• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Physics verify Absence of Real and True God?


Well-Known Member
Why can't you prove godlessness? Because it is impossible to prove the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ. Conclusion: atheism cannot be proven. So atheism is anti-scientific.

I am speaking about GNOSTIC ATHEISM only. The other atheisms are ill-defined.

Look, the question about 10 dollars in my pocket. Are there ten dollars now in my pocket? The possible answers are just two:
Yes. No. So, the variants are: Gnostic Theism, Gnostic Atheism. Other atheisms are ill-defined.

The only informative states for scientists, who investigate my pocket are: 1. Yes, there are ten dollars. 2. we do not know yet.

Try to find Savior through same talken with any physical object. Look, Higgs Boson was not discovered. What was found are products of his decay. God is Dark Energy, Paradise is Dark Matter.

You feel that it is not working. I feel it has already worked. I know why you are feeling it is not working:

Reason why proof of God will not get Nobel Prize

God is Dark Energy. Einstein's equations describe all things. Two are: Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Recall that Higgs Boson is not discovered yet, but the decay products are found. God has not got Nobel Prize, but God's influence on nature is proven -- Dark Energy.
The formula of Dark Energy is the second term on the left-hand side of:
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia
And its properties has features of following religious dogmas:
Omnipresence, Unchangeability of God.

My favorite number is 22. And we are almost in 2022 AD. I found out that God is Dark Energy in 2022 AD. This is my personal miracle year. I am Dmitri Martila, 1.December. 2022, [email protected]

@The Kilted Heathen wrote to me: "What evidence do you have that god is omnipresent and unchangeable? Helium shares those properties as well, perhaps helium is god. Or Oxygen."

Is it a joke? I am Christian, not pantheist. Discovery of Dark Energy got Nobel Prize.

Look, the question about 10 dollars in my pocket. Are there ten dollars now in my pocket? The possible answers are just two:
Yes. No.

Are there $10 in your pocket? The possible answers are Yes, I believe you DO have $10 in your pocket. No, I do NOT believe that you have $10 in your pocket, or I DON'T KNOW if you have $10 in your pocket.

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Agnostic atheism is the only possible sound position for an empiricist. Absent sufficient evidence to believe, he doesn't. Absent sufficient evidence to falsify the claim, which of course is always the case with unfalsifiable claims, he doesn't deny the possibility.

This is an interesting point that I hadn't considered before. I'm a rationalist and a gnostic atheist, whereas I see most of the agnostic atheists here tend towards empiricism. The two epistemologies have reached broad enough agreement in the modern age, but I do wonder if gnostic atheists tend more towards rationalism in general.

It's an interesting concept that I hadn't thought of until you made the connection between empiricism and agnostic atheism explicit here.

I've ruled out the possibility of tri-omni interventionist gods, but I have no observation, argument, experiment, or algorithm that can exclude say the deist god.

I think it's worth pointing out that I'm a gnostic atheist specifically in the context of "theism" in the strictest sense; that is, classical theism. The claim that theism is false is what the term "atheism" originally referred to in philosophy, not necessarily an unbelief in gods as a whole, and that's more what I tend to mean when I use it as a self-descriptor.

Deism and Pantheism are often considered forms of post-theism or trans-theism, not theism proper, and polytheism is often regarded as a separate concept. So when I claim strong atheism, it's usually not in reference to these concepts at all.

In regards to polytheistic deities, there's so much variety in how they're conceived that I'm more agnostic about them. I don't think I could list every single polytheistic deity out and prove, one-by-one, that each one doesn't exist because it would be infeasible. Half-seriously, I could say that I'm a strong atheist but a weak apolytheist, adeist, and apantheist.

Usually, just saying I'm an atheist gets the point across and I don't have to get into pedantic (and controversial) semantics, though. The general concept of atheism as "lacking a belief in gods" is quite helpful to me in that sense.


Well-Known Member
Are there $10 in your pocket? The possible answers are Yes, I believe you DO have $10 in your pocket. No, I do NOT believe that you have $10 in your pocket, or I DON'T KNOW if you have $10 in your pocket.
A crazy man would mix faith and knowledge and invent 8 type of statements about ten dollars. But rational man says: 1. Yes, there are 10, 2. No, 3. I do not know.

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Men. Humans. Think.

Normally naturally you think for self survival.

Thinking past terms first also is not a thesis.... I'm just thinking.....says a volcano is alight but it's mass is dark. It's not really light. Burning rolling smoking gases only released into womb mother. Voiding space.

Planet earths position first science. By human men standing on earth no argument allowed.

Voiding gases as mass by suns terms was disappearing as mass by consuming it. As it hasn't yet stopped man says. So when it does some type of mass sludge probably is left. As a sun. Pressure would hold it as a dead sun.

Yet you know now it has to be ended as a reaction. It isn't. Rationally you cannot discuss it as ended.

So he says as the space body reaction hasn't ended yet. He lies in theory. It's no different to a small reaction of consumed.

As his calculus does not own infinite space or any mass body in it. Variations are immense. As mass type.

What he actually theories for first was a machine ...cold metal mass. Then a reaction following the same paths. Man's design using Phi. So he false claimed he used Phi to build machine. He didn't.

He Phi built machine by huge mass loss natural energy first in laws. Then the reaction was phi. So he lost the origin of theorising. Memory why.

To an intelligent human today it means he was virtually going to use the machine as an ultimate weapon against all things existing.

Mr. Destroyer.

As he lives he says I'm with holy ghosts and a host or ghost in science is spirit not mass hence gases only.

Heavens support. My father human I'm his human son.

He said earth mass a God father of spirit heavens with space. Science real quote.

Therefore he said space the womb newly immaculately formed a clear gas heavens. Clear. Laws space.

Meaning not of light and not of darkness.

As you can see both light and darkness through its body. Clear.

So as we don't disappear at night time biology isn't a gas. Proven.

Pretty basic advice against human men whose scientific thesis was first just about a machine. As the reason for human science expression.

Not any other type of theism.

Human life versus anti theism a liar.

As Christ is not anti. That con of words is a coercion you ignored. Christ is only Christ one status the Christ.

No such status anti Christ.

As CH is a gas and also man said it belongs to its gas spirit organisation connections. A grid of patterns that links all gases together in one mass.

So hence I named it holy and never ever are you allowed to try to separate it. The heavens.

So his evil minded brother tried to separate it. Plane lines relating to metals forming cutting of the hosts.

As he tried to separate the heavens gases into separated masses. False theisms.

Once rich spiritual astute men founded religion to reunite family and assist healing. Against All man's science terms. They were overtaken by greedy Satanists. Science theists greed by countries trade.

Happened in Jewish Roman Egyptian want history.
Happened in Muslim Egyptian history.
Happened in dark ages sciences resurgence.

About rich kings queens lords. Trade. Invention and new science theisms.

True history why they destroy life as they believe they are allowed to. Human permission only.

As men pretended they were gods Inheritor they gave themselves gods permission to kill off their human family.

A baby hurt looking at all other hurt babies claiming god did it meaning adult men father's had.

Who sought a cause to be reunited as one human family life again...no religion meaning no science either.

Theist mind says aware my life was hurt by star...so I agree why then shouldn't your life be hurt too. As the gods chose to hurt my life first.

Is his excuse.

As if a human agrees that another baby original human one species the same human as their own twin should be hurt sacrificed. It's because their life mind body as the twin is already sacrificed.

You identify with the advice then agree.

Termed a study of humans mis behaviours and self destructive human only theism.

Human parents anywhere a twin. Men nearly women in looks...so close in genetics. Real history gone.

All that's left is sacrificed humans.

Humans living everywhere never travelled invaded as they were already living in those countries. Same life mind genetics. Real.

Is natural human history.

Not until national DNA ground attacked changed life mind did human reasoning change too.

The term anti was stated to cause you to argue realise and stand your ground to argue human rights.

Christ is present. Without it we all die so never theory against its non existence which dark matter theists did.

As earths heavenly body began in dark volcanic mass.

To be rock it now cools inside of the heavens mass.

Without earths heavens science is theorising no heavens just volcanic earth in space dark mass. Seeing science is practiced using earths mass first.

The warning is real to humans who don't argue and cannot argue against the false science languages of men.


Veteran Member
Why can't you prove godlessness? Because it is impossible to prove the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ. Conclusion: atheism cannot be proven. So atheism is anti-scientific.

For someone who claims to be one of the most brilliant genius gold-medal-winning scientists alive today, it is rather disturbing, and hilarious, to see you say that things that can't be proved are "unscientific" for the reason that they can't be proved.

Having said that.... Prove to me that undetectable extra-dimensional unicorns aren't following you around everywhere you go. You can't? ow, I guess then that your disbelief in said unicorns is "unscientific".

Does this retarded argument, using the exact same logic, make you rethink your disbelief in said unicorns?
No? How about that.... :rolleyes:

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Discovery of Dark Energy got Nobel Prize.
You keep repeating this, and it is still not evidence. What's more, "discovery" is a strong word to use for Saul Perimutter doing little more than inferring the presence of dark energy through cosmic observation. Dark energy remains a hypothesis, inferred from observations of gravitational interactions between astronomical objects.

You have zero rationale that this is somehow your god aside from mind-numbingly frustrating repetition. An endless cycle of claiming "goddiddit" when asked for any shred of evidence or proof. Further evidence played out daily of the inability - in your hands, at the very least - of science to prove or give evidence for the divine. I'd suggest again to stop while you're somewhat ahead, but that's neither the case nor do I think such advice would be heeded.

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
The synonym of Dark Energy is sentence "Accelerated Expansion of Universe". Latter got Nobel Prize. Hence, Dark Energy got Nobel Prize. One can say "Dark Energy." One can say "Accelerated Expansion of Universe" it is one and same sentence.
Are you even reading what I write in reply?

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Do you wanna me to become member of your religion/cult? If no, let me having my point of view.
My religion has zero bearing on your inability to support your claims in any way, shape or form. My effort is to correct your misapplication of the scientific method and erroneous claims made about said discoveries in your attempts to "prove" your god.

This is the scientific method; peer review, critique, and correction. Where evidence and proof mean something, and don't rely on terrible analogies or "well these things are basically the same". As well, welcome to a Public Forum, where your threads are open to scrutiny and critique.

If you cannot provide evidence, and do not wish to be criticized, perhaps don't make so many public threads with the same misinformation.

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
The logic is simple:
Simplistic, I'd say. Big difference.

I am looking for Christian God only. Therefore, this God cannot be Oxygen, Tree, Hydrogen, Dust.
No tree, only Dark.

Funny that a god that can do anything, that is everywhere somehow cannot be oxygen, or trees, or hydrogen, or whatever else. Only the thing that supports your wild claim.

Einstein's equations contain three items:
If you're butchering Einstein's proposal of the cosmological constant - a formula that was abandoned upon discovery that the universe was expanding (you know, like actual scientists do) - it was nowhere near as simple as "matter / dark matter / dark energy". This is your terrible misinterpretation of it. In originality, the equation doesn't mention anything about "dark" anything; neither matter nor energy.

You are executing the most unscientific method possible of starting with your premise of "Matter / Paradise / God" and then trying to force completely unrelated theories and hypotheses to fit your narrative. But they simply do not.

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
I found a connection and am satisfied. Why scold me if I'm happy? You can not praise me - then be silent.
You made a connection, there's a big difference. And in the process you are putting forward misinformation and misapplication of the scientific method, making dozens of threads with similar inaccurate claims. We're on a public forum, and thus nothing requires me to be silent on calling out that misinformation - especially if my options are "praise me or be silent"; that's not how any of this works.

If there is anything that I am "scolding" about, it is that. Does spreading misinformation make you happy?
Last edited: