The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

It would certainly make things much easier and take all the animosity out of the issue if God was present everywhere in a way that no one could doubt it. I mean, why make it such an unprovable mystery?

Just because some human beings are 'not looking' and/or 'not listening' in no way means that God, Itself, is 'not present' in 'any way' that no one could doubt it.

One only has to be open to see, hear, and recognize where God, Itself, actually is, exactly. And, if one can not see, hear, nor recognise God anywhere, then, 'just maybe', 'that one' is not yet open as they think or believe they are.

Your observation assumes that god already exists, but some can not see it.

My observation does not assume any such thing.

The reason why you presumed such a thing is because if your already held onto belief.

It is not about perception; it is about existence.

1. What, exactly, is, supposedly, not about 'perception: but is about 'existence'?

2. My observation is based upon what actually exists, which you and others could not refute.

People, even believers, can not see god because he does not exist.

Once again you make presumptions. Presuming God has male genitals will help you lead you the conclusion, God does not exist.

your perspective presumes God does not exist. But, if God exists or not is about 'existence' instead, obviously.

[Will Bouwman]

Relativization with reframing valid to sound and sound to "possible" won't do.

Possible is the best we can do. As I have pointed out frequently, there is only one thing we can be certain of: that there is experience. So for example, you have the experience of being the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. One explanation for that experience is that you are indeed the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. There are though, alternatives.

The fact that "reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive" does not mean that some premises and conclusions are valid.

Premises are not valid or otherwise. They are either true or not. It is the logical form you apply to the argument you develop from your premises, that is valid or not. Here is a valid argument:

All snerts gevarlicate.
Grompot is a snert,
Therefore Grompot gevarlicates.

I have no idea whether there is a snert called Grompot, and what he/she/it does while gevarlicating is anyone's guess, but the argument is valid: if there are such things as snerts, all of which gevarlicate, and Grompot is among their number, then that Grompot gevarlicates is a valid conclusion.

Three of my pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence are logical. I had a long debate with ChatGPT and Claude, and they fought hard to refute them, but they couldn't. I successfully answered all of their arguments.

They couldn't logically prove that snerts don't exist. That's the thing with premises, they are sometimes impossible to refute. The mistake that clowns like Mr Can, Age and a host of other philosophical dimwits make, is to believe that irrefutable = true. It does not. I cannot prove that you are not the founder of the Cosmic Administration, or the planet Palki isn't a short distance above us, but these are extraordinary claims, which as the dictum demands, require some evidence a bit more extraordinary than you saying so.

Here is my first piece of evidence that is known, but it wasn't understood, used properly, and applied to god's existence.

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

Yeah, that's in a closed system. Basically, if you take a set of circumstances, isolate it from the rest of the universe, the amount of energy in that system remains constant.

So, Energy can not be created.

Have a word with your physics top expert. Ask him or her what energy is. The mystery is not that there is energy, it is that there is something for energy to apply to.

[Age]

Relativization with reframing valid to sound and sound to "possible" won't do.

Possible is the best we can do. As I have pointed out frequently, there is only one thing we can be certain of: that there is experience.

And, as I have pointed out frequently, also, some people can not 'see' any thing other than what they 'want to see'.

So for example, you have the experience of being the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. One explanation for that experience is that you are indeed the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. There are though, alternatives.

The fact that "reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive" does not mean that some premises and conclusions are valid.

Premises are not valid or otherwise. They are either true or not. It is the logical form you apply to the argument you develop from your premises, that is valid or not. Here is a valid argument:

All snerts gevarlicate.
Grompot is a snert,
Therefore Grompot gevarlicates.

I have no idea whether there is a snert called Grompot, and what he/she/it does while gevarlicating is anyone's guess, but the argument is valid: if there are such things as snerts, all of which gevarlicate, and Grompot is among their number, then that Grompot gevarlicates is a valid conclusion.

Three of my pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence are logical. I had a long debate with ChatGPT and Claude, and they fought hard to refute them, but they couldn't. I successfully answered all of their arguments.

They couldn't logically prove that snerts don't exist. That's the thing with premises, they are sometimes impossible to refute. The mistake that clowns like Mr Can, Age and a host of other philosophical dimwits make, is to believe that irrefutable = true.

Imagine believing 'this Falsehood', and then, worse still, imagine sharing 'your utterly False belief', here, publicly, as though it were true.

It does not. I cannot prove that you are not the founder of the Cosmic Administration, or the planet Palki isn't a short distance above us, but these are extraordinary claims, which as the dictum demands, require some evidence a bit more extraordinary than you saying so.

Here is my first piece of evidence that is known, but it wasn't understood, used properly, and applied to god's existence.

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

Yeah, that's in a closed system. Basically, if you take a set of circumstances, isolate it from the rest of the universe, the amount of energy in that system remains constant.

So, Energy can not be created.

Have a word with your physics top expert. Ask him or her what energy is. The mystery is not that there is energy, it is that there is something for energy to apply to.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Many New Agers like Neale Donald Walsch are ex-Christians who still mention Christ, use many bible quotes, and walk on both sides of the street, traditional and New Age.

No, that's not the case. It's certainly not "many," if any such are around. I think you're being confused by the Gnostic strand, which is an old pseudo-Christian, cultic belief...occultic, really...which is the progenitor of the whole New Age movement. It has no compatibility with real Christianity, though it does use its language.

For example, in Gnosticism, the creator is not god. He's a "demiurge." Material reality is said to be delusory and bad...a trap of the soul. Special "knowers," Gnostic priests or the "illuminati" are said to know the route to transcendence of the material realm and return to the undefined divine (sometimes called Abyss), and so on. Nothing in this really resembles Christianity.

For the New Agers, god is the Guru.

They have quite a weird and non-Christian cosmology, actually. They're clearly not at all talking about the Christian conception of God.

God being a mystery is one of the central themes of Christianity.

Not really. In Christianity, God is self-revealing, rather than the sort of Gnostic "mystic unspeakable." He's a God of revelation, of communication, and of involvement in History, rather than a Gnostic transcendent blank.

But there are things that remain mysterious (though Christians do not use the word "mystery" in its Gnostic sense -- Gnostic "mysteries" are perpetual, whereas Christian "mysteries" are temporary and issue in later reveling of their meaning: see, for example, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:26, etc.), but since we're speaking of an infinite God, it would be problematic if there were NOT things we don't yet know about Him.

Quite contrary: most of the Christian believers are "elementary school or less" category, never read the bible, and just follow the clergy's orders. For them, they themselves are a mystery, let alone god.

I guess you don't know the right kind of "Christians," then. It's certainly not the case that they're all clerical followers. It's true that the Catholics, for example, are taught to be that, except those admitted to the priestly and theologian castes; but you won't find that's the case among the many Protestant groups. You'll find that many of them are rather diligent readers-for-themselves...which was actually one of the hot points in the Reformation, as you may recall.

Still, what you allege could easily be said for Atheists. Most of them are not scholars-of-Atheism, and have never read Voltaire or Nietzsche, Marx or Hume, even in snippets. They just don't like the idea of God, and for them, there it stops, really. That's just how people are: most are not scholars. It's not much of criticism if they're not: we need all kinds in this world. So long as there ARE some scholars among them, we're moving as might be expected.

About Christian "deep thinkers": William Lane Craig,

Wait. You just said that they're "elementary school." And now you mention one whom even you would have to admit is not?

...a Christian "philosopher" and apologist who runs the "Reasonable Faith" website, said that he would continue to believe in god despite being presented with valid evidence that god does not exist.

I'm pretty sure you're taking him out of context, and thus putting a spin on his words. I know Craig, and he's not an unthoughtful person, as even his enemies would freely recognize; for they take him very seriously, and put their best up against him.

I'd like you to show the context in which you found this quotation, because I'm willing to bet he said it in the context of what he would NOW do, now that he already knows God, rather than in a context of uncommitted uncertainty.

But we'll see, if you'll point out the place where you found the quotation.

Meanwhile, I found he says this, in response to that very sort of critique: and this would seem to cast serious doubt on your objection, I would say.

In the context, he's refuting the critic's claim that we would "evolve" a belief in God regardless of the truth of that belief.

"Perhaps the problem raised by these accounts is something different altogether. We might put the worry this way. In the case of our natural disposition to believe in rocks or human minds, the beliefs we formed are caused by rocks and human minds acting directly on our minds (through our senses, for example). But in the case of religious belief, belief in God arises from our “agency detector” firing off in the presence of the wind and the waves. That makes these religious beliefs very different. Rock beliefs are caused by rocks, while God beliefs are caused by . . . the wind. So, one might say, we would believe in God, even if there were no God there. And that is a problem.

This critic is right—that would be a problem. But it is not clear that what the critic is saying is true. Is it true that:

(6) Human minds would exist and believe in God, even if there were no God?

I don’t think so. I don’t think there would be a universe if there were no God. I don’t think the universe would be fine-tuned for life if there were no God. And I don’t think there would be any actual life, believers, human beings, or religion either if there were no God. Am I wrong? If I am, nothing about evolutionary or cognitive psychology indicates that I am. So, contrary to our initial conclusion, evolutionary accounts do not teach us that we would have religious beliefs whether or not they are true. As a result, this argument fails."

W.L.C, at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... ro-science

Is that deep? Is that reasonable?

Before you decide, you'd maybe better show that what you quote is what he says. I've provided the whole context, so you would know I'm representin his view rightly.

William Lane Craig EXPOSED, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQm3rH7PuYs, starting 9.55, his statement, 9.59: “For not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit’s witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer.”

[Senad Dizdarevic]

How did you get your post to show up in the "Articles" forum? Shouldn't it be in the "Philosophy of Religion" forum? I don't see it listed as an article in the magazine Philosophy Now.

I posted the article, and that's it.

Is your article in the Philosophy Now magazine? Usually this forum only has discussions on topics featured in the magazine Philosophy Now. Threads can only be created by going to the magazine article and then clicking on "Discuss", at which point a thread is created. Did you circumvent that process somehow?

I don't know. Not intentionally. One thing I know for sure: it wasn't god's providence that guided me here.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Just because some human beings are 'not looking' and/or 'not listening' in no way means that God, Itself, is 'not present' in 'any way' that no one could doubt it.

One only has to be open to see, hear, and recognize where God, Itself, actually is, exactly. And, if one can not see, hear, nor recognise God anywhere, then, 'just maybe', 'that one' is not yet open as they think or believe they are.

Your observation assumes that god already exists, but some can not see it.

My observation does not assume any such thing.

The reason why you presumed such a thing is because if your already held onto belief.

It is not about perception; it is about existence.

1. What, exactly, is, supposedly, not about 'perception: but is about 'existence'?

2. My observation is based upon what actually exists, which you and others could not refute.

People, even believers, can not see god because he does not exist.

Once again you make presumptions. Presuming God has male genitals will help you lead you the conclusion, God does not exist.

your perspective presumes God does not exist. But, if God exists or not is about 'existence' instead, obviously.

I don't presume that god does not exist, I know it and I proved it.

[Gary Childress]

Many New Agers like Neale Donald Walsch are ex-Christians who still mention Christ, use many bible quotes, and walk on both sides of the street, traditional and New Age.

No, that's not the case. It's certainly not "many," if any such are around. I think you're being confused by the Gnostic strand, which is an old pseudo-Christian, cultic belief...occultic, really...which is the progenitor of the whole New Age movement. It has no compatibility with real Christianity, though it does use its language.

For example, in Gnosticism, the creator is not god. He's a "demiurge." Material reality is said to be delusory and bad...a trap of the soul. Special "knowers," Gnostic priests or the "illuminati" are said to know the route to transcendence of the material realm and return to the undefined divine (sometimes called Abyss), and so on. Nothing in this really resembles Christianity.

For the New Agers, god is the Guru.

They have quite a weird and non-Christian cosmology, actually. They're clearly not at all talking about the Christian conception of God.

God being a mystery is one of the central themes of Christianity.

Not really. In Christianity, God is self-revealing, rather than the sort of Gnostic "mystic unspeakable." He's a God of revelation, of communication, and of involvement in History, rather than a Gnostic transcendent blank.

But there are things that remain mysterious (though Christians do not use the word "mystery" in its Gnostic sense -- Gnostic "mysteries" are perpetual, whereas Christian "mysteries" are temporary and issue in later reveling of their meaning: see, for example, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:26, etc.), but since we're speaking of an infinite God, it would be problematic if there were NOT things we don't yet know about Him.

Quite contrary: most of the Christian believers are "elementary school or less" category, never read the bible, and just follow the clergy's orders. For them, they themselves are a mystery, let alone god.

I guess you don't know the right kind of "Christians," then. It's certainly not the case that they're all clerical followers. It's true that the Catholics, for example, are taught to be that, except those admitted to the priestly and theologian castes; but you won't find that's the case among the many Protestant groups. You'll find that many of them are rather diligent readers-for-themselves...which was actually one of the hot points in the Reformation, as you may recall.

Still, what you allege could easily be said for Atheists. Most of them are not scholars-of-Atheism, and have never read Voltaire or Nietzsche, Marx or Hume, even in snippets. They just don't like the idea of God, and for them, there it stops, really. That's just how people are: most are not scholars. It's not much of criticism if they're not: we need all kinds in this world. So long as there ARE some scholars among them, we're moving as might be expected.

About Christian "deep thinkers": William Lane Craig,

Wait. You just said that they're "elementary school." And now you mention one whom even you would have to admit is not?

...a Christian "philosopher" and apologist who runs the "Reasonable Faith" website, said that he would continue to believe in god despite being presented with valid evidence that god does not exist.

I'm pretty sure you're taking him out of context, and thus putting a spin on his words. I know Craig, and he's not an unthoughtful person, as even his enemies would freely recognize; for they take him very seriously, and put their best up against him.

I'd like you to show the context in which you found this quotation, because I'm willing to bet he said it in the context of what he would NOW do, now that he already knows God, rather than in a context of uncommitted uncertainty.

But we'll see, if you'll point out the place where you found the quotation.

Meanwhile, I found he says this, in response to that very sort of critique: and this would seem to cast serious doubt on your objection, I would say.

In the context, he's refuting the critic's claim that we would "evolve" a belief in God regardless of the truth of that belief.

"Perhaps the problem raised by these accounts is something different altogether. We might put the worry this way. In the case of our natural disposition to believe in rocks or human minds, the beliefs we formed are caused by rocks and human minds acting directly on our minds (through our senses, for example). But in the case of religious belief, belief in God arises from our “agency detector” firing off in the presence of the wind and the waves. That makes these religious beliefs very different. Rock beliefs are caused by rocks, while God beliefs are caused by . . . the wind. So, one might say, we would believe in God, even if there were no God there. And that is a problem.

This critic is right—that would be a problem. But it is not clear that what the critic is saying is true. Is it true that:

(6) Human minds would exist and believe in God, even if there were no God?

I don’t think so. I don’t think there would be a universe if there were no God. I don’t think the universe would be fine-tuned for life if there were no God. And I don’t think there would be any actual life, believers, human beings, or religion either if there were no God. Am I wrong? If I am, nothing about evolutionary or cognitive psychology indicates that I am. So, contrary to our initial conclusion, evolutionary accounts do not teach us that we would have religious beliefs whether or not they are true. As a result, this argument fails."

W.L.C, at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... ro-science

Is that deep? Is that reasonable?

Before you decide, you'd maybe better show that what you quote is what he says. I've provided the whole context, so you would know I'm representin his view rightly.

William Lane Craig EXPOSED, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQm3rH7PuYs, starting 9.55, his statement, 9.59: “For not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit’s witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer.”

Craig is a theologian. Nothing will change his mind. He has no idea what the word "objectivity" means.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Relativization with reframing valid to sound and sound to "possible" won't do.

Possible is the best we can do. As I have pointed out frequently, there is only one thing we can be certain of: that there is experience. So for example, you have the experience of being the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. One explanation for that experience is that you are indeed the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. There are though, alternatives.

The fact that "reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive" does not mean that some premises and conclusions are valid.

Premises are not valid or otherwise. They are either true or not. It is the logical form you apply to the argument you develop from your premises, that is valid or not. Here is a valid argument:

All snerts gevarlicate.
Grompot is a snert,
Therefore Grompot gevarlicates.

I have no idea whether there is a snert called Grompot, and what he/she/it does while gevarlicating is anyone's guess, but the argument is valid: if there are such things as snerts, all of which gevarlicate, and Grompot is among their number, then that Grompot gevarlicates is a valid conclusion.

I agree, first true (or not) and then valid (or not) it is.

Three of my pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence are logical. I had a long debate with ChatGPT and Claude, and they fought hard to refute them, but they couldn't. I successfully answered all of their arguments.

They couldn't logically prove that snerts don't exist. That's the thing with premises, they are sometimes impossible to refute. The mistake that clowns like Mr Can, Age and a host of other philosophical dimwits make, is to believe that irrefutable = true. It does not. I cannot prove that you are not the founder of the Cosmic Administration, or the planet Palki isn't a short distance above us, but these are extraordinary claims, which as the dictum demands, require some evidence a bit more extraordinary than you saying so.

If the premise is true and the logical conclusion is valid, then the claim can not be refuted. There is a chance that new information arises and changes the equation, but in the case of god's existence, it won't.

As I said, I can not prove to you my cosmic status, but I suggested to you the way you can try to get your personal experiences about life on other planets, and at least, partially, confirm my statements about it. I also offered you full support.

Here is my first piece of evidence that is known, but it wasn't understood, used properly, and applied to god's existence.

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

Yeah, that's in a closed system. Basically, if you take a set of circumstances, isolate it from the rest of the universe, the amount of energy in that system remains constant.

Energy with a capital E is not a part of the universe; it is the universe, or more precisely, Existence (not Creation).

Existence, All That Is, has 2 parts:

1. Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness). It is a non-material, superstate, infinite.

2. Energy (all energy phenomena, material bodies, and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids, to matter). It is finite, and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness.

So, the 1. Law of thermodynamics, properly explained, is that Energy, as the energy and material part of Existence, can not be created or destroyed.

1. Energy, as the energy and material part of Existence, can not be created or destroyed.
2. Existence was never created.
3. God never created Existence nor Creation.
4. God does not exist.
5. Existence is eternal.

So, Energy can not be created.

Have a word with your physics top expert. Ask him or her what energy is. The mystery is not that there is energy, it is that there is something for energy to apply to.

Energy is self-contained. There is nothing out of Energy that could use it for any kind of applications. Pure Awareness permeates Energy, and it is also outside of it, but it is not a being or an agent, and it does not act, use Energy, or apply It to anything; it just is.

I appreciate that you are positive, open-minded, and dogma-free.

Learn lucid dreaming, it will widely open your eyes to a new dimension of understanding what is going on in our cosmos. You will realize that The Matrix is not just a movie.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Relativization with reframing valid to sound and sound to "possible" won't do.

Possible is the best we can do. As I have pointed out frequently, there is only one thing we can be certain of: that there is experience. So for example, you have the experience of being the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. One explanation for that experience is that you are indeed the founder of the new Cosmic Administration. There are though, alternatives.

The fact that "reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive" does not mean that some premises and conclusions are valid.

Premises are not valid or otherwise. They are either true or not. It is the logical form you apply to the argument you develop from your premises, that is valid or not. Here is a valid argument:

All snerts gevarlicate.
Grompot is a snert,
Therefore Grompot gevarlicates.

I have no idea whether there is a snert called Grompot, and what he/she/it does while gevarlicating is anyone's guess, but the argument is valid: if there are such things as snerts, all of which gevarlicate, and Grompot is among their number, then that Grompot gevarlicates is a valid conclusion.

I agree, first true (or not) and then valid (or not) it is.

Three of my pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence are logical. I had a long debate with ChatGPT and Claude, and they fought hard to refute them, but they couldn't. I successfully answered all of their arguments.

They couldn't logically prove that snerts don't exist. That's the thing with premises, they are sometimes impossible to refute. The mistake that clowns like Mr Can, Age and a host of other philosophical dimwits make, is to believe that irrefutable = true. It does not. I cannot prove that you are not the founder of the Cosmic Administration, or the planet Palki isn't a short distance above us, but these are extraordinary claims, which as the dictum demands, require some evidence a bit more extraordinary than you saying so.

If the premise is true and the logical conclusion is valid, then the claim can not be refuted. There is a chance that new information arises and changes the equation, but in the case of god's existence, it won't.

As I said, I can not prove to you my cosmic status, but I suggested to you the way you can try to get your personal experiences about life on other planets, and at least, partially, confirm my statements about it. I also offered you full support.

Here is my first piece of evidence that is known, but it wasn't understood, used properly, and applied to god's existence.

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

Yeah, that's in a closed system. Basically, if you take a set of circumstances, isolate it from the rest of the universe, the amount of energy in that system remains constant.

Energy with a capital E is not a part of the universe; it is the universe, or more precisely, Existence (not Creation).

Existence, All That Is, has 2 parts:

1. Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness). It is a non-material, superstate, infinite.

2. Energy (all energy phenomena, material bodies, and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids, to matter). It is finite, and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness.

So, the 1. Law of thermodynamics, properly explained, is that Energy, as the energy and material part of Existence, can not be created or destroyed.

1. Energy, as the energy and material part of Existence, can not be created or destroyed.
2. Existence was never created.
3. God never created Existence nor Creation.
4. God does not exist.
5. Existence is eternal.

So, Energy can not be created.

Have a word with your physics top expert. Ask him or her what energy is. The mystery is not that there is energy, it is that there is something for energy to apply to.

Energy is self-contained. There is nothing out of Energy that could use it for any kind of applications. Pure Awareness permeates Energy, and it is also outside of it, but it is not a being or an agent, and it does not act, use Energy, or apply It to anything; it just is.

I appreciate that you are positive, open-minded, and dogma-free.

Learn lucid dreaming, it will widely open your eyes to a new dimension of understanding what is going on in our cosmos. You will realize that The Matrix is not just a movie.

Some of my answers are between your statements.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Actually it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter. And nothing implies that an omnipotent God would be remotely incapable of doing exactly the lack of which what you say "proves" He cannot exist.

Meanwhile, you've forgotten the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that the universe had a definite beginning point. Entropy proves there was a state of higher order from which entropy is marking the decline to a state of lower order.

So there was some original "creation" event: now we have to find a plausible doer for the action of creating a universe.

I'm always bemused by the confidence with which skeptics claim to have closed the book on the question, while having no sufficient argument of the kind in hand at all. It's almost like they're in a desperate hurry to keep us from thinking further...

Energy can not be created or destroyed. That means that the god Creator does not exist because that is not possible. Energy is eternal, and this fact excludes the Creator god.

That doesn't follow at all. It would just mean that energy has a special role in the universe, unlike destructable things. But it would not in any way preclude a God who transcends space, matter, time and what we understand as "energy."

Energy with a capital E is not part of the universe; it is the Universe. Existence, All That Is, has 2 parts - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness) and Energy (all energy phenomena and material bodies and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids to matter). Energy and Pure Awareness, in one word, Existence, was never created and will never be destroyed. Existence is eternal. God does not exist.

In the myth, god did not create the World from matter but from nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

Again, there's no problem here if God is transcendent. If He were something subject to physical laws, there would be; but then, if he were less than and subject to His own physical laws, He would not be transcendent, and we would not even be talking about what is meant by "God."

Even if god were "transcended", but is not, he could not create something out of nothing, because that is not possible.

As I wrote above, there are only two substances in Existence, Pure Awareness and Energy. In your case, transended would mean that god would exist beyond the Energy part of Existence. The only "place" he could live would be Pure Awareness. But, PA is not material; it is not part of Energy, it is just a superstate of awareness. It is not a being, not an agent, and it does nothing, just is. So, there is no place for your god to exist, besides your imagination.

All believers were programmed to believe in god. The fourth evidence for god's nonexistence I present is experiential. I have decades-long experience with the members of the Karmic organization who created our part of the cosmos and wrote all incarnational scripts for all humans. Did you see The Matrix? That is not just a movie; it is a karmic presentation of planetary simulations. The karmicons removed some limitations from my energy body as a part of their experiment, which helped me to awaken into Pure Awareness and partially exit their Program. I have access beyond the Earth's Matrix, and regularly communicate with the members of the new Cosmic Administration and other inhabitants of other planets. If you want to check these statements, learn to lucid dream, meet inhabitants of other planets, and check my claims.

Besides the 1. Law of thermodynamics, I have two more pieces of evidence that also prove that god's existence is impossible.

About the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

1. 1. Law clearly states that Energy can not be created, which means that Energy is eternal. That means that the Universe did not have "a definite beginning point". The "Big Bang" is just a phenomenon inside eternal Energy and is not "creatio ex nihilo".

Well, we've dealt with this one. You're supposing that God has to be subject to natural laws. That's simply not what is meant by "God."

So, do you claim that god can create Something from Nothing? Are there "supernatural laws"?

God is not outside somewhere, as there is no outside for him to be, god does not exist at all.

2. 2. Law does not state that "the universe had a definite beginning point": "In a closed system, entropy (disorder) tends to increase over time."

Wait. Think about that carefully. You'll see I'm right.

If the universe is tending from a state of higher order to lower order, as the 2nd Law requires, then there must have been a point in which much hither order was infused into the universe. Entropy cannot have been working forever, because if it had (now consider this carefully) NOTHING WOULD EXIST NOW.

And why is that? Because any amount of entropy -- even the tiniest amount -- plus infinite time, would mean that heat death would already have occurred, and have occurred an infinite amount of time ago. For infinity is not just "a very long time," but rather "an infinitely long time." So the most miniscule entropy would have had infinite time to work, and would have produced an infinite result...total heat death.

But here we are. And this proves beyond all possible doubt that we are not living in an infinitely-old universe. There necessarily had to be a time when a massive amount of order (which we readily observe is the case, and from which entropy is made possible) was somehow infused into the universe. And that proves the universe had a beginning.

That is not true. 2. Law does not require anything. You are again fabricating context and reframing it to fit your false explanations. 2. Law just states that there are fluctuations in an energy field, and nothing else. All other assumptions are just speculations, and nothing else. Stick to the line: 1. Law states that Energy can not be created or destroyed. 2. Law adds that there are changes in this energy field. That's it.

Using infinity as a parameter for Energy is just a manipulation.

1. Law clearly states that Energy can not be created or destroyed. That means that Energy is not infinite, but eternal. There is a fixed amount of Energy, and it is a closed system. That means that is not infinite, quite the contrary, it is finite. Energy with capital E is part of Existence. It is finite and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness, a non-material superstate. The only infinity there is, is a cyclical circling inside Energy.

Let me add another significant fact. 2. Law of thermodynamics is true only in our dimension. In higher dimensions, there are no thermal changes as they don't have temperature at all. In higher dimensions, Energy is stable, and there is no entropy of any kind.

I presented sufficient evidence.

I don't find it's sufficient at all. It may satisfy somebody who already wants to believe that; but to be honest, I see no reason it should be compelling to a balanced observer.

I understand you. In the 3. book of my series, I present faith as a mental illness with RTS (Religious Trauma Syndrome) being just one of many psychological disorders of religious believers.

Here is a quote from your colleague, the believer William Lane Craig: “For not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit’s witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer.” Source: William Lane Craig EXPOSED, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQm3rH7PuYs, time mark, 9.59

Try to refute it,

Done. See above.

You have just tried to speculate your way out of the simple fact that Energy can not be created from nothing; that's why god does not exist, because that is not possible.

I suggest you think about the fact that Energy (and Existence) is eternal. What does that really mean?

Or, continue the Christian crusade against reason with VLC mantring "I should continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit’s witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted."

By the way, is the "Spirit's witness" a valid evidence for the existence of god for you?

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Energy can not be created or destroyed. That means that the god Creator does not exist because that is not possible. Energy is eternal, and this fact excludes the Creator god.

That doesn't follow at all. It would just mean that energy has a special role in the universe, unlike destructable things. But it would not in any way preclude a God who transcends space, matter, time and what we understand as "energy."

Energy with a capital E is not part of the universe; it is the Universe. Existence, All That Is, has 2 parts - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness) and Energy (all energy phenomena and material bodies and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids to matter). Energy and Pure Awareness, in one word, Existence, was never created and will never be destroyed. Existence is eternal. God does not exist.

In the myth, god did not create the World from matter but from nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

Again, there's no problem here if God is transcendent. If He were something subject to physical laws, there would be; but then, if he were less than and subject to His own physical laws, He would not be transcendent, and we would not even be talking about what is meant by "God."

Even if god were "transcended", but is not, he could not create something out of nothing, because that is not possible.

As I wrote above, there are only two substances in Existence, Pure Awareness and Energy. In your case, transended would mean that god would exist beyond the Energy part of Existence. The only "place" he could live would be Pure Awareness. But, PA is not material; it is not part of Energy, it is just a superstate of awareness. It is not a being, not an agent, and it does nothing, just is. So, there is no place for your god to exist, besides your imagination.

All believers were programmed to believe in god. The fourth evidence for god's nonexistence I present is experiential. I have decades-long experience with the members of the Karmic organization who created our part of the cosmos and wrote all incarnational scripts for all humans. Did you see The Matrix? That is not just a movie; it is a karmic presentation of planetary simulations. The karmicons removed some limitations from my energy body as a part of their experiment, which helped me to awaken into Pure Awareness and partially exit their Program. I have access beyond the Earth's Matrix, and regularly communicate with the members of the new Cosmic Administration and other inhabitants of other planets. If you want to check these statements, learn to lucid dream, meet inhabitants of other planets, and check my claims.

Besides the 1. Law of thermodynamics, I have two more pieces of evidence that also prove that god's existence is impossible.

About the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

1. 1. Law clearly states that Energy can not be created, which means that Energy is eternal. That means that the Universe did not have "a definite beginning point". The "Big Bang" is just a phenomenon inside eternal Energy and is not "creatio ex nihilo".

Well, we've dealt with this one. You're supposing that God has to be subject to natural laws. That's simply not what is meant by "God."

So, do you claim that god can create Something from Nothing? Are there "supernatural laws"?

God is not outside somewhere, as there is no outside for him to be, god does not exist at all.

2. 2. Law does not state that "the universe had a definite beginning point": "In a closed system, entropy (disorder) tends to increase over time."

Wait. Think about that carefully. You'll see I'm right.

If the universe is tending from a state of higher order to lower order, as the 2nd Law requires, then there must have been a point in which much hither order was infused into the universe. Entropy cannot have been working forever, because if it had (now consider this carefully) NOTHING WOULD EXIST NOW.

And why is that? Because any amount of entropy -- even the tiniest amount -- plus infinite time, would mean that heat death would already have occurred, and have occurred an infinite amount of time ago. For infinity is not just "a very long time," but rather "an infinitely long time." So the most miniscule entropy would have had infinite time to work, and would have produced an infinite result...total heat death.

But here we are. And this proves beyond all possible doubt that we are not living in an infinitely-old universe. There necessarily had to be a time when a massive amount of order (which we readily observe is the case, and from which entropy is made possible) was somehow infused into the universe. And that proves the universe had a beginning.

That is not true. 2. Law does not require anything. You are again fabricating context and reframing it to fit your false explanations. 2. Law just states that there are fluctuations in an energy field, and nothing else. All other assumptions are just speculations, and nothing else. Stick to the line: 1. Law states that Energy can not be created or destroyed. 2. Law adds that there are changes in this energy field. That's it.

Using infinity as a parameter for Energy is just a manipulation.

1. Law clearly states that Energy can not be created or destroyed. That means that Energy is not infinite, but eternal. There is a fixed amount of Energy, and it is a closed system. That means that is not infinite, quite the contrary, it is finite. Energy with capital E is part of Existence. It is finite and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness, a non-material superstate. The only infinity there is, is a cyclical circling inside Energy.

Let me add another significant fact. 2. Law of thermodynamics is true only in our dimension. In higher dimensions, there are no thermal changes as they don't have temperature at all. In higher dimensions, Energy is stable, and there is no entropy of any kind.

I presented sufficient evidence.

I don't find it's sufficient at all. It may satisfy somebody who already wants to believe that; but to be honest, I see no reason it should be compelling to a balanced observer.

I understand you. In the 3. book of my series, I present faith as a mental illness with RTS (Religious Trauma Syndrome) being just one of many psychological disorders of religious believers.

Here is a quote from your colleague, the believer William Lane Craig: “For not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit’s witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer.” Source: William Lane Craig EXPOSED, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQm3rH7PuYs, time mark, 9.59

Try to refute it,

Done. See above.

You have just tried to speculate your way out of the simple fact that Energy can not be created from nothing; that's why god does not exist, because that is not possible.

I suggest you think about the fact that Energy (and Existence) is eternal. What does that really mean?

Or, continue the Christian crusade against reason with VLC mantring "I should continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit’s witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted."

By the way, is the "Spirit's witness" a valid evidence for the existence of god for you?

Some of my answers are between your statements.

[Immanuel Can]

Before you decide, you'd maybe better show that what you quote is what he says. I've provided the whole context, so you would know I'm representin his view rightly.

William Lane Craig EXPOSED, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQm3rH7PuYs, starting 9.55, his statement, 9.59: “For not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit’s witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer.”

You have provided none of the context of the quotation at all. Why not? I did, for you. But the snippet to which you refer isn't any longer than the one you repeated.

Am I to understand that you took this critic's word for what was meant by WLC? You never checked him? That's a remarkable degree of faith in somebody who, presumably, you don't know at all. What's the source of your confidence in him?

But look at the wording: "...in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer." What WLC seems to be saying is, "I wouldn't just give up my initial belief at the first sign of a difficult question about it." And that's just common sense: a man who is completely pulled out of his orbit, and suddenly abandon's everything he formerly believed, merely because somebody cast the first doubt upon it would clearly be a man who never had a single belief worth holding onto in the first place -- not even one worth holding for five minutes. And that's certainly not WLC.

Consider a scientist. He believes in a scientific law, say. The first time he sees something that doesn't seem compatible with that law, should he give up his belief in the whole principle, despite all previous experiments, all scientific consensus, and so on? Should he give up his conviction that there are natural laws? Should he maybe abandon his whole faith in science?

But that's exactly what you're criticizing WLC for NOT doing. You're imagining that at the first sign of a question or anomalous result, a rational man abandons all his previous beliefs, are you not? But if you are not, then you have no criticism of WLC on that score.

Without the rest of the quotation, you and I will never know what WLC really meant, there. But I'd like to. So if you have even the foggiest idea where it came from, please supply it. And if you don't know, then how do you know how to interpret what he said?

[Immanuel Can]

You have just tried to speculate your way out of the simple fact that Energy can not be created from nothing; that's why god does not exist, because that is not possible.

You don't have the foggiest idea what's "possible" for an omnipotent God. All you know is that humans can't do it. But that's utterly unsurprising.

I think you've fallen prey to the old confusion over the word "law." When the word "law" is used in science, it does not refer to an unchangeable certainty. It means "regularity observed," as in, "when a large object is dropped, all things being equal, it falls to the ground "-- hence, we can speak of a "law" of gravity, because that's what routinely happens when the experiment is performed.

But such a "law" has no force behind it, except the conviction we get from the number of experiments it appears to explain. It has no moral rightness, and no absolute certainty: it is, like all scientific "laws," just the theory we find most plausible unless further evidence comes in to cause us to modify it.

If tomorrow we found an object floating above the earth, defying gravity, we'd have to revise our understanding of "the law of gravity" to account for it. But the law of gravity does not tell us that's impossible: it only obtains because so far, that hasn't happened -- to our knowledge. A "natural law," then, is just the best expression of current knowledge of human beings on the regularities that govern the universe, so long as something more powerful -- another scientific law, perhaps, or a divine being -- intervene to prove our "law" incomplete.

Can an omnipotent God, who is believed to have set all the "laws" in place in the first place, suspend, interrupt or overcome the natural regularities of the universe He has created? You'll have to explain why he cannot. It looks quite obvious that He can do anything He wishes about that.

[Age]

Your observation assumes that god already exists, but some can not see it.

My observation does not assume any such thing.

The reason why you presumed such a thing is because if your already held onto belief.

It is not about perception; it is about existence.

1. What, exactly, is, supposedly, not about 'perception: but is about 'existence'?

2. My observation is based upon what actually exists, which you and others could not refute.

People, even believers, can not see god because he does not exist.

Once again you make presumptions. Presuming God has male genitals will help you lead you the conclusion, God does not exist.

your perspective presumes God does not exist. But, if God exists or not is about 'existence' instead, obviously.

I don't presume that god does not exist, I know it and I proved it.

If you really want to keep claiming that you have proved that God does not exist, then please just explain what is your perception of what the God word means and/or is referring to, exactly.

For if you do not, then I, for One, have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what 'It' is, exactly, which you claim you have proved does not exist.

[Age]

You have provided none of the context of the quotation at all. Why not? I did, for you. But the snippet to which you refer isn't any longer than the one you repeated.

Am I to understand that you took this critic's word for what was meant by WLC? You never checked him? That's a remarkable degree of faith in somebody who, presumably, you don't know at all. What's the source of your confidence in him?

But look at the wording: "...in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer." What WLC seems to be saying is, "I wouldn't just give up my initial belief at the first sign of a difficult question about it." And that's just common sense: a man who is completely pulled out of his orbit, and suddenly abandon's everything he formerly believed, merely because somebody cast the first doubt upon it would clearly be a man who never had a single belief worth holding onto in the first place -- not even one worth holding for five minutes. And that's certainly not WLC.

Consider a scientist. He believes in a scientific law, say. The first time he sees something that doesn't seem compatible with that law, should he give up his belief in the whole principle, despite all previous experiments, all scientific consensus, and so on? Should he give up his conviction that there are natural laws? Should he maybe abandon his whole faith in science?

But that's exactly what you're criticizing WLC for NOT doing. You're imagining that at the first sign of a question or anomalous result, a rational man abandons all his previous beliefs, are you not? But if you are not, then you have no criticism of WLC on that score.

Without the rest of the quotation, you and I will never know what WLC really meant, there. But I'd like to. So if you have even the foggiest idea where it came from, please supply it. And if you don't know, then how do you know how to interpret what he said?

Here, exists the very reason why 'these human beings', back when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up'. 'They', literally, would not 'let go' of beliefs even if, and even while, the evidence opposing 'their belief' was piling and building up before them. 'They' preferred to just 'look at' and 'see' 'the world' from their already obtained and maintained held onto belief/s, no matter how False and Wrong those beliefs were, instead of just 'looking' and 'seeing' things from just a Truly open perspective.