At least that’s the claim made by someone who commented on one of my YouTube videos. He presented an article that supposedly demonstrates that yes, a god does exist, but in reading through it, he’s done nothing of the sort. As this wouldn’t make a good video, I’m going to respond to his article with one of my own here. I’m going to pull a few select portions to respond to, feel free to go and read his original short article for yourself. So let’s go through this bit by bit, shall we?
Actually science has already admitted the existence of a spaceless and timeless God on the very same day when science has declared that space and time in our universe are relative.
Um… no? Just because science acknowledges finite time and bounded but infinite space, that has no bearing on whether a god exists at all. Science does not acknowledge anything exists unless it is supported by objective evidence and gods simply have none.
This is because existence of a spaceless and timeless God implies the relativity of space and time.
It doesn’t matter what you think it implies, it only matters what is demonstrably real and gods simply are not.
So, if there is a God, then there is the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe, because this God is everlastingly present with all his attributes.
*IF* there’s a God. If does not mean that it’s true. There isn’t a single shred of objective evidence whatsoever that any gods of any kind exist in factual reality. Just because you can invent the concept of a god, along with whatever characteristics you care to assign, doesn’t mean that god is actually real. But again, as I’ve pointed out time and time again, these are just attributes that are arbitrarily assigned to this imaginary god character. You have no way to demonstrate that any of them actually exist in reality.
He then goes into a long rambling diatribe about how the non-absolute nature of space and time somehow implies the existence of a god because, apparently, something has to be absolute. That’s a complete fallacy. Just because you want there to be an absolute something doesn’t mean that there is. We’re not talking about wishes and dreams, we’re talking about reality.
Whereas if there is no God, then in that case there will be no such state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe.
So what? What he’s doing here is called the “argument from consequences”, a logical fallacy whereby someone doesn’t like the potential consequences of a particular action or belief, therefore they declare that action or belief wrong. It doesn’t matter what you want to be true, all that matters is what’s actually true. Your own personal feelings don’t enter into it at all and the consequences of reality are irrelevant to whether reality exists in the first place.
I want to add one more point here. If anyone on this earth can show that despite the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time in our universe can still have absolute values, then let him/her show it. In that case we will also have to admit that there is no God.
That doesn’t even make any sense. Now I’m going to assume that English is not this guy’s first language and give some allowances for that, but regardless, just because you want reality to be a certain way, that doesn’t mean that reality is actually that way. Reality is what it is. God exists or does not exist, regardless of what rationalizations you wrap around it. The only means we have of discovering whether or not a god actually exists is with objective evidence and, so far at least, we haven’t discovered a single shred to corroborate the factual existence of any god. Until you can take a picture of God or produce some energy signature that can be defined as God or produce some other objective and demonstrable evidence that this God of yours is actually real, then nobody has any obligation to believe you.
This person, at least in this article, has shown no ability to demonstrate that their claims have any basis in reality. It’s all a bunch of hand-waving and word games, designed to trick those who don’t think critically into thinking there just might be a point. But for the rest of us, who actually examine the arguments and expect something demonstrable, we’re left shaking our heads at the ridiculous nature of these hyper-emotional and non-intellectual claims. There’s nothing here. Is there a god? Who knows. Will we accept that a god exists without demonstrable, objective evidence? Not a chance. And neither should you.