On The Omni-Impotence Of The Alleged Gods

By Peter William Lount – Guest Columnist

One of my proofs against the existence of alleged gods goes as follows:

One of my proofs against the existence of alleged gods goes as follows.

The Speed of Light Limit prevents all matter, energy and most importantly information from going faster than the speed of light, c. Since the universe is a very large place it takes a very long time for matter, energy or information to travel from one place to another should they not be near each other. For example the nearest star system to Earth’s Sol system that has a known planet is about 20 light years which means that it takes light and thus information 20 years to travel there.

The alleged gods are super alien beings because of their alleged super powers, specifically their alleged omni* powers, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence aka omnievil.

Unfortunately for these alleged gods their omni* powers are not possible in the actual objective reality of Nature due to the limiting factor of the Speed of Light.

Omniscience isn’t possible since one can’t be omniscient when it takes 20 years for what is happening a few star systems over to arrive. The problem gets worse when you try to see what is happening 10 billion light years across the known universe…

Omnipotence isn’t possible for a number of reasons but one is that you can’t project your power across spacetime without it taking a long time. So 20 years for the information to arrive here on Earth where you’re alleged godly being is watching over his son Jesus, and another 20 years for your alleged godly super power energy to arrive back at the other planet in that nearby star system… that’s a minimum of 40 years… likely the organisms that the alleged godly being wanted to wipe out are already dead from old age.

Omnipresence. Ok, this one is just bizarre since any being that is everywhere would be so scatter brained as to be numbed by all that information processing… besides where is the brain that could process all that information? Not to mention the fact that the information would be arriving late and disconnected. How would any such being communicate with itself and organize any coordinated actions across the huge gulf of spacetime in the real universe?

The best part is that omnibenevolent super alien beings are not possible as a result of the above omni-impotent powers. This is good news since any alleged omnibenevolent being is essentially omnievil, just as the bible shows with an alleged god that floods an entire planet as if that is a good thing. What isn’t noticed by the believers is that their alleged god committed mass murderous planetary genocide killing off every life except for one tiny boat load full and that this is some how moral and ethical thing to do? Just the opposite, it’s omnievil.

So, given the hard and harsh physics that Einstein brought to our attention the alleged gods are forever consigned to a meager existence within the brains of faith stricken believers irrational desire for their fantasy to be true. It’s a very good thing that their alleged god(s) die with them. Hopefully they won’t take the rest of us with them.

What can be proven about the alleged gods via the hard and harsh physics is that they are omni-impotent and merely concepts in the brains of believers. Unfortunately those concepts when acted upon can have potent and deadly consequences. So the threat is real even if the alleged gods are not.

So while in objective reality the alleged gods are impotent in an all to real sense they are potent through the sole actions of their believers. Not a good situation at all but way better than a universe with actual gods existing by far since the laws of Nature would then be capricious by the will of the alleged gods.

The strength of this negative proof that shows that the alleged gods of humans can’t possibly exist is based upon the strength of the latest in physics science. To prove this proof wrong you’d have to prove most if not all of modern physics wrong. Good luck.

A side benefit of this proof is that no living organism or artificial system can have these omni* powers either. In other words aliens will be more like us with limits than like the alleged gods. That is very good news. Of course we might still be a snack so we have to keep an eye out for that scenario. Oh, the physics also shows us that the cost to travel between star systems in enormous and would severely limit the places that aliens could or would travel to. Unfortunately this also limits us.

In summary the objective reality of Nature prevents matter, energy or information from traveling faster than the speed of light thus no alleged gods can actually exist since they are omni-impotent due to omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence aka omnievil being impossible in reality where we actually exist. The alleged gods are only gods if they have their alleged omni-powers, without those powers they are at best omni-impotent like the rest of us which is really good news since that means that the destructive power of the alleged gods is strictly limited to the destructive power of the people who believe in them.

Q.E.D..

Science uses negative proofs all the time. An example I came across today: “The hypothetical physics that might allow for the creation of microscopic black holes (large extra dimensions) proposes that gravity gains more force in sub-Planck scale dimensions. There is no hard evidence to support this theory – indeed there is a growing level of disconfirming evidence arising from various sources, including the LHC.”

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-lhc-wont-earth.html

The common notion that you can’t prove a negative is not always true. You can prove a negative when you have a well known positive fact or facts to base the proof upon.

Can a human jump from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon without using any technology, just his or her body? Nope, and the proof of this negative is that Gravity Sucks not to mention that you need to breath air and that vacuum and extreme cold kills. Thus the negative is proven. A human can’t jump from Earth to the Moon, without a spaceship.

Q.E.D..

Unfortunately scientists such as Richard Dawkins keep promoting the incorrect notion that all negatives can’t be proven. He needs to stop doing that since many negative assertions (but not all) are proven all the time in science.

Copyright 2011 by Peter William Lount

————————————————–

Al Stefanelli is the Georgia State Director for American Atheists, Inc., and is also the author of “A Voice Of Reason In An Unreasonable World – The Rise Of Atheism On Planet earth.”  He also writes for the National Atheism Examiner.

  6 comments for “On The Omni-Impotence Of The Alleged Gods

  1. August 30, 2011 at 8:45 am

    You silly man, God isn’t bound by natural laws. That’s what makes Him SUPERnatural! He can do anything, even defy logic and rational thought. Isn’t that just unbelievable!?
    Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to remove my tongue from my cheek.

  2. August 30, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Consider Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws.

    Clarke’s Three Laws are three “laws” of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke.

    They are:

    When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.

    When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    and my favorite:

    “Witchcraft to the ignorant, …. Simple science to the learned” by Leigh Brackett.

  3. Calliope22
    August 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    While I’m an atheist myself, the argument about personal gods being unlikely because they would have to be bound by laws that defy their very traits isn’t particularly strong. A deity that creates a universe, after all, would have to be greater than the universe it creates, “greater” likely meaning that it is somehow “above” the laws of that universe. It’s absurd, but the argument about a deity creating the universe being impossible by its own laws doesn’t really make a lot of sense. The only way a deity could somehow be bound up with its laws is in pantheism or the system of Spinoza, but those are not particularly clean systems.

    I don’t bring this up to attack you or your article, but just because a hardcore theist (like William Lane Craig) would attack such an argument as either not relevant or as missing the point, so be prepared for such a backlash if you use it against certain people.

    I would say, though, that the very fact that we have far-off galaxies, quasars, black holes, etc never mentioned in the bible is tremendous evidence that so “omnipotent” a deity really had no idea what he was telling his people–since, of course, he likely was only a voice in the back of their misshapen skulls.

  4. September 18, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    The issue of “proof” needs to be clarified. The notion of “absolute proof” such as what can be done in mathematics is the gold standard for this term. As I’ve written about in various ways (see: http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/scientific-proof.html), in science, absolute proof is, in fact, impossible. What we do in science is gather evidence seeking to disprove some hypothesis. If we cannot disprove that hypothesis with our evidence, it remains as a provisional hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence. To disprove the existence of god in an absolute sense, we would have to see an infinite amount of evidence.

    Science can and does reject hypotheses as inconsistent with the evidence all the time, but this is not the logical equivalent of “absolute proof”.

    Believers can always find ways to rationalize their irrationality. An irrational belief is inevitably impervious to logical arguments.

  5. August 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    God Believers did not begin to believe their nonsense because of the application of logic. They do because of the emotional comfort of continuing to believe what they were taught by authority figures at a time when the brain is programed to believe everything it is told without question. Before the child has developed the capacity to assess information it must rely on authority figures to make life-surviving decisions for it. The problem is that evolution has never had a sufficiently good reason to remove the effects of this early indoctrination in the bulk of the species when the human becomes an adult.

    Those who become fanatical believers later in life do so as the result of an unusually strong emotional event that builds on already familiar, or semi familiar, material that has been prevalent in the person’s environment since childhood. It is rare for people to “convert” to religious or ideological systems that incorporate information and beliefs that are entirely, or largely, at variance with a person’s previous ideational environment. The exceptions are brought about by cognitive and emotional manipulations using the techniques of “brain washing”.

    In other words, people do not embrace religious beliefs as the result of cold rationality; they do so because their rationality is impaired by emotion and cognitive laziness.

    Once they are God Believers, the victims then try to use logic to delude themselves that their illogical beliefs are, in fact, logical. These “rational” arguments have never, as far as I am aware, caused anyone to become a God Believer in the absence of emotional manipulation, mentalist persuasion and standard marketing techniques.

    Most people cannot stand outside the systems that give them emotional comfort in order to objectively assess them. This usually happens when they are forced to use a system (such as the scientific method) that requires that they do so. Of when they are forced into situations where someone else uses such a system in their presence and presents them with conclusions that they would not have otherwise reached. This causes uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. How they resolve this depends a lot on the personality and cognitive style of the individual, including their level of academic accomplishment.

    In other words, the rejection or confirmation of indoctrinated beliefs is subject to environmental situations plus personal and intellectual characteristics that are largely beyond the control of the individual. It should, theoretically, be possible to predict which adolescents will abandon their indoctrinated religious beliefs by the use of psychological tests plus some intelligent guessing about the probable future environment of these people. Atheism or continued Theism is therefore largely determined by external environments and internal genetics.

Leave a Reply