ‘supernatural’ because it was impossible. What happened after creation was ‘natural’, as it is a reference to natural laws of physics. The existence of the universe is a miracle, because of its impossibility/possibility paradox in lieu of ‘infinite probability.’ Infinity is a supernatural phenomenon as it does not conform to the natural world.

    That such a phenomenon as ‘awareness’ even exists is supernatural; it does not conform to natural laws at all, but functions within them under the appearance of conformity. Awareness has never been equaled to natural laws; there is no natural law to explain it.

    Which leaves the word deity;

    1. A god or goddess.
    2.a. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
    b. Deity God. Used with the.

    Does this hold the presumption that God must be somehow ‘manlike’ but ‘superhuman?’

    If you look at the usual references to God throughout history (including the Sun God), what people were worshiping was the source of energy that replenished them. The fact that they gave that source a name and a human form was incidental, as they were relating to it in terms that were ‘social.’ I posited that God is the Infinite Potential Conscious Energy (which is the source of energy that leads to people believing in God and worship). Even in Hinduism, all such deities are sourced back to the infinite unborn potential that is ever-aware. That is God to more than 1 billion people. Then there’s another 1 billion who believe in an old man with a white beard… but, actually they don’t. That’s a representation, but their God is seen to be ‘light.’ In Hinduism also God is seen to be ‘light.’

    God is light to at least 2 billion people. Not illumination as we see it, but infinite energy source that is all-aware and supernatural. Seems to really fit into my definition here.

    Is there a logical reason why you cannot consider that your ‘awareness’, your ‘sentient nature’, is not a factor of your thoughts? Cannot consider that even without your thoughts ‘awareness’ would still be present?

    Some substantial piece of logic that convinces you completely that it is not possible to experience any other kind of knowledge that isn’t produced by ‘thinking’?

    The only difference between the Eastern understanding of God and the God of say Christianity is that in Christianity there is an ‘I and thou’ experience with God. You and him. Eastern wisdom says: “Even if there is an I- thou relationship, you remain divided, you remain separate. You can shout at each other, but there will be no communion. The communion happens only when the I-thou division is no more, when subject and object disappear, where there is no I and no thou, no seeker and no sought… when there is unity, unison.”

    This communion is by no means a metaphor, but the actual process of Gnosis.

    Gnosis, and introspection isn’t a case of ‘reading between the lines’ either. That’s like inferring what is ‘not said’ to you; inferring still requires the use of division.

    Religion is sought not for ‘dialogue’ with God, but to ‘Bind Again.’
    Yoga means ‘Union.’ (Not referring to the westernization of Yoga where it is used as exercise – too many misconceptions there).
    Tantra means ‘Expansion.’

    Each of these follow various methods and practices leading back to Unity. This Union is created in realizing that Consciousness in an off itself is a singular ENTITY! That the Universe is a singular Entity. Within it’s kinetic manifestation, there is the opportunity for polytheism. As long as the entities are Self-Aware they can exist within the constructs of the Infinite/Finite paradox with degrees of great power, and still be in ‘Union’ with the Singular Entity that is Consciousness itself. This is what gives the possibility of Hinduism, for example, having more than a million Gods (who are all seen to be elements of One Consciousness). Their individuality is not, however, a metaphor, as much as a kinetic material Universe is not a metaphor.

    Which leads back to the premise: The reasoning is that since everything came from the singularity of ‘infinite potentiality’ (thus omnipotent, omniscient, and aware), that singularity is ever-present. ‘Realization’ of this singularity is in effect a realization of yourself (as it is multiplicity that is the illusion).

    The multiplicity of kinetic reality is what creates your differentiations as a human being. You start to think of yourself as ‘Greg’ or ‘Nicole’, as limited in this way or that. Moreover, kinetic reality substantiates your limitations. Reasoning alone can’t free you of that, because reasoning functions off multiplicity! (Distances, points of reference, perspectives.)

    Which leads to Gnosis:
    “I will tell you what a religious man is. First of all, a religious man is a man who is alone— not lonely, you understand, but alone— with no theories or dogmas, no opinion, no background. He is alone and loves it— free of conditioning and alone— and enjoying it. Second, a religious man must be both man and woman— I don’t mean sexually— but he must know the dual nature of everything; a religious man must feel and be both masculine and feminine. Third,” and now his manner intensified again, “to be a religious man, one must destroy everything— destroy the past, destroy one’s convictions, interpretations, deceptions— destroy all self-hypnosis— destroy until there is no center; you understand, no center. Then stillness comes. Completely still.” – J Krishnamurti.

    “The Buddha sat under a tree, and let the entire world come to him.” – Buddhist Wisdom.

    This last quote in particular needs clear understanding; it is referring to the Buddha becoming omniscient.

    It is only rational that to have the capacity to know everything infinitely, you must first drop points of view. Drop the multiplicity of kinetic reality.

    The terrifying aspect of Eastern philosophy is the fear of letting go of ‘beliefs’ to be left with nothing. A person is inclined to see being left with ‘nothing’ as to be rendered empty, without purpose, without home. That is the first misconception to be transcended, as to be left with nothing is to be left with everything! Only requires some investigation into what is known as ‘silent knowledge,’ at least as a starting point to understand that it IS possible.

    So, in summary; there is only the singular God. There never was anything else. This kinetic existence is a dream-state of a singular consciousness dreaming multiplicity. Infinite potential manifesting finite kinetic. (Literally).

    It is not merely the laws of physics, it is that which DEFIES the laws of physics and yet has been observed within physics without explanation.

    • The comment you just made is 2,612 words long. This blog is not a platform for you to publish your theories. If you have so much to say then write your own article, on your own blog, and invite me to read it. Don’t force me to read it by putting it on my comments, that’s just plain rude.

      I said I wanted conversation, where I come from people don’t say 2,000 words each time they speak.

      With all due respect can you stop making comments that are so long, you’re flooding my comments section. This is what I mean when I say you are ranting and preaching. If you can’t get your point across in a few reasonable paragraphs then don’t bother posting.

      I have now switched off to all that you are saying because, quite frankly, I have better things to do than spend an hour reading your articles. I don’t want to block your ability to comment but if you keep FLOODING then I’ll have to.

  5. vajrakrishna says:

    Sometimes any excuse will do, but “that’s too much to read”??

    Of all things, you want to discuss God, and yet you want to impose word length now? I never asserted that you don’t understand my terminology. You complained that it was “difficult to follow” (among other things). I for one have never made so much fuss over someone who put across their point of view, or the length of their posts.

    What I did was explain the logic fully. If I had not, surely you would have not thought through the logic yourself and come back with some argument or other that I’d again have to address, by the end of which it would have ended up being this long anyway, through a back and forth process.

    This way is far more efficient, as I just laid it out in full. I don’t need your blog for a platform, but it seems you really don’t take the effort to really investigate a topic, and would rather just make uninformed conclusions. That kind of laziness is unwarranted, yet you are very much free to it. I would however appreciate if you would simply accept that instead of making excuses. Best regards.

    • You have clearly missed the point. I am not making excuses, I find your theories veering off topic. Whilst I was able to understand what you were saying, and therefore respond, that in itself says nothing for your logic. The fact that I followed you does not therefore mean there are no problems with your logic. This itself would be a jump in logic.

      You may wish to disagree, that is your right. But you are clearly oblivious to the effect of posting huge rambling comments on other people’s blogs. It is something that the majority of bloggers I’ve come across find frustrating and I am merely asking you to grant me the respect of not giving me thousands and thousands of words to read; it’s a matter of politeness more than anything.

      Incidentally you implied that I didn’t understand your terminology by saying “I don’t find that premise and post to be so complicated. It just requires an understanding of certain “NECESSARY” terminology”.

      I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to ask that you not write 2,500+ words on my comment section. But you have missed the point of this request, and instead tried to spin it as some sort of excuse for me not wanting to engage with you. If you actually take note of what I’ve said you will see that is not true. If I wasn’t interested in responding then I’d have deleted your comment and ignored it. I didn’t, I’ve tried to engage you but you insist on rambling on and on and on. You really need to look at the way you try and engage people and understand the point of comments. If you are going to come to someone else’s blog and comment then you have to be prepared to respect their wishes. Clearly what I’ve asked has fallen on deaf ears as you think it’s an “excuse”.

      I can honestly say if I posted 2,500+ words on someone else’s blogs I’d fully expect to annoy the blog author. It’s one of those unwritten rules of blogging: keep your comments a reasonable length. You can choose to ignore this rule, but you have to accept the consequences if you do.

      I will not accept your judgement that I am showing laziness. May I remind you that your comments were unsolicited. You chose to comment and so to call me lazy because I don’t want to pick through thousands of words is rude. It’s like sending someone an unsolicited novel and then getting annoyed with them because they don’t have time to read it! I am quite well researched in the things you talk about, you simply assume I’m not but you’re wrong.

      I fully expect that you will miss the point here but I can do no more. I’ve laid it out pretty clearly, it’s down to you to realise.

      For the record and for anyone else reading this I will say that I am, and have been, fully prepared to engage with this person and remain so should they wish to converse in a normal manner. Unfortunately vajrakrishna isn’t.

    • Lacey says:

      These pieces really set a standard in the inurytds.

  6. vajrakrishna says:

    Oh come on Johnny, get a grip! Your incessant need to make excuses as to what or why I am not adhering to your set of 101 rules of how to address Johnny is beginning to remind me of the quote:

    “Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.” – Demosthenes.

    And now you want to claim that I missed the point. My theories by no means veer off topic, you asked about the God of the “majority”, and I spoke about the God that more than 2 billion people worship (I suspect that number is much much higher). The God that is “light”. No, I am right on the point, and this is again you being very silly.

    Because you know what it is? You never really DELVED into the topic. You spoke flippantly about why God doesn’t exist, unthought-through ideas that you just have floating around and give more credit than it deserves. I pointed out to you that if you ever want to come to conclusion about something, the reasonable way is to reserve judgment until you thoroughly investigate it. THIS is where I am calling you lazy. Your entire post reveals this, as well as your response to me.

    Instead you allude to blog-etiquette as justification. Sure sure, go ahead. But I for one am more concerned with reasonable investigation and discussion rather than so called unwritten rules created to keep people in dim-witted state. Those rules are far more RUDE. They are an affront to the free-spiritedness of human nature.

    As for this me implying that you didn’t understand my terminology, do you really want me to quote the number of times you whined about my post being difficult to read with terminology? I could quote it all for you but then you’d just complain I’m using up too many words again. So have the decency to read what you said above, I did not imply anything, YOU IMPLIED IT.

    This entire attempt to discuss God with you in clear terms has been consistently avoided by you for no good reason.

    GOD IS A LOADED WORD, Johnny. You sit there dreaming about why he doesn’t exist. I addressed it in terms of the NATURAL LAWS of the Universe. That wasn’t off topic, that was right on the mark.

    But this is not something that is about to dawn on you anytime soon, it seems.

    • And here we have demonstrated to the world how full of themselves the religious are; always out for a fight; never wanting debate preferring ranting and shouting across the divide. Believing they have the right to shout and that others must listen.

      Your refer to my “incessant need” to refer to “rules” of how you should address me on my comments…It’s my fuckin’ blog man! You came to me and started this conversation.

      You can quote me all you like my comments are below for all to see. It was your bad command of English I picked up on.

      You may wish to talk about light, call that God, and then go on and on about it. That’s your choice. Just go do it somewhere else if you’re going to be so bigheaded. If you believe God is “light” then yes God exists because light exists. I’m not playing semantics though. Conversation with such a cretin has been avoided yes, but only because you are extremely unpleasant and not as clever as you’d like to think.

      Logic does not mask obnoxiousness. Idiot.

  7. vajrakrishna says:

    Calling me names does not make your excuses any more valid.

    Do some research into the history and mythology of world religions. It is not ME who is calling God as “light”, but there is extensive evidence that religious faith sprung from the worship of the sun as God. If you are too lazy to do the research, then take a look at the documentary “Zeitgeist”, where they also did their own bit of research and lay out out for you in simple, easy to understand English.

    Bottom line; it is foolish to be “damned sure” when you are so damn uninformed.

  8. Becky Jayne says:

    Here we have yet another religious person who clearly thinks that they are more intelligent then they actually are.

    I have to say I do not think I have EVER seen such a rude exchange of views. I have to remind varjrakrishna that this is NOT his blog. How dare you write such a long winded diatribe against Johnny, then continue to insult him and his intelligence when he asked you to not post in such volume? May I remind you once again that this is his personal blog, and he has the right to ask you to do whatever he wants whilst you are commenting.

    I agree also that you have clearly missed the point. Johnny has clearly stated that he is not talking about the ‘god’ that you are referring to. The ‘god’ he is referring to is the one which everyday people believe in NOW. Not the ‘god’ that is ‘light’. This may have been where it all started, but we are not here for a history lesson, we are talking about the things people believe in today. This ‘god’ is the one which everyday people believe can answer your prayers, speak ‘words of wisdom’ and created the world in 7 days etc.

    “If you are too lazy to do the research…” Once again you are showing how rude and uncouth you truly are. The length of Johnny’s post and the amount of philosophy involved clearly shows he has done plenty of research on this subject, he hasn’t however done the research YOU want him to, of which he has no obligation. There is no need to delve into the history of world religion as he is not talking about the history he is talking about the present day.

    Another thing I thought I might add is, I am in no way surprised that Johnny found your articles hard to follow. (I would call them comments, but a comment does not total up to over 2000 words. That clearly is an article, another thing you have done that is uncouth.) They are littered with grammatical mistakes, and it is quite clear that you are foreign. I do not say this to be racially abusive because frankly I wouldn’t care if you were a smirf! However it is easy to tell by your slack grip on standard written English that you do not have British heritage.

    “….take a look at the documentary “Zeitgeist” ”
    This is not a necessary comment as it has no relevance, but as you have so blatantly missed the point I shall explain it to you again. JOHNNY IS TALKING ABOUT THE GOD PEOPLE TODAY BELIEVE IN NOT THE GOD THAT MAY HAVE STARTED THE BALL ROLLING.

    You clearly show that you are an obnoxious idiot by saying this. You have no regard for anybody’s views but your own and because of this continue to post diatribe after diatribe on someone else’s comment section. Clearly you think that because you understand a few laws of physics you have the ultimate knowledge when all I have seen from you is foolishness.

    You are not wise or intelligent because wise and intelligent people do not quote such quotes as… ““Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.” – Demosthenes.”
    First of all I agree that nothing is easier than self deceit. However saying that “for what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true…” Well there is no such thing as truth there is only opinion and fact. A truth is an opinion of sorts so of course what each man wishes is in their own opinion. They are the ones wishing it. And secondly if the quote meant to say fact rather than truth then I feel that this comment reflects your stance more than Johnny’s.

    Johnny has tried to debate with you, to which I will give him credit. However you are so stuck on your own point you straight away turned to insult for injury rather than knowledge. By writing in such a confusing illiterate style it would be hard for even people who agree with you to follow! Another tactic that the religious like to use to feign intelligence. You are a preacher and as it says on the comment rules preachers are not welcome here.

    I suggest you spend some time reading this book in future it may help you in situations like these where your illiterate diatribe gets you nowhere. I have posted you the link to amazon as to ease your finding of the book I am referring to.


    I hope you manage to learn some manners before your next comment.

  9. vajrakrishna says:

    Becky, careful, think you’re in danger of having written too many words. 🙂

    The God everyday people believe in now… who is that exactly? And WHO is everyday people? How many religions have you investigated? Or are you only talking about Christianity?

    And in Christianity, is God an old man with a long white beard?

    “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.” {1 Jn 1:5 RSV}

    I clearly stated that all attempts to humanize God is a social reaction, “The fact that they gave that source a name and a human form was incidental, as they were relating to it in terms that were ‘social.’”

    But what is the debate here? When you say God does not exist are you talking of the incidental human form of a God, or God – as creator – in any possible manner?

    If it’s only the superhuman form you have issue with, then you can’t really say God does not exist, only that you don’t believe in God taking on a superhuman form.

    So, either way, my manner of exploring this topic was in consideration of the holistic ideologies of God, and not in the least a semantical one. Because as much as you might argue that a superhuman God does not exist, that still leaves the argument for God – the creator – the SUPERNATURAL.

  10. vajrakrishna says:

    “However it is easy to tell by your slack grip on standard written English that you do not have British heritage.”

    Absolutely no reason to start exhibiting bigotry. IF such were the case that you were discussing with me in a language not native to you, I wouldn’t abuse you about it.

    Neither do I think highly of British heritage, they have as barbarous a history as the rest of the world.

    For instance;
    Lord Macaulay was sent by the British Parliament to advise on introducing English education in India. In his written address to the British 25 Parliament on February 2, 1835, he said, “I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think that we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her cultural and spiritual heritage, and therefore I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native self culture and will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”. His strategy worked! Most English educated Indians called “Macaulay’s children” became elitist and regarded the Hindi speaking common people as inferior.

    • Do you know the definition of bigotry? You cannot throw the accusation of bigotry at someone who merely says they can tell you’re not British. It was clearly intended to make the point that if you choose to write in a particular language, and don’t use it properly, it makes it painstaking for those who do use that language to read. And in doing so you cause the reader to switch off to whatever you are trying to get across.

      This is a basic rule of any written work. It’s one journalists understand well and it’s one most successful bloggers understand well. If you choose to ramble on and on, as you have done, you can’t expect your readers to have any interest in reading. Any author writes wanting people to read their work and if it is something they care about they should give their readers the respect of writing properly and concisely. An audience is never a given, it should be earned.

      In writing such long submissions you are asking that you’re given an audience. But you resist every comment given to you regarding your writing, as if it is an unimportant matter. You’re not bothered about being clear in your writing, and I guess that’s your prerogative, but you can’t expect to go around writing and saying the things you say, in the way you say them, and always be granted an audience. It’s as simple as that. I have no doubt you will side step this and continue pushing your agenda regarding God being light, but just because you refuse to acknowledge something doesn’t mean it’s unimportant.

      There was no hostility, animosity, or suggestion that your use of language, or the fact it wasn’t your native tongue, makes you in any way inferior. You have drawn your own conclusions and from those chose to make the accusation of bigotry. It is quite severely misplaced in every sense and context possible.

      It’s this illogical approach that makes your preaching so irritating.

      Your sermons would, however, be greatly appreciated by the masses at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. So should you ever be in London I would strongly recommend taking yourself down there for a visit, you may even be given a soap box.

  11. Becky Jayne says:

    I was not trying to abuse you. I was stating that as you clearly took the time to learn the English language you may as well take a little more in learning how to write it properly. I don’t appreciate being called a bigot and I was in no way saying that you were any less of a person than me because of the mistakes you made. I myself am not always completely perfect in my written English, and if I were to get into a conversation with you in a language not native to myself, I would be glad that you had pointed out I wasn’t writing clearly. I would want the majority of people to be able to easily read what I write. As any author should.

    Why was there any need to slate my heritage? I never said anything against yours, I stated that I could tell it wasn’t British. I guess this is what I should have expected from you though. Most, if not all of your posts have been scattered with various insults, you clearly didn’t listen to me when I asked for some better manners. There is no need to down talk my heritage I was not saying it was any better than yours merely that it was not yours. I cannot believe you call me a bigot and then carry on to behave in this manner. It is truly appalling, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

  12. vajrakrishna says:

    First: “Why was there any need to slate my heritage?”

    Have you ever heard of such a thing as subtext? If you want to preach to me about standard English, then perhaps you should take a page from your own advice and take a look at the manner in which you chose your words, and what they implied. Why did you bring up your heritage in the first place, particularly in implying that your heritage makes you an authority on English? As for calling me “foreign”, well, I certainly am not foreign from where I stand. Neither do I see you as foreign. Isn’t that strange that I see all people in the world as multicultural, and no one as foreign.

    Who are we kidding here. Bigotry is frowned upon these days, and people only ever reveal their own prejudices through what they imply. Nevertheless, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in future, particularly as that’s what you are insisting of me, it would be advisable to first set an example.

    Second: It is utterly unjustified to accuse me of being illiterate. The both of you seem to insist that grammatical errors in my initial posts make them difficult to read, but that is a far call to make. We’ve been through this, they are not difficult to read because of the occasional misplaced comma or misspelt word.

    It is more that it deals intensely with scientific ideas. I’ve had similar discussions several times and have never had the complaint that I was difficult to read, perhaps because I was debating with people who are used to the amount of substance within each sentence.

    If you want to insist still that the grammatical errors make it difficult for you to fathom what I am saying, please cite a few examples. Maybe more than a few, since you insist my posts are littered with errors. I would like to see how valid your claim is, or if you’re just making a mountain out of a molehill.

    I make my living as a writer in the English medium, so I can assure you that most of my writing is easy to read. As I pointed out previously, since for the discussion on God to have any real validity certain scientific principles need to be considered (as well as the elements that defy these principles), there was a necessity to express the logic with precise thoroughness.

    Third; It is also unjustified to make the accusation that I am preaching. Unless you want to label anything and everything you don’t agree with as preaching, but that would be silly. Just because I was thorough in laying out the logic, that does not make it a preach. Otherwise you’d then be running around accusing Scientific Journals of being preaches also.

    If I did want to preach, I’d keep it very simple. I wouldn’t go around talking about the paradox of infinity in great detail. No, this was rather presented to you as sound argument to consider that the creation of the Universe was a supernatural event. If it takes some effort to understand, the difficulty gives you no grounds to dismiss it as a preach.

    Otherwise, I could very well accuse you both of doing nothing else but preaching. Let’s be a lot more specific, it would be far more helpful. I have been nothing but open to you actually ADDRESSING the points I made about God.

    Fourth: Not once did I claim to be religious, especially not in the way that you both understand religious to be. Neither did I allude to being religious within the constructs that you understand it. Do not make assumptions.

    Fifth: This argument still stands as valid as it has not been addressed:

    “If it’s only the superhuman form you have issue with, then you can’t really say God does not exist, only that you don’t believe in God taking on a superhuman form.

    So, either way, my manner of exploring this topic was in consideration of the holistic ideologies of God, and not in the least a semantical one. Because as much as you might argue that a superhuman God does not exist, that still leaves the argument for God – the creator – the SUPERNATURAL.”

    • “with people who are used to the amount of substance within each sentence.” This is the best statement you’ve made yet. If you truly believe your submissions contain substance then you are clearly deluded. How many times do I have to tell you it is not because of your use of science. I am well educated in your science. It is because you demonstrate qualities of someone I don’t wish to waste anymore time on.

      Where you have made an assumption, and I have corrected that assumption and attempted to make my intentions understood, you have consistently ignored what I’ve said. Instead continuing with your own interpretation of what you think I was trying to say.

      I am an atheist. Do you understand that? atheist.
      As in I have chosen to reject theism. Theism describes the God I’ve described and it is that therefore I am concerned with.

      Theism: “belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.”

      Not light, or energy or any of the other things you’ve tried to talk about. We’re on different pages, just accept this and stop ramming your theory down my throat!

      I’ve had many debates in my life. Enough to know the signs present when you meet someone who’s sole purpose is to convince the world they’re right. You’re displaying these signs.

      You’re just never going to stop are you?

      Take your drivel elsewhere. It’s no longer welcome here.

      You are free to believe it is because I don’t wish to debate with you but it is not. It is because I don’t wish to debate with people like you. There is no point debating with someone like you, because as you’ve demonstrated you never stop.

      Goodbye vajrakrishna

  13. vajrakrishna says:

    Oh and by the way, in case you missed it, I DID say:

    “Neither do I think highly of British heritage, they have as barbarous a history as the rest of the world.”

    I didn’t single out British heritage. I merely pointed out that it is no better or worse than any other heritage, in response to your insinuation that by being of British heritage, you were an authority.

    Also, why bring up “heritage”? You could have said that you don’t think I grasp British English, which is infact taught throughout the world. Heritage, on the other hand, is something else entirely. It has far more to do with culture, of which language is only a small piece of the pie. I’ve read my fair share of authors who write impeccable British English without ever having actually learnt in England. Do not try to belittle me, and then tell me you are appalled when I call you on it. If anything is obnoxious, it is that. Fair enough?

  14. H.S.Pal says:

    Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically sound answer to this age-old question. Let us first see how Hawking has helped us by providing the necessary clue. In his book “A Brief History of Time” (Chapter: The origin and fate of the universe) he informs us that there are 1080 particles in the region of the observable universe. Then he raised the question regarding the origin of these particles, and provides the answer himself. According to quantum theory particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But there the question does not stop. Another question props up regarding the origin of that energy. But when it is said that total energy of the universe is exactly zero, then all is said and done. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support to our project.
    God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.
    Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking that God into consideration. In other words, if there is a God, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they are not aware of the fact that there is a God. Secondly, they do not believe that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying so they will admit that there is a God. They cannot say that the behind-the-picture God has always remained behind the picture, and that He has in no way come into the picture when they have made this calculation, because by saying so they will again admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then total mass and total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be some sort of light. So, if God is there, then God will also be light, and therefore He will be spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.
    Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!
    It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. (Book: A History of Western Philosophy, Ch: Plato’s Utopia). Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero. Mystics usually say that their God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures.
    So, why should there be any creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?
    But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop raising question here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus stopped. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully stopped the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s