Problem with All Athiest Theory

en.wikipedia…Double_negative

en.wikipedia…ation_of_energy

en.wikipedia…rvation_of_mass

Problem with your theory is it is a double negative and a burden of proof fallacy. The second part is that existence only sets up the idea of determinism or causality. The true nature of god is to be no longer guilty, to be without sin.

The true nature of God, creation The true nature of creation an endless cycle. An Ourobours and endless cycle. The true nature of existence, the endless cycle of the sun. The creation of the sun a big bang theory. The action of a prime mover the actual sun. Energy is constant therefore eternal and an endless cycle. Matter is eternal therefore an endless cycle. The sun creates all energy for life on planet Earth in fusion. This Sets up big bang theory of constant eternity of a prime mover from the creation of the sun.

The mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is “conserved” over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. The law implies (requires) that during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants or starting material must equal the mass of the products

It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means energy is localized and can change its location within the system, and it can change form within the system, for instance, chemical energy can become kinetic energy but it can be neither created nor destroyed

youtu.be/dmX1W5umC1c

youtu.be/fc5iBVl6Wyw

Best Video Below

youtube.com/watch?v=eAgT_8KtICg

This concept was proven over four thousand years ago with Aristotle over the idea of the Primnum moven and Immanuel Kant with the concept of synthetic intuition aka memories of total recall or apriori. I must emphasize the idea of an Ouroboros which is the idea of an endless cycle. The Ouroboros encompasses the idea of your false double negative and burden of proof fallacy. This then instills the concept you had given of existence, the idea of all creation. This includes the ideas of god’s omnibenevolence, omnipotent and omniscient. The endless cycle starts with the idea of the law and someone’s basic opinion of good and evil, which ends up self defeating with ideas of Nietzsche, is good and is evil. You can not have anything in judgment of benevolence more then opinion and all not in a singular junction of one judges opinion would then be sin and death. Therefore one judge must be chosen and one judgment created and all opposed an executioner or executioned.

References Below:

P.S. Beyond Good and Evil results from independence and co dependency the essential truth to all civilization. A Master Slave Morality! An end result and injury to any judgment of good and evil.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

nizkor.or…n-of-proof.html

en.wikipedia…seFormat=mobile

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

en.wikipedia…iki/Determinism

en.wikipedia…nd_a_posteriori

en.wikipedia…d_Good_and_Evil

en.wikipedia…i/Immanuel_Kant

youtube.com/watch?v=6nU-6EdNe5M

A priori[edit]

By contrast, consider the proposition, “If George V reigned for at least four days, then he reigned for more than three days.” This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone.

Nietzche Good & Evil

Specifically, he accuses them of founding grand metaphysical systems upon the faith that the good man is the opposite of the evil man, rather than just a different expression of the same basic impulses that find more direct expression in the evil man. The work moves into the realm “beyond good and evil” in the sense of leaving behind the traditional morality which Nietzsche subjects to a destructive critique in favor of what he regards as an affirmative approach that fearlessly confronts the perspectival nature of knowledge and the perilous condition of the modern individual.

He then contests some of the key presuppositions of the old philosophic tradition like “self-consciousness,” “knowledge,” “truth,” and “free will”, explaining them as inventions of the moral consciousness. In their place he offers the “will to power” as an explanation of all behavior; this ties into his “perspective of life”, which he regards as “beyond good and evil”, denying a universal morality for all human beings. Religion and the master and slave moralities feature prominently as Nietzsche re-evaluates deeply held humanistic beliefs, portraying even domination, appropriation and injury to the weak as not universally objectionable.

Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen.

Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]

Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse,[4] the burden of proof can serve as an effective tool to ensure that all relevant arguments from both sides of an issue are introduced. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their positions.[5][6][7]

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.




Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"




Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."




"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Laws of Thermodynamics aka Predictability of time! Except like a butterfly effect at times mathmatically impropable of perdiction with the exception of a glass spin.

If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

First law of thermodynamics: The increase in internal energy of a closed system is equal to the difference of the heat supplied to the system and the work done by it

Second law of thermodynamics: Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location.


Third law of thermodynamics: As a system approaches absolute zero the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value.

No offense Jack, but I lost count of how many things are wrong with all of that.
Could you perhaps go a little slower and propose one false presumption at a time so as to build your case at a reasonable pace?

Good advice for ILP posters in general. The Sandbox is a nice philosophy forum, actually, because having a thesis at all can inhibit the ability to do philosophy well.