The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Senad Dizdarevic]

So where is the 'planet Palki'?

Will you describe 'what' you call, 'planet Palki', is, exactly, and as best you can, and then explain 'where' this 'planet Palki' is, exactly?

If no, then 'I' can not inform 'you' of 'where' the so-called 'planet Palki' is.

But, if yes, then 'I' can tell 'you'.

See, if you want to claim some thing exists, and you want to claim that 'your claim' is true, then you, first need to inform others of who and/or what 'it' is, exactly, and then if you really want to gather agreement and acceptance, then you need to explain where 'it' can be found, exactly.

I answered your other question about planet Palki in my other answer to you.

If you want more details, ask.

I published a 4-part book series about my experiences with Palkies: 'Letters to Palkies: Messages to my friends on another planet.' Read the books descriptions at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DS26L2ND?bi ... sb_pc_tkin. There are also many articles on Palkies on my webpage https://www.letterstopalkies.com

[Age]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Would 'valid proof' that God does not exist, even exist in a book on a 'religion', which states and claims that God does exist?

Yes, it could, if the author were an honest man accepting the validity of proof.


Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

And, this is just because both the so-called "atheist" and "theist", still, do not yet know what the word, God, means and/nor is referring to, exactly.

There are enough ideas, descriptions, and explanations of what god is. One of them, and common to many religions, is that god is the Creator of the World and the Master of Life and Death. My valid evidence covers all of them.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

If you are only providing 'evidence', then how could 'it' be so-called 'finally proven'?

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Finally means that many tried to prove that god does not exist, but they couldn't.

For example, Dawkins said that god probably doesn't exist.

On the theists' side, just "arguments" or empty words for the existence of god. On the atheist's side, just assumptions.

Valid evidence has absolute value, and my has it. Solipsists can argue, but to whom?

So, why is 'your finally proven' not taking off and being accepted and agreed with by every one?

It will when readers read, accept, and agree with it.

1. I asked 'you', 'Why is what you claim is 'finally proven' is not 'taking off'? Now, why did you not answer 'this question', and instead answered some thing that was not even asked?

2. Why did you say, 'when', here? Are you so absolutely sure of "yourself" that you believe that your so-called 'finally proven' will be accepted and agreed with by every one?

The series has 4 parts. I present 3 pieces of objective evidence in the 4th book (the fourth is subjective - experiental).

So what? As I have pointed out before, 'evidence' never necessarily 'proves' absolutely any thing. So, you can have as many pieces of so-called 'objective evidence' but 'this', in and of itself, will not necessarily 'prove' what you claim above, here.

Also, what do you even mean by so-called 'objective evidence', anyway?

The e-book is 9.99$. If you can refute the first 3 with a logical explanation, I will refund you. https://god-doesntexist.com/

Here, 'we' have 'another one' who wants 'us' to pay 'it' money, to just read some of 'its beliefs and claims'.

I will suggest that if you can not or will not provide your claims, here, and with already obtained proof/s that back up and support your claims, irrefutably, then you do not right any more words, here.

Or, recommend the books to your local library and borrow the whole series.

Why do you not just present the 'proof', here, for 'your claim', here?

[Age]

So where is the 'planet Palki'?

Will you describe 'what' you call, 'planet Palki', is, exactly, and as best you can, and then explain 'where' this 'planet Palki' is, exactly?

If no, then 'I' can not inform 'you' of 'where' the so-called 'planet Palki' is.

But, if yes, then 'I' can tell 'you'.

See, if you want to claim some thing exists, and you want to claim that 'your claim' is true, then you, first need to inform others of who and/or what 'it' is, exactly, and then if you really want to gather agreement and acceptance, then you need to explain where 'it' can be found, exactly.

I answered your other question about planet Palki in my other answer to you.

Are you absolutely sure?

If you want more details, ask.

Are you capable of backing up and supporting your other answer, here, with irrefutable Facts and proofs?

If yes, then will you?

I published a 4-part book series about my experiences with Palkies: 'Letters to Palkies: Messages to my friends on another planet.' Read the books descriptions at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DS26L2ND?bi ... sb_pc_tkin. There are also many articles on Palkies on my webpage https://www.letterstopalkies.com

I much prefer to see you so-claimed 'final proof' that God does not exist. Will you provide 'that proof', here?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then great, when will you?

[LuckyR]

I see no evidence. A link isn't evidence.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

To Age:

Age: 1. I asked 'you', 'Why is what you claim is 'finally proven' is not 'taking off'? Now, why did you not answer 'this question', and instead answered some thing that was not even asked?

SD: I did answer your question: “It will when readers read, accept, and agree with it.”

Age: 2. Why did you say, 'when', here? Are you so absolutely sure of "yourself" that you believe that your so-called 'finally proven' will be accepted and agreed with by every one?

SD: I said “when” because it means that the book series will “take off” in time, when readers read, accept, and agree with it.

I said “when” here because here I answered your question.

Age: So what? As I have pointed out before, 'evidence' never necessarily 'proves' absolutely any thing. So, you can have as many pieces of so-called 'objective evidence' but 'this', in and of itself, will not necessarily 'prove' what you claim above, here.

Also, what do you even mean by so-called 'objective evidence', anyway?

SD: Why are you asking for proof if your position is “So what?”

Are you a religious believer?

By 'objective evidence', I mean true, reasonable, and logical evidence that can be objectively tested and proved again.

Age: Here, 'we' have 'another one' who wants 'us' to pay 'it' money, to just read some of 'its beliefs and claims'.

SD: Why you use so many quotation marks?

I am not “it”, I am a person, a male, Senad Dizdarevic.

If you have ever bought a book in your life, you bought it because you wanted to read some of the author’s “beliefs and claims”. I bought my books exactly for that reason: I wanted to read the author’s “beliefs and claims”.

Age: I will suggest that if you can not or will not provide your claims, here, and with already obtained proof/s that back up and support your claims, irrefutably, then you do not right any more words, here.

Why do you not just present the 'proof', here, for 'your claim', here?

SD: Why are you so aggressive? Are you afraid that you will find out something that you think is devastating for you? Is valid evidence for god’s nonexistence threatening you? Are you a religious believer?

Here is the first of the three pieces of objective evidence:

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

Source: First law of thermodynamics, https://www.britannica.com/science/firs ... modynamics

This law is well known, but until now it has not been used in the right way to prove that god does not exist.

For the full explanation of the first, and for the two other pieces of objective evidence, the logical and the ontological ones, read my book series, so you will get a full picture.

Age: Are you absolutely sure?

SD: Yes, I am.

Age: Are you capable of backing up and supporting your other answer, here, with irrefutable Facts and proofs?

If yes, then will you?

SD: Yes, I am. Look above in the previous answer.

Age: I much prefer to see you so-claimed 'final proof' that God does not exist. Will you provide 'that proof', here?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then great, when will you?

SD: Yes, I will. Right now, read it above.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

I see no evidence. A link isn't evidence.

A link is the connection to the evidence.

Here is the first of the three pieces of objective evidence:

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

Source: First law of thermodynamics, https://www.britannica.com/science/firs ... modynamics

This law is well known, but until now it has not been used in the right way to prove that god does not exist.

For the full explanation of the first, and for the two other pieces of objective evidence, the logical and the ontological ones, read my book series, so you will get a full picture.

[Age]

To Age:

Age: 1. I asked 'you', 'Why is what you claim is 'finally proven' is not 'taking off'? Now, why did you not answer 'this question', and instead answered some thing that was not even asked?

SD: I did answer your question: “It will when readers read, accept, and agree with it.”

Age: 2. Why did you say, 'when', here? Are you so absolutely sure of "yourself" that you believe that your so-called 'finally proven' will be accepted and agreed with by every one?

SD: I said “when” because it means that the book series will “take off” in time, when readers read, accept, and agree with it.

I said “when” here because here I answered your question.

Age: So what? As I have pointed out before, 'evidence' never necessarily 'proves' absolutely any thing. So, you can have as many pieces of so-called 'objective evidence' but 'this', in and of itself, will not necessarily 'prove' what you claim above, here.

Also, what do you even mean by so-called 'objective evidence', anyway?

SD: Why are you asking for proof if your position is “So what?”

Are you a religious believer?

By 'objective evidence', I mean true, reasonable, and logical evidence that can be objectively tested and proved again.

Age: Here, 'we' have 'another one' who wants 'us' to pay 'it' money, to just read some of 'its beliefs and claims'.

SD: Why you use so many quotation marks?

I am not “it”, I am a person, a male, Senad Dizdarevic.

If you have ever bought a book in your life, you bought it because you wanted to read some of the author’s “beliefs and claims”. I bought my books exactly for that reason: I wanted to read the author’s “beliefs and claims”.

Age: I will suggest that if you can not or will not provide your claims, here, and with already obtained proof/s that back up and support your claims, irrefutably, then you do not right any more words, here.

Why do you not just present the 'proof', here, for 'your claim', here?

SD: Why are you so aggressive? Are you afraid that you will find out something that you think is devastating for you? Is valid evidence for god’s nonexistence threatening you? Are you a religious believer?

Obviously, you are completely and utterly 'missing the mark', here.

Here is the first of the three pieces of objective evidence:

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

Source: First law of thermodynamics, https://www.britannica.com/science/firs ... modynamics

This law is well known, but until now it has not been used in the right way to prove that god does not exist.

For the full explanation of the first, and for the two other pieces of objective evidence, the logical and the ontological ones, read my book series, so you will get a full picture.

So, once more, 'this one' can not provide any actual 'evidence', here, let alone actual 'proof.

Age: Are you absolutely sure?

SD: Yes, I am.

Age: Are you capable of backing up and supporting your other answer, here, with irrefutable Facts and proofs?

If yes, then will you?

SD: Yes, I am. Look above in the previous answer.

So, lol your 'previous answer' is , supposedly, is in 'some source', which 'I' would have to give 'you' money for.

Age: I much prefer to see you so-claimed 'final proof' that God does not exist. Will you provide 'that proof', here?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then great, when will you?

SD: Yes, I will. Right now, read it above.

'you', are just 'another one', who claims things, but when questioned and challenged, 'you' fail and falter, absolutely.

[Will Bouwman]

Who is we?

We are Friends of this cosmos, a multi-planetary and multidimensional team of top experts in different fields.

I see. So what field are you the top expert in?

[Senad Dizdarevic]

To Age:

Age:

Obviously, you are completely and utterly 'missing the mark', here.
So, once more, 'this one' can not provide any actual 'evidence', here, let alone actual 'proof.
So, lol your 'previous answer' is , supposedly, is in 'some source', which 'I' would have to give 'you' money for.
'you', are just 'another one', who claims things, but when questioned and challenged, 'you' fail and falter, absolutely.

SD:

Just empty words. Support your statements with concrete, logical, and valid evidence.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Who is we?

We are Friends of this cosmos, a multi-planetary and multidimensional team of top experts in different fields.

I see. So what field are you the top expert in?

In personal development and awakening into Pure Awareness.

I published 12 books and approximately 400 articles.

I run two webpages: https://www.letterstopalkies.com for personal development, and https://god-doesntexist.com/ for deconstructing religion and faith.

I am the author of the new model of Good, founder and co-owner of the company Me and my mom on the planet Palki, and founder of the new Cosmic Administration, a multidimensional and multiplanetary team.

I know that the cosmic part sounds fantastic, that is why I offer you a way to check and confirm it.

Every field has its own research methods.

In this case, you can use lucid dreaming to speak with the inhabitants of other planets that you dream every night with.

Here is an explanation and exercise: https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/.

If you want to learn it, I will gladly assist you.

With lucid dreaming, you will easily check and confirm my statements.

If you want to check my expertise in personal development, try my exercises for awakening into Pure Awareness: https://www.letterstopalkies.com/2019/1 ... awakening/

[accelafine]

To Age:

Age:

Obviously, you are completely and utterly 'missing the mark', here.
So, once more, 'this one' can not provide any actual 'evidence', here, let alone actual 'proof.
So, lol your 'previous answer' is , supposedly, is in 'some source', which 'I' would have to give 'you' money for.
'you', are just 'another one', who claims things, but when questioned and challenged, 'you' fail and falter, absolutely.

SD:

Just empty words. Support your statements with concrete, logical, and valid evidence.

That's all he ever does-- and he's been doing the same thing for nearly a decade. Every post of his is the same.

[Immanuel Can]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

It's called, "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist." https://ivpbooks.com/the-atheist-who-di ... ry-edition

[LuckyR]

I see no evidence. A link isn't evidence.

A link is the connection to the evidence.

Here is the first of the three pieces of objective evidence:

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

Source: First law of thermodynamics, https://www.britannica.com/science/firs ... modynamics

This law is well known, but until now it has not been used in the right way to prove that god does not exist.

For the full explanation of the first, and for the two other pieces of objective evidence, the logical and the ontological ones, read my book series, so you will get a full picture.

Seeking physical proofs to evaluate metaphysical entities is a fool's errand.

Why don't you start by trying to define gods. Since that'll take you longer than your lifetime to come to a universally accepted answer, I'm not seeing you getting beyond that, let alone an impossible proof (or disproof).

[Will Bouwman]

...So what field are you the top expert in?

In personal development and awakening into Pure Awareness.

Ah, so not the top expert on physics or mathematics. Pity. Perhaps in one of your letters you could ask those particular top experts what a dimension is, and how living in a world with more dimensions than we on Earth experience affects their experience.
Here's a bit I would like explained:

Planet Palki is in the 4. dimension, right above us.

Are we not already in a 4 dimensional world?

[Age]

I see no evidence. A link isn't evidence.

A link is the connection to the evidence.

Here is the first of the three pieces of objective evidence:

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

Source: First law of thermodynamics, https://www.britannica.com/science/firs ... modynamics

This law is well known, but until now it has not been used in the right way to prove that god does not exist.

For the full explanation of the first, and for the two other pieces of objective evidence, the logical and the ontological ones, read my book series, so you will get a full picture.

Seeking physical proofs to evaluate metaphysical entities is a fool's errand.

Why don't you start by trying to define gods. Since that'll take you longer than your lifetime to come to a universally accepted answer, I'm not seeing you getting beyond that, let alone an impossible proof (or disproof).

But, to define God in 'a way' or with 'an answer' that could be universally accepted takes only a few minutes. Why do you believe that to do so would take longer than 'that one's' lifetime?