Table of Contents
----------------------










The Bible:  Worthy of Your Trust?


Eyewitness Testimony Invalidated

     Responses to Eyewitness Testimony Invalidated

God Is Not The Author

History or HIS-STORY?

How Firm A Foundation... of Forgeries???

James the Brother of Jesus

Schizophrenia and Personal Revelations

     Responses to Schizophrenia




The God of The Bible

Biblegod Is Not Perfect

    Responses to Biblegod Not Perfect

Biblegod The Warcriminal

    Responses to Biblegod
The Warcriminal


Tyrannosaurus Pettius Rex

Jehovah Unmasked

In or Out or Neit
her


Acts of God

September 11th Biblegod Did Nothing

    Responses to September 11th




The God of The Bible:
Does He Exist?

E=MC Disproves God

    Responses to E=MC

How To Prove The Existence of God

    Responses to How To Prove The Existence of God

Shopping For A God

Transcendental La La Land




Caught in a Lie:  Contradictions Within The Bible

Don't Be Such A Cretan

The Genealogy of Jesus

Galilee vs Jerusalem

Matthew vs John

Intrinsic Contradictions

Splainin To Do

The Intercontinental Ballistic Jesus

The Sign on The Cross

     Responses to The Sign on The Cross




Sand, Not Rock:  What Christianity is Really Built Upon

The Atonement

Monotheism Not Biblical

The Ten Commandments

Christianity Has Pagan DNA

Faith

Misc. Topics & Thoughts




Jesus:  False Prophet?


False Prophet- Liar, Fraud!

 If Anybody Else But Jesus…

 Jesus and His Expired Prophecies

Matthew 24 Verse by Verse

Mt 24:34 What The Scholars Say

Significance of Jesus Being a False Prophet

Preterism

     Responses to Jesus The False Prophet




Jesus:  Resurrected?

Even If True

Evidence That Doesn't Demand a Verdict

The Roman Soldiers: "We Were There!"

     Responses to Roman Soldiers




Churchianity Examined

Connecting The Dots

The Authority Totem

Twenty Percent Fewer Errors

Fire The Clergy

     Responses to Fire The Clergy

The Wealth of Churches

Authority In Church Government

The Fleecing of The Flock

The Great Commission Does Not Apply




CAUTIONChristianity May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Victims of Religion

   Responses to Victims of Religion

Voices In Our Head

Brainwashing

   Responses to Brainwashing

We Love Our Lies




Christian Morality or Lack Thereof 

Christianity Doesn't Work as Advertised

Hypocrisy- Thy Name is Christian

Morality

The Gospel of Jesus

 Happy Father's Day

He Wasn't a REAL Christian




Evangelical Atheism

Free JCnot4me Business Cards
JCnot4me Business Cards- FREE!

Without A Leg To Stand On (A Message For Freethinkers)

Give To Him That Asks

   Responses to Give To Him That Asks

Just Say No

   Responses to Just Say No

Damn The Truth- Full Speed Ahead

Answering Christian Stock Arguments

Modern Miracle Workers

Atheists In America

Anti-Religious Songs

Do Unto Others

Kissing Hank's Ass

Why Beer Is Better Than Jesus

Poster: Jesus is a Liar & Lunatic

The Good News of Atheism

The Skeptic’s Prayer

What Would Jesus Do?




Christian Cults

Consumers Guide to Religion- John Cleese of Monty Python (audio file)

Geek Speak Like a Fundy

   Responses to Geek Speak 101

How To Be a Fundy

-----

Baptists} Once Saved, Always Saved: Always False

Catholics: Only Child or Eldest Brother

Church of Christ

   Responses to Church of Christ Essays

Dr. Robert Schuller: Racism By A Nose

Jehovah Witnesses

Nazarenes} Entire Sanctification = Entire Nonsense

   Responses to Entire Sactification

Mormons

Seventh Day Adventists




For Christians...

Message to Christian Apologists

Notes to Christians Battling Atheists

Move A Mountain

Hope

Ex-Christians Get No Respect

Abortion

Hellfire For Homosexuals and Roses




Creationism, aka Intelligent Design

The Universe According To The Bible

   Responses to The Universe

In The Beginning God Was Nuts

Intelligent Design




Politics

Legalize Prostitution

Its The Economy, Stupid

Illegal Immigration

Bush Is Outta Here!!!

The Bush Monkey

Twilights Last Gleaming




Contra Craig
    (Dr. William Lane Craig)


Contra Craig

   Responses to Contra Craig




Misc.

Editorials

   Responses To Editorials

Comments to JCnot4me- Pro + Con

One Picture is Worth...

Links- Other Websites Worth Checking Out




Books You Should Read   

Jehovah Unmasked cover
Jehovah Unmasked




Ha Ha Ha

Christian Election Poster

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Invitation from Rev. Jim Jones

Jokes

Pranks

Songs and Poems




 





 

Table of Contents

Arwyn 2-28-03

Arwyn 2-25-03

Alex Popa 4-6-03

Alex Popa 4-8-03

Alex Popa 4-09-03

Alex Popa 4-22-03

Alex Popa 4-29-03

Larry Gwaltney 4-25-03

Larry Gwaltney 4-26-03

Larry Gwaltney 4-27-03

Larry Gwaltney 5-2-03

N Linus 6-23-03

idontthinkuheard 8-8-03

Chris__7-18-04

Chris_7-27-04

Chris_8-17-04_

Hugo__7-21-04

Hugo_7-28-04

Hugo_8-20-04

Wayne_Rhodes__8-21-04

Wayne_Rhodes_9-9-04

Shane_Reed_9-24-04

Adam_Westland_10-12-04

Ray_Jasinski__10-18-04

Todd__8-18-05

    Todd__9-4-05_

Jeff_Phillips__11-23-05

Ray__12-16-05

 


 

 

Arwyn 2-25-03

 

Subj: Re: E=mc^2 site 
Date: 2/25/03 2:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: JCnot4me
To:  
CC: robertus365@hotmail.com


Interesting argument. What about photons though - massless particles. The equation doesn't say energy and mass are identical. It says that they are equivalent. Mass is energy with form as is radiation - two of the only known and verified forms of energy in the universe. What about raw energy without form or structure? Perhaps there are other forms that we have not yet encountered. Basically your argument is flawed because energy doesn't have to come in the form of mass. Science does not hold all the answers .... yet.

Arwyn Lloyd.



Mark here} 
Science doesn't hold ALL the answers to astrophysics, but it sure as hell holds more answers than all the religions of the world combined. Remember- pretending to have answers is NOT equal to actually HAVING answers, and religions pretend in the drop of a hat. As for the REAL universe- the ONLY one we know about for sure- there is no room for Biblegod. Now, if you want to bet your life and assume one will eventually be discovered that WILL allow room for that ancient desert deity, that's a gamble I'm not willing to take.

Energy and mass are RELATED, per the equation given by Albert. IF you have X amount of energy, you therefore know how much mass you have as well.  The Christians, by postulating WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR EXPERIMENTAL DATA an infinite energy source, have entered fantasy land.


Arwyn  2-28-03

 

Subj: Re: E=mc^2 site 
Date: 2/28/03 4:25:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Hey Mark,

I understand your point of view. I think that you see the universe as the only entity in existence. Fair? Further, you are right that energy does not exist in infinite quantities in this universe. I still think you misunderstand E=mc^2. It is an equation that tells you how much energy is needed to form mass and how much energy you get from mass if you convert it to another form. It doesn't say all energy in the universe exists as mass. You also get radiation, themal energy, chemical energy, electrostatic potential etc. etc.

Mark here}  But seeing how the Christians postulate an INFINITE level of energy for their Biblegod, we should expect to see within our universe such an energy source- in fact, we would more than see it- we would be vaporized and destroyed in it. Be it  infinite energy or mass, our existing disproves it either way.

 


Thing is this. Coming back to the previous point on the laws of this universe and energy and all that, christians also belive that God exists independently of physical existence and further that God created everything. This kind of makes him the author of physics and not bound to physical laws. Perhaps that's a get out clause. Maybye but it sure as hell sounds similar to some of the concepts of m-theory, like, other universes exist which do not share the same physics as ours.

Mark here}  This is the Christian's "out" anytime they get nailed in THIS, our ONLY known universe. Of course, they want it both ways, though. They want him "in the flesh" with Jesus, in OUR universe, or they want him on Mt. Sinai, or in the Garden of Eden. But when it's pointed out that such a being could NOT exist in the REAL universe, THEN they escape to their make-believe "transcendental universe" where ANYTHING is possible. The FACT that there IS no evidence for THAT universe, nor for a million other make-believe universes, doesn't slow them down. The minute your Biblegod so much as sticks his little toe in OUR universe, he becomes fair game for modern science, including Albert. And if and when Biblegod DID stick his toe into our universe, Biblegod being INFINITE, his little toe would also be infinite, and thus would fill ALL of OUR universe, and we'd just become toe jam to some cosmic freak. Therefore, it's never happened- and I can base that on modern physics. 

This is your choice: you either throw out ALL of modern science, OR you toss out your Biblegod: BOTH can not be right.


Thing is though I think it's impossible to decribe God with physics. Christians try to from time to time but it's pointless. Hell, I'm sure you'd agree with me on this one - If God exists he don't need defending by a bunch of squabbling religious nuts.

Mark here}  Amen to that, BUT, IF he really existed, he would also not be playing "hide and seek" when the penalty for us Atheists not being able to find him is eternal torture.


Arwyn.




Alex Popa 4-6-03

Subj: E=MC2 
Date: 4/6/03 2:23:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


I read the E=MC2 disproves Biblegod and had a question for you.
 
Assuming I believe Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which by the way has been disproved) 

 

Mark here}  Oh, it's been DISPROVEN, has it? Maybe you'd like to tell that to the vaporized corpses of Nagasaki and Hiroshima! Maybe you'd like to tell that to the American servicemen who eye-witnessed atomic testing back in the 50's, and maybe you'd like to tell that to all the countries trying their hardest to develop nuclear bombs for themselves. Or maybe you'd like to look in the mirror and yell "Idiot!" a dozen times! Of course, the reason you don't believe it is because it has the word "theory" in it, eh??? The same reason you could never accept "evil lootion" too I bet!

I also notice, once again, another example of a Christian making a sweeping statement without one shred of evidence to back it up. Once again, we have a religious blowhard who thinks he can speak things into existence, like his Biblegod.

 

 

and I follow the logic of the E=MC2 and that Christians claim GOD is infinite Energy then, there must be infinite matter.

 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? Why can't there be infinite mass?

We humans see as much as we can of the universe, but whats beyond what we can see? Don't tell me Nothing. Cause thats bullshit. What it just ends and there's just empty space? HOW DO YOU KNOW? Just cause our telescopes can't see past that, how do you know nothings there.

Shit, we don't even know what lies in our own oceans here on Earth, and you're claiming that ITS impossible to have an infinite Universe? BASED ON WHAT?
 
The fact is, our universe is infinite. WHY WOULD IT END? WHAT WOULD BE BOYOND?  By definition of universe, it is infinite. And therefore mass IS infinite. Infinite mass DOES NOT mean that out entire universe has to be packed densely with matter.  Thats stupid. IF you model the universe as a box, then you can fill the box with as much matter as you want.

 

Mark here}  Boy, this guy is such a GOOD bad example of how NOT to think! Let's see... an infinite box containing one particle of matter does NOT contain infinite mass, even though it is an infinite box. Now let's increase the number of particles to two- is that infinite mass? No. And where did I say the universe was infinite anyway? It's the xtians who claim their GOD is such in power. Scientists, I believe, believe in the Big Bang, and therefore don't believe that matter goes on forever, and have even measured the size of the universe. But anyway, infinite matter would not exist if there were even one square inch of nothingness in an infinite universe, for that could also be filled with matter, meaning that matter had not yet reached infinity. And as long as we've got Christians like Bozo here who clearly have 6" of emptiness between their ears, that should be proof enough that infinite matter doesn't exist. 

 


If the box is infinite size, then matter is infinite size. Simple.
 
EVerything on your website is so ridiculous and illogical and completely erroneous, but this was especially Stupid.. Come one guys, don't you have any thing better than That?
 
You and all the atheists in the world know that God exists but choose to ignore him and that is you're GOD-given right.  I ain't gonna preach to you about God, you guys know about him. SHit even the demons know about Him.
 
But PLEASE, get your facts straight. Einstein himself aknowledged the existence of God, while on his deathbed, and the Universe is Infinite Volume and Mass. The Big Bang Theory, Evolution, fail miserably to explain anything, and you guys don't fool no one but yourselves.
 
peace

Mark here}  Yes, as long as this is the intellectual quality of the men representing Christianity, may their tribe increase, for people like him are only digging the grave of Christianity wider and deeper with such public displays of ignorance. I, as an Atheist, might point out how stupid their religion is, but it's best if people see it for themselves with a genuine  winner like this guy. More power to you sir! 

 


Alex Popa  4-8-03

 

Subj: Re: E=MC2 
Date: 4/8/03 10:26:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


In regards to the E=mc^2, a simple exercise:

I hope you possess a calculator.

For Hiroshima:

The mass of the uranium fuel was 140 lbs = 63.6kg.

The percent of uranium actually fissioned = 1.38%

c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

E = mc^2 = (63.6)(.0138)(3 x 10^8)^2 = 7.9 x 10^16 J.

However, actual measurements of the released energy were estimated at: 6.3 x 10^13 J

This simple exercise shows E=mc^2 to be off by 125,000% in this case. Thats not even close. 

A similar exercise holds true for Nagasaki, as well as any nuclear ordnance ever detonated. In fact the relation E=mc^2 has never ever been proven.

 

Mark here}  So, another email from the unsigned one. I guess the man (boy?) who has disproved Albert Einstein doesn't want to get credit for it. Must be really hard- being such a boy genius. I mean, for more than 90 years, the entire planet has not disproved Einstein, yet you have. Amazing. What can I say??? I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to argue physics with Albert Einstein, much less the one who DISPROVED Albert Einstein.

 

 Do you actually know any science? When I showed this to my Physics professor, and he just chuckled and said "this guy doesn't know much about physics".

Maybe you need to look in the mirror and say idiot. Cause you're making an idiot out of yourself on the www.

I guess you prove what GOD says: "The foolish man says there is no God" 



Alex Popa 4-09-03

Subj: POST THIS ONLINE 
Date: 4/9/03 9:08:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Mark,
 
Why aren't you responding?
 
I need answers!
 
In addition to the Theory of Relativity, Einstein did many other things.
For example you might know he also split the atom, thus shattering the long held scientific belief that knowledge of the world  was reducable to obvservable things. Due to Einstein's brilliance, we now know that everything is reduced to waves which were neither measurable nor observable.
 

Mark here}  Ohhhh, that was EINSTEIN that split the atom, was it??? Darn! I was under the impression he was more of a theorist. Darn! I wish I was a smart as you- for I always thought somebody else had done that work, not Albert. But then, I'm not the genius you are.

 

 

As a result, Einstein showed inferential arguments to be just as scientifically valid as direct arguments.  For example, gravity is a concept that has no mass, is not directly observable nor measurable. So you cannot directly prove its existence. HOWEVER, we note the effects of gravity (i.e. an apple falling from a tree, the earth-moon-sun attraction) and thus we INFER that gravity exists.
 

Mark here}  So.... you can't measure gravity? I must again have been mistaken all these years, for I had believed that gravity was VERY measurable. In fact, every time you step on a weight scale, I thought that was at least an indication of the force of gravity. And don't the astronomers give the gravitational forces of all the planets? But, how could they DO that, unless they could MEASURE the gravity??? Hmmmm... And you say you can't "directly prove" the existence of gravity? Hmmm... I just threw a coin up in the air, and, WOW!!! It came down!!!

 

 

Likewise, photons and xrays (which by the way have LOTS of energy and ZERO mass) can only be inferred or indirectly determined to exist by their effect.
 
Pre-Einstein, pre-Modern-Science (much like YOU and your ridiculous website) claimed that anything which could not be directly observed and measured could not exist. Thanks to Einstein we now know that things like gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetic waves, ..... all exist without being matter (and thus having no Mass)
 

Mark here}  Uhhh, excuse me, but science does NOT assume ANYTHING in the physical universe for which no evidence exists- that's the habit of theologians. Scientists have observed, and/or measured, the effects of all of what you mention. Where did you say you got your education at???

 


AHA, THIS IS WHERE E=MC^2 came in. EINSTEIN PROVED that Even matter was actually reducable to ENERGY. ENERGY. ENERGY. Everything in our universe is reducible to Energy.

We as humans percieve VERY Very little of this energy, in a form we call matter. Matter with mass.  HOwever Einstein showed that Theres a SHITLOAD of stuff in the UNIVERSE which has NO MASS, but still has energy. A ton of energy.
 

Mark here}  Another point Mr. Nameless could have mentioned here, but didn't. The Universe (which, by definition, means ALL that exists) consists of ONLY mass and energy. Period. Nothing else. Therefore IF there were a god of infinite energy, AND he existed, his infinite energy would exist in OUR Universe- which is the ONLY Universe that exists, since, by definition, the Universe = ALL that exists. There IS NO infinite energy in our Universe, therefore no Biblegod. Why doesn't Mr. Nameless deal with THIS point, instead of harping on tiny side issues? I'll tell you why- like most Christians, when they can't answer my arguments they try to distract people from my arguments by using a "red herring" tactic, named after the practice of dragging a dead smelly fish behind you to distract any hunting dogs tracking you down.

 

Now assuming Christians believe in a God of Infinite Energy, THIS IN NO WAY CONTRADICTS E=mc^2. Just like the presence of xrays and gravity don't contradict it either. All the stupid equation says is Everything is Energy INCLUDING Mass. It allows the existence of Energy without mass.
 
[Of course our GOD is not Infinite Power or Energy in the PHYSICAL sense as I explained before, and FURTHERMORE, E = mc^2 is not Entirely accurate, as Gravity Probe B, and multiple other studies are finding out. Thats why its a theory, not a law]
 
Mathematically speaking, it is very simple to construct a waveform with INFINITE ENERGY.  For example, power signals, by definition have infinite energy. I deal with power signals everyday in my work.
 
WOW. You mean there's things that have Infinite Energy and no mass? YES, if you understand Einstein, Which you claim to base your atheism upon.
 

Mark here}  Wow! Another scientific breakthru the rest of mankind was unaware of! Mr. Nameless already HAS a source of infinite energy right in his work office! Holy Smokes, batman!!!

 

 

From your ridiculous display of stupidity on your website, you totally goofed this up: You thought a God with infinite Power, must have infinite Energy and thus infinite Mass. YOU are a DUMBASS, and you should've stayed in school!
 

Mark here}  Well excuse me! But I always thought than in an equation, both sides being equal, if ONE side went to infinite, so would the OTHER. Silly me! What mathematics are YOU using- NEW math??? Let's see... We have a combination of energy AND mass existing in our Universe. Since per the Christians the energy side of the equation has already gone to infinite, BY DEFINITION so also the MASS SIDE goes to infinite (gotta stay equal, remember?). IF all we had was energy in the universe, we could have infinite energy WITHOUT infinite mass. But instead we have a Universe of both, and a percentage, even a small percentage, of an infinite is itself infinite. Therefore, if the Christians were right, we would currently be living in a Universe of BOTH infinite energy AND infinite mass. We don't, therefore the Christians are wrong. Mr. Nameless is just a sore and bitter loser.

 

 

Furthermore, if inferential arguments are valid in proving the unseen micro world, they are equally scientifically valid to allow the existence of GOD. Most athiests (except the ignorant ones like yourself) admit the argument of design as a valid scientific explanation the possible existence of GOD.
 
Whenever there's a design, there must be a designer as well. If you had anything between your ears, you'd know that our universe shows clear signs of Intelligent design, planning and management. That Designer is God.
 

Mark here}  Oh man, not that stupid DESIGN argument again!!! Let's see if I remember it correctly... intelligent "designs" prove Biblegod. That's about it, right? Well then, IF "intelligent 'designs' prove Biblegod" then UN-intelligent "designs" would therefore DIS-prove Biblegod, and there is no shortage of UN-intelligent "designs" in our Universe. So much for the "I.D. Argument for the Existence of God". 

 

 

The above argument does not prove God exists, BUT allows for the Scientific possibility that he CAN exist. In other words, it proves that YOU CANT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.  I mentioned these two statements in my last email.
 
Now then, Science attempts to explain the Physical universe. Every year, theories come and go, and today's "modern science" (i.e. Evolution, Big Bang) will all come and go. Things that dont go (i.e. Law of Conservation of Energy, Newtons Laws of Motion, Keplers Laws of Orbits, Laws of Thermodynamics.... and a few others)  are all useful in explaining the way our world works, but don't come close to explaining the origin of the universe.
 
The Bible is the only source that explains the Origin of the universe and of all existence. Science cannot disprove it! But lets look at some evidence shall we:
 

Mark here}  Wow! What a revelation! If what you say is for real, then please tell me: WHY do the CREATIONISTS never, never, ever, never take the AFFIRMATIVE in their debates with evolutionists???? Please, inquiring minds want to know. Why are Creationists only able to criticize, be "movie critics" in these debates- why do they only and forever stand there and take pithy pot-shots at those who have done REAL research on the issues??? Why is it that no creationist on the face of this planet has EVER gotten up before an audience and DEFENDED creationism in a public debate, rather than just ATTACKING evolution??? Why is it that no creationist has ever shown in public debate how ALL the data goes to prove the book of Genesis, rather than evolution??? Creationists are all like jealous movie critics; they can't make a movie themselves, so all they do is criticize those that can.

 

 

Athiests claim the Great Flood did not exist? Well, whats the 500 foot symmetrical structure on top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey as shown by 1000s of satellite and airplane photographs? Physicists, can't explain how such a huge structure got to be 17,000 feet above sea level. Only the bible explains that one. Hmmmm
 
How about the many sulfur balls found around the ruins of an ancient city near the Dead Sea in Israel? No where else in the world, not even around volcanoes, does this strange phenomenon occur. Once again, physicists, geologists and biologists are puzzled and have no explanation. The Bible already explained this 5000 years ago. In Genesis 19:24 it says how the Lord rained down sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness.
 
Remember the Red Sea Crossing, when Moses led the Jews away from Egyptian captivity? Athiests deny the possibility of that occuring. Yet at the bottom of the Read sea are found chariot wheels of the Egyptians, human and horse bones, and countless other artifacts attesting that the Red Sea parted.
 
What about those Dead Sea Scrolls? Hundreds of scrolls containing all the books of the Old Testament were found and determined using SCIENCE to be well over 2000 years old. That means all those hundreds of prophecies written before Christ, were fulfilled by Christ, giving the Bible supreme authority and credibility.
 

Mark here}  Red Herrings, all Red Herrings. Can't deal with the issue which is under discussion, so the nameless Christian tries to drag in a dozen other topics as "Weapons of Mass Distraction" to cloud the issue up. All the crap he mentioned is just that: crap. 

  • Noah's Flood:         There is NOTHING on top of whatever mountain in Turkey he THINKS is Ararat- and the Christian hoaxster who did a book on it was exposed as a FRAUD on national television over a decade ago.
  • Soddam:                 Yes, the cities existed. No, they weren't destroyed as the Bible claims they were for they had already been nothing but ruins and rubble for maybe a THOUSAND YEARS before the Jews ever took over Israel. All the Jews did was dream up a storyline about a ruined ancient city.
  • Red Sea:                 Total horse shit. Show me the evidence, show me the photos. Which university did the digs? Which reputable archeologist uncovered all these? Just more Christian rumor and myth.
  • Dead Sea Scrolls:     Is this supposed to be news, that the Book of Isaiah was written BEFORE 33 AD??? What planet have YOU been on, and what have you been smoking ON that planet???

 

 

 

Science has a branch called Statistics. They have statistically anayzed the Events of the Bible and have determined that the probability of the Bible being correct are like the probability of finding water in the Pacific Ocean.
 
Likewise, Statistics have shown the probability that a simple bacterium DNA to evolve from nonliving compounds by random chance, mutations, and billions of years, is essentially 0.
The second Law of Thermodynamics, states that Entropy in the universe is increasing. This is in absolute direct contradiction to the Theory of Evolution. Likewise another basic axiom of Biology is "life arises from life" and the Big Bang is in direct conflict with this.
 

Mark here}  And the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics DISPROVES your Biblegod- "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." In contradiction to this FIRST law, the Gospel of John claims that "ALL THINGS came into being thru him and apart from him NOTHING came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3). Does energy exist? Yes. Did Jesus create energy? Yes, if you're a Biblethumping moron. No, if you're a rational logical being. So Mr. Nameless, go chew on THAT one for awhile.

 

 

These are just a few examples I have plenty more. But essentially Science disproves the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory. Thats why they're theories, not Laws.
 
Science cannot explain many of the things the Bible explains. The Bible talks about a God. NO Scientific Law can disprove such a God does not exist.
 
I can very easily attack all your foolish arguments much like I attacked your "E = MC^2 disproves God" essay. I have scientifically shown that "E=mc^2 Allows possibility of God to Exist"
 
So, take your stupid essay of the web, and replace it with the above scientifically accurate essay.
 
I could also very easily refute the rest of your other claims, like your argument that Jesus was not a historical figure?
 

Mark here}     Uhhh, are you high on drugs or Jesus? (Oops! Forgot, not much of a difference, is there?) That is not MY argument. You're getting your web pages mixed up.

 

 

But you are a dumb one. Your worse than a hypocritical Christian. Youre an Athiest who doesn't know anything about Science. God can forgive the hypocritical Christian, but as for you, you need to go learn some actual Science.
 
Its people like you who are digging the grave of athiesm wider and deeper with such public displays of stupidity, ignorance, and foolishness.
 
Einstein himself was a Jew. Einstein was not dumb like you. He never used his theories to try "disproving the existence of God". 
 

Mark here}     What does Einstein being a Jew have to do with anything? Are you a racist as well as a Christian? I suppose you think that everyone from the Island of Crete is a liar too, don't you??? (Titus 1:5). Are you saying that if I'm not Jewish I am therefore DUMB???

 

 

Please respond.
 
Peace 
 
Mark here}     "Peace" my ass!!! This Nameless Christian who claims to worship the "Prince of Peace" hypocritically ends his hateful and emotional rant with the word "peace", yet WITHIN his email he has shown anything BUT "peace". With his email he has said of me that I am}
  • Stupid
  • Ignorant
  • Foolish
  • Dumb
  • A Dumbass
  • Knows nothing of science
  • Displays stupidity
  • Worse than a hypocritical Christian
  • Have nothing between my ears
  • And that I'm a dumbass that should have stayed in school

The one about being worse than a Christian is what hurt the most- ouch! Anyway, for the millioneth time we have an example before us of the Christian REALITY (hate, namecalling, bitterness) conflicts with Christian THEORY (love, joy, peace etc). Which only goes to show, once again, that Christianity doesn't work as advertised- it doesn't make people any nicer or better. It only lets them FEEL nicer and better, regardless of how hateful and bitter they are.

My question to Mr. Nameless is this: WHO hurt you so much, as evidenced by your bitterness and hate, that you felt the need to escape reality and join the Christian cult? What caused you so much pain in life???



 

Alex Popa  4-22-03

 

Subj: Re: POST THIS ONLINE 
Date: 4/22/03 9:24:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


If you must know I'm Alex Popa

First of all, you still did not address my comments.

Mark here}     Bull SHIT!!! If I didn't address your comments, then just what the HELL is all the red ink in the email right above this one, oh blind one?

 

No Christian claims God to be Infinite Energy. No one claims He has any mass at all. You are the only one who foolishly claims this. And this is a straw man fallacy, trying to prove that such a false interpretation of God does not exist.

Mark here}     So here we go again... I'm having to REPEAT stuff from the web site under discussion because this now NAMED Christian Fundy can't take the time to READ, but he does have the time, LOTS of time, to criticize, the web site under discussion. So, to answer said Fundy, what follows below is from the very beginning of my web site "E=MC2 Disproves Biblegod"}

Christians claim, without any evidence whatsoever, that their Biblegod has unlimited power, infinite energy.  Their technical term for this unfounded claim is “omnipotence”. According to several dictionaries, omnipotent means:

 

·        An agency or force of unlimited power.1

·        Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.2

·        Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can create worlds must be omnipotent.3

·        Omnipotent adj : having unlimited power [syn: almighty, all-powerful]4

·        Having virtually unlimited authority or influence.5

·        Strictly said of God (or of a deity) or His attributes: Almighty or infinite in power.6   

Thus, Christians claim their Biblegod is a source of energy that is all-powerful, a "force of unlimited power", i.e. without limits- and thus an energy source that is without limits; in other words, infinite.

And no, I am NOT going to repeat my bibliography as well- he can look up the damn numbers in the web site HE SHOULD HAVE READ IN THE FIRST PLACE before he mouthed off about it.

 

 

God transcends both Time and Space. He is not bound by Laws of Science. He DID create the whole Universe. He has always existed, and will always exist. He is not energy and has no mass. He is a Spirit.

Mark here}     No no no, dear sir. It is the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) who transcends both Time and Space, who is not bound by your mere mortal laws of physics and reality, and who created the whole universe, including Atheists like YOU who don't believe in her existence. You MUST believe all this, for I have seen it written in a book that is VERY old (and therefore it MUST be true). And you must NOT ask me for evidence for ANY thing I claim, for I need not present evidence. I need only to SPEAK, and it is so.

 

I'm not asking you to Believe in God. Its okay with me if you think He's just an illusion, a fantasy, or whatever. You don't have to Believe.

 

BUT what does irritate me, is that you think you can prove that such a God does not exist, with your puny little equation.

Listen, NO ONE CAN PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

And thats a fact that Einstein, Hawkins, and Darwin and EVERYONE (including you) HAVE TO ACCEPT.

You can't prove it - ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

Mark here}     Well, I guess what you are saying must be so, for you are saying it, and you don't need to present evidence, for you are a Christian. So it must be true. Gosh! I may as well shut down my whole web site and find another hobby!!!

 

Your "E=mc proves biblegod does not exist" is little more than a public display of stupidity.

 

Yeah, sorry for the namecalling, if you remember your first response to my original email, I was just doing exactly what you did to me? YOu don't like it now, do you?  So Deal with the ISSUES.

Mark here}     Ohhhhh NOW he remembers that he's the CHRISTIAN. How quickly they forget when it suits them- what a disposable morality they operate with. Well, here's another news flash:  HEY, I'M NOT THE FUCKING CHRISTIAN HERE, YOU ARE. I'll cuss all I want to- I'm not the one kissing the ass and groveling to some ancient non-extant temper tantrum throwing desert deity. AND, I might point out, this is the FIRST (and ONLY) of my MANY points from my last email that he responds to. Everything else he ignored. He's got time to mouth off, but not time to actually READ what he's mouthing off about.

And THAT is exactly why I'd prefer to answer Fundies like HIM on my web page rather than privately- to show the whole world how SHALLOW these Christian "scholars" are, how they can't even shut up long enough to actually READ what they mouth off against so much. I obviously can't show HIM, for he won't READ and RESPOND to the items I write, so I show the world instead that these sorry-ass defenses are the BEST that "the Lord God Almighty, omnipotent ruler of the universe" can come up with.


As for your E=mc2 disillusionment, let me tell you simply what it states.


Given a quantity of matter of mass m, an amount of Energy E can be released which is E = mc^2.

Simply put, Given mass, its energy can be calculated.

IT DOES NOT SAY GIVEN ENERGY, MASS CAN BE FOUND.

Mark here}     Oh yes it DOES. It's an EQUATION- it works BOTH WAYS. IF you know you have x amount of energy, then you can calculate how much MASS you'd need to produce that amount of energy. 

 

Another simple example,
A Radiowave propagating through air might be 2 mW of power. In ten seconds thats 20 mJoules of Energy. According to your understanding that means the mass of this radio wave is equal to m = E/c^2 = 2.2 x 10 ^-19 kg!

This is astonishing! Mark Smith discovers Mass of Electromagnetic Waves!

WOW!

Look, I was educated at Stanford University. I hear my physics teachers talking about "Gravity Probe B" all day. It is a 40 year, NASA, Stanford, Lockheed Martin built Spacecraft which will Put Einstein's Theory of Relativity to Test.

GO To http://einstein.stanford.edu 

Learn about it, and then Talk.

Mark here}     Fine. I went to the web site, went to some links, even found some good stuff from Discover  magazine which I just now put up on the E=MC2 web site (thanks). However, I also learned that this "Gravity Probe B" project has yet to be launched as of yet (April 27, 2003). Therefore, until if/when this long delayed project literally "gets off the ground", and the results are returned and analyzed, don't discount Albert. This project prove Albert correct (as every other project has in the past 100 years), or it may prove him wrong. We will see.

 

Many professors around here Believe, and initial results have indicated that This theory will not hold. i.e. it will be disproved. 

 

Sorry to burst your Bubble Mark Smith.

 

Don't worry, I'm sure Steve Hawkins is working busily for a New Unified Theory of Science. Which will be disproved subsequently 10 years later.

 

Until then, stop embarrasing yourself on your own website!

 

And thank you for posting my message online!

FYI

I came from a Great Athiest Communist country. I know much more about athiesm than your pathetic website. I recommend you go move to one of these countries and see what the result of Ignoring God does to a nation.


Its easy for you to talk, you live in a country Blessed by the God Almighty, a country where 90% of the poeple believe in God. 

 

ALex Popa

 

 


 

Alex Popa 4-29-03

Subj: Re: POST THIS ONLINE 
Date: 4/29/03 11:37:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Mark,

You never answered my question about the radio wave.

 

How does E = mc^2 prove that a radio wave with Energy has mass?

Mark here}     It has no mass. It is energy. X amount of Energy could be converted to Y amount of Mass. That is what the theory is all about. Is this something new to you??

 

How does my 100 W lightbulb which produces energy in the form of light apply? Does light have mass as the equation states?

 Mark here}     I don't know. I'm not an expert on light. And besides, how does any of this nit-picking detract from my basic thesis that there is no evidence for an infinite energy source in the universe???

I could have an infinite light source, and it would still not have any mass at all!

 Mark here}     Again, I don't know. I'm not an expert on light. How does any of this nit-picking detract from my basic thesis that there is no evidence for an infinite energy source in the universe??? Why don't you deal with the MAIN issue of the essay and stop biting me on my ankles like some sort of deranged chiwauwa dog???

 

What is your scientific response Mark?  WHY ARE YOU SILENT ON THIS MATTER? THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION!

  Mark here}     So is this one a simple question: Where is the evidence for an infinite energy source anywhere in the universe??? WHY ARE YOU SILENT ON THIS MATTER???

 

Because you are a damn free-thinking (or as I call it free-of-thinking)  moron just like the rest of your kind! You and the rest of the atheists out there, whose severely limited mental capabilities, precludes them from seeing anything past the physical, material and observable, have once again proved that anything that comes out of their mouth has no more relevance than a farting horse.

 Mark here}     Yes, we foolish Atheists tend to like a little EVIDENCE before we buy into something, unlike you SUCKERS who don't require anything "physical, material or observable" before you'll believe any wandering religious nut that tells you to cut off your balls for Jesus or whatever. 

 

By the way jackass, your very own website says the universe is infinite!

  Mark here}     Duhhhh!!!! But not the STUFF that is IN the universe!!! Why don't you go back and READ the damn website where I say as much!!! How could there have been a Big Bang unless the STUFF that exploded was FINITE? It exploded into what may be an INFINITE universe, but that doesn't make the CONTENTS of the "cosmic egg" infinite.

Did I explain it simple enough for even a Christian to understand????

Alex  

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Larry Gwaltney 4-25-03

Subj: E=MC 2 Article 
Date: 4/25/03 5:30:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCNot4Me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


I think the problem that I have with your arguments here in this article is
that they presuppose that the material universe is the sum total of all
reality. 

Mark here}     Uhhh, by definition the universe IS the "sum total of all there is", so yes, I believe in reality. I don't believe in transcendental la la lands made up by wishful thinking religionists, just to save their out dated theologies. No evidence, no la la lands. 

 

 

But since you find Einstein persuasive, as I do, you might be
interested in what else he thought.

My professor of Philosophy here at the Reformed Theological Seminary in
Orlando (Dr. Charles MacKenzie) lived a few doors down from Professor
Einstein when both taught at Princeton in the late 40's and early 50's. They
used to take walks together and discuss matters of religion. I should make
it clear at this point that while Einstein was Theistic, he was not a
Christian. But it's important to note that he was not a rank materialist
either. Here is something he once said to Dr. MacKenzie:

"In my life I have had the opportunity to meet all of the greatest
scientific minds of our day (physicists, presumably) and that every one of
them is spiritually and religiously minded. It is only the "little people"
(he meant low ranking college profs and high school teachers) that have a
problem."

Dr. MacKenzie had many opportunities over the years to meet men such as
Niels Bohr and Heisenberg. Heisenberg (father of the Uncertainty Principle)
would often in his lectures toss out offhand comments about "God's
creation," etc. He certainly was a believer.

Dr. MacKenzie also taught at Cambridge, and has many contacts there today.
You might be interested to know that the faculty at Cambridge has related to
him that Stephen Hawkings is attending a small Baptist church whenever his
health permits, and that the believers on the faculty there continue to pray
for him.

Mark here}     If you are trying to show that religiosity increases as education increases, study after study has shown the opposite.  The most uneducated sections of our country are usually the most religious. Sorry if your limited experience has led you to the wrong conclusions on this.


I would suggest to you that if the greatest minds in physics have no problem
with the compatibility of E=mc2 and the existence of God, maybe you ought to
rethink your position, vis-a-vis that the matter/energy coefficient
disproves the existence of God. There are many qualified people who would
disagree with you.

Mark here}     The E=MC2 essay of mine does NOT disprove the existence of gods or goddesses of limited power. It only disproves the existence of  postulated gods of infinite power, such as Biblegod. Limited deities are NOT disproved by this. If the Christians would admit their god has limits on his energy, his power, this essay would not apply- but they can't settle for that. They just gotta have the BIGGEST god on the block.



Larry Gwaltney

 


Larry Gwaltney 4-26-03

Subj: Re: E=MC 2 Article 
Date: 4/26/03 4:15:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


(MARK) "Uhhh, by definition the universe IS the "sum total of all there is",
so yes, I believe in reality. I don't believe in transcendental la la lands
made up by wishful thinking religionists, just to save their out dated
theologies. No evidence, no la la lands."

(LARRY) Rather, by definition the universe is the sum total of MATERIAL
reality (Nature). God by definition is beyond nature (the Supernature).
Rather than giving any evidence for God's non-existence, you have attempted
to DEFINE Him out of existence. Your position (it seems identical to that of
Carl Sagan's) is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

Mark here}     Well, let's see. The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines the word Universe thusly:

Universe:
1 [S] everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space

So, "everything that exists...". Well, "everything" would also include NON-material items, such as energy, radio waves, TV signals traveling thru the air and such. As for "defining him out of existence", hey, if the shoe fits, wear it! I think it's time the rest of the world stops letting you Fundies re-write the definitions any time you want.



As for the question of evidence, most of what you or anybody believes in
matters of epistemology, science, philosophy, etc. is not based on evidence,
but simply because somebody they considered an authority figure told them
so. That's why you believe Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away, for
example, and not because you developed the Parallax Method of Measurement
and made the observations yourself.

Mark here}     Yes... and your point is? What, do YOU pull your own teeth, cut your own hair, and do your own open heart surgery?  Yes, when needed, I do use the services and expertise of others who have better knowledge and skill than I do. I'm not like a Fundy Christian, who thinks they know EVERYTHING and can re-write all of modern science from their living room recliner chair. Sorry.


Incidentally, your whole web page is based on the presupposition that other
minds exist. How do you KNOW that other minds exist, that you are not simply
being delusional? All the evidence in the world can't "prove" the existence
of Other Minds, it is simply a presupposition we all share to make our lives
possible.

Mark here}     Ohhhh... "The Matrix". Very deeeeeeeep. Next Larry will be trying to get me to swim in  that swamp of intellectual bullshit known as "Van Til-ism". No thanks! You can take all your geeky philosophy and put it in the local dump, along with all the other crap that has proven itself basically USELESS to mankind. The only thing a philosophy degree is good for is 1) Training other philosophers and   2) Working at Burger King.



Mark here}     "If you are trying to show that religiosity increases as
education increases, study after study has shown the opposite.  The most
uneducated sections of our country are usually the most religious. Sorry if
your limited experience has led you to the wrong conclusions on this."

(LARRY) No, actually, what I demonstrated is that Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg
and Hawkings, whom you see as authority figures, would find your argument
(vis-a-vis the matter/energy coefficient)to be unpersuasive. Your utilizing
the so-called "straw man" argument (see remarks below).

You didn't really respond to my initial remarks, so let me put it to you
another way: If the men I've listed above didn't/don't believe that E=mc2
implies the non-existence of God, (even and all-powerful one, see my remarks
below) why should I accept YOUR argument? Why is your understanding of
physics and its alleged implications better than theirs?

Mark here}     There may be THOUSANDS of reasons why people, most of whom dead now, did or didn't do something. Unlike the Fundies, I won't PRESUPPOSE myself to be some sort of psychic brain reader / medium / time traveler who can delve into the mind of Albert Einstein and tell you the psychological reasons of why he said or didn't say whatever. Besides, as for me saying something that Albert may have never said himself, you Christians say ALOT of things that Jesus never said. It's called "reasoning". It involves taking the work of others, and based upon that, constructing more. For example, Jesus never told anyone to give even a penny to a damn televangelist, yet every week there they are- begging for money. Nor did Jesus say to pad the pews or air condition the churches- and your POINT was???


Pertaining to your remark about a relationship between education and
religiosity, it would be more accurate to say that an uneducated populace is
more "credulous," not simply more religious. I haven't had too many strictly
materialist professors (in the History and Philosophy Departments of Indiana
University and Purdue University). While most of them had differing
viewpoints on the nature of God that I couldn't agree with, they were not
rank materialists such as you.

Mark here}     The word "credulous" is a nice way of saying "sucker". Yes, people who swallow bullshit easier tend to be less educated, which is why religion thrives the best among people living in the darkest areas (intellectually). Just as mushrooms require bullshit and darkness to thrive, so also religion. That being a FACT, shouldn't little warning bells be going off in your head, telling you that there is something WRONG about ANY religion that thrives in ignorance and shrivels up with intelligence??? You SEEM to be intelligent- come on, get SET FREE like I did from the horseshit called Christianity.


Finally, to address your remark about my alleged "limited experience," I
have to point out that you know virtually nothing about me, how old I am,
where I have lived, who I have met, etc., and simply because I disagree with
you I must therefore have an experience inferior to yours. Talk about
believing without evidence!

Mark here}     Let me elaborate. Your "first hand knowledge" of what people believe is VERY limited, when compared to polling involving MILLIONS of people over DECADES of time. Chances are, you have not even MET a million people in your entire life, nor polled them as to what they believe. Therefore, it would be wiser to go with actual studies and polls of "religion -vs- education" relationships, rather than a well-intentioned but ignorant "Well, I used to know a dude who seemed really smart and he was an Atheist, so therefore ALL Atheists must be smart" type of reasoning. And the polls and census data clearly show that as education goes UP, Fundyism goes DOWN, your little world of personal experience notwithstanding.


Mark here}     "The E=MC2 essay of mine does NOT disprove the existence of
gods or goddesses of limited power. It only disproves the existence of 
postulated gods of infinite power, such as Biblegod. Limited deities are NOT
disproved by this. If the Christians would admit their god has limits on his
energy, his power, this essay would not apply- but they can't settle for
that. They just gotta have the BIGGEST god on the block."

LARRY: Your making a couple of logical errors here, one a "straw man"
argument, the other a logical error of Equivocation.

First of all, none of the creedal statements in Church History have defined
God as having "infinite energy."
I'm sure in your "limited experience" that
some would-be apologists have asserted this phrase to you, but it is not one
that historic Christianity would utilize. So your argument here really is
irrelevant to the question at hand, i.e., whether the God of the Bible
exists.

 

Mark here}     So then, all the dictionaries that I quote from in the beginning of my E=MC essay are incorrect? Gee, this sounds like, once again, Christians thinking they have the RIGHT to re-write definitions any time they find them distasteful. WRONG!!! Homey don't play that game.

Secondly, are you saying that YOUR particular version of Biblegod does NOT have "infinite energy"??? Are you saying that Joe Hovah  has LIMITED energy??? Your god has limits to his power??? Is THIS what you are saying???

 



Second, we theologians DO talk about God being "all powerful" to communicate
that God has complete control over His creation. This does NOT mean that God
can do anything (like actualize a contradiction).

"Power" and "energy" are not synonomous. We speak of President Bush as
having great "power" but we don't mean by that that he has great energy.
This is what Logicians call an argumental error of Equivocation, taking a
term and switching its definition in the middle of an argument.

Mark here}     YOU are confusing "power" with the word "authority". A boy scout leader may have "great authority" in his local "I hate Atheists and Gays" boy scout troop, but that does NOT mean he has great "power" such as the power to destroy a world or rise from the dead.

What I said in my web essay is that the POWER and ENERGY Christianity claims for its desert deities are without limits. I already quoted the definition of omnipotence  from SIX world renowned dictionaries to show this. If you disagree with these dictionaries, you are an arrogant idiot- sorry. Go for yourself and look up the word omnipotence if you disagree with me on this. I don't have to argue with you what is already clearly laid out in the major dictionaries of the world.

Why don't YOU, instead, answer the following question- maybe the problem is with your orthodoxy.

God is omnipotent.  (  )True  (  )False


Finally, your whole argument hinges on the assumption that a non-observable
reality has no existence. But in fact, scientists infer the reality of
non-observable entities all the time. Have you ever seen Dimensions 5 thru
11? Yet we infer their existence because of the observable realities of
Gravitation and Quantum Theory (the mathematics to accomodate both truths
require at minimum 11 dimensions to work).

Mark here}     Science does NOT teach things for which there is no EVIDENCE.  Science teaches that radio waves exist because even though they are invisible to the naked eye, they are "visible" thru other means, and thus there is evidence of their existence. Ditto for the stupid Christian "argument" that "well, you can't SEE the wind but you know it exists" routine.

We have external, objective, repeatable verifiable EVIDENCE that LOTS of invisible things exist, things like radio waves, brain thoughts, wind, and might I dare say GLASS!!!!! Glass is invisible (at its best), yet we know it exists NOT because some ancient contradictory book says so, but because of the objective EVIDENCE.

Given that, dear Christian, what is YOUR external, objective, repeatable & verifiable EVIDENCE that your invisible Biblegod exists anywhere outside the dusty covers of a King James Bible????

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!!

All you have for evidence is what every other Christian geek intellectual has: hot air, and lots of it. Through long convoluted philosophical arguments that would try the patience of even Socrates and Aristotle, you try to brow-beat people into "believing", rather than  presenting EVIDENCE  for convincing.

You present no evidence because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. According to your book, you USED TO have evidence, LOTS of evidence, but I guess all that evidence got sunk on Noah's Ark or something, right??? 

According to your Bible, First Kings 18, Elijah got up on Mount Carmel and tried to talk the 450 priests of Baal into "believing" Biblegod exists using five points of clever intellectual argumentation developed by Dr. William Lane Craig. Oh wait, that is NOW, not back THEN. Back THEN, according to your Bible, the prophet Elijah didn't waste ONE WORD trying to argue the Baalites into "believing"- he called down FIRE FROM HEAVEN.  The lesson?  Fire = End of Argument. Yes, these were the "glory days" of Biblegod, ala Bruce Springsteen, when Biblegod could actually DO something.

Nowadays? All Biblegod's got is eggheads like you running around, trying to talk people into "believing" something they know deep down inside isn't so. I guess Biblegod's celestial Bic lighter just ran out of lighter fluid back around the time of Jesus, eh?? No more fire from heaven, just "five points of argumentation" from Bill Craig. What a sorry state of affairs- the "spirit of God" who used to move across the waters can now only produce hot air. 


Larry Gwaltney



Larry Gwaltney 4-27-03

 

Subj: Back to You 
Date: 4/27/03 3:52:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCNot4Me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


(Mark here}     Well, let's see. The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines the
word Universe thusly:

Universe:
1 [S] everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all
the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space

So, "everything that exists...". Well, "everything" would also include
NON-material items, such as energy, radio waves, TV signals traveling thru
the air and such. As for "defining him out of existence", hey, if the shoe
fits, wear it! I think it's time the rest of the world stops letting you
Fundies re-write the definitions any time you want.

LARRY: Dictionaries are not the place to get philosophical and theological
definitions, as we'll see a little further down. Since the question at hand
is whether a Supernature exists or not, your statement would seem to beg the
question. Incidentally, that's why we have encyclopedias of Philosophy to
reference questions like these.

Mark here}     "Dictionaries are not the place to get... definitions" ??? As I previously implied, Fundies have a problem with dictionaries. The reason for this is because oft times their pretentious arguments can all be answered by just cracking a dictionary open and reading. The first rule- the foundation of ANY debate- and this is drummed into the head of any student who has taken any sort of a rhetoric class, is this:  DEFINE YOUR TERMS.  Larry doesn't like the definition of the word "universe" because it disproves a theological theory that he has, therefore he is being stubborn about defining his terms- he wants to re-write the dictionary to suit his arguments- a common cultic and Fundy tactic, but one that I won't fall for.

 


Radio waves, X-rays, etc. are not to be classified as part of the
Supernature just because they can't be seen. They CAN be measured and
generated at will, which puts them firmly in the realm of the physical
universe.

Mark here}     So... you are defining "supernatural" as meaning something that can not be detected, something that exists totally without any evidence of its existence at all. This does not differ from a fairy tale or a novel of fiction. It also places it beyond your own criticism, for you just pulled your own rug out from under you for ever saying anything bad about any one else's "supernatural" be they Mormon, Hindu, or Satanic.

 

 Your argument here, and in fact throughout your web page, is based
on the presupposition that by definition God is part of the physical
universe and subject to its laws. What you haven't done is disprove the
existence of the Supernature. That's what's so problematic about your
agressive, "hard" atheism.

Mark here}     And by your same "logic" YOU have not disproved the existence of any Hindu "supernatural" gods and indeed, by your own admission, CAN NOT even if you WANTED to. You have already fallen into a pandora's box of your own making.

And by the way, another basic axiom of debating is: he who ASSERTS must prove. That means if YOU are the one claiming these supernatural gods of Hinduism exist, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on YOUR shoulders, not mine.

So far, Mr. Philosopher, you have broken TWO very basic axioms of debate:

  • Define your terms.
  • He who asserts must prove.

And THIS is how Christian philosophers try to win debates- by cheating. What else is new!!!

 

 It tries to take on far more than it can possibly
deliver, in that it claims to prove a negative. You would be far better
saying "God cannot be determined" (hard agnosticism) or better still, "I
cannot determine God." (soft agnosticism).

On the matter of accepting authority figures:

Mark here}     Yes... and your point is? What, do YOU pull your own teeth,
cut your own hair, and do your own open heart surgery?  Yes, when needed, I
do use the services and expertise of others who have better knowledge and
skill than I do. I'm not like a Fundy Christian, who thinks they know
EVERYTHING and can re-write all of modern science from their living room
recliner chair. Sorry.

LARRY: My point is that you are no different than the "fighting fundies" you
so disparage. You have just said that you use the services and expertise of
others who have better knowledge and skill than you do. I have to point out
that there are many individuals on the side of belief who know far more
facts, reason more logically, and have a far better grasp of philosophical
and historical matters than you do. So, how come you are not a believer? Why
haven't you changed your mind?

Mark here}     I was using that line of reasoning in response to your "reinvent the wheel" type of argument, to show you that I don't feel obligated to reinvent what's already been done. As for becoming a believer in your religion, there are many just as educated who think your religion is a load of crap. Dr. Paul Kurtz, PhD in philosophy and Dr. Robert M. Price, who holds TWO PhD's come to mind- AND- Dr. Price used to be a good Southern Baptist, so he's been in your religion before.


At this point I will add that the same is true from my side of the
theological fence. So how come I haven't changed MY mind? The best way to
resolve the dilemma is to look at both sets of presuppositions and see whose
philosophy most consistently reflects their presuppositions.

Mark here}     Presup alert!!! Watch out- dead Bahnson, dead ahead!!!


Incidentally, while I am considered Evangelical, I am not considered a
Fundamentalist. You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.

On the Existence of Other Minds:

Mark here}     Ohhhh... "The Matrix". Very deeeeeeeep. Next Larry will be
trying to get me to swim in  that swamp of intellectual bullshit known as
"Van Til-ism". No thanks! You can take all your geeky philosophy and put it
in the local dump, along with all the other crap that has proven itself
basically USELESS to mankind. The only thing a philosophy degree is good for
is 1) Training other philosophers and   2) Working at Burger King.

LARRY: Anti-intellectualism will not suit someone well who runs an atheistic
web page inviting argumentation from theists. But like it or not, we ALL
have to be philosophers sooner or later, and it is especially incumbent on
people who use bandwidth in attacking theological matters. Since atheism is
definitely a philosophy, are you declaring yourself "useless to mankind?"

Mark here}     What I'm doing Larry is the EXACT same thing your Apostle Paul did- throw philosophy out with the rest of the intellectual garbage, but since you are one of those who have become "bored with the book" you probably don't even know what the hell I'm referring to here. You Christian philosophers- you quickly become "bored with the book" and chase after "authority figures" that don't make others snicker when you quote them in public. It's much more respectable to be quoting Aristotle than to be seen as a "Bible Thumper", isn't it??? At least when I WAS a Christian, I wasn't ashamed of it; I didn't try to hide behind the toga's of pagan Greek philosophers. 


Is the Lockean philosophy in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution "useless to mankind?"

I will introduce Van Tillian concepts in this discussion, but based upon
what I have seen here and in other sections of "JCNot4Me" you would be
ill-equipped to discuss it, much less refute it. Someone with such contempt
for philosophy is not able to understand it.

Mark here}     Ha ha ha ha ha... DAMN I am good! I KNEW you were "one of those" from a mile away- and you guys always think you're "sneaking up" on us "dumb Atheists". ha ha ha. Van Til is a J-O-K-E, a hot-air windbag that was incomprehensible NOT because he had such great ideas, but rather because he spoke so much bullshit nonsense that even his own "disciples" couldn't figure out half the time what the hell he said. He was a modern Sibylline oracle that constantly needed a "translator" so as to make (sort-of) sense to the masses. He spoke in tongues more than a wild eyed Charismatic, but never had the brains to even know it. 

AND... he broke a fundamental law of communication: communicate!!! One MUST bring their communications down to the level of one's audience or one is not communicating. If you are talking to a kindergarten, you should have the INTELLIGENCE to speak at their level- and not at some graduate school level. And please don't say that he was just SUCH a genius, that's why he was incomprehensible. I've seen a book at a Christian bookstore, written by a former associate of his, a PhD himself, who pointed out that, even when Til is "translated", it's STILL gobbledygook!!!  My question to his disciple (you) is this:  IF he was so damn smart, then how come he was so STUPID as to not be able to communicate??? Even Albert could be coherent when he wanted to. Your man was not a genius; on the contrary, he was "as sounding brass, as clanging symbol".

Take this link to another page in my web site, check out what Gilbert & Sullivan had to say about this kind of "intellectual" mumbo-jumbo, then come back here.

Geek Speak 101


(At this point I asked why I as a believer should accept Mark's E=mc2
"proof" of God's non-existence, when Einstein himself, Bohr, Heisenberg and
Hawkings would not see such an implication.)

Mark here}     There may be THOUSANDS of reasons why people, most of whom
dead now, did or didn't do something. Unlike the Fundies, I won't PRESUPPOSE
myself to be some sort of psychic brain reader / medium / time traveler who
can delve into the mind of Albert Einstein and tell you the psychological
reasons of why he said or didn't say whatever. Besides, as for me saying
something that Albert may have never said himself, you Christians say ALOT
of things that Jesus never said. It's called "reasoning". It involves taking
the work of others, and based upon that, constructing more. For example,
Jesus never told anyone to give even a penny to a damn televangelist, yet
every week there they are- begging for money. Nor did Jesus say to pad the
pews or air condition the churches- and your POINT was???

LARRY: My point, and my question, which you have gone to great lengths to
avoid in your diatribe above, is why Einstein, in discussion with theists,
never claimed that E=mc2 disproved the existence of God.

Mark here}     Yeah, that's just the thing that would have made Albert (a German Jewish refugee) more welcomed in his host country- "Hey, by the way... I just disproved the existence of God!!! Wait! Why are you tearing up my visa???" Back in Albert's day, Atheists couldn't even hold public office in many states in this CHRISTIAN nation.

And did I avoid your question? No, I already answered it- like I said (and please pay attention this time): I  AM  NOT  A  FRIGGIN  MIND  READER. "Why" somebody did or didn't do whatever is beyond our ability.

 

 The reason he
didn't, of course, is that God by definition does not contain mass! 

Mark here}     So.... does he have energy then? It's one or the other- no middle ground. AND if he's got energy, he would be detectable, especially being the BIGGEST energy concentration in the Universe: INFINITE energy. Or, as Buzz Lightyear put it, "to infinity and BEYOND!!!"

 

 

He has
no extension in space-time. The truth of E=mc2 is irrelevant to the question
of God's existence. If your argument against God's existence is as
self-evident as you believe it to be, how come Einstein, Heisenberg and
Hawkings didn't/don't see it? Maybe because you're wrong? Is that possible?

What you are doing in the case of Einstein is not "reasoning," it is called
"making things up."


Mark here}     The word "credulous" is a nice way of saying "sucker". Yes,
people who swallow bullshit easier tend to be less educated, which is why
religion thrives the best among people living in the darkest areas
(intellectually). Just as mushrooms require bullshit and darkness to thrive,
so also religion. That being a FACT, shouldn't little warning bells be going
off in your head, telling you that there is something WRONG about ANY
religion that thrives in ignorance and shrivels up with intelligence??? You
SEEM to be intelligent- come on, get SET FREE like I did from the horseshit
called Christianity.

LARRY: In argumentation, analogies are not facts. An analogy (like your
mushroom example) illustrates what YOU BELIEVE to be true, but in itself is
not a fact. Incidentally, there are no brute facts, that is, facts in
isolation bereft of interpretation. It's naive for you to believe that you
can stand in some intellectual "neutral zone" and impartially evaluate
facticity. You utilize normative, situational and existential means, whether
you understand what I mean, or not.

Further, I probably should have realized that educated people are just as
prone to some kinds of credulity that would be utterly rejected in a trailer
park. A lecture delivered on the power of healing crystals would probably
get a better hearing at Harvard than at 7-Eleven. The reason you reject
Christ is a matter of personal pride and arrogance, NOT an impartial
evaluation of evidences
. Note the tone of your responses in our sequence
here, and compare it to mine.

Mark here}     Oh here we go- Larry the Christian mind-reader!!! Dear reader, why is Larry so presumptuous as to think he can READ MY MIND as to the "why" of what I do??? Larry doesn't know SHIT about me, and what he says here is proof positive that he is not above making shit up when he feels the need. A typical dishonest Christian.


Mark here}     Let me elaborate. Your "first hand knowledge" of what people
believe is VERY limited, when compared to polling involving MILLIONS of
people over DECADES of time. Chances are, you have not even MET a million
people in your entire life, nor polled them as to what they believe.
Therefore, it would be wiser to go with actual studies and polls of
"religion -vs- education" relationships, rather than a well-intentioned but
ignorant "Well, I used to know a dude who seemed really smart and he was an
Atheist, so therefore ALL Atheists must be smart" type of reasoning. And the
polls and census data clearly show that as education goes UP, Fundyism goes
DOWN, your little world of personal experience notwithstanding.

LARRY: In short, Fundamentalism and Christianity are not synonyms.
Fundamentalism is a subset of Christianity. But your attack is not against
Fundamentalism per se; it is against Biblical Christianity, and has to be
evaluated in those terms. Belief in Fundamentalism does have a relationship
to education, but theism, and Christianity, does not.

On the subject of creedal beliefs:

Mark here}     So then, all the dictionaries that I quote from in the
beginning of my E=MC2  essay are incorrect? Gee, this sounds like, once
again, Christians thinking they have the RIGHT to re-write definitions any
time they find them distasteful. WRONG!!! Homey don't play that game.

LARRY: Homey don't think too good, either. If you look up "predestination"
in several dictionaries, for instance, you might get a Lutheran, Calvinist,
Arminian or Catholic definition. Dictionaries don't have that kind of room
to thoroughly discuss the subtleties and implications of the varying
definitions of theological terms. By the way, ANYONE can write a dictionary,
and even put the name "Webster's" on the cover. Since you are talking to me,
you'll have to refute the Westminster Confession of Faith, not the
dictionary.

Mark here}     And the above is ONE example which helps explain why Fundies seldom change their minds, for whenever they run into facts that go AGAINST their preconceived notions, rather than change their preconceived notions, they change the facts!!! In this case, Larry is tossing the FACTS (the dictionaries) out into the intellectual dumpster because they don't say what he wants them to say. Like I said earlier, before a debate even BEGINS, definitions must be established, or else you get what's going on here- these childish games of "well, I don't LIKE what those dictionaries say so I ain't gonna listen to them--- la la la la la la la   I can't hear you   la la la la la." 

These are the same kind of intellectually dishonest games I used to get from Jehovah Witnesses. You could argue with them over the meaning of one simple word in John 1:1 till you're blue in the face, you could quote every dictionary ever made, it didn't matter. They had their minds already cemented in place and even Biblegod himself couldn't shake it loose with a jackhammer between the ears. 

I'd like to see Larry up in front of a judge and try to pull that shit. "Well your honor, I don't happen to like that there book you're using to judge me by..."  Oh yeah, I'm sure the judge would buy THAT one. The only reason Fundies pull that kind of crap in religious discussions is because they can get away with it- but not with me.


MARK: Secondly, are you saying that YOUR particular version of Biblegod does
NOT have "infinite energy"??? Are you saying that Joe Hovah  has LIMITED
energy??? Your god has limits to his power??? Is THIS what you are saying???

LARRY: No. God generates matter and energy from Infinite Substance. There is
no primal matter that God forms in the way of a Demiurge. Your mistake is in
the assumption that energy can only come from matter.

Mark here}     That "assumption" happens to be backed up with over a hundred years of intensive research. What, pray tell, have you to back up your religious nonsense, other than wishful thinking??? And as for "infinite substance", let me roll my pant legs up cause the BULLSHIT is starting to get deep.


Mark here}     YOU are confusing "power" with the word "authority".

LARRY: Look up the word "power" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and
read the accompanying article. You will see that the confusion is on your
side.

Mark here}     Oh here, let me pull said dictionary out of my ass... yes, there's the page, right there- it says you are a poo poo head. How about that? I guess I win.


MARK: A boy scout leader may have "great authority" in his local "I hate
Atheists and Gays" boy scout troop, but that does NOT mean he has great
"power" such as the power to destroy a world or rise from the dead.

LARRY: I think the Boy Scouts have a right to define themselves without
being accused of hate. Does the existence of your web page prove that you
hate theists? Cut 'em some slack.

Mark here}     At least the Girl Scouts have cookies, AND they don't hate Athiests.


MARK: What I said in my web essay is that the POWER and ENERGY Christianity
claims for its desert deities are without limits. I already quoted the
definition of omnipotence  from SIX world renowned dictionaries to show
this. If you disagree with these dictionaries, you are an arrogant idiot-
sorry. Go for yourself and look up the word omnipotence if you disagree with
me on this. I don't have to argue with you what is already clearly laid out
in the major dictionaries of the world.

LARRY: Your confusing Christianity with Islam. Muslims believe that Allah's
power is so absolute that he can actualize contradictions, and that the
moral law is completely arbitrary simply because God has the power to impose
it. This differs with Christianity, in that God is a law unto Himself.

Mark here}     Larry just doesn't like playing by the rules. He doesn't CARE what the dictionaries say. He doesn't CARE what the FACTS are damn it, he's already got his mind made up!!! I know I won't change your mind, but at least in this forum of a web page others can see the kind of intellectual BULLSHIT you Fundies try to pull, and usually get away with. 


As I've said before, "omnipotence" means the complete authority that God has
over His Creation. Again, your whole argument is based on the assumption
that energy can only come from mass. If you look at your "world renowned
dictionaries," I doubt that any of them will define God as posessing
material Substance, nor has God ever been defined that way by Christians,
NOR the Western Philosophical Tradition. Atheistic philosophers do not use
your E=mc2 argument for what should now be an obvious reason, it attacks a
physical God, not the God of the Bible.

MARK: Why don't YOU, instead, answer the following question- maybe the
problem is with your orthodoxy.

God is omnipotent.  ( X )True  (  )False

LARRY: I think by now the readers realize who knows what he is talking about
regarding orthodoxy. And sure, based on the Christian understanding of God,
he is omnipotent.

Mark here}     Then by dictionary DE-FI-NI-TION Biblegod has INFINITE ENERGY. I've already laid out the evidence, done the documentation, cited my sources. All you've done is say "No, you're wrong- naaaa". 


Mark here}     Science does NOT teach things for which there is no EVIDENCE.
  Science teaches that radio waves exist because even though they are
invisible to the naked eye, they are "visible" thru other means, and thus
there is evidence of their existence. Ditto for the stupid Christian
"argument" that "well, you can't SEE the wind but you know it exists"
routine.

LARRY: Actually, science does this sort of thing all the time. There was no
evidence for "phlogiston" or an "ether wind," but they both were postulated
to accomodate theories. Your understanding of the philosophy of science is
naive, to say the least. Let me recommend Kuhn's "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions". It is a classic in the field and will help you
understand how science REALLY works. Again, the existence of God can't be
likened to radio waves.

MARK: We have external, objective, repeatable verifiable EVIDENCE that LOTS
of invisible things exist, things like radio waves, brain thoughts, wind,
and might I dare say GLASS!!!!! Glass is invisible (at its best), yet we
know it exists NOT because some ancient contradictory book says so, but
because of the objective EVIDENCE.

LARRY: You just can't grasp the concept of Supernature, can you?

Mark here}     And you have trouble with the concept of REALITY, don't you? Realities like dictionaries, realities like facts, realities like science. You have trouble with reality when YOU don't like it, and try to distract people away from evidence that shows you're wrong.


MARK: Given that, dear Christian, what is YOUR external, objective,
repeatable & verifiable EVIDENCE that your invisible Biblegod exists
anywhere outside the dusty covers of a King James Bible????

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!!


LARRY: Well, let's see about that. Let me ask you some questions, first:

1. Why is the value of pi 3.1416.... and NOT 5.67 or 3 or some other value?

2. Why are there 3 primary colors?

3. Why are the Laws of Logic (Identity, Excluded Middle, etc.) true?

Mark here}   I noticed that for some strange reason, Larry decided to LEAVE OUT the following section of mine. After reading his hot air above, we know why. Larry has no good real evidence, just a bunch of tangled philosophical horseshit- "laws of logic" my ass- read about Elijah below (what Larry left out) and compare Elijah's "proof for the existence of God" with Larry's half-assed "proof" above. Elijah would zap Larry AND his "laws of logic" sorry excuse for evidence.

...What Larry Left Out...

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!!

All you have for evidence is what every other Christian geek intellectual has: hot air, and lots of it. Through long convoluted philosophical arguments that would try the patience of even Socrates and Aristotle, you try to brow-beat people into "believing", rather than  presenting EVIDENCE  for convincing.

You present no evidence because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. According to your book, you USED TO have evidence, LOTS of evidence, but I guess all that evidence got sunk on Noah's Ark or something, right??? 

According to your Bible, First Kings 18, Elijah got up on Mount Carmel and tried to talk the 450 priests of Baal into "believing" Biblegod exists using five points of clever intellectual argumentation developed by Dr. William Lane Craig. Oh wait, that is NOW, not back THEN. Back THEN, according to your Bible, the prophet Elijah didn't waste ONE WORD trying to argue the Baalites into "believing"- he called down FIRE FROM HEAVEN.  The lesson?  Fire = End of Argument. Yes, these were the "glory days" of Biblegod, ala Bruce Springsteen, when Biblegod could actually DO something.

Nowadays? All Biblegod's got is eggheads like you running around, trying to talk people into "believing" something they know deep down inside isn't so. I guess Biblegod's celestial Bic lighter just ran out of lighter fluid back around the time of Jesus, eh?? No more fire from heaven, just "five points of argumentation" from Bill Craig. What a sorry state of affairs- the "spirit of God" who used to move across the waters can now only produce hot air. 

No, Larry can't call fire down from heaven. All he can do is summon "a mighty wind" of hot air, talk about, speculate on, hope for, and sing and dance and cry about, his Biblegod. Modern Christians can't do SQUAT though, when it comes to actually PROVING their almighty Biblegod exists, and E=MC2  disproves THAT forever.

So Larry, since you refuse to grow out of believing shit you should have already outgrown, you want to PROVE your humbug Easter Bunny of a Biblegod exists? No, I don't mean make up your OWN criteria as to how to prove Biblegod, such as your "Why are the laws of logic true" crap. The "how to prove Biblegod" has already been laid out, in what's called the OLD TESTAMENT. It's that thing gathering dust on your bookshelf. I know, I know, you're bored with the book and would rather read philosophy. Too bad. Turn to 1st Kings 18. See an officially approved method of proving Biblegod. Go and do likewise- call fire down from heaven.

BUT- if you CAN'T do likewise, then shut the hell up.

 

 

 

MARK:All you have for evidence is what every other Christian geek
intellectual has: hot air, and lots of it. Through long convoluted
philosophical arguments that would try the patience of even Socrates and
Aristotle, you try to brow-beat people into "believing", rather than 
presenting EVIDENCE  for convincing.

LARRY: After being dazzled by your badinage, where is your evidence for the
non-existence of the Supernature?

Mark here}   Once again, I need to remind you: he who ASSERTS is the one who must PROVE. If you are the one advocating that little invisible pink unicorns live in your ass, YOU are the one under obligation to PROVE it, since you are the one who ASSERTED it. I am under no obligation whatsoever to DIS-prove. 

This is basic argumentation- something maybe you should take a class in sometime. It's why official debates have an AFFIRMATIVE and a NEGATIVE. One gets up and AFFIRMS via evidence that pink unicorns live in his ass, the other gets up and NEGATES the first man's evidence. He doesn't try to DISprove the proposition, he negates the evidence already presented. If you STILL can't see this PLEASE, go learn. It's not my job to try to teach you Christians basic thinking skills.


MARK: You present no evidence because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. According to
your book, you USED TO have evidence, LOTS of evidence, but I guess all that
evidence got sunk on Noah's Ark or something, right???

LARRY: Actually, I do, but I know how the game works. You bring up a
question. I answer it. Then you ask, "What about this?" I answer it. "Well,
what about this?" And so on. Let's just cut to the chase, shall we?

Your entire noetic structure relies on at least these presuppositions:

1. The material universe is all there is.
2. Sense evidence is generally reliable.
3. The existence of the universe is a brute fact.
4. The existence of Logic is a brute fact.
5. Causality is true.
6. The axioms of Geometry are true.
7. Other minds exist.

As we will see further on (I have no doubt!) you will be unable to give one
iota of evidence for ANY of those presuppositions!

Mark here}   Yes, here is where the Bahnsonian rep-Til-ian horseshit starts. Here is where Larry would like to derail this entire topic over to tracks he's overly familiar with, ruts worn deep in the road from him being stuck on the same little patch for so long. Sorry Larry, this is a "discussion" over my E=MC2 essay and I'm not going to allow it to degenerate into a forum for your philosophical nonsense. You might impress your fellow PhD fry cooks at Burger King with such sophistries, but not me. You either call down fire from heaven in an open and public contest like Elijah did on Mt. Carmel, or shut the hell up. Period. Those are your options. 

Elijah didn't argue anyone into believing Biblegod exists, he presented evidence within this "material universe." He presented "sense evidence" that the 450 prophets of Baal found "generally reliable" and  a "brute fact". Unless and until you can "go and do likewise", just stop with the Til crap.


Further, your whole webpage presupposes the existence of God, even as it
tries to deny Him.

MARK: All Biblegod's got is eggheads like you running around, trying to talk
people into "believing" something they know deep down inside isn't so.

LARRY: Hey, I thought you said you WEREN'T a mindreader! But I believed you
the first time. You have no idea of what's coming next.

Larry Gwaltney

Mark here}   "What's coming next" from you better be comments on E=MC2 or it's not taking up space on my web site. I refuse to let this degenerate into a forum for unemployed frustrated philosophers who are bored posting to their own geek web sites. 




Larry Gwaltney 5-2-03

 

Subj: Second Time 
Date: 5/2/03 9:23:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Mark:

I'm sending this version of my response in the text window in case you are
not able to open a Mac version of Word 98.

Larry




TO THE READER:

Well, if you’ve managed to wade through the discussion all the way to this
point, I have to congratulate you. Happily, though, I’m about to wrap up
this discussion before I move on to the next topic. My only request now is
that Mark will refrain from his usual “running commentary” and allow me to
present the argument against his “proof” in a concise and direct way. 

Mark here}   Nope, no can do. This is not a pulpit that Christians can ramble on and on and on without comment or criticism.  However... I DO have such a section set aside on my web site. It's called "Sound Off" and you can ramble on there just about all you want. You can try to save as many souls as you want, and all for the low cost of $100 a year.    Join SOUND OFF for $100  Of course, saving souls probably isn't worth $100 a year to you, so I doubt you'll sign up.

 

I suspect he does this to distract the reader so as to diminish the
effectiveness of his opponent’s arguments – it’s much like repeatedly
jumping up and interrupting a speaker as he makes a presentation. 

Mark here}   No, actually it's so the reader doesn't get to the end of the essay only to have totally forgotten whatever point you tried to make several pages ago. Besides, I always put my comments in red and indent them, so it's easy for die hard Fundies to skip over what the evil Atheist has to say, and concentrate on what the Christian has to say.

 

After my
wrap up he can make HIS final presentation and they’ll both stand or fall on
their respective merits.

This presentation will be done in 4 parts: Part I; the Burden of Proof; Part
II; Definition of Terms; Part III; Why Mark is Wrong, and Part IV; A Final
Challenge.

Part I – The Burden of Proof

Mark has made much of the fact that I haven’t provided any evidence for
God’s existence:

[ And by your same "logic" YOU have not disproved the existence of any Hindu
"supernatural" gods and indeed, by your own admission, CAN NOT even if you
WANTED to. You have already fallen into a pandora's box of your own making.
And by the way, another basic axiom of debating is: he who ASSERTS must
prove. That means if YOU are the one claiming these supernatural gods of
Hinduism exist, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on YOUR shoulders, not mine.
So far, Mr. Philosopher, you have broken TWO very basic axioms of debate:
·    Define your terms.
·    He who asserts must prove.
And THIS is how Christian philosophers try to win debates- by cheating. What
else is new!!!]


Aside from the problem of a malapropism

Mark here}   A WHAT? What the HELL is THAT? A "mal-la-pro-pism"??? Huh?? Already the bad influence of Bahnson reaches its cold clammy claws into Larry's brain, forcing him to write what few can understand.

 of “a Pandora’s Box of your own
making” (I believe he meant “hoist by your own petard”) Mark has a real
comprehension problem when it comes to argumentation. The fact of the matter
is that I DON’T HAVE TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE.

Mark here}   Of course not- after all, you're a Christian! Anything you say HAS to be true because... you're a Christian! It's only us evil Atheists that have to actually bother with things like EVIDENCE and FACTS and REALITY.

 


Mark’s article, after all, is the one making the assertion that he can
“prove” God’s non-existence.

Mark here}   Uhhh, if he would have paid better attention to my article, what I disPROVED was Biblegod's existence. I disproved the existence of a god with infinite powers. If you want to have lessor gods, like the Mormons do, be my guest. My essay doesn't cover those.

 

 At no time in our discussion did I ever say I
could prove the existence of God, and as Mark has pointed out, I haven’t
even quoted any Bible verses. The reason for this is not that I am “bored
with the book,” as he so quaintly puts it, but rather, I made a special
effort to critique his article in the way a radical skeptic, or even an
atheist philosopher, would. Once Mark knew I was a Christian he just made
some assumptions about the way I was going about my argument, even to the
point of assuming I was going Van Tillian on him. True, I have used some of
Van Til’s methods in questioning his presuppositions, but those methods are
hardly unique to Van Til – you see them all the time from Deconstructionists
and Postmodernist philosophers, few of which have any Christian commitments.
Rather, I’m using what is called a “Reformed Epistemological” approach, the
details of which aren’t pertinent to the discussion.

Keep this in mind, MY beliefs are not the issue here. Mark wrote his piece
long before he ever heard of me. His article claims it can prove the
non-existence of God, and it has to be judged ON THOSE TERMS ALONE, whether
anybody comes forward to prove the existence of God or not. And this is true
no matter how many calumnies Mark tosses my way.

Mark here}   At least I'm not tossing handfuls of poop, like those unchristian monkeys at the zoo.

 


Mark’s chief difficulty, one that he is trying to distract the reader from
discovering, is that he is trying to prove a universal negative. As an
example of this, it happens that I don’t believe in the existence of
extraterrestrial beings (mortal). Whenever I’ve been asked about this, my
response is along the lines of: “There is no evidence of extraterrestrial
intelligent life.” What I DON’T say categorically is: “THERE IS ABSOLUTELY
NO EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENT LIFE.”

You see, there’s a big difference between the two statements. The first one
regarding the use of evidence is relatively easy – we just have to evaluate
the purported testimonies and physical evidence and draw conclusions from
what we can examine.

The second statement, however, would require me to have personal knowledge
of the status of intelligent life in every star system in the physical
universe, which is ridiculous. And Mark is being ridiculous. His E=mc2
article doesn’t talk in terms of “probabilities” but is categorically
certain that the case for God’s non-existence is airtight.

Mark here}   My case against your fictional Biblegod IS airtight, and I don't need to go traveling all over the universe to find the proof. The proof is right in front of your nose. And what is that? I'll tell you what it is NOT: it is NOT "infinite energy" nor is it "infinite mass", and if either of those is not in front of your nose, THERE IS NO BIBLEGOD WITH INFINITE ENERGY. (And judging by the fact that he had to take a nappy-poo in Genesis after working for a week, I don't know if you guys ought to be claiming "infinite energy" for him anyway.)

 


So as Mark has said, “he who asserts must prove.”  The only assertion I’ve
made to date is that Mark’s argument is wrong. Next, let’s talk about
terminology.

Part II – Defining Terms

Mark’s argument against omnipotence is based on the notion that having
“infinite power” necessitates having “infinite energy.” When I commented
that no significant Christian creedal statement has ever described God as
“infinite energy,” but rather that God was defined as being transcendent,
standing apart from the physical universe, Mark had this to say:

[ Well, let's see. The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines the word Universe
thusly:

Universe:
1 [S] everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all
the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space

So, "everything that exists...". Well, "everything" would also include
NON-material items, such as energy, radio waves, TV signals traveling thru
the air and such. As for "defining him out of existence", hey, if the shoe
fits, wear it! I think it's time the rest of the world stops letting you
Fundies re-write the definitions any time you want.]

And here’s Mark’s response to my stating that dictionaries are not the most
authoritative source for determining philosophical and theological terms:

["Dictionaries are not the place to get... definitions" ??? As I previously
implied, Fundies have a problem with dictionaries. The reason for this is
because oft times their pretentious arguments can all be answered by just
cracking a dictionary open and reading. The first rule- the foundation of
ANY debate- and this is drummed into the head of any student who has taken
any sort of a rhetoric class, is this:† DEFINE YOUR TERMS.† Larry doesn't
like the definition of the word "universe" because it disproves a
theological theory ]

Mark is making a rather bizarre argument here. According to him, Christians
can't define God on their terms because the good folks at the Cambridge
Dictionary Online won't have it.

Mark here}   Larry, terms like "energy" and "infinite" and "universe" have not been patented by Christianity. Believe it or not, there is a bigger world out there than that of your religion. 


But while Mark has referred to me as a “typically dishonest Christian,” the
fact of the matter is that Mark hasn’t been straight with you, dear reader.
Here’s what the Cambridge Dictionary actually says in full:

Universe   noun
1 [S] everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all
the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space:
“Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?”

2 [C] a universe which could be imagined to exist outside our own:
“Scientists have speculated about the possibility of parallel universes.”

3 [S] the world, or the world that you are familiar with:
The characters in his novels inhabit a bleak and hopeless universe.
His family is his whole universe (= everything that is important to him).

Kindly note Definition 2. Mark’s infallible Cambridge Dictionary actually
describes the concept of the existence of universes transcending our own.
Who’d have thunk it?

Mark here}   Maybe you forgot to notice the word "speculate" in definition #2 ??? I might speculate about 19 women awaiting martyrs in heaven- that doesn't make it TRUE. And did you also notice that definition #2 is... definition #2 ??? I gave the PRIMARY definition.

And just to show you that I DON'T hide from the truth, I'm going to tell you something that apparently you haven't run into yet. Check out the latest issue of Scientific American- it has a big story on... Parallel Universes! Now, if I was trying to dishonestly slant things, would I have told you that?  Of course, these are different than the proposed "transcendent" La La land of the Christians  (see my Transcendental La La Land   )  as there is actually evidence and theory that these universes may help explain. It's not just pure horseshit, er, I mean speculation, er, I mean... theology.


Mark’s problem is that he sees all the key words in his arguments as having
univocal, or ONE meaning. He was arguing that God couldn’t transcend the
universe because the word “universe” disallowed it. Of course, it’s easy to
prove arguments, even bad ones like Mark’s, if you’re allowed to restrict
the opposing side to YOUR definitions.

Since Mark believes that dictionaries are an infallible source to determine
meaning, let’s look at some other key terms. This one is from
Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: tran-scen-dent
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin transcendent-, transcendens, present participle of
transcendere
Date: 1598
1 a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING b : extending or lying beyond the
limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the
limits of all possible experience and knowledge

2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence
-

Please note Definition 3. Ohhhh, Mark! How COULD you have been SO wrong?

Mark here}   I don't know. I sort of like the parts I yellowed in. What that means is EVEN IF there is such a la la land, you would have no knowledge or comprehension about it. But you do- so I guess it's not the REAL la la land.

 


Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'god also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in
power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the
universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over
all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and
powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a
particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Note Definition 1A in which God is defined as “creator and ruler of the
universe.” And obviously, if God created the universe, he transcends it.
Look, Mark! The infallible dictionary says God exists! Repent now!

Mark here}   Some people imagine your god to be a part of this universe- living in space and time. Others imagine him to BE the universe- the rocks, trees, air etc. And then there are those like you, that imagine him living in a whole different zip code: 90210 La La Land. Sounds to me like your god is lost!


Now that we’ve shown you Mark’s deceptive techniques, let��s actually look at
his argument, and see in detail why he is wrong.

Part III – Why Mark is Wrong

Is essence, Mark’s argument is this: According to Einstein, Matter and
Energy are in essence different forms of the same “thing.” If it were
possible to release all the energy locked up in a chunk of matter, the ratio
of energy to matter would be thus: Energy = Mass times the Speed of Light
squared. (the way the H-bomb works).

Christians define God as “omnipotent.”

“Omnipotent” means having infinite energy.

Mark here}   Well, yes, that's what the word "omnipotent" means. If you want a god with less energy, it can't be Biblegod.


But to have Infinite Energy, you would have to have Infinite Mass.

Mark here}   No, that's not what I wrote. What I wrote was "things" in our universe exist either as mass or energy. IF you have an infinite source of energy, you'd be dead. Ditto for mass. Therefore, there can't be infinite either of them.


If God had Infinite Mass, he would fill the entire Universe.

God does not fill the entire Universe.

Therefore, God does not have Infinite Energy. He is not omnipotent.

OK, that’s the argument in a nutshell. Now, for this argument to work, Mark
has to make the following presuppositions about God:

1.    God is “inside the box” in that he is part of the Universe, not
transcendent to it.

Mark here}   As soon as he stuck his little toe in MY universe, he being of infinite in energy would have destroyed my universe.


2.    God, in order to manifest ANY energy at all, would have to have mass.

Mark here}   No.....


3.    The word “power” as it relates to “omnipotent” is univocal and can ONLY
mean “energy.”
4.    God is not the Creator of the Universe and its Laws, if He exists at all
he is SUBJECT to the physical laws of the universe.

Mark here}   Your Biblegod does not appear to be subject to ANY laws- moral, ethical, or even the laws of reality. He is like a cosmic tyrant.


As it pertains to Mark’s presuppositions, here is how Christianity describes
God:

Mark here}   No, this is how LARRY describes Biblegod.


1.    God transcends the Universe, he is not “inside the box.”
2.    God is the Creator of the Universe and everything in it, all matter and
all energy. He is incorporeal and creates “ex nihilo,” which means out of
nothing, no preexisting materials, etc.
3.    God’s omnipotence doesn’t mean he “has energy,” it means he can create it
by a word alone. And the word “omnipotence” has primary application to His
authority over all things.
4.    All things are subject to the Creator-God. He created all things and all
physical laws, and He is subject to none of them.

 


Quite a difference, isn’t it? Now remember, the issue isn’t whether or not
Mark BELIVES the Christian definition, he has claimed to DISPROVE the
Christian definition.

But as most of you have probably already realized, the reason Mark’s
argument ends up with a less-than omnipotent God is because THAT’S WHERE HE
STARTED HIS ARGUMENT. If you assume the conclusion of your argument at the
beginning of your argument, you’ll ALWAYS end up “proving” whatever you set
out to prove, but there’s no reason why you or anybody else should be
impressed by such crude sleight-of-hand.

Mark pulled out his “univocal” argument with the word “power” as well,
insisting that it could only mean “energy” and that thusly, Christians were
stuck with a physical God. Yes, I know Mark doesn’t make any sense, but
here’s the definition of “power” from Mark’s infallible source, the
dictionary:

Main Entry: 1pow-er
Pronunciation: 'pau(-&)r
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French poeir, from poeir to be able,
from (assumed) Vulgar Latin pot-re, alteration of Latin posse -- more at
POTENT
Date: 13th century
1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get
extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect
b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right
2 a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others b : one
having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c : a controlling group
: ESTABLISHMENT -- often used in the phrase the powers that be d archaic : a
force of armed men e chiefly dialect : a large number or quantity
3 a : physical might b : mental or moral efficacy c : political control or
influence
4 plural : an order of angels -- see CELESTIAL HIERARCHY
5 a : the number of times as indicated by an exponent that a number occurs
as a factor in a product; also : the product itself b : CARDINAL NUMBER 2
6 a : a source or means of supplying energy; especially : ELECTRICITY b :
MOTIVE POWER c : the time rate at which work is done or energy emitted or
transferred
7 : MAGNIFICATION 2b
8 : 1SCOPE 3
9 : the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis in a statistical test
when a particular alternative hypothesis happens to be true
synonyms POWER, AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, CONTROL, COMMAND, SWAY, DOMINION
mean the right to govern or rule or determine. POWER implies possession of
ability to wield force, permissive authority, or substantial influence <the
power to mold public opinion>. AUTHORITY implies the granting of power for a
specific purpose within specified limits <gave her attorney the authority to
manage her estate>. JURISDICTION applies to official power exercised within
prescribed limits <the bureau having jurisdiction over alcohol and
firearms>. CONTROL stresses the power to direct and restrain <you are
responsible for the students under your control>. COMMAND implies the power
to make arbitrary decisions and compel obedience <the army officer in
command>. SWAY suggests the extent or scope of exercised power or influence
<an empire that extended its sway over the known world>. DOMINION stresses
sovereign power or supreme authority <given dominion over all the animals>.
synonyms POWER, FORCE, ENERGY, STRENGTH, MIGHT mean the ability to exert
effort. POWER may imply latent or exerted physical, mental, or spiritual
ability to act or be acted upon <the awesome power of flowing water>. FORCE
implies the actual effective exercise of power <used enough force to push
the door open>. ENERGY applies to power expended or capable of being
transformed into work . STRENGTH applies to
the quality or property of a person or thing that makes possible the
exertion of force or the withstanding of strain, pressure, or attack <use
weight training to build your strength>. MIGHT implies great or overwhelming
power or strength <the belief that might makes right>.

Uh, Mark, is it OK for me to suggest that maybe it’s OK if Christians think
of the word “power” as having more than the connotation of mere “energy?” I
mean, is that OK? I found it in your source of infallibility, after all.

Mark here}   Larry, if you want to admit that YOUR version of Biblegod is of a being of LIMITED power / energy / muscle, just say so. That seems to be what you're getting at.

 


Part IV – A Challenge for Mark

Mark has claimed that for me to prove God’s existence (which I wasn’t trying
to do, but never mind) I should be able to call down fire from heaven;


[According to your Bible, First Kings 18, Elijah got up on Mount Carmel and
tried to talk the 450 priests of Baal into "believing" Biblegod exists using
five points of clever intellectual argumentation developed by Dr. William
Lane Craig. Oh wait, that is NOW, not back THEN. Back THEN, according to
your Bible, the prophet Elijah didn't waste ONE WORD trying to argue the
Baalites into "believing"- he called down FIRE FROM HEAVEN.† The lesson?†
Fire = End of Argument. Yes, these were the "glory days" of Biblegod, ala
Bruce Springsteen, when Biblegod could actually DO something.
Nowadays? All Biblegod's got is eggheads like you running around, trying to
talk people into "believing" something they know deep down inside isn't so.
I guess Biblegod's celestial Bic lighter just ran out of lighter fluid back
around the time of Jesus, eh?? No more fire from heaven, just "five points
of argumentation" from Bill Craig. What a sorry state of affairs- the
"spirit of God" who used to move across the waters can now only produce hot
air.†
No, Larry can't call fire down from heaven. All he can do is summon "a
mighty wind" of hot air, talk about, speculate on, hope for, and sing and
dance and cry about, his Biblegod. Modern Christians can't†do SQUAT though,
when it comes to actually PROVING their almighty Biblegod exists, and E=MC2†
disproves THAT forever.
So Larry, since you refuse to grow out of believing shit you should have
already outgrown, you want to PROVE your humbug Easter Bunny of a Biblegod
exists? No, I don't mean make up your OWN criteria as to how to prove
Biblegod, such as your "Why are the laws of logic true" crap. The "how to
prove Biblegod" has already been laid out, in what's called the OLD
TESTAMENT. It's that thing gathering dust on your bookshelf. I know, I know,
you're bored with the book and would rather read philosophy. Too bad. Turn
to 1st Kings 18. See an officially approved method of proving Biblegod. Go
and do likewise- call fire down from heaven.
BUT- if you CAN'T do likewise, then shut the hell up.]


I thought this sort of thing went out with Ingersoll. Mark, did your high
school English teacher teach you to write like this? And who was he, Mickey
Spillane?  F. Scott Fitzgerald, you’re not.

But seriously, AGAIN, the burden of proof is not on me, I never claimed to
be God’s suzerin-vassal covenant prosecutor, I do not hold the office of
Prophet, and have never claimed that God is at my beck and call.

Mark here}   Ahhhh... notice, once again, he fails to produce so much as a cosmic fart from his Biblegod up in heaven, much less FIRE from heaven. Why not just do the fire schtick and be done with it? Why bother spending 8 years in college to get a PhD to talk people into believing something, when a simple 5 minute miracle would do the trick?? Would it be because there IS no god up there to send the "fire from heaven"???

 


But I DO have a challenge for YOU, Mark.

Think about it. If Mark’s argument is valid, then he has solved one of the
Great Problems of Philosophy, a solution that has eluded the greatest
intellects of the Western World. And I do mean ALL of them, even before
Einstein gave us his equation. (After all, even the ancients knew you would
have to have a forest of infinite size to have a fire of infinite size).

Think of it. The greatest minds in Western intellectual history: Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Hegel, Kant……and finally the
greatest of them all – MARK SMITH! Who has proven the non-existence of God
with formulaic certainty!!!

I see on your website that you are soliciting financial contributions, Mark.
My question is, why do you have to do it at all? You, the author of one of
the greatest philosophical proofs of all time! I mean, it really beats the
hell out of that A, E, I, O and Square of Opposition crap that that piker
Aristotle pumped out.

No, Mark. Languishing in anonymity is not for you. So, I have a proposal.

Since your E=mc2 argument is undoubtedly the greatest Philosophical Wonder
of the Age, you have to share it with the world. Especially the academic
world. So here’s what I’m thinking.

Submit your E=mc2 paper to the American Journal of Philosophical Inquiry
(University of Illinois). Or, perhaps the Harvard Theological Review. If
your argument is everything you claim it to be, there’s NO DOUBT they’ll
publish it! After that, your book contract will follow, you’ll be on the
cover of Time and Newsweek, and I���ll make a public apology right here on
your webpage. And you’ll never have to worry about soliciting funds for your
little atheist project again.

Of course, I have to admit, I just don’t see that happening. What will
happen is that you’ll get polite little rejection letters from every
philosophical and theological journal you send it to. And if they bother to
tell you why they rejected it, their remarks are going to look a lot like
the ones here.

Or more likely, in your response you’ll pull some Rumplestiltskin tantrum
and claim that “you don’t play games, won’t be dictated to by the likes of
you, etc.” And you’ll never submit your paper at all.

At one point I asked Mark (actually, twice!) why none of the greatest minds
in 20th century Physics ever saw the implications in E=mc2 that he does.
Here was his response:


[And did I avoid your question? No, I already answered it- like I said (and
please pay attention this time): I† AM† NOT† A† FRIGGIN† MIND† READER. "Why"
somebody did or didn't do whatever is beyond our ability.]

Not beyond MY ability Mark. Want to know why your argument never occurred to
Einstien?

YOU’RE WRONG.

Mark here}   And the thought of joining CS Lewis in pushing your brand of religion never occurred to Einstein neither. Neither did it occur to him to join the Baptist, Methodist, or Four Square church, or several dozen other churches. So by your SAME logic, all of those churches must BE WRONG!!!

 


 

N Linus 6-23-03

Subj: Relativity Debunked 
Date: 6/23/03 2:34:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
Reply-to:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Science is a structure of beliefs just the same as
religion.  

Mark here}   This proves up front you know nothing about either. Science conducts actual experiments subject to peer review. If a scientist in California can't conduct the same experiment and get the same results as a scientist in France claims to have gotten, the French scientist' conclusions are rejected. Let me see the same thing happen in religion. Jesus said anything you pray for, you can get. That's one of his theories. I have yet to see ANYone prove it. Jesus may as well have claimed a perpetual motion machine. For you to equate how religion operates with how science operates pulls the rug out of your credibility. Why don't you crawl back into your tunnel and grovel at your god's little toe???

The major difference is that God cannot be
disproven.  

Mark here}   It's nice you admit your bias and closed-mindedness up front. I should end my commentary here, as it serves no purpose.

You can claim that there is no God until
the end of your days but what will that produce except
a lot of wasted time.  People who avidly try to
disprove the existence of God must have a deep desire
for someone to prove them wrong because otherwise the
argument is completely futile.

Mark here}   So what of people who try to disprove those who try to disprove your imaginary friends- they must be a greater degree of losers than even the geek Christians, eh???

  What does anyone have
to gain from the proof that God does not exist?
Nothing.  There is only loss. Why take up an argument
you can never win?

But when it comes to your theory of relativity
argument you should check out this web site:
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/RelativityDebunked.html

Mark here}   Oh, so what you're implying is that science should always be willing to look at new ideas, and discard old obsolete ones when proven false? If only you religionists would carry that logic over to your religious lives!!!


The above site gives a very good argument against
Einstein's Special Theory of Relitivity. All
scientific theories or even "facts" are subject to
constant debate.

Mark here}   As so should all religious "facts" be subject to verification, and not just some guy taken at his word. Just because some guy named Jesus says that any who believe in him will never die, doesn't make it so. Where are the experiments to back it up???

 

 


idontthinkuheard 8-8-03

Subj: E=MC2 
Date: 8/8/03 5:53:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Hello, I saw your E = MC2 theory from
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm

I was thinking about it and...

1. God has no mass therefore.. there for "ENERGY
and/or MASS go to infinity. WHICH IS ABSURD AND
IMPOSSIBLE, and which we DON'T see in our universe."

Could actually happen. i.e. Gods emergy could go to
infinity w/o mass going to infinity... which would, in
your calculations, still allow E=MC2 to be true and
not disprove the existance of God.

Mark here}      Energy has NOT gone to infinity ANYwhere, and our existence is proof positive of that. The instant it ever does, we and the universe as we know it will cease to exist. Notice I said "and/or" so even energy gone to infinite could fry our brains and bodies.

 


2. God is outside of the constrains of our physical 12
deminsional universe. Height, width, length, time,
etc. The only time he choose to abide by the physical
deminsionality "rules" was as Jesus Christ (which is
God incarnate). Even then He (Jesus Christ) choose to
bend the rules of our physical dementionality.

Mark here} So what you are admitting is that Biblegod is 100% beyond any chance of ever being proven- so that puts Biblegod on the same level as any other fictional being. Thank you for your admission. As for Jesus, IF Jesus was Biblegod, and therefore infinite, he existed within our physical universe, which removes the bullshit "transcendental la la land" excuse. You xtians want it both ways- you claim to PROVE your Biblegod's existence AND you claim that no one can PROVE your Biblegod's existence because he is 100% beyond detection. Which is it??? You can't have it both ways.

And oh, by the way, how the hell do a few parlor tricks (walking on water or burning a bush) prove that the magician doing them was THE most powerful being in the universe AND has eternal life??? Please, I'm dying to know.  "Walk on water = proof that Jesus IS the Lord God almighty ruler of the universe." Please, explain how your conclusion flows from the claims???



That is all, just thought I would drop you a note.
Take care.

 

 


 

Chris  7-18-04

 

Subject: E=MC^2
Date: 7/18/2004 12:12:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: ragingfatman@yahoo.com
Reply To:
To: jcnot4me@aol.com

 

Here are some things you should consider, which are all different theories that could work but have nothing to do with each other:

1. God is not part of this universe. He created everything in it, including the concept of matter and energy, but He does not follow under the same constraints that matter and energy do. Being a programmer-in-training, it's as if He put a certain amount of matter and energy into a program, but every once and a while, he can use a special command to alter the universe and insert energy or change the matter inside of it. He can use this command as much as he wants to.

Mark here}      Then as long as he stays OUT of the Universe, there may be no problem. However, as soon as even his infinitely powered little toe gets stuck into even a corner of our universe, we would cease to exist. Therefore, you are left with a do-nothing god, which is NOT the nosey god of the Bible.



2. The universe is one big (really big) 4-dimensional (or more) equation that God invented. For example, in a game I play (Tribes 2), there is no "edge of the map". You can continue to fly forever, because the equation that creates the landscape never ends, and the ground is not just tiled. By this theory, there IS infinite mass.
 

Mark here}      As long as there is any empty space, there is no infinite mass. Sorry.


3. God controls everything in this universe. In a sense, his power is finite, assuming that the second theory is false, but because he controlls everything that is in existance, He has what might as well be infinite power. If the universe were composed of 10 marbles, and I controlled all 10 of them to the utmost degree, you would say that I have infinite power in the realm of that universe. If I controlled 8 of them and you controlled 2 of them, I would have limited power, because certain things were out of my control. Under this theory, to say that "there is no limit to His power" simply means that there is nothing in this universe that is out of His control.
 

Mark here}      YOU are saying that there is a limit to Biblegod's power. That is not what the xtians claim. Sorry. What you are claiming is a god like the Mormon's have: a limited deity.


I think I have a few more ways that it could work, but I can't think of any of the rest of them. It's funny, I was thinking about that 3rd one just the other day... coincidence? I think not; not in the realm of my omnipotent God.


From,
Chris


Chris 7-27-04

Subject: Re: E=MC^2
Date: 7/27/2004 3:56:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
 

What you say is only partially true of my statements. What I'm saying is that there are still ways that God could comply with E=MC^2, and therefore you can't simply dismiss Him as invalid and impossible. Going by what you just said about my theories, your argument, too, gets tossed out the window. "Wouldn't it be nice if..." (from your previous email) God didn't exist? That is, by your standards, the sum of your arguments posted on the website.

And in response to the only one of your earlier comments that I remember ("As long as there is empty space there can't be infinite matter"), you have proven yourself not to know much math (no offense, still... it's hard, but I'm doing my best). Infinite sets can be smaller or larger than each other. For example, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5..." is smaller than "1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3..." because it can be contained within the second set. If you had what you considered a universe of infinite mass (no empty space), that would essentially just be a set where the increment is the smallest possible decimal place (ie, "1, 1.000000000000000000000000001..."). If the universe were the infinite set of integers, just for the sake of example, it would be smaller than your infinite universe, but it would still be infinite. Also, you have to consider that they think the universe is filled with dark matter and dark energy (actually, I think they know that it is, but I haven't seen anything confirming this).

Mark here}      In saying there is not infinite matter in the universe, we are dealing with something tangible, something you could "grab in your hands". We are NOT dealing with a set of numbers which exist only within the thoughts of humans. Yes, there can be infinite numbers between ONE and TWO. And yes, there can be an infinite number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. But no, there IS not an infinite amount of mass in the universe, and it doesn't take an Einstein to realize this. The fact that you even are able to exist proves this beyond all doubt, so stop being just plain stupid, ok???



My point is that you really aren't giving much thought to what I have to say. You are just trying to fulfill your little plan of convincing people that God doesn't exist. Design requires a designer, and the universe couldn't have started moving w/o an object that is outside the universe or one that does not follow the universe's rules, and so that at least is evidence of a creator (not necessarily the Christian God).

Mark here}      I already covered your point about being "outside the universe". Why are you pretending you didn't read my point? (Oh, I forgot- I'm dealing with an xtian, and xtians are notorious for not reading what people send to them. Sorry.)



I'll just leave it at that. If I can convince you that there is at least a god/creator in the universe, that's step one. Also, I want to apologize for the part of "cutting off communication" or whatever it was that I said in an earlier email. It's not a Christian's duty to be arrogant (although that is one of the places they fail most often). I hope we can keep in touch, because I think I am beginning to see a bit more from your perspective, and I think I can help.


From,
Chris
"If life hands you a melon, life is dislexic." -myself


Chris 8-17-04

 

Subject: Re: E=MC^2 Response
Date: 8/17/2004 1:15:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

 

K, thanks.  I was just wondering about your friend (natesomethingorother@aol.com) and why you chose to have him attempt to chew me out... 

Mark here}      I don't control who responds to what emails I put in these Responses sections. If other people think you're being ignorant, maybe it has something to do with what they read you wrote here. Try not being so ignorant!

 

He said something about me not understanding simple arguments, but I think he just reiterated what I've been trying to say.  Many of your arguments against the Bible truly are simple, but in the context of the Bible (which is your evidence against Christianity much of the time), God is not simple at all, as "God's weakness is strong compared to us" or something along those lines.

 
I will admit that your arguments make a good bit of sense, but in the context of what we're dealing with, they are a bit too basic.  Most prominent in my mind is the taking of "booty" issue that came up a while ago.  If any normal person came up to me and said to take over the city and save only the virgins, I would think him a sick pervert; however, if God directly asked me to do so, I would know that I could not possibly comprehend all the reasons why.

Mark here}      So YOUR gods get a "blank moral check" to do whatever the hell they want, but if OTHER gods did likewise, you'd denounce them- like the Mormon gods, wouldn't you?  (HINT:  look up the word "hypocrite". Christians seem to have forgotten its definition.)

  For one thing, God did not always condone the things that he allowed the Israelites/Hebrews to do.  Some of the things he allowed because it would not be possible for them to obey Him otherwise, such as allowing for the divorcing of wives (which was allowed because of the "hardness of their hearts").

 
I just wanted to let you know that I don't think you're a moron: you're far from it.  You just need to look beyond where you are right now.


From,
00011 01000 10010 01001 10011
( C H R I S )

 

 

 

 


Hugo  7-21-04

Subject: I should add...
Date: 7/21/2004 9:41:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
 

I consider myself, at the moment, more unbiased in the topic of Atheism
vs Christianity than either Atheists or Christians, due to my
indecisiveness (I find much atheistic writings regarding the matter to
be written from a "worldly" viewpoint, actually not even considering the
possibility of a god of some sort existing - in my opinion a similar
problem to the problems with Christians' writings). The page that urged
me write this second email is:

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm

This "disproves" God's existance by first putting God in a box, and then
proving the box cannot exist, instead of taking the viewpoint that,
should God exist, he is not in a box. Being a creator of the universe,
you'd be the creator of time as well (being the fourth dimention, and
explaining why the "What happened *before* the big bang" is an invalid
question since there is no concept of *before* without a concept of
*time*).
 

Mark here}      The only "box" that Biblegod gets put into by my essay is that of the reality: the universe- the ONLY universe we can be sure of. There may very well be "other" universes out there, and they may have IPU's (invisible pink unicorns) as their gods- but we don't KNOW. All we know is OUR universe, and in OUR universe, there is no room for Biblegod.


So place the God that potentially exists, outside the universe, with an
overall view into all places, not just in three dimentional space, but
in four dimentional space-time, and able to break the rules that he
supposedly created himself
...

Mark here}      IF Biblegod is able to break any and all "laws of the universe" then modern science is a joke, and we can truly know nothing. Science depends on repeatibility- on the "rules" being followed. IF what you speculate were true, any and all physical laws may change at random without notice. Gravity might cease, the sun might freeze, and the Clippers could win the NBA playoffs- do you SEE what kind of chaos an outlaw god would produce? But then... you're just speculating. Albert's "theory" has already been proven each time a nuke goes off.

 

I think of it in parallels, if I were to
create an artificial world on my computer, in software, I could
interfere in whatever manner I'd like
, since I can change the code that
defines the rules, and I can alter the memory directly with my hex
editor... (However, it would mostly be more fun to "intervene", should I
want to, acting within the rules set down by myself. Know what I mean?)
 

Mark here}      You mean sort of like the way Biblegod did with poor Job in the Old Testament??? Just allow Satan to come down and mess with someone's life. Your god would be totally untrustworthy then, not deserving the love and worship of Christians.


For unbiased articles, this should be the God who's existance one should
be considering... Well, that's my opinion, and the viewpoint from which
I am keen to discuss the matter with whichever (thinking) person is keen
to do so.

Regards,
Hugo

 


Hugo 7-28-04

Subject: Re: I should add...
Date: 7/28/2004 8:00:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: 
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
 

> Hey Hugo;
> My reply will be up on the web site soon, in the Responses section in the 
> Einstein essay.
 


I just checked out your response. Also noticed that I should probably
also read the whole responses section, before posting something, as many
topics have already been discussed.
Still, in response to your response
to my previous email:

Mark here}      No, you shouldn't. If you are a Christian you know everything already and there's no need to do this- at least that's the impression I get from the way most xtians DON'T read anything I've written before pronouncing me wrong. Christians routinely email me with things that have already be covered a hundred times. In fact, that's why some Atheist web sites no longer even accept emails- Christians seem to want to rush off an email before they engage their brain or actually (heaven forbid!!!) do some studying, so these sites get flooded with innane and stupid emails.



Note that Einstein's theory has not been "proven". No theory is ever
proven, according to Karl Popper's views of science. A scientific
theory, is a theory that is "falsifiable". No matter how many times
things do go according to the theory, it cannot be taken as fact. What
distinguishes it from "non-sciences" like astrology (and religion?) is
that scientific theory states "if you were to witness xyzzy, then this
theory has been proven false".
 

Mark here}      How about that! You just almost apologized for responding before reading what you're responding to, and here you go again! This point's already been covered in my original essay and... guess what? I'm going to make you actually WORK for the answer. Go find it yourself.


I think most Christians do believe that God can break any "rules of
science". That would mean that all theories can thus be "disproven" by,
lets call it "divine intervention", or miracles, for that matter. I
don't think that would decrease the usefulness of scientific theory.
(In fact, we still accomplish many things by Newton's laws, even though
Newton's laws were incorrect, and superceded by general relativity.)

To summarise, you did agree that you placed God in the box that is our
universe
. The article is written with that as an "axiom", I suppose?
This is what I was touching on in my previous email: I therefore still
consider this article biased. While there is nothing inherrently wrong
with being biased when writing an article with a purpose, this article
and many other atheistic writings are not satisfying to my mind, due to
this bias.
 

Mark here}      You Christians place him inside that same box, or what the hell was that Jesus guy 2,000 years ago? That DID take place within our universe, "inside the box that is our universe", did it not???


The article firstly assumes that God is inside the box that is our
universe,
i.e. you assume God is not the creator, then the article
continues to prove that he cannot exist. This is proof by assumption.
First assume what you want to prove, then use that assumption in your
proof -> an invalid proof, thus.
 

Mark here}      The universe being defined by "everything there is", if you postulate a god who IS, he becomes part of that universe BY DEFINITION. Why do you xtians have such a hard time with this? This is not rocket science.


I suppose I am touching on "it is impossible to prove or disprove the
existance of God". All I'm pointing out though, is why the article is
not at all convincing to me. (The fact that the Old Testament still
really freaks me out, is not relevant right now. There's the case of two
people falling down dead for lying in Acts too, which I feel shows
there's still some of the "Old Testament spirit" in the New Testament.
)
 

Mark here}      You are correct- like the old saying about a leopard not changing its spots. Go look at my comparison of Joe Hovah of the OT being like Freddy Krugar, and Jesus like Mr. Rogers}

Just Say No


Thanks,
Hugo

(For the curious, Wikipedia Karl Popper entry can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)
 


Hugo 8-20-04

Subject: hmm... just a little comment on a comment of yours
Date: 8/20/2004 7:37:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

"""But anyway, infinite matter would not exist if there were even one
square inch of nothingness in an infinite universe, for that could also
be filled with matter, meaning that matter had not yet reached
infinity."""

Unless your words are not clear, you have the idea of infinite a little
warped. Makes me curious, what's your academic background? (What field
of work are you in?) Any formal maths education after school? (I'm in
electronic engineering, busy with my masters in digital signal
processing.)

If you had an infinite universe, you could have an infinite amount of
matter as well as an infinite amount of void in it.

Regarding the nature of infinite: there are an infinite number of
integers, there are an infinite number of real numbers. There are the
same number of "squares" (1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, etc) as integers, and the
same number of integers as rational numbers too. There are, however,
more irrational numbers than rational numbers. (Irrational numbers are
numbers that cannot be written as a rational fraction: an integer
divided by another.)
 

Mark here}      I'm not dealing with numbers, but with real rock-hard objects you can hold in your hand. It's you Christians that postulate a being with INFINITE energy. You go figure out how you can fit that into our REAL universe.


The last statement's proof I'll have to dig up again somewhere, I still
have a vague recollection of the proof, but it will take too much time
to figure it out on my own again. The previous statements' proofs are
much simpler, and merely involves figuring out a way of paring all
"squares" one and exactly one rational number, and vice versa.

This is not material for the web site, it's just interesting facts.
 

Mark here}      Hugo- seeing how you IGNORED just about ALL of my points I brought up to you last time, I'm just going to follow your example and ignore all of YOUR points.

 


Regards,
Hugo
 


Wayne Rhodes  8-21-04

Subject: regarding E=MC squared...
Date: 8/21/2004 5:44:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

i really enjoyed reading your article on the theory of relativity and how that disproves the christian god.

while i dont happen to believe in the christian god, i nevertheless, found potential fault in your logic.

you start out systematically and logically proving your point.

then at the very end, using the equation to disprove infinity you merely say

"WHICH IS ABSURD AND IMPOSSIBLE, and which we DON'T see in our universe."
your argument for how absurd this is based on the big bang THEORY.

you also assume that god exists within the context of his creation (i.e. "the universe"), which to me, seems to defy rational logic.

if god exists, how can he be contained within the very universe he created. it would seem logical that the creator must stand outside the context of his creation, and therefore not be contained within the context of the universe.
 

Mark here}      Some Christians postulate a god within the box, others outside the box, but ALL Christians agree on this: that Jesus was definitely IN the box when he walked on the earth. And as most Christians teach that Jesus = Biblegod, therefore Biblegod was IN the box. If you are NOT a Christian, there are plenty of times in the Old Testament where Biblegod had interaction with and within our universe, and as soon as you put an INFINITE energy source like Biblegod into our universe, you'll get the results mentioned in my essay. We don't see that, it's never happened in history either, therefore Biblegod can't exist.


i have my own theories and opinions on this matter, and since they are only that, they are not absolute.

however, to disprove an infinite god by starting with the assumption that he must exist within the context of the universe with which he created seems as absurd as the arguments that you seek to disprove.
 

Mark here}      As mentioned previously, whether he's IN or OUT of the box at this moment, at some points in history the Bible clearly claims he was dabbling around within our universe. That whole argument that he's not in the universe is irrelevant.


respectfully,

wayne
 


Wayne Rhodes 9-9-04

Subject: Re: regarding E=MC squared...
Date: 9/9/2004 5:53:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

 

hi Mark,
 
after digging around, i think i found your answer:
 
"Mark here}      The universe being defined by "everything there is", if you postulate a god who IS, he becomes part of that universe BY DEFINITION. Why do you xtians have such a hard time with this? This is not rocket science."
 
i have no problem with that definition other than the fact that it precludes any possibility that god actually could exist.
 
doesnt it intuitively make sense that if god created the universe, he therefore does not exist within it?

Mark Smith here}     Quite the opposite- IF the universe is "EVERYthing there is", and Biblegod is SOMEthing, then by definition Biblegod was, is, and always will be a part of the universe- a part of "everything that is."

 

 
also, if god does exist, doesnt it kinda make sense that he would not be subject to the laws of the universe, since he created them in the first place?

Mark Smith here}     This is a debate that has gone on for CENTURIES. The Greeks were having this debate centuries before Jesus even pooped his own diaper as a baby. There are excellent arguments and ramifications on both sides of this issue, and the entire problem is solved thusly: there ARE no gods, so any and all arguments trying to detail how imaginary gods operate are as fruitless as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As far as xtians, this debate was already decided for them when Jesus (their CEO and founder) commanded them to "be ye perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect." Therefore, IF Biblegod is totally outside the laws of the universe, so are xtians.

 

 
i mean, if he is subject to the laws of the universe, then the implication can easily be made he isnt god.
 
said another way, if god cannot exist outside the context of his creation and apart from its laws, then he isnt god at all.
 
so to accept your assumption is to preclude any possibility of god.
 
again, i really enjoyed your site, and am not a christian.   i just enjoy intelligent, thought provoking people such as yourself.
 
-- wayne

 

 


Shane Reed 9-24-04

 

Subject: your E=MC^2 argument is for lack of a better term complete crap
Date: 9/24/2004 5:25:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

Physics 101 

 

Force = Mass * Acceleration = electric charge * electric field (units of Newtons, Lbs …)

Energy = Force applied over a distance = electric charge * Voltage (units of joules, calories….)  

Power = Energy/time = Voltage * Current (units of Watts, Horsepower…..)

 

 

Where did the above equations and relationships come from? (this is rhetorical so don’t answer it)

They came from people like Isaac Newton who observed natural phenomena and developed mathematical models to explain the things they observed. And they were developed AFTER the bible was written.  But regardless I will run with your illogical proposition of comparing god to man made formulas because it’s wrong as well. Your taking what the bible says of god being all “powerful” and comparing it to all energy which as you say is finite. So in order to correct your comparison between what the bible says god is (power) and energy you actually have to include the variable time.

 

POWER = ENERGY / TIME

 

Mark Smith here}     You are trying to make a distinction between Power and Energy that theologians and the Bible do not make. To show they don't make this distinction, I gave the following example in my essay:

 Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Leeds in England, George MacDonald Ross, has this to say about Biblegod in an online essay on Spinoza:

He then gives an equivalent apriori version. The ability to exist is a power or energy. The more reality or perfection the nature of a thing has, the more energy it has for existing. Therefore an absolutely infinite being has infinite energy for existing, and necessarily exists.

http://www.prs-ltsn.leeds.ac.uk/generic/screentexts/eth1expl.html

It is fairly obvious that the above author uses the terms interchangeably when he writes "power  or  energy." The author is saying that in his mind, the two words are equivalent- he'd be happy using either word to mean the exact same thing in a sentence.  The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines it thusly:

power (ENERGY)   [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
the rate at which energy is used, or the ability to produce energy:
The ship was only slightly damaged in the collision and was able to sail into port under its own power.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=62050&dict=CALD

You can see from the above definition that it's not just theologians that are comfortable using the two words interchangeably.  Even the Cambridge Online Dictionary puts it as  "power (energy)" showing they equate the two words. Yes, I am well aware that to give a modern meaningful measurable handle to the concept of Power or Energy, the word Power is technically defined as "the RATE at which energy is used", but such distinctions and measurements are unknown to the Biblical authors.

However, were you to somehow plug an "electrical meter" into some of the claimed miracles that Biblegod did, such as parting the Red Sea, you would see a finite amount of  energy being discharged in a finite amount of time. Your whole point, then, really HAS no point (as you already well knew), and you only raise it hoping to confuse and avoid the bigger issues on the table- a standard Christian Geek tactic. Nice try, but I know you guys.

For more on Christian Geek tactics see my essay:   Geek Speak 101

 

Now that we have corrected the relationship the question becomes can the left hand side of the equation (power) go to infinity with a finite value of energy on the right hand side. The answer is an obvious YES. If you know the slightest thing about algebra you know that as time gets smaller and smaller (i.e. approaches zero) the power will get bigger and bigger.

Mark Smith here}     Let me translate this for the average reader.  Power is measured via the amount of energy (measured in joules) divided by the time (measured in seconds) taken to expend said energy. When you do that math you end up with a number for Power (measured in watts). Therefore,

Power (in watts) = Energy (in joules) / Time (in seconds)

The above formula gives you the RATE at which Power is being expended.

Let's take a finite amount of energy discharged. To keep it simple, let's say it's 10 joules.

Were you to discharge that amount of energy in a short time (say 1 second), your formula would be:

Power (in watts) = 10 joules / 1 second    =  10 Watts of Power.

Remember- power is a measure of the RATE at which ENERGY is being used up, how fast it's being used.

Were you to discharge the same amount of energy over a very long time, say 10 million seconds, your formula would be:

Power (in watts) = 10 joules / 10,000,000 seconds  =  .000,001  Watts of Power.

As time goes up, power (the rate of energy being used) goes down. And as time can never go to zero, neither can the rate. It's just that the longer you stretch out using the energy, the lower your technical power amount will be.

To involve calculus the limit of energy / time as time -> 0 is infinity.

 

Conclusion.  Even with a finite amount of joules (energy) you can still have infinite power. Furthermore the bible as you said also describes god as being omnipresent or said another way outside of Time or able to control time.  So by virtue of being omnipresent he can still be all powerful.  A rather easy way to understand this would be to imagine if you could control time then you literally could do anything you wanted to in any amount of time (like build a house in five minutes) or even like god did create the earth in 6 days.

 Mark Smith here}     For a simple explanation of calculus, see this web site: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/84/07645249/0764524984.pdf

Alot of people really don't have a handle on just what calculus is, and I don't want Shane to use this to try to bamboozle them into believing garbage.

Now, for a dose of reality}  In the REAL world (not the world of abstract advanced mathematics), TIME can NEVER reach zero. Therefore, the equation can NEVER, never, never never and NEVER become this:

Power = Energy / 0 seconds

Not only is zero seconds physically impossible ("time marches on" and "you can't stop time" and other such famous sayings), this equation is ALSO mathematically impossible, as basic algebra teaches that you should never divide a number by zero. Therefore, the entire foundation of Shane's argument collapses into more mere Christian mental fantasy. Time in the real world can never be zero, and time as the denominator of a fraction can never be zero, and therefore Shane's argument can never apply.

The time it takes for an amount of energy to be expended may get very small, resulting in a larger number for the Power. The time it takes for an amount of energy to be expended may get very large, resulting in a small number for the Power. But the time it takes for an amount of energy to be expended can NEVER be zero, unless Shane has a machine to stop time in his back pocket.

So what are we left with? This: Christian claim that Biblegod has infinite energy. Running up the top of the equation to infinity (which IS mathematically possible), and dividing it by the time in seconds this is being done, gives you a rate of the energy being used, such rate being technically called "Power". If you had a source of infinite energy, this infinite energy could be "discharged" at whatever RATE you wish- fast or slow. The RATE of discharge of the energy does NOT limit the amount of energy available to discharge, no more than the size of the faucet at the bottom of a dam determines how much water the damn can hold. In short, the Christians are still left with an infinite energy source that is physically impossible in our universe.

Nice try Shane, but no cigar.

  

 

The bible does not say that god is all powerful and suggest that god can be measured in kilowatts. What it does mean is that he has power over all things.  If I say that the president of the United States is the most powerful  Man in the world it doesn’t mean he has more watts than every other person on earth nor does it mean he is the most overweight man on the earth (fat = energy).

  Mark Smith here}    The refutation to your unsubstantiated claim has already been laid down in my essay (see the cut and paste below).  Someday it would be nice if you Christians would actually STOP AND R-E-A-D the damn essays BEFORE you charge in and mouth off. But I maybe wish for too much. At least it makes it easier to shoot down your mouthing offs- for which to the great god Ath I should be thankful that you Christians make it easy for us Atheists to shoot you down.

 

Author of over 20 Christian books, Don Stuart writes:

The Bible makes it clear that God has infinite power. http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/692.html 

And the online "Glossary of Religious Terms" defines Omnipotent as:

Omnipotence: The concept that God has infinite power; he is able to do anything that he wishes.  http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_o.htm 

Another Christian, Wayne Blank, the author of the popular online "Daily Bible Study" also comments on Biblegod's infinite power:

 

Well, how did God create the universe from nothing, when we aren't able to do something like that? How does God raise the dead, if we can't? How is it that God has infinite power, while we don't? Because God is God. The Almighty is capable of doing anything that He wants to do - things that we are not able to do or understand - yet.  http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/longday.htm 

The Christian website "Christian Teen Corner" make this humble claim for their Biblegod:

 

Who are you crying out to? Are you praying to a little tiny God? Are you crying out to a God that is weak and limited in ability? NO! Our God is an Awsome God! He the Creator of the Universe. He's created thousands of stars bigger than our Sun! Our God has INFINITE POWER. He is Truly an AWESOME GOD !!!  http://www.wolfeborobible.com/challenge.html 

And last to be cited is good old Saint Augustine, via the author of the website "Medieval Philosophy" 

 

If, as Augustine supposed, god has infinite power and knowledge of every sort, then god can cause me to act in particular ways simply by willing that I do so.  http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3b.htm 

It should be clear by now that the doctrine of omnipotence is common among Christians, and that Christians understand it thusly: Biblegod is not a deity of limited power or energy; rather he has infinite power, infinite energy.

Shane Reed

 


Adam Westland 10-12-04

Subject: God
Date: 10/12/2004 3:47:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: adam_westland@hotmail.com
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

The only thing that you are missing in this articale is that our "christian God" as you say, is that He is not in aur universe. He is out side of our time and space that is why he is omnipotent. If you take the limitations of our universe away well then YOU could do anything to but you are limmited to this universe just like the rest of us.  Einsteins E=mc^2 only applys to our universe not to anything out side of it. 

 

  Mark Smith here}    This excuse is becoming like a broken record with the Christians. Seeing how I already wrote a whole essay shooting down this bullshit excuse, for any who can't see thru this instantly, go read my essay:

 

IN or OUT or NEITHER
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theology/in_or_out_or_neither.htm

 

 


 

Ray Jasinski  10-18-04

 

Subject: E=Mc^2
Date: 10/18/2004 9:29:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

 

Mark Smith:

I will admit up front that i did not read ALL the responses to the e=Mc2 essay. I couldn't do it!! You seriously have some of the most uneducated people reading and responding to your work. There are so many good points in what you write that simply cannot be disproven without serious thought OR my personal pet peeve, using God to prove God. That's just ignorance breeding more ignorance.

  Mark Smith here}    I'm still amazed at the fact that most Christians seem to fire off emails blasting essays they haven't even read all the way thru. I can tell they haven't read them for their clever objections have already been dealt with in the essays themselves.  I guess they see the titles, their not used to being criticized (like George W.) and go ballistic.



As for the e=Mc2 arguments, i really don't want to put in my personal two cents, but i will point out a few things that bothered me in reading the first several pages of responses. Some of these were your words, meaning your ability to eat christian doctrine for breakfast must far surpass your grasp of science.....which still is much better than that of 60% of the yahoos you have to deal with daily.

Mark here} So.... you can't measure gravity? I must again have been mistaken all these years, for I had believed that gravity was VERY measurable. In fact, every time you step on a weight scale, I thought that was at least an indication of the force of gravity.


This measures the acceleration of mass due to gravity, or more precisely, the force of gravity. The units on a scale are pounds, a unit of FORCE, like the newton. And before i get the "What about the kilograms on the scale?!?!" argument, the kg==lbs conversion is based on earth gravity (which is by all means a fair assumption), but whereas 50 lbs on earth is different from 50 lbs on the moon, 40 kg is the same all over the universe. So if this measures GRAVITY, then what exactly are the UNITS of gravity??

  Mark Smith here}    Yes, I've had physics in college too, and I could have quoted verbatim from the same. Please note that in my blurb on gravity I worded it thusly: "an indication of the force of gravity." I thought that would satisfy both groups of people: those that know and those that don't.

On many issues there is what I call "levels of truth". When defining just about anything, you can always get more and more accurate, but eventually you get to the level of accuracy that you've ceased to communicate. For example, show Joe Sixpack a brick and ask him to define it. He'll give you a top level definition, something like "you know, those red blocks that get cemented together to build buildings with." Give the same brick to a rocket scientist and ask him to fully define it for you, and he could give you a very detailed level of definition that may go on for a thousand pages as he gets into the nuclear physics, chemical interactions and quantum theory.

Another example: a beautiful woman. At a distance of three feet away, you can admire her beauty. However, put an electron microscope up to her and you might not think she's so beautiful anymore. You must keep the proper  distance, the proper "level of truth" to enjoy the beauty. Both views are true, both "definitions" are accurate, but which would you rather deal with on a daily basis???

"Can't See The Forest for the Trees"}  We all must decide at what level of truth we will operate on when discussing an issue, and sometimes too much information can make one feel like he's lost amongst thousands of individual trees and can't find his way out to get at a distance away from all the trees where he can take in the whole picture of the forest.

 



Mark here} The E=MC2 essay of mine does NOT disprove the existence of gods or goddesses of limited power. It only disproves the existence of postulated gods of infinite power, such as Biblegod. Limited deities are NOT disproved by this. If the Christians would admit their god has limits on his energy, his power, this essay would not apply- but they can't settle for that. They just gotta have the BIGGEST god on the block.


This is totally true, but who says BibleGod has infinite power? Not me. My free will strips just enough power/energy/cosmic go-juice away from him to fit him into this equation you feel you need to use to prove / disprove God.

Mark Smith here}    Most of Christianity, that's who. If you are a Christian who worships a limited deity, you are in the minority. I try to deal with the majority opinion in Fundy Christianity when I can, as I think I'll be reaching the most Fundies that way.



Alex Popa: and I follow the logic of the E=MC2 and that Christians claim GOD is infinite Energy then, there must be infinite matter.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? Why can't there be infinite mass?


This man is crazy, methinks. Perhaps just stoned. We have attempted to create infinite mass. The universe won't allow it. Let me explain. e=Mc^2, right? And we all know what c is, the speed of light. This is theorized to be the maximum possible velocity of any particle (i can't say it is a law, b/c no one really knows, but we have NOT been any faster, so it's not been explicitly disproven). Well as a particle reaches a speed of c, 2 things happen, its mass increases, and time relative to it decreases (Using atomic clocks on the fastest aircraft we can make, this HAS been proven, time actually slows down, even at speeds humans can achieve).
This increase / decrease goes until the speed of light is actually achieved, at which point time STOPS and the particle has infinite mass. Particles have been accelerated to nearly the speed of light, but never to it. Passing the speed of light would actually cause time to run backwards, and make measuring such an event IMPOSSIBLE. But something with infinite mass has never been possible, nor would it be possible to measure, since at the exact moment it achieved this mass, it would disappear from our time, staying in the exact moment it became infinitely massive.....so Mr Popa, that's why.

Alex Popa: In regards to the E=mc^2, a simple exercise:
I hope you possess a calculator. For Hiroshima:
The mass of the uranium fuel was 140 lbs = 63.6kg.
The percent of uranium actually fissioned = 1.38%
c = 3 x 10^8 m/s
E = mc^2 = (63.6)(.0138)(3 x 10^8)^2 = 7.9 x 10^16 J.
However, actual measurements of the released energy were estimated at: 6.3 x 10^13 J
This simple exercise shows E=mc^2 to be off by 125,000% in this case. Thats not even close.


A similar exercise holds true for Nagasaki, as well as any nuclear ordnance ever detonated. In fact the relation E=mc^2 has never ever been proven.
This is supposed to disprove Einstein or something?? I'm a chemist. Reactions do NOT produce the theoretical yield...EVER. It's a simple fact i have to work around. But apart from this part of our world, let me explain the 125 000% discrepancy for the masses. First of all, i highly doubt the mass came out to 140 lbs even. Maybe 143.67, who knows for sure -- not me....or Alex. Second you can't convert pounds to kilograms, a requirement for this equation. Force into mass....doesn't work. Let's assume though that these are mass pounds (yes, they exist, but i'm sure this measurement is in force pounds -- normal pounds). the conversion is 1kg - 2.20462 lbm. 140 lbs is then 63.503 kg, not 63.6, even when rounded to 3 significant figures. this seems like trivial differences, but when you are working with numbers like c^2 (30 000 000 000 000 000), every little bit counts. A pair of lines with only a .003 degree difference in direction when spread over this many miles would be planets, perhaps even galaxies apart. Combine the reality of the yield of a reaction whose start is a BOMB BLAST (real controlled, this is just like laboratory conditions- HAHAHA) with the fact that the math is based off of a faulty "mass" reading that was converted improperly and i have some reason to believe that these numbers do NOT. in fact, disprove relativity.

Finally just a few side notes.
1) you say the universe is infinite...only partially true, it has infinite length, but a finite volume, similar to a sphere.
2) there is nearly irrefutable evidence that the Big Bang occurred, background radiation and universal heat readings, plus the recent discovery of anti matter pretty much say, "hey we banged in here, in a big way"
3) before (2) is taken to disprove God, think that all the matter in the universe coming into being from a point the size of a period is basically something from nothing (and considering most of it occured in less than 1.0 x 10^-43 seconds (.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 01 seconds) that's pretty Divine, even if you just think of the earth being formed that fast, and this is for the entire universe.
4) as much as i hate to see people use God to prove God, something caused that period-sized universe to expand...i'm not saying what it is, but it had to exist OUTSIDE the universe to disturb its equilibrium.

This is becoming long-winded already, so i'm going to wrap it up. If more people read this before making up physical / metaphysical laws, perhaps you won't have to deal with so many asinine comments.

Thank you,
Ray Jasinski


 

 


 

 

Todd  8-18-05

 
Subject: E=MC^2 proves God
Date: 8/18/2005 7:46:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: 
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

 

Most Christians do not view E=MC^2 as only a theory.
Further it is viewed as proof of God and disproof of
evolution. The limit of energy and mass prove a
non-infinite universe, I agree with you. However,
evolution depends on an infinite universe. There was
a beginning, a big bang, which requires a creator.
The limit of energy in our universe does not indicate
a limitation of the creator. The Creator is not bound
within the universe just as the artist that creates a
painting is not bound only to what is in the image he
paints. They are unrelated in that sense. The God of
the Bible never claimed to be part of the energy of
this universe; he is the creator of it. You are
measuring this God from within the limits of the
universe he created. This is not a copout to place
God beyond the physics of the Universe.
It is quite
simple - God is not part of what he created. You
focus on Christians believing in an infinite God
(energy) within this universe. Christians believe in
an Infinite God that Created the Universe and all the
energy in it. Again, God “created” it and is not
“part” of it. God can move within his creation but he
is still not part of it.
Thank you
Todd


  Mark Smith here}    Sorry, but it is indeed a copout, a copout that Christians drag out of the closet anytime we point out that there is not one shred of evidence in the universe for their gods. You guys can't have it both ways. IF Biblegod answers prayer, THEN Biblegod is within the universe. If Biblegod does NOT answer prayer... you get the point.

 

 

 

Todd  9-4-05  

 
Subject: Re: E=MC^2 proves God
Date: 9/4/2005 11:23:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com

 

 

If God answers prayer then he must be in the universe
and humans must be able to detect this "presence" in a
form of energy. This seems to be your point. 

  Mark Smith here}    Yes. If he is able to exert a force that has an effect upon something within our universe, then that force would be detectable, if by no other means than the effect that is observed.

 

Either
we wonderful humans can detect this God or he does not
exist. First, you assume God is an energy force that
is part of the universe. No Christian every claimed
God to be an energy force,
you claimed they did by one
definition because it made it easy to battle on this
one point. 

  Mark Smith here}    When they claim he has/is "infinite energy", yes, they are claiming Biblegod to be a force of energy.

 

You eliminate God simply because humans
cannot scientifically detect him.  Which is very
unscientific to limit ones possibilities to only what
can be touched, viewed or detected by current science.

  Mark Smith here}    In other words, you are saying that it is scientific to be unscientific. Amazing what you Fundies can say with a straight face.


Invisible “Dark Matter” is needed to scientifically
explain what we see, touch and detect in this world.
This matter makes up 80%( or 99% depending on which
science you believe) of the energy in the universe.
That “Dark Matter” is mass that we cannot touch, view
or detect.  We only know it is there because it has to
be there or things would not work as we see, touch and
detect them.  Faith is faith and you need it no matter
what you believe. 

  Mark Smith here}    The effect of Dark Matter can be observed, therefore it is logical to infer a cause- Dark Matter. It is not just "wished" into "existence" by scientists getting high chanting the same religious mantra 10,000 times.

 


 

 

Jeff Phillips  11-23-05 

Subject: God's power
Date: 11/23/2005 10:27:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
 

I was reading your website and just wanted to point out that some churches 
do not believe that God has infinite power. For example, the Church of 
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has no such belief.
However, you will 
find members of such a church that misunderstand such teachings and assume 
God to have infinite power because their friends of other faiths believe 
such.

Your conclusion that there is no God is an unfounded claim. The proper 
conclusion from your logic is to simply state that God is misunderstood to 
have infinite power which is untrue. The power of God is finite in measure.

-Jeff Phillips

  Mark Smith here}    Hey Jeff, thanks for the email. You are correct about the LDS church. You are incorrect about the "unfounded claim" though. The god that this essay disproves is Biblegod, not any other god. Other religions that worship limited gods,  E=MC2 would not apply to them either.

What may have confused you is that you somehow missed the Title for the essay:

E = MC2  Disproves Biblegod

Notice that it says "Biblegod", and not some kind of generic deity. Maybe 26 point sized type, and bold formatting, wasn't enough to be noticed. Would you suggest I use an even bigger type size???

 


 

Ray  12-16-05 

 
Subject: PLEASE POST E=MC2 
Date: 12/16/2005 12:51:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time 
From:
Reply To:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com 
 

 

Dear Mark,
 
My name is Ray.  I am emailing to say that I am sorry you feel the way you do, you write in a way that suggests you feel you have been greatly deceived, let down or wronged in some way by the one and only I AM.  You also seem to have been greatly hurt by christians or some particular christian.
 
I have been let down by christians many times myself.  I feel bad that you have become so angry and tempermental as you are most likely an intelligent and likable guy.
 
I will not argue with you about your theory and I will not defend God ... too many christians feel the need to defend God, He does not need to be defended He is more than capable of defending Himself.
 
I will instead pray for you and would ask other christians that visit this page to do the same as this is what God asks of us ... He never once asked us to defend Him.
 
Thankyou for posting Mark and Godbless!
 
Please all christians add Mark to your prayer list and stop arguing as it only demeans christianity ... we have nothing to prove!  God gave everyone the freedom to choose and that includes Mark.  But do pray for him.

  Mark Smith here}    Yes Christians, we already HAVE all the truth in the universe. We know we are right and everyone else is going to hell. Therefore, why waste time arguing? Besides, that might give the false impression that we actually DO occasionally use our brain.

 


 






Contact Information

Set Free!  Orange County, CA

Email:     JCnot4me@aol.com             Web Page     JCnot4me.com

NOTICE:  Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of SET FREE however SET FREE decides, but don't worry,  your email address will probably be deleted.   Views contained in SET FREE represent the views of the authors. No implicit approval by SET FREE is to be assumed.