physics613

The word “God” refers to a supernatural being. The words “supernatural” and “magic” are synonyms for “impossible” which is defined as something “which can only exist within a work of fiction”. How do you know if something is impossible? Well, if everyone agrees that something is “supernatural”, i.e. impossible, then there is no debate as to whether it’s impossible, since everyone agrees it’s impossible. An example of such a thing is the Christian God, whom everyone says is a supernatural being.

How do you prove the non-existence of God? Nothing could be easier. The word “god” refers to a supernatural being. That’s the proof of the non-existence of God. QED End of discussion. Nothing else need be said.

Small children say that Santa Claus has magic powers, so small children say Santa Claus is fiction. Christians say God is a supernatural being so Christians say God is fiction. A contrary example is ancient astronaut theorists who say aliens, who are not supernatural, were mistaken for gods, so they are saying it’s not supernatural, so they are saying it’s not fiction.

Usually, the phrase “pseudoscience” refers to someone claiming something where they are saying it’s not supernatural, which means they are claiming it’s true. With religion, they are admitting it’s supernatural, so they are not claiming it’s true. They are admitting it’s fiction.

A Christian does not claim that their preferred work of fantasy literature is true any more than a “Lord of the Rings” fan is claiming that their preferred work of fantasy literature is true. It would not be possible to read “Lord of the Rings” and mistake it for nonfiction since it contains supernatural magic. It would not be possible to read the Bible and mistake it for nonfiction since it contains supernatural magic. There is no reason why scientists should be any more concerned about creationism than we are concerned about “Lord of the Rings”.

The words “magic”, “supernatural”, “metaphysical”, “paranormal”, “spiritual”, “miracle”, etc., and are simply synonyms for “impossible”. If something was possible, it wouldn’t be magic. The word “impossible”, and thus all of the synonyms I listed, is defined as “can only exist within fiction”. If you admit something is magic, you are admitting it’s impossible, so you are admitting it’s fiction. The Christians say their god is supernatural being, so they are saying it’s impossible, so they are saying it’s fiction. The word “god” intrinsically refers to a supernatural being. If something wasn’t a supernatural being, you wouldn’t call it a “god”. Just by using the word “god”, you are admitting you are talking about a supernatural being, and thus the impossible, and thus fiction. Therefore, anyone who uses the word “god” is simultaneously admitting there is no god. Therefore, everyone is an atheist, if you use the word “atheist” to mean “not actually thinking a magic being with magic powers is actually real”.

Someone could read “A Tale of Two Cities” or “War and Peace” and mistake it for non-fiction. The reason is because they don’t contain magic, which means they don’t contain anything impossible. It would not be possible for someone to read “A Christmas Carol” or “The Lord of the Rings” and mistake it for non-fiction. The reason is because they contain they contain magic, meaning the impossible, and must therefore be fiction. Therefore, it would not be possible for someone to read the Bible and mistake it for non-fiction.

Let’s say a devout Christian went to a magic show in Las Vegas, and watched a magician on stage perform a trick, and they had no idea how they performed it. They are trying to guess how the magician may have performed the trick. They do not consider, not even for a fraction of a second, that the magician might actually have magic powers, since they know, of course, that that would be impossible.

Magic, supernatural, etc. is a synonym for “impossible”. The most magic thing anyone ever made up is the Judeo-Christian God, which is supposed to be an omnipotent being with infinite magic powers, that single-handedly deliberately made the entire infinite universe using only its infinite magic powers. That’s the most magic thing, in other words, the most impossible thing, that anyone ever made up. That’s what the Christians themselves say it is, so they say it’s impossible, so they say it’s fiction.

There are a lot of things we don’t understand but we know it’s not magic. We don’t yet fully understand how iron-based superconductors work but we know it’s not magic. We know there must exist a logical explanation for how iron-based superconductors work, even though we don’t yet know what it is, we know it’s not magic.

I’m against people claiming that religion and science were somehow “compatible”. Well, with religion, you are imagining that you are in a fantasy world containing magic, whereas with science, you are talking about the real world. You can’t do both at the same time. If you are imagining that you are in a fantasy world filled with magic, that means you can’t talk about the real world, so you are religious, you can’t do science. If you are talking about the real world, that means you are therefore not pretending you are in a fantasy world filled with magic, so a scientist can’t be religious.

The problem is there is a community of outspoken atheists, which included the late Christopher Hitchens, who enjoy falsely accusing religious people of actually thinking their works of fiction are true, to try to make them seem stupid.

Religious people do NOT say there is god is real!!!! Religious people say God is Fiction!!! Let’s say a religion person makes the following statement.

“I believe in God”.

That single four word sentence contains two separate statements by the speaker that there is no such thing as God. Let’s take these in turn.

“believe in”

Just by using the phrase “believe in”, they are admitting they are talking about magic. In the English language, the phrase “believe in” intrinsically refers to magic. No one would use the word “believe in” unless they were talking about magic. No one would say they “believe in” Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, QED, QCD, the Higgs mechanism, the Standard Model, grand unification, supersymmetry, string theory, or M-theory. On the other hand, someone might say they believe in psychics, astrology, ghosts, ESP, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, crop circles, crystal skulls, witchcraft, unicorns, faeries, vampires, or Santa Claus. The phrase “believe in” means you are talking about magic. Therefore, when a Christian uses the phrase “believe in”, they are admitting they are talking about magic, so they are admitting they are talking about fiction.

“God”

The word “god” intrinsically refers to a supernatural being. Just by using the word “god”, you are admitting that you are referring to a supernatural being. Let’s say you went to a book store, and you browsed through the fantasy section. You picked up a novel set in a Dungeons and Dragons world. You flipped through it, and saw the name “The Great God Zandar, the High God of the Frost Giants”. Is there any doubt in your mind that the author intended for that character to be a supernatural being? If the author did not intend for the character to be a supernatural being, he would not have called it a”god”. The word “god” intrinsically refers to a supernatural being. Therefore, when a Christian uses the word “god”, they are admitting they are referring to a supernatural being, so they are admitting they are talking about fiction.

Therefore, if you hear a religious person use the phrase “I believe in God”, that single four word sentence contains two separate admissions by the speaker that there is no such thing as God. In addition to that, the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to be not only magic, that’s an understatement, they say it’s omnipotent. They say it has infinite magic powers. That’s the most magic thing anyone ever made up, in other words, the most impossible thing anyone ever made up. That’s what the Christians themselves say.

I remember hearing one person said they take religious people at their word. Well, since all religious people say there is no such thing as god, since they admit it’s a supernatural being, you therefore takes them at their word when they say there is no such thing as god. Another poster used the word “belief” which he was using to mean “belief in the supernatural”, so he was also admitting that this is fiction, and the religious people themselves say it’s fiction. Then another person misunderstood the quote by Arthur C. Clarke. When he said that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, he meant that you might mistake advanced technology for magic, but of course, the advanced technology is not magic. Magic is a synonym for “impossible”, and that has nothing to do with technology. Something could be far beyond current technology but still possible and therefore not magic. However, some things are actually impossible, regardless of technology, such as traveling faster than light, and that’s magic. If something is beyond our current technology, but could be done with more advanced technology, that’s not magic. Someone could mistake something that’s not magic for magic, but actual magic can only exist inside fiction. Christians admit that their stories contain actual magic, so they admit it’s fiction.

Now let’s address whether it’s possible for someone to mistake different types of fiction for non-fiction.

1. Non-fiction — In this case, it actually is non-fiction so you are not mistaking it for non-fiction but are recognizing that it is non-fiction.

2. Fiction that does not contain magic — In this case, the work of fiction does not contain magic, meaning it doesn’t contain anything impossible, meaning it COULD happen, even though it did not actually happen. In this case, it would be possible for someone to mistake it for non-fiction. Examples include “A Tale of Two Cities”, “War and Peace”, “Pride and Prejudice”, Sherlock Holmes, or “Black Beauty”.

3. Fiction that contains magic but does not admit that it contains magic — In this case, the work contains the impossible, meaning it could not actually happen, but it does not admit that it contains the impossible. Most people would not mistake for non-fiction, but an ignorant person might not realize the story actually contains magic, and thus could mistake it for non-fiction. If you knew the work of fiction contained magic, then it would not be possible for you to mistake it for non-fiction. If you did not realize that the work of fiction contained magic, then you could mistake it for non-fiction. In other words, an ignorant person could mistake it for non-fiction. Examples include “Frankenstein”, Isaac Asimov, Star Trek, almost all of science fiction, as well as UFO belief.

4. Fiction that not contains magic and does admit that it contains magic — In this case, the work of fiction not only contains magic, but in addition also contains the self-admission that it contains magic. So the work of fiction not only contains the impossible but also contains the self-admission that it contains the impossible. Therefore, the work of fiction is actually saying that it is a work of fiction. Inside the work of fiction itself, it contains its own self-admission that it is a work of fiction. In this case, it would not be possible for any person, regardless of how ignorant, to mistake the work of fiction, including its own self-contained self-admission that it is a work of fiction, for a work of non-fiction. Examples include The Epic of Gilgamesh, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Norse Mythology, Beowulf, King Arthur, “A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream”, Wagner’s operas, “A Christmas Carol”, “Lord of the Rings”, Dungeons and Dragons, Star Wars, Frank Hurbert’ s “Dune”, Robert Jordan’s “Wheel of Time”, Harry Potter and Santa Claus.

To make this clear, consider the following examples. In each case, I initially give a version that could be mistaken for non-fiction, and then a version that could not be.

1. BigFoot

A — Bigfoot, as described in North America, is described as a biological creature, an undiscovered species of ape.

B — The Asian Yeti, is described as having magic powers, it can teleport, turn invisible, or read people’s minds.

Get Jeffery Winkler’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Subscribe

Remember me for faster sign in

2. The Ark of the Covenant

A — Someone suggested that it might have been a chemical battery, similar to the Baghdad battery, and gave people electric shocks.

B — It contains the wrath of God.

3. Atlantis

A — The island of Santorini in the Aegean was destroyed by a volcano.

B — The Gods destroyed the continent of Atlantis because humans were becoming two powerful.

Do you see that if you say it’s magic, you are saying it’s fiction. Magic or supernatural are synonyms for “impossible” which defined as something that can only exist in fiction. If you’re saying it’s fiction. Christians say it’s magic, so Christians say it’s fiction. The Christians don’t just say God is magic. They say it’s omnipotent, that it has infinite magic powers. That’s the most magic thing anyone ever made up, in other words, the most impossible thing anyone ever made up. That’s what the Christians themselves say. The religious people say there is no such thing as God. They say it’s supernatural, so they say it’s fiction. Believe the religious people when they say it’s fiction.

If you were talking about any other work of fiction containing magic to have ever existed in human history, not one single person would be disputing that the definition of magic is “the impossible”. Let’s choose the example of the TV show “Once Upon a Time” on ABC. Let’s say an example of a non-magic thing happening on the show is Emma walking into the diner and ordering a cup of coffee. Let’s say an example of magic thing happening on the show is Mr. Gold turning a man into a snail. Now ask yourself this. What is the difference between ordering a cup of a coffee, and turning a man into a snail? What makes one magic and the other not? What do you believe is the difference between something on the show that’s magic, and something on the show that is not magic? The difference is when Mr. Gold turned a man into a snail, that was impossible. When Emma ordered a cup of coffee, that was possible. That’s the difference between “magic” and “not magic“. “Not magic” is possible, and “magic” is impossible. Let’s say you were talking about the tv show “Merlin” on the SyFy network? What’s the difference between Merlin polishing Arthur’s armor, and Merlin’s eyes glowing, and then one of the bad guys is thrown backwards? The first is “not magic“, and thus possible, and the second is “magic“, and thus impossible. If you were talking about any work of fiction containing magic other than Judeo-Christianity, nobody would dispute that the definition of magic is the impossible.

If you were talking about any work of fiction containing magic to have ever existed, except Judeo-Christianity, not one person would have any objection to me saying that magic is defined to be the impossible. Ask yourself this. What is your definition of magic in the context of Greek Mythology? What is your definition of magic in the context of King Arthur? What is your definition of magic in the context of “Lord of the Rings”? What is your definition of magic in the context of Dungeons and Dragons? What is your definition of magic in the context of Harry Potter? If any of these cases, if someone defined magic to be when characters did impossible things, would you object to that definition? If so, what would be your definition? Of course, if we were talking about any of the above examples, and I defined magic to be the impossible, not one single person would have any dispute with that definition. Why then, do you react differently when the work of fiction containing magic is Judeo-Christianity, as opposed to any other examples I listed? Why treat Judeo-Christianity differently than any other example of a work of fiction containing magic? Everyone uses the words “magic” and “supernatural” to mean “impossible”. If that’s not your definition, then what is your definition?

There are a group of people who claim that the “Iliad” is based on real events. In reality, that’s not true. There’s no evidence to support that claim. However, there is a group of people claiming that the “Iliad” was based on real events. Those people do not claim that the “Iliad”, exactly as written, is true. Instead, they take the “Iliad”, remove all the magic from the story, and claim that what you have left, after the magic has been removed, is true. Why do they feel the need to remove the magic from the story? The reason they do it is because, there is an assumption, that you would need to remove the magic from the story in order to be able to claim it was true, and that you would not be able to claim it was true unless you removed the magic from the story. If you deny that’s the reason, then what are you claiming is the reason?

You have a similar thing with King Arthur. There is a group of people who claim that the stories of King Arthur are based on real events. That’s not true either, but they are claiming it’s true. Those people also remove the magic from the story, before claiming that what’s left is true. Why do they do that? Why do they feel the need to remove the magic from the story before claiming it’s true. The reason is because everyone assumes that you would not be able to claim a story was true if there was magic in it. If you are denying that’s the reason, then what you claiming is the reason?

There is a group of people claiming there is such a thing as cold fusion. They are wrong. In reality, there is no such thing as cold fusion. However, they are claiming that there is. Because they are actually claiming that it actually exists, even though it doesn’t, they are claiming it exists, and so they would never say it was magic, they would never say it was supernatural, they would never say the words, “I believe in cold fusion”, and they would be deeply offended if they ever heard anyone else describe it in that way. Why is that? It’s because everyone assumes that if you are actually claiming that something exists, that means you are saying it’s not magic.

Be honest about the following question. Let’s say you heard someone say they thought the so-called “Face on Mars” was made by aliens. What’s your initial response? Most people’s initial response would be one of bemusement. In other words, you think the other person is crazy for believing it. Why then do you not have the same initial reaction of bemusement when you hear someone make what, by any objective measure, would be a vastly more outrageous ludicrous grandiose claim that, not merely the “Face on Mars”, but instead the entire infinite Universe, including the observable Universe, containing 100 billion galaxies, was all deliberately single-handedly made by one single person? Most people think the first person is crazy, when they said a far less crazy thing. The same people don’t suspect the second person of being crazy, despite the fact they said what by any objective measure would be a far more crazy thing. The reason for the different reaction is because in the first case, you think the person thinks it, but in the second case, you don’t think the person actually thinks it. Nobody thinks the second person actually thinks what they said. If you are denying that’s the reason, then what are you claiming is the reason for the different public reaction?

The assumption that everyone has is if you are claiming that something exists, then you are saying it’s not magic. If you are saying something is magic, then you are not claiming it exists. Physicists claim that there are 11 spacetime dimensions, and all but 4 are compactified. That may not be true, but since they are claiming it’s true, they are saying it’s not magic. On the other hand, if someone said there was a spiritual plane of existence, they are saying it is magic, which means they are not claiming it exists.

In the real world, there is always a logical explanation for everything, even if we don’t know what it is. We don’t have a final theory of quantum gravity. However, we know there must exist a logical explanation of how quantum gravity works, although the explanation is currently unknown to us, we know it’s not magic. We know there must exist a logical explanation for how iron-based superconductors work, even though we don’t yet know what it is, we know it’s not magic.

With magic, there is no explanation as to how it works, not even an explanation unknown to us. In “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, when the Green Knight’s head was cut off, and still alive, he put his head back on, there was no explanation as to how he did that. It was magic. In “Lord of the Rings”, when the ring turned Frodo invisible, there was no explanation as to how it worked. It was magic. If you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and you are playing a magic-user, and you cast a spell, there is no explanation as to how it works. It’s magic. In Judeo-Christianity, if God magically creates the entire infinite Universe, there is no explanation as to how he did it, It’s just magic. Well, that proves that magic can only exist in fiction, since in the real world, there always has to be a logical explanation as to how something works, or why something works, even if we don’t currently know what it is, we could in the future discover what it is. Therefore magic can only exist within fiction. To say that something does not have any explanation as to how or why it works, is another way of saying it’s impossible. Therefore the words “magic” and “supernatural” are synonyms for “impossible”.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the fictional character named “Jesus” in Christianity was based on a real person. This character is not mentioned by any contemporary source. We do not have a personal letter written by anyone recounting have attended the Sermon on the Mount. We do not have a letter written by Pontius Pilate mentioning Jesus. We do not have a mundane Roman bureaucratic document listing executed prisoners, one of whom was named Jesus. We do not have a Jewish document complaining this upstart. The Romans had a vast bureaucracy that produced a lot of paper work. Judea was an economically successful province with a lot of literate people who wrote personal letters. We have a lot of surviving documents recording far more trivial and mundane and less memorable events, and yet not one single reference to the presumably memorable event of executing a charismatic orator and critic of authority, who supposedly had a group of followers, something you would think would be mentioned by at least one single person. The earliest reference to the character of Jesus, is the Gospels, which are a rambling contradictory collection of fantasy folklore filled with supernatural magic written several decades after the supposed events.

What we do have is a surprising clear understanding of the invention of this fictional character, including earlier versions of the character that existed decades before the final version called “Jesus” supposedly lived. In mythology and folklore, often different strands are woven together to created the final version. Here are some sources of inspiration that contributed to the invention of the fictional character called “Jesus”.

1. “The Christ Figure” — Scholars of mythology such as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell have identified reoccurring types of characters in mythology around the world, such as the Hero on the hero’s journey, the Father Sky God, the Mother Earth Goddess, the War God, the Love Goddess, the Trickster God, etc. One of these is the Christ Figure, where a supernatural character sacrifices himself for humanity but then is resurrected. Jesus was not the first. Prometheus was a Christ Figure.

2. “The Messiah” — The Messiah predicted in the Jewish Torah obviously was incorporated into Jesus.

3. “Mithra” — A popular cult in Ancient Rome was the Mithric Cult, originally brought to Rome by Sicilian pirates captured by Pompey. They worshipped Mithra who was the Persian Sun God. They claimed their god was born on December 25 in a manger surrounded by animals and shepards. They believed in baptism, communion, Resurrection, the immortality of the soul, etc.

4. “Teacher of Rightousness” — This is literally an early version of the character of Jesus that was mentioned in the century before Jesus supposedly lived.

5. “The Healer” — At the time, there were a lot of charlatans claiming that they could heal people using quasi-religious mumbo jumbo. If fact graffitii confirms that several people, none of whom were named Jesus, claimed to heal people at the Pool of Bethesda, the same location later associated with Jesus. It is not surprising that such stories would be folded into the myth of Jesus.

In mythology, just as characters are combined together, characters are also divided apart. The same thing happened here. The character was Jesus was split into two different characters. One of them was named “Jesus”. The other one was named “John the Baptist”. Make no mistake. These were originally two different names for the same character.

In mythology, characters are often portrayed differently in different versions that contradict each other. The same thing happened here. The Jews assumed that their Messiah would be a military leader who would kick out the Romans. That is the meaning of the line “I come not in peace but with a sword”. Later, when some of the Romans converted to Christianity, they preferred a version of Jesus who said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”.

We have a better understanding of the origin and history of this fictional character than most characters in Greek Mythology, and nobody thinks that those characters in Greek Mythology were based on real people.

The Old Testament has a repeated theme of hereditary punishment, where a punishment is suffered by the descendants of the people who disobeyed God. An example of this is that part of the punishment for Adam and Eve disobeying God is that all of their descendants would be guaranteed to go to Hell, in other words, all humans would be guaranteed to go to Hell as part of the punishment against Adam and Eve. In the New Testament, Jesus rescinded this requirement that everyone go to Hell. This is what is meant by the phrase “Jesus saved you”. It refers to the fact that Jesus saved you from the guarantee that you would go to Hell as part of the punishment of Adam and Eve. This is referred to as Adam and Eve placing the stain on humanity, and Jesus lifting the stain from humanity. Therefore believing in Jesus requires believing in Adam and Eve, which means you therefore do not believe in evolution.

If you try to say that you believe in Jesus but not Adam and Eve, well, then what did Jesus do if not lift the stain from humanity, which according to Christianity, is the main thing he did. If you take away the main thing he did, what are you left with? He did some parlor tricks like a magician. He healed a few people while he was alive. He brought Lazarus back to life. None of those things benefit you, living 2000 years later. Then he came back to life after he was dead, which was an entirely selfish thing that only benefits himself. The reason Jesus is worshipped by Christians is that he lifted the stain placed on humanity by Adam and Eve, but if you don’t believe in Adam and Eve, then you don’t believe he did that, so you don’t believe in what Christians mean when they use the word “Jesus”.

Christmas has been celebrated for 30,000 years, and the fictional character called “Jesus” was invented 2000 years ago so 93% of the history of Christmas took place before the invention of the fictional character called “Jesus”.

Every culture has reinterpreted Christmas in the context of their own religion. Stonehenge and Newgrange were built to celebrate Christmas. In Ancient Egypt, Christmas was the anniversary of when Osiris killed his brother Set. In Ancient Greece, Christmas was the festival of Dionysus, where women would go into the forest, get drunk, and dance with wild abandon. In Ancient Rome, Christmas was the Saturnalia. Saturn was the Roman name for Cronos. In Greek Mythology, after Zeus castrated his father Cronos, Cronos went to Italy and presided over a Golden Age. During the Saturnalia, the Roman tried to recreate this Golden Age. All military actions and executions were delayed until after the festival. Slaves were given places of honor at their master’s table, and were waited on by their masters. People exchanged gifts, and there was a day devoted to children. The Persians believed Christmas was the birthday of the sun god Mithra. The Mithric cult became popular in Rome. The Mithric cult believed that the god Mithra was born in a manger on December 25, surrounded by farm animals, and then a procession of dignitaries arrived to pay homage to him. They depicted people kneeling before the divine infant born in humble circumstances. The Mithric cult also believed in communion, baptism, resurrection, and the immortality of the soul. The Celts celebrated Christmas with evergreen plants. The problem with the world in the middle of winter was that plants were not green, so you would point to plants that were still green to set an example that other plants were supposed to follow. Therefore pine, fir, holly, ivy, and mistletoe had special significance. The Vikings believed Christmas was when Odin would fly through the air in a chariot pulled by an eight-legged horse, and looking down from above, this old man with a long white beard would judge how good you were through the previous year, and dispense reward and punishment. In medieval Europe, Christmas was more than anything else, a time to get horribly drunk. It was embarrassing to the medieval church that even though everyone was nominally Christian, they were continuing to celebrate an ancient pagan holiday in the same way they always had, and for the same reasons they always had, so in an attempt to hide the fact that everyone was continuing to celebrate an ancient pagan holiday, the medieval church attempted to put a thin Christian veneer over the ancient pagan holiday, which people were going to celebrate anyway. The fact that Christmas is not a Christian holiday is why, later, the Protestants were against Christmas, making it briefly illegal under Oliver Cromwell.

Today some people try to falsely claim that these are earlier holidays that influenced Christmas. That is wrong. These were earlier versions of Christmas. Christmas is dynamic, and continues to evolve and change. Christmas is not the same today as it was 20 years ago. Yet you have stupid people who randomly select a fictional character invented late in the history of Christmas, and claim that Christmas could not have existed before the fictional character existed. It is the same as if they claimed that the holiday of Christmas was invented in response to the invention of the Grinch, and therefore could not have existed before the Grinch existed. If you show them proof that Christmas existed before the Grinch existed, they say “Oh…that must have been an earlier holiday that influenced Christmas!”

Anyway, today Christmas is a global commercial secular holiday that has nothing to do with Christianity. The vast majority of people who celebrate Christmas are not Christians.