Science Vs Nature ( The thinking man)

If we assume that consciousness is the brain modeling itself, then something omniscient would not be conscious. Also, to be scient, that involves calculation. And it takes more than an atom to calculate an atom. I know there have been great advances in computing, but this is a limit that cannot be breached except for quantumness, which is a lot like saying “except for magik”. Therefore, to calculate the universe, god would have to be bigger than the universe, and exist outside of the universe IF it was composed of particles in the same way our universe is composed of particles.

I am not saying our universe is composed of particles, I don’t know what the “true atom” is, or even if space and time are infinitely divisible, or what “space” and “time” are…

But if god exists outside the universe but is composed of the same stuff as we see in the universe, then god cannot be omniscient. It could be able to direct-process the universe, but god could not direct-process itself, thus god cannot be omniscient.

Take any material, wave, string, space, time, or whatever weirdness out there exists itself in whatever it exists in. Maybe it doesn’t take up any space or any time, is just disembodied “information”, whatever. Whatever can be thought of or can be. That “stuff” cannot calculate itself UNLESS you equate calculate with being. That is a rock calculates itself by being itself. And the universe calculates itself by being itself, and so the universe is god! This is obviously silly. So when dealing with “stuff”, the concept of “calculation” is revealed as notional. Lets look at some definitions of calculate:

“To ascertain by computation; reckon: calculating the area of a circle; calculated their probable time of arrival.”

“To make an estimate of; evaluate: calculating the team’s chances of winning.”

“To make for a deliberate purpose; design: a sturdy car that is calculated to last for years; a choice that was calculated to please.”

“To perform a mathematical process; figure: We must measure and calculate to determine how much paint will be needed.”

“To predict consequences.”

Stuff cannot predict its own consequences with apodictic certainty as omniscience implies. If an immaterial hypercube behaves in a manner that can be modeled, that’s not calculation by any of these definitions. Other “stuff” would have to be arranged in a way that they can predict all of the non-material “stuff” that makes up the hypercube with apodictic certainty. The definition of “calculate” implies the usage of more “stuff” than is being calculated, be it material or not. And if being something counts as calculation of that thing, then the universe is omniscient, which is just bastardizing the meaning of calculate to form a tautology.

Because of this calculation problem, I am a hard atheist.