The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

Energy or material world (Energy is matter) is evidence that there is something besides Pure Awareness.

Well, it's a bit hackneyed, but how do you prove there is a material world?

Do you exist?

You are part energy and part material being.

Both of your bodies, the energy and the physical one, are, in fact, made of Energy.

Could 'your definition', here, be Wrong or False in any way?

[Age]

If you say: "One only has to be open to see, hear, and recognize where God, Itself, actually is, exactly.", it means that you assume that god exists, but some can not see him.

No it does not at all.

I will suggest you do not make these types of absurd assumptions at all.

I will also inform you that you made that ridiculous assumption because of your 'current' belief.

That is about perception. You are trying to reframe the debate from existence to perception, and on the way, fabricate god's existence, claiming that he exists but people can not see him.

1. I do not do 'debate', but if you want to keep doing it, then okay.

And,

2. I am not doing what you are 'trying to' claim I am, here.

I am talking about the existence, or more precisely, non-existence of god, not about the perception of him. It is logical that if god does not exist, and he doesn't, nobody can see him.

Why have you gone off on this absolutely nothing I have been talking about and meaning tangent for, exactly?

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

But, as the other posters, here, have already pointed out, to you, you have not actually proved what you believe and claim you have. And, for some of the very reasons that they have given you already.

God as Creator of the World from nothing does not exist because that is not possible.

Obviously. Only a very closed person would believe that some thing could come from no thing. But, the Fact that every thing comes from at least two other prior things in no way at all proves that God does not exist.

I have three pieces of evidence to prove it. I had a long and thorough debate with two AI machines, and they tried every possible thing to refute it, but they couldn't. Finally, they confirmed that my evidence god does not exist is solid and logically irrefutable.

LOL

Did you even have a discussion with these 'artificially, only, intelligent contraptions' about who and/or what the 'Thing' even is, exactly, which you assume and believe, a absolutely, does not exist?

If no, then what even is 'it', which you claim does not even exist?

If you do not answer and clarify, then any claim that 'it' does not exist is just ludicrous.

Even your claim that you have three pieces of evidence to prove it is nonsensical.

Check it here: https://god-doesntexist.com/first-valid ... -humanity/.

You deny my logical evidence, but not with reason of other logical counterevidence, but with faith.

LOL you keep making these utterly False assumptions, without you realising how silly and

You can't operate in the field of reason and logic, so you are constantly shifting to the magical realm of faith, where fictional creatures perform miracles like creating the World from nothing.

Even so-called "atheists" do not claim that 'the World' was created from nothing. So, 'trying to' claim that 'the World' was not created from nothing could be interpreted and used as so-called 'further evidence' that God does exist. It certainly is not evidence that God does not exist.

Your statement about god's genitals is a typical logical fallacy called a strawman. You are misrepresenting my claim about the nonexistence of god by falsely suggesting that I base my conclusions on god's genitals.

And you have, once more, just made another absolutely False presumption.

You are trying to divert the debate into the muddy and foggy swamp of apologetic manipulations. Manipulating means that you are a manipulator, and you don't have any legitimate arguments, let alone evidence for god's existence, but just irrationalizing your despair. As soon as you start manipulating, you admit you are lost. I did not say a word about god's genitals.

Did I even think you did, let alone say you did?

My claim that god does not exist is based on three pieces of evidence: scientific, logical, and ontological, and not on a nonexisting god's gender.

I know that you are fully programmed and indoctrinated into faith, but I offer you a chance to read the whole chapter with my three pieces of valid evidence, or even better, the whole series, if you want, get the whole picture, and think about it. Observe your urges to deny, fight, and pervert it with cheap manipulations. Analyze it with reason, and conclude with logic.

your continual distorted and False assumptions, here, are letting you down profusely, and absolutely so.

I have enrolled my series in Amazon KDP Select and Kindle Unlimited. If you are a member, you can find and read my books on KU. Amazon also started to cooperate with the public libraries so you can ask for my series in your local library to order it, and you will read it for free. Read more about it in my new article: God Does NOT Exist Books Free in Kindle ... in History

Here, 'we' have another example of 'another one' who can not see past its own beliefs

I friendly suggest you to be honest with yourself, as you can not trick me. Some things are possible, and some are not. Creating out of nothing is not possible, and it never will be. Creator god does not exist because he just can't.

LOL 'This one', still, believes God has a penis and gonads

Support your statements with rational, concrete, and valid arguments.

You are just floating in self-denial desperation, masking it with a nonsensical mockery.

Why do you not, again, follow your own advice, and support your statement, here, with rational, concrete, sound, and valid arguments?

[Age]

Nothing can not exist because that is not possible.

This is the same category error. The term "nothing" refers only to the total absence of any things. "Nothing" is not something that you can expect to "exist," or anybody else can imagine could "exist," or that one can use the predication "exist" to refer to.

So there's no new information in the fact that it does not exist. It's not some kind of a wondrous realization; it's a dull and circular observation.

For those who think that nothing exists and god made a Creation out of it, it matters.

It is a big step forward to understand that nothing does not exist, as it is a foundation for the next truth, and that is Eternity of Existence (and not Creation).

But, areas of 'nothing' do exist. For if they did not, then 'you' would not be, here, being able to make your False and Wrong claims, here.

[Belinda]

That's like saying, "All dogs are equal, in that they are dogs." Even if true, it misses a whole lot. There are chihuahuas, and there are great danes. There are small experiences, and there are profound ones.

What is more profound about a great dane than a chihuahua? It seems to me that it isn't the experience that is profound, rather the response.

Causes are always limited to what is both available to and capable of causing the phenomenon in the first place. Sometimes, that's only one thing.

Well, if that one thing is a god that can do anything, there is no limit to what that one possibility can do.

Sometimes it's a couple. Usually, there's a balance of probabilities that makes one much more probable than the other. But all empirical knowing, being a matter of data+faith, involves a potential margin of indecision -- but often, that margin is not very large.

Ok, so let's look at some empirical facts.

It is an empirical fact that people across the world have experiences that they attribute to some god..

'This' is not necessarily an 'empirical fact' at all. And, the obviousness of this some can see, but which you obviously can not, yet.

It is also a fact that most will attribute their experience to a god that features in their cultural heritage.

In each case there is plenty of data to support the fact; I don't need any faith to empirically know that. .

Considering that it is you who claims that the only thing that can be known is 'awareness' what you say and write, here, appears contradictory

So no, all empirical knowing is not "a matter of data+faith". The faith is in the interpretation of the facts. How then are we to interpret the above two facts? Well, there are no limits to how they might be interpreted, but let's look at two: yours and mine. As I understand, you believe that people's cultural heritage blinds them to the accurate interpretation, the result being that the vast majority of people who have ever lived will spend eternity separated from your god, and that is a very bad thing. I, on the other hand, look at those two facts and interpret them as meaning people will attribute their experience to a god that features in their cultural heritage, because that god features in their cultural heritage.

It's hard to discuss in vague terms, as you are now doing. In specific cases, it's usually easy to see which is which.

Too vague, eh? Ok, so you assert that:

You can know him from the natural world, from your own nature, from conscience, and from revelation...all of which he's made available to everybody.

and:

All men know He exists, that Creation displays his handiwork, that morality is real, and so forth.

According to which there are no special experiences that are necessary to believe in the same god as you. However, you also say:

So an Atheist can only insist there's no God by also insisting nobody has ever had any genuine experience of God -- never anyone, in any religion or by any miracle, and never in history, even once.

Which implies there are special "genuine" experiences that only some people have. So which is more probable: that your god reveals itself in day to day experiences, or that some small fraction of humanity is privileged with "genuine" experiences?

Atheists are a statistically rare breed, actually; and their lack of experience would not tell against the experiences of others, because the fact that one man says "I never experienced that" doesn't imply somebody else didn't.

If an atheist is so because of "their lack of experience", why does your god favour some humans over others?

Lack of experience , intelligence , money, or education is lack of equality . Some people are luckier than others.
God’s mercy transcends human calculations of fairness. See the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

The huge example of unfairness ,according to human measurement ,is the horrific death of Jesus .

[Age]

In this case, you don't need to call "nothing, distinction, and absence" "god". You can use their native names: nothing, distinction, and absence.

But, before that, two of your "ifs" put all your theory under the question mark. You first say "if", and then proceed like it is already true.

"if God is above all things" and "If God is distinction": first answer your own questions, support them with valid evidence, and then formulate a conclusion.

To look in a dictionary you would see one word leading to another, one word nested within and through other words. To say "x" is "x means y". This is the natural course of definition.

Given the universality of "distinction and nothingness" and God having a universal nature, to equate the two conceptual paradigms is not irrational nor a stretch.

If cyclicality is universal to all things by degree of things repeating across time, and the inherent symmetry of things by degree of repeated limits, the cycle can be congruent to a Divine Order which is inevitable in existence as existence.

So...evidence? Evidence is purely an interpretation that match perceptual patterns. You have to be more precise what you mean by evidence. Some claim empiricality is pure evidence, others abstraction (logic, math).

If God is subject to purely existence than God would cease to be all powerful as existence precedes God. Existence would be the God above God. God must be beyond existence...effectively nothing so to speak.

If God is everpresent, and distinction is everpresent across all existence, than God exists through everpresent distinction. Distinction is existence itself, it allows for the empirical and abstract but is not limited to them and what is empirical and what is abstract are but distinctions. Distinction is proto-existence.

So God is both nothing and occurs through distinction (proto-existence).

What now?

Nothingness is the everpresent potentiality by which distinction occurs. We know distinction by change for change manifests contrast.

Change occurs as the emergence and dissolution of distinctions (you can use the term "limits, boundaries, forms" if this is easier to conceptualize).

The emergence and dissolution of distinction can only occur if there is the space to do so, this space to do so is 'void as potentiality'. Things occur only of specific things are absent in the space by which the thing occurs.

Each distinction is the means for further distinctions as a distinction is empty it itself without the relationship to other distinctions. Each distinction as empty in itself is the space for other distinctiona to occur from said distinction.

If all distinctions are void in themselves and are the means by which other distinctions occur than nothingness is the central cause of being by which distinction is the actuality of nothingness.

Void is beyond being, as not being. This is God.

Void is everpresent across distinction as the means of distinction. This is God.

You are again jumping from "if" to "sure".

Nothing can't exist because that is not possible.

Void as nothing also does not exist.

God as Creator does not exist because that is not possible.

There is only Existence that was never created and will never disappear.

But, there is, also, the Universe that will never disappear and that was never 'created', in the sense and interpretation that you have, here.

Existence is eternal.

And so to is the Universe, Itself, eternal, as well as being infinite.

[seeds]

Seeds, think it was ,who wrote:-

Anyway, the whole point of me sidetracking off into this rant about the MWI was to highlight the fact that it's not just us religious nutjobs and space cadets who come up with (and believe in) some pretty wild "creation stories."

If a man can understand creation stories only literally and not as allegories then it''s not surprising they seem to the man to be nonsense.

You're kidding, right?

The "creation story" told by the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) is indeed literal to them, not allegorical.
_______

[seeds]

Yes. And,

Yes

Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing. And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"? Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

Come on now, Gary, Age is no doubt responding to this question...

Is there such a thing as "perfect" knowledge? And if there is, could the one who had it predict EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event?

And the problem is that most "human beings"...

(in the days when this is being written)

...were simply not intelligent enough to realize that the two yeses are Age referring to himself as being the one who (yes) is in possession of "perfect knowledge" and therefore (yes) it is he who is capable of predicting "...EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event..."

You need to pay closer attention to the subtext of Age's M.O..

Btw, why are you even talking to someone who treats you like an idiot by thinking that he can get away with making such brazenly inconsistent statements as was witnessed in your earlier conversation with him, because just prior to stating this...

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding...

...you guys had the following exchange...

Gary:
Why are galaxies moving further and further away from each other?
Age:
Because of what is called a big bang.
Gary:
Was there ever a point where all the galaxies were much closer to each other than they are now?
Age:
It appears there was. Infact it appears that all of the observed galaxies were together as one infinite compression of matter.

He will of course insist that the "Universe" is something wholly other than the totality of the galaxies of which he clearly admitted were once closer to each other when they were...

"...together as one infinite compression of matter..."

...yet are moving apart - (as in expanding away from each other) - due to what Age himself admits was a "big bang."

Age cannot seem to get it into his head that in modern cosmological parlance, what cosmologists refer to as being "The Universe" is represented by (and began with) that initial "...infinite compression of matter..." which, again, has been "E--X--P--A--N--D--I--N--G" ever since the alleged "bang" allegedly occurred 13.8 billion years ago.

However, and again, Age seems to have something "wholly other" in mind when it comes to the definition of the word "Universe."

And that's okay, but he completely lacks the ability (not to mention, the willful inclination) to clearly define what he means by "Universe."

All Age knows how to do is to lure suckers into his endless maze of never-ending requests to ask him "clarifying questions" that turn into more questions that lead to absolutely nowhere.

And why do they lead to nowhere?

Because Age is...

(I was going to say an insulting/bullying "troll" who loves to "LOL" at everyone else's ideas, but I don't think he's purposely being malicious)

...again, Age is what I believe to be a "sincere" (as in truly believes his own nonsense) individual, but in fact is an extremely confused person who (just like the rest of us) hasn't the slightest idea of what the ultimate truth of reality truly is.

Indeed, Age is just another poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect who, due to some unfortunate obsessive/compulsive disorder, tends to suck the oxygen out of almost every thread he participates in.
_______

[Age]

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

Ah, well the lunacy is not in the ideas, it is in the conviction with which they are held. I can't prove that the ideas of Mr Can, Senad Dizdarevic, Age or any of the other prima facie nutters are wrong. What would make any of them actual nutters would be their insistence that only their interpretation could be true. I think the tentative way you present your ideas excludes you from that.

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

Ya gotta understand that materialism is a very broad church. In its simplest form, it is just the belief that there is something other than ideas, and the working hypothesis of day to day physics is that the something is at least one quantum field. For practical purposes, a field is anywhere that a force can, at least in theory, be measured, generally by observing the effect on objects upon which the field has influence. Materialism is the belief that something other than ideas causes those effects, which seems entirely plausible, but no competent physicist will insist we really understand any of the mechanisms that result in fields such as electric, magnetic or gravitational, all of which we can measure very accurately without knowing what causes them.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yup. But then all creation stories are unprovable.

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

For the same reason I didn't mention the ideas of Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel or any of the thousands of possibilities explored by scientists and philosophers over the ages - there's just too many of them. But since you bring it up, yeah it's a doozy. Here's the thing I'm struggling with at the moment: if something is possible, what is there to stop it being actual? To put it another way, if you remove everything that exists, including any gods, have you eliminated possibility? I don't know the answer and while I understand Senad Dizdarevic argues that you can't create something out of nothing, and I suspect Mr Can would claim that without his god nothing is possible, my gut feeling, my aesthetic choice as I sometimes frame it, is that even if god is removed, or does't exist in the first place, possibility remains. Therefore there is something greater than any god and all versions of the ontological argument are unsound; unless possibility in some sense is god. Now, am I mad enough to think that is possible? Absolutely, but not so mad as to believe that because it is an irrefutable hypothesis, it is therefore true.
It's a fun idea though and it is a context that can make sense of the many worlds interpretation. If it is possible that possibility is in some sense 'god' and can create anything, what prevents 'god' from creating every world that is possible? Is a god that does that not greater than a god that can only create one imperfect world? How might a god create every possible world, you say? Well, one way is to create a universe in which every possible quantum state is real - if a particle can go left, then in one corner of the universe, it does so; in another, it goes right and, here's the bit that really freaks you out, in every possible corner, the particle goes in every possible direction. If a god that could do that exists, why would it not do so?

Existence is eternal. It was never created, which proves god's nonexistence as Creator; it also means that Everything is already actualized.

But, existence being eternal proves God's existence.

you just do know who and what the 'God' word is referring to, exactly.

"Possibility" or the Buddhist potentiality is not possible.

There is no empty space in Existence in which actuality could boil, and there is no empty space to which it could actualize and materialize.

So, well to "senad anyway, there is only One, and One only, single piece of matter, which is infinite in size.

And, 'this one' wonders why others do not agree with and accept it's own beliefs.

Existence is full, and there is nothing beyond it.

[Belinda]

Yes. And,

Yes

Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing. And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"? Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

Come on now, Gary, Age is no doubt responding to this question...

Is there such a thing as "perfect" knowledge? And if there is, could the one who had it predict EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event?

And the problem is that most "human beings"...

(in the days when this is being written)

...were simply not intelligent enough to realize that the two yeses are Age referring to himself as being the one who (yes) is in possession of "perfect knowledge" and therefore (yes) it is he who is capable of predicting "...EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event..."

You need to pay closer attention to the subtext of Age's M.O..

Btw, why are you even talking to someone who treats you like an idiot by thinking that he can get away with making such brazenly inconsistent statements as was witnessed in your earlier conversation with him, because just prior to stating this...

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding...

...you guys had the following exchange...

Gary:
Why are galaxies moving further and further away from each other?
Age:
Because of what is called a big bang.
Gary:
Was there ever a point where all the galaxies were much closer to each other than they are now?
Age:
It appears there was. Infact it appears that all of the observed galaxies were together as one infinite compression of matter.

He will of course insist that the "Universe" is something wholly other than the totality of the galaxies of which he clearly admitted were once closer to each other when they were...

"...together as one infinite compression of matter..."

...yet are moving apart - (as in expanding away from each other) - due to what Age himself admits was a "big bang."

Age cannot seem to get it into his head that in modern cosmological parlance, what cosmologists refer to as being "The Universe" is represented by (and began with) that initial "...infinite compression of matter..." which, again, has been "E--X--P--A--N--D--I--N--G" ever since the alleged "bang" allegedly occurred 13.8 billion years ago.

However, and again, Age seems to have something "wholly other" in mind when it comes to the definition of the word "Universe."

And that's okay, but he completely lacks the ability (not to mention, the willful inclination) to clearly define what he means by "Universe."

All Age knows how to do is to lure suckers into his endless maze of never-ending requests to ask him "clarifying questions" that turn into more questions that lead to absolutely nowhere.

And why do they lead to nowhere?

Because Age is...

(I was going to say an insulting/bullying "troll" who loves to "LOL" at everyone else's ideas, but I don't think he's purposely being malicious)

...again, Age is what I believe to be a "sincere" (as in truly believes his own nonsense) individual, but in fact is an extremely confused person who (just like the rest of us) hasn't the slightest idea of what the ultimate truth of reality truly is.

Indeed, Age is just another poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect who, due to some unfortunate obsessive/compulsive disorder, tends to suck the oxygen out of almost every thread he participates in.
_______

I experience Age's contributions more like oxygenating the thread. When Age questions I feel curiosity about why I believe as I do, and that does me good.

[Age]

trust me...

affirmatively proving or disproving matters of faith is a fool's errand

-Imp

Yes, partially, that is true.

Luckily, there are more and more religious believers questioning religion, deconstructing and leaving it.

I try to help all who are becoming rational, offering them the truth, inspiration, and support.

How have you succeeded in obtaining 'the truth' when others have not?

[Age]

Eternal is a term defining time. Eternity is not out of time or absence of time; it expresses the Totality of Time - not in the linear sequence but eternal time in "everlasting" Now. In Eternity, all Time and its times, past, present, and future, are unified in the eternal Now.

I use the term Eternity to describe the temporal nature of Existence itself. It describes the time status of Existence of being eternal.

There is no Eternity beyond Existence, nor any standalone realm. That is possible only in metaphysical speculations like religions that falsely divide Reality with impossible borders.

In your terms, Existence as a whole is the Eternal Totality of Time and all times, while everlasting refers to partial and sequential times within it.

"God" is a general term for mythological beings, and not a personal name.

For example, god is a general term, while Yahweh is a personal name.

English speakers elevated god to God as a sign of their praising and subordinating themselves as small potatoes to the Capital G.

I don't know how I can engage with you in a discussion. You are all over the place, in everything you say.

Explain:

What is there 'to explain'?

Were you not able to comprehend and follow 'the words', there?

[Belinda]

Seeds, think it was ,who wrote:-

Anyway, the whole point of me sidetracking off into this rant about the MWI was to highlight the fact that it's not just us religious nutjobs and space cadets who come up with (and believe in) some pretty wild "creation stories."

If a man can understand creation stories only literally and not as allegories then it''s not surprising they seem to the man to be nonsense.

You're kidding, right?

The "creation story" told by the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) is indeed literal to them, not allegorical.
_______

No I am not kidding. For a human to understand allegory certain conditions have to be in place. In today's US for instance, symbolic meanings are no longer instinctive as once they they were actually instinctive in days gone by and among native Americans. I can give you examples of what instinctive understanding of allegories is like.

On this forum there are posters who seem incapable of understanding symbolic interpretations of texts.

[Belinda]

I don't know how I can engage with you in a discussion. You are all over the place, in everything you say.

Explain:

What is there 'to explain'?

Were you not able to comprehend and follow 'the words', there?

But words don't makes sense unless the words are within the syntax of a sentence.

[Gary Childress]

Seeds, think it was ,who wrote:-



If a man can understand creation stories only literally and not as allegories then it''s not surprising they seem to the man to be nonsense.

You're kidding, right?

The "creation story" told by the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) is indeed literal to them, not allegorical.
_______

No I am not kidding. For a human to understand allegory certain conditions have to be in place. In today's US for instance, symbolic meanings are no longer instinctive as once they they were actually instinctive in days gone by and among native Americans. I can give you examples of what instinctive understanding of allegories is like.

On this forum there are posters who seem incapable of understanding symbolic interpretations of texts.

I haven't seen any logic classes on "how to have a correct symbolic interpretation of an allegory". If there are, then what is the correct interpretation of the story of Genesis? After reading it, what are we supposed to know that counts as an established fact?

[Age]

Senad wrote:-



But 'eternal' is not the same as everlasting. Eternity has nothing to do with time as direction of flow or as measurement on a scale between beginning and ending.

True, it is a popular misconception to conflate 'eternal' and 'everlasting'. However thinkers understand that 'eternal' pertains to absence of time, space, or force: 'everlasting' pertains to duration through time, space, and force.

you speak as though 'your version' or 'your definition' of things, here, overrides others.bSome so-called "thinkers" might understand what you claim, here, but the question of, 'How many, exactly?' is some thing to 'think about' consider.

Also, "knowers" understand, and know, something else, entirely.

BTW another , lesser deficit in your use of English is you should spell God with a capital letter as God is a personal name of the deity of monotheism.

All my points of objection to Senad's theory and use of English can be addressed by extensive reading either in his native language or in English. I respect Senad's native language which I think is Bosnian, however English happens to be the main international language.

If Senad is reared as a Muslim, there is no need for him to abandon Allah. The Koran is historical as well as a guide to morality. and may be interpreted historically, while retaining Allah as divinity of love, mercy, and all other good things.

If Senad's national background is Israeli there is no need for him to abandon God as portrayed in the Torah. Nationalism is not a substitute for love, peace, prosperity and all good things.

you have, here, addressed absolutely nothing that I said, write, and meant, so why did you quote me, here, and then respond?