From: Brian Profits
To: Francois Tremblay
Subject: Non-existence of God not proven

Hi Franc,

1. Impossibility of supernatural life unproven: not being conscious of the supernatural means you are not aware or not able to sense the presence of the supernatural. Being unconscious of the supernatural does not prove it does not exist. For example, we are unconscious of ultrasound and ultraviolet light even though both exist.

2. Non-actuality of infinity is unnecessary: If God does not have infinite existence, He could still be God. Infinite attributes of God are not necessary.

3. Divine creation is possible: Creation out of nothingness is not necessary. Creation of existing universe is possible.

4. Omniscient (all-knowing) God is not necessary. Omnipotent God is not unproven.

5. Abstract ideas can’t interact? The idea of the Internet is an abstraction – a global computer network – and millions of people interact with it daily. It exists in cyberspace and realspace. The solution to the modus operandi problem is the Divine Wireless Network. We are computers on God’s divine wireless network. If God is the network and we are part of that network, are we not demigods?

From: Francois Tremblay
To: Brian Profits
Subject: Re: Non-existence of God not proven

Hello, how are you ? I fail to see the point of your little objections there. Even if they are all correct, you are only addressing six out of more than fiftty arguments. So you’re not really going anywhere towards disproving strong atheism, especially since it does not seem you addressed the main areas (materialist arguments, noncognitivist arguments, Problem of Evil).

Still, let me reply to these :

> 1. Impossibility of supernatural life unproven: not being conscious of the supernatural means you are not aware or not able to sense the presence of the supernatural. Being unconscious of the supernatural does not prove it does not exist. For example, we are unconscious of ultrasound and ultraviolet light even though both exist.

I don’t understand what it means for something to exist and not being conscious of it. How else but by conscious means do you suggest to be aware of something’s existence ? Either there is evidence for it, and we can consciously grasp it, or there isn’t. That’s the beginning and the end of ontology.

By the way, you’re wrong about ultrasound and ultraviolet light. Have you ever seen those machines they use to look at foetuses in pregnant women ? That measures ultrasound. That is so ridiculous, do you not watch television or never seen a pregnant woman in the hospital or something ? LOL !

> 2. Non-actuality of infinity is unnecessary: If God does not have infinite existence, He could still be God. Infinite attributes of God are not necessary.

How can God not have infinite attributes ? Is God finite ? If so, then it is just an alien floating in space.

> 3. Divine creation is possible: Creation out of nothingness is not necessary. Creation of existing universe is possible.

Then what does “Creation” mean in the Christian context ?

> 4. Omniscient (all-knowing) God is not necessary. Omnipotent God is not unproven.

So what you’re saying is that the Bible is wrong on these topics. All right. So why should we trust the Bible when it says God exists ?

> 5. Abstract ideas can’t interact? The idea of the Internet is an abstraction – a global computer network – and millions of people interact with it daily. It exists in cyberspace and realspace. The solution to the modus operandi problem is the Divine Wireless Network. We are computers on God’s divine wireless network. If God is the network and we are part of that network, are we not demigods?

I don’t know what Internet you’re talking about, but in the one I know, people make web sites and talk to each other. Not concepts. The Internet is a very real network of servers and connections, not an abstraction. I’m afraid your metaphor fell through the floor faster than George W Bush’s popularity.

From: Brian Profits
To: Francois Tremblay
Subject: Non-existence of God not proven

Hi Franc,

Thanks for your reply and taking the time to respond. I will point out the subject of my email is non-existence of God not proven. The subject is not “toward disproving strong atheism.”

Let me ask you a question about ultrasound, ok? Can the human ear unaided by technology be conscious or aware of ultrasound? You can’t hear ultrasond, can you? Does ultrasound exist even though you don’t hear it?

You replied with the following:

“I don’t understand what it means for something to exist and not being
conscious of it. How else but by conscious means do you suggest to be
aware of something’s existence ? Either there is evidence for it, and we
can consciously grasp it, or there isn’t. That’s the beginning and the
end of ontology.”

Let me ask you another question: why can’t God be finite? If there is an end of time, couldn’t God (if he does exist, which is not proven) be finite and exist until the end?

You asked me the following:

“Then what does “Creation” mean in the Christian context ?”

You assume I mean Christian Creation – that’s a fair assumption – although I meant Creation in the general sense not is respect to any religion. I propose Creation out of the existing universe is possible and the idea of Creation out of total nothingness is not necessary. When I say Creation, I am not saying God created the universe. I am saying the universe is created and continues to be created inside the existing universe. I am saying Creation did not happen once, but that the universe is being continually created as you read this.

You mention the bible:

“So what you’re saying is that the Bible is wrong on these topics. All
right. So why should we trust the Bible when it says God exists ?”

As far as I know the existence of God is unproven. If you would like I can share with you my 5 points on God not proven. Just reply, ok?

Here’s what you said about the Internet:

“I don’t know what Internet you’re talking about, but in the one I know,
people make web sites and talk to each other. Not concepts. The Internet
is a very real network of servers and connections, not an abstraction.
I’m afraid your metaphor fell through the floor faster than George W
Bush’s popularity.”

Let me respond to your questions:
I’m using the Internet as an analogy to posit a possibility that if God exist which is unproven it may be through my idea of a Divine Wireless Internet (DWI). You are not aware or conscious of all the computer connections that comprise the Internet, yet you may believe the Internet exists. If God acted through a Divine Wireless Internet and people are the computers connected to this wireless Internet, we could be called demigods. We decide what DWI sees, hears, smells, tastes, and touches. We are the input…

> Thanks for your reply and taking the time to respond. I will point out the subject of my email is non-existence of God not proven. The subject is not “toward disproving strong atheism.”

And you are nowhere near proving either of these claims.

> Let me ask you a question about ultrasound, ok? Can the human ear unaided by technology be conscious or aware of ultrasound? You can’t hear ultrasond, can you? Does ultrasound exist even though you don’t hear it?

Ultrasound exists, is detected, and measured. It is a material fact. Your appeal to the naked ear is irrelevant to the issue.

> Let me ask you another question: why can’t God be finite?

Everything is finite. If something called “God” exists, then it has to be finite. And that is the writings in religious texts. Those are certainly finite, and if there is any place where “God” exists, it is as a character in a fiction. So in the atheistic sense, you are quite correct.

> You assume I mean Christian Creation – that’s a fair assumption – although I meant Creation in the general sense not is respect to any religion. I propose Creation out of the existing universe is possible and the idea of Creation out of total nothingness is not necessary. When
> I say Creation, I am not saying God created the universe. I am saying the universe is created and continues to be created inside the existing universe. I am saying Creation did not happen once, but that the universe is being continually created as you read this.

Then we are talking about natural law. No supernatural boogaboo is needed to explain that.

> Let me respond to your questions:

> I’m using the Internet as an analogy to posit a possibility that if God exist which is unproven it may be through my idea of a Divine Wireless Internet (DWI).

You already gave the analogy. It didn’t work the first time. It still doesn’t work.