The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

OK. Show me the proof.

Once more what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, expecting and demanding things from others.

Would have it been any harder for you to just ask for some thing, instead?

Anyway, the proof is in the definition of the word, 'Universe'.

Now, so I do not get accused of skewing things, here, what is 'the definition' that you use for the 'Universe' word.

When you present 'that', then 'we' can move along, here.

The universe is all that is. Where is your "proof" that all that is has been forever and will forever be?

The proof is in the Fact that if you where to 'look out' from earth and there were objects at the furthest distance, then between those furthest objects there would be space between them, and around those objects in all directions. The distance, and thus space, does not just stop. Distance, and space, is obviously a part of 'all that is'. Therefore, the Universe goes on, spatially, forever, and thus infinitely.

Now, if you were to 'look back' and even if 'all the matter' was infinitely compressed into one single piece, of any size, then the space around that object of matter would also not just go forever, spatially, but the duration that 'that matter' has been existing for would also go on forever, temporally, and thus eternally.

The reason why 'matter', and, 'space' have always both coexisted, eternally, is because although one of either of them could exist, by itself, there would not be anything else, including thoughts and awareness.
Thoughts and awareness exist.
Therefore both exist, obviously.

And, because it is logically and physically impossible for matter to come from nothing, this means, and irrefutably so, that the Universe, Itself, has always existed.

Is it not possible that it had a beginning?

No.

It is empirically and theoretically impossible.

And even for those who believe God is outside of the Universe and created the whole of the Universe, out of nothing but Itself, then by 'your own definition' for the 'Universe' word, here, 'this' also is physically and logically impossible.

Is it possible that it will have an end?

No.

Objects of matter may well change in size, shape, and/or form, but how could they all just disappear?

Where could and would it all go to, exactly?

Is there a theoretical and/or empirical way all matter, itself, could just disappear, completely?

Do we know enough about cosmology and reality to assume that there was no beginning and will be no end to all that is?

Why did 'you' use the 'assume' word, here?

Enough is already known about the Universe to 'know' that It could not, and did not, begin, and, that It could not, and will not, end.

people only assume, here, when they do not have facts nor proofs. After facts and/or proofs are obtained, first, then 'knowing' comes into play, and at work.

How is the definition of the word universe "proof" of eternity without a beginning?

Obviously, it is only by 'knowing' the definitions of the words that 'we' are discussing about, first, then what the actual Truth is can come-to-light.

Also, I said the proof is in the definition. I did not say that the definition is the proof.

So, while the word, 'Universe', is being defined as, 'all that is', then whatever way, shape, or form 'all that is' is in, then that is the Universe, Itself. So, if 'all that is' is either just space, only, just 'matter', only, or any combination of the two, only, then 'that' is 'all that is', which has to go on forever, eternally, and infinitely.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like to continue 'the discussion', here, or who needs further proof, then by all means let 'us' discuss.

[Will Bouwman]

It seems to me that it isn't the experience that is profound, rather the response.

The response can only be proportional to the experience. If it's out of proportion, one way or the other, the response is unwarranted.

Do you think something as trivial as there is experience isn't profound? That any experience isn't therefore profound?

...Atheists lie. That's all.

You are putting yourself beneath Age and his claim that we don't agree with him because we are 'closed' to his interpretation; or Senad Dizdarevic who assures us that we will agree with him if we learn his lucid dreaming. They at least don't call me a liar.

[Age]

It seems to me that it isn't the experience that is profound, rather the response.

The response can only be proportional to the experience. If it's out of proportion, one way or the other, the response is unwarranted.

Do you think something as trivial as there is experience isn't profound? That any experience isn't therefore profound?

...Atheists lie. That's all.

You are putting yourself beneath Age and his claim that we don't agree with him because we are 'closed' to his interpretation; or Senad Dizdarevic who assures us that we will agree with him if we learn his lucid dreaming. They at least don't call me a liar.

The very reason you do not agree with an irrefutable Fact is because you are closed. That you call an 'irrefutable fact', 'my interpretation' does not change any thing, here.

And, the fact that you do not check 'my interpretion/s' in order to find out what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, just goes to show how closed you really are being, here.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that it isn't the experience that is profound, rather the response.

The response can only be proportional to the experience. If it's out of proportion, one way or the other, the response is unwarranted.

Do you think something as trivial as there is experience isn't profound? That any experience isn't therefore profound?

See if you can find that thought in anything I wrote.

...Atheists lie. That's all.

You are putting yourself beneath Age and his claim that we don't agree with him because we are 'closed' to his interpretation; or Senad Dizdarevic who assures us that we will agree with him if we learn his lucid dreaming. They at least don't call me a liar.

I'm not insulting you, Will. Nothing I said had your name attached to it, and I have no way of knowing if you regard yourself as an agnostic, an honest seeker, or an Atheist. We could be having the same conversation, were you any of the three. Rather, I'm treating you as a conversation partner who has every right to keep his commitments to himself, as a matter of fact, and haven't tried to pry them out of you.

But I can speak of Atheism, the ideology, which pretends to certainties it simply does not have, and hence, intrinsically is deceptive. It's a lie.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Energy.

You use that word as if it means something different to what we on Earth mean. You can read about that in my fabulous comic book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html
As I said, if enery is other than described,

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.

I use two terms for energy:

1. Small letter energy: fluids, resources, fuels, etc.
2. Capital letter Energy: The whole material world, which consists of all energy states - fluid, gas, and material ones.

For example, humans have two bodies, the energy one and the physical one. Both are made from Energy.

Energy does not apply to anything outside of it because there is nothing material outside of it. There is only Pure Awareness outside of it, but it can not affect, as PA is just a nonmaterial superstate.

Energy is already Everything material.

Your graphic book is very interesting but is too blurry to read. Do you have a better copy?

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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...

Nobody who knows what the word “nothing” refers to thinks that.

Again, you’re mistaking the idea that “nothing” is some kind of “substance” out of which things could be made. That completely misunderstands the claim, as well as the word itself. That is actually the error buried in your own attempted refutation: you didn’t understand the claim in the first place, apparently. To say “God created ex nihilo” is the same as to say, “When God created, there was no pre-existing matter from which he assembled what he made. He generated it by means of his creatorial word, rather than from existing substances.” It doesn’t mean that God had some kind of substance called “nothingness,” which he then molded around until it became a universe. That’s not even a coherent idea.

I hate to tell you, but your so-called disproof doesn’t disprove anything, because it doesn’t refer to anything anybody believes or asserts.

I never said that god created the Universe from nothing or that nothing exists. Quite opposite.
New information is that god does not exist - creation out of nothing which does not exist is impossible, so god as Creator does not exist.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.



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.



Yup. But then all creation stories are unprovable.

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. "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.

Existence is full, and there is nothing beyond it.

Existence is a process of change, existence is perpetually created as processes within processes.

We have limited perception, which is why we see the "changes". Buddhists even claim that things are appearing from the Big Mind, last a second or two and then disappear back in the "Potentiality".

In the close system like Existence, in which Everything has already happened, and from the perspective of Existence, nothing is changing.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

Existence is eternal.

Nothingness exists as a distinction of absence. For every one things that occurs there are infinite absences of other things. Each thing is a relative void.

Dually the intrinsic emptiness of a thing, evidenced by transformative change, observes void as ever present.

This void can be observed as the act of attention itself.

This void can be observed in the emptiness of a particle or the quantum vacuum of space.

Creation is the act of attention, for the only thing truly known is attention. By attention distinctions emerge and dissolve.

Creation is the act of transformation, reality is perpetually created.

The everpresent cause is potentiality as void.

All distinctions which emerge and dissolve from void results in the recursion of distinction itself.

Infinite existence is God. The void that underlies existence, is God beyond existence.

Nothing is just a concept, and it does not exist in reality because it can't.

Relative nothing - invisible energy in the form of gases - exist. Absolute Nothing in which there is nothing, and even that is missing does not exist.

Attention is just a narrow form of Awareness which is the widest awareness possible as encompasses all Existence.

In a closed system like Existence, there is no creation as Everything has already happened.

There is no cause in a closed system. Causal-sequential model is wrong. Existence functions in simultaneity.

Changes are just effects of our limited perception. In Existence, Everything has already happened, and nothing new is created.

There is no potentiality, there is actuality as Everything is already actualized.

There is no void, Existence is full. There is no god, and there is nothing beyond Existence as Existence is Everything that is.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

I don’t often (ever?) agree with you, but you’ve summed up the whole business here. BTW, that is why I am an agnostic. I suppose theists as well as atheists could cite the same reasons.

Yes, you can. It is enough to prove that something can not exist. In this case, god can not exist as a Creator god who created Something from Nothing. That means that he does not exist.

1. Why do you persist with claiming that some 'thing', which you believe, absolutely, does not even exist, is male gendered? What is your fascination with 'males', here?

2. Imagine going to a public forum, or writing a book, and, essentially, all you do is claim that a logically and physically impossible to exist 'male thing' does not exist. What would be the actual purpose of doing that?

Believers claim that the omnigod is Everything. They say that is the Evidence of his existence.

If he is not to provide evidence, why did he create the World at all?

Are 'your claims', and, 'your question', here, meant to be related somehow?

If yes, then how, exactly?

This is just a theoretical question, as god does not exist because that is not possible.

Is there any actual purpose, here, in you providing a description of some 'male thing' that is theoretically and empirically impossible to exist, calling it 'god', and then just say and claim that 'that God' does not exist?

If yes, then what is that actual purpose, exactly?

Christian apologists like Frank Turek translate faith as trust. In this case, god could exist; his believers would know him and have trust in him.

Read my book series “It’s Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History”, author Senad Dizdarevic, and if you are an honest and reasonable man, you will become an atheist.

You can get it for free now, in the Amazon Kindle Unlimited program, or in a public library. Read more about it here: https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/

you were previously asked to provide 'the definition' that 'you' have, and are using, here, for the 'God' word, but you failed to answer and clarify, so I will ask again if you will provide your answer and clarification, here, now, and if no, then why not?
[/quote]

There are many definitions of god, and most of them refer to the Creator of the Universe, the World and Everything except himself. I use the same definition - the Creator of the World. I clearly stated that in my previous posts - god as Creator does not exist because that is not possible.

When you take away the creatorship of god, he is not a Creator anymore, but just some lower level "god".

Why would I claim such a thing?

In 2004, I awakened into Pure Awareness, got profound insights into Reality of Existence, and in decades-long communication with inhabitants of other planets learned about the Karmic System we live in. I realized that they used four main systems for controlling us: Politics of hate, Economy of exploitation, Law of punishment and Religion of division.

I also realized that in the incarnational system, scriptwriters create a full plan for the incarnation, from the first to the last breath, thought, feeling, emotion, word and act. That means that if a person is a religious believers, he believes because he is programmed to.

Karmic scriptwriters fabricated all religions, gods and faiths as a part of their constructed Matrix. They themselves weren't believers as they knew god does not exist because they fabricated him.

Why "him"? There are also many women goddesses, but a male form of god is often in use.

My work is to reveal the Karmic organization behind our lives, their control systems, and to offer Earthlings the Truth, and a way to check and confirm it.

I have also created exercises for awakening into Pure Awareness, https://www.letterstopalkies.com/awaken ... exercises/, that help people to release the karmic programmed and shattered to many partial personalities Ego personality, and to create a new, whole and aware personality.

I understand that programmed persons don't like awakening into the Truth. For the drunk and drugged persons coming off the poisonous illusion is like dying. They don't want the reality, they want to stay in delusion.

Neo from the Matrix didn't know that he lived in Simulation while his body was generating energy for the parasites, that there are the Machines and the liberated outer world. He had to experience it himself.

I know that my statements sound fantasy, that is why I am offering you a way to check and confirm my claims with lucid dreaming.

For the time being, that is the only way to contact inhabitants from other planets, ask them about incarnations, the end of the Karmic organization and new Cosmic Administration, and new life in Good without Evil, karmic systems, false religions, mythological gods and mentally ill faiths.

I came here to tell you the Truth about the World and about you.

A true philosopher will turn around every stone to find it because that is what he does: he is in pursue of Truth. Read my books, now are free in public libraries, and check my presentation. Besides evidence for god's nonexistence, I present the full new explanation of Existence.

Everything you know, was preprogrammed. You are just discovering what is already present in your timeline. You are not even real you: for the karmicons, we weren't real beings, we were just the "bodies" and live costumes for our incarnants, humans from other planets who were forcibly inarnated into our baby bodies.

I am here to tell you the Truth which will allow you to awaken to Pure Awareness, at least partially change karmic script and finally understand what is happening. Part of that awakening is also realizing the simple truth that god does not exist in any gender and any form. They are just the karmic "Machines" program to oblivion, control and abuse you.

Wake up, Neo, and awaken to the Truth.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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?

No.

We can see that energy or matter in different forms transforms into other forms.

Every night, you exit your physical body with your energy body and fly to dream energy planets that are energy replicas of real material planets. There are also many OBE and NDE reports with people floating above their physical bodies. When they returned to their physical bodies, the described things the they could not know while unconscious.

Some even know how to consciously leave their physical body and return to it at will.

Learn to lucid dream, speak with inhabitants of other planets on dream planets, check and confirm my statements.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.



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


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.


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


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


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


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


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?

Which one?

I will support mine, and I suggest you support yours too.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

Present your "areas of nothing" with supporting evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

For those who think that nothing exists...

Nobody who knows what the word “nothing” refers to thinks that.

Again, you’re mistaking the idea that “nothing” is some kind of “substance” out of which things could be made. That completely misunderstands the claim, as well as the word itself. That is actually the error buried in your own attempted refutation: you didn’t understand the claim in the first place, apparently. To say “God created ex nihilo” is the same as to say, “When God created, there was no pre-existing matter from which he assembled what he made. He generated it by means of his creatorial word, rather than from existing substances.” It doesn’t mean that God had some kind of substance called “nothingness,” which he then molded around until it became a universe. That’s not even a coherent idea.

I hate to tell you, but your so-called disproof doesn’t disprove anything, because it doesn’t refer to anything anybody believes or asserts.

I never said that god created the Universe from nothing or that nothing exists. Quite opposite.

Yes, I know YOU didn't say that. But you're attributing it TO YOUR OPPOSITION, as if they were claiming they believed that "nothing" was a "thing," a substance of some kind.

But they don't think that. So all you're doing is arguing with an imaginary opponent. That's not what "ex nihilo" implies, even for a Catholic.

New information is that god does not exist - creation out of nothing which does not exist is impossible, so god as Creator does not exist.

And here, you've just reproduced exactly the same mistake.

In short, you've got no argument. Nobody believes what you think they believe.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

We suffer a sense prejudice that doesn't allow us to be able to conceive of space as a universe that came into being... because we have to picture a place where this happened. This place has to already be there for the beginning to happen in. See, you're doing it right now. You're imagining that big bang poster on your 12th grade science class wall to the left of the microscope shelf. You're looking at the left most stage... the singularity... from which the cone of space material explodes out to the right across the poster. Doesn't make any psychologistical sense (we can't 'picture' a beginning... and we need to to have the idea). That singularity had to exist somewhere... it wasn't the beginning I don't think.

Something can only happen in Something, and not in nothing as nothing can not exist.

Big Bang happened from the singularity of something in the space of the already existing Something. It is like blowing up a balloon from a small piece of rubber in your room.

[Immanuel Can]

We suffer a sense prejudice that doesn't allow us to be able to conceive of space as a universe that came into being... because we have to picture a place where this happened. This place has to already be there for the beginning to happen in. See, you're doing it right now. You're imagining that big bang poster on your 12th grade science class wall to the left of the microscope shelf. You're looking at the left most stage... the singularity... from which the cone of space material explodes out to the right across the poster. Doesn't make any psychologistical sense (we can't 'picture' a beginning... and we need to to have the idea). That singularity had to exist somewhere... it wasn't the beginning I don't think.

Something can only happen in Something, and not in nothing as nothing can not exist.

Big Bang happened from the singularity of something in the space of the already existing Something. It is like blowing up a balloon from a small piece of rubber in your room.

Do you understand what's called "the infinite regress problem"? If what you were saying were true, then nothing would ever exist, because an infinite regress of causes is impossible -- mathematically, logically and empirically.

What logic and mathematics forces everybody to realize is that there had to be a time when something uncaused caused the first event. You can't suppose the existence of anything prior to that whatever-it-was, because then infinite regress of causes applies, and then again, nothing would or could exist.

And infinite chain of causes could never commence, because there would be an infinite number of prerequisites to it ever beginning. That's about the simplest way to put the point. It takes a moment or two to get your head around it, but when you do, you'll see that it's inescapable.