The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

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.

It's right there: if "The response can only be proportional to the experience." then it seems to me you are committed to a range of responses that include proportionately warranted responses to trivial experiences.

Is it your assumption that every experience a person can have is equally profound?

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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have made it clear that I regard myself an atheist.

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

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.

People who have different experiences to you are not liars...

Yet there isn't any "experience" an Atheist can claim to have that even possibly could warrant Atheism. So what can you say about somebody who cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, and who still says, "I'm certain there's no God?" How can that be anything but a lie? From whence this certainty of the non-existence of the Supreme Being they claim to have?

[Immanuel Can]

My statement about a singularity has nothing to do with infinite regress which, I agree, is impossible.

Then what can you mean when you claim "nothing can not exist"? Must you not mean that there was something that was always there, always some prior substance from which things were causally assembled? If that's not what you mean, then it's not clear that it's even a coherent statement. But maybe you can explain.

If it's your view, however, that there is always some substance in existence, then you have the infinite regress problem: what is the first step in an infinite causal chain? And, of course, there can be no answer to that question, because infinite regress of causes is impossible.

I said that changes like Big Bang are happening in already present space of Existence.That means that they are already present, and not created from nothing.

Same problem. In finite causal regress applies.

You've still got no argument, if this is what you mean.

If there is "always something in existence," that means that it is eternal.

Yet we know very well that the universe is not eternal. For one thing, we can see it's entropic. For another, we can see that it's expanding. And we know there can be no contraction by any known physical force, because the matter in the universe is vastly too sparse for anything to produce a return. So by way of science, we know for sure that that's simply wrong.

“With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” --- Alexander Vilenkin, celebrated physicist.

Again, you've got no argument here. Far from being some kind of showstopper, it doesn't even respect the known data or current cosmology.

[Belinda]

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

It's right there: if "The response can only be proportional to the experience." then it seems to me you are committed to a range of responses that include proportionately warranted responses to trivial experiences.

Is it your assumption that every experience a person can have is equally profound?

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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have made it clear that I regard myself an atheist.

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

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.

People who have different experiences to you are not liars...

Yet there isn't any "experience" an Atheist can claim to have that even possibly could warrant Atheism. So what can you say about somebody who cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, and who still says, "I'm certain there's no God?" How can that be anything but a lie? From whence this certainty of the non-existence of the Supreme Being they claim to have?

It depends on which deity they don't believe in, or if they disbelieve in all deities, or if they think the question of deities does not even make sense.

It's not hard to prove that the deity of an evangelical Protestant does not exist except as a rather bad idea.

[Immanuel Can]

It's right there: if "The response can only be proportional to the experience." then it seems to me you are committed to a range of responses that include proportionately warranted responses to trivial experiences.

Is it your assumption that every experience a person can have is equally profound?

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have made it clear that I regard myself an atheist.

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

People who have different experiences to you are not liars...

Yet there isn't any "experience" an Atheist can claim to have that even possibly could warrant Atheism. So what can you say about somebody who cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, and who still says, "I'm certain there's no God?" How can that be anything but a lie? From whence this certainty of the non-existence of the Supreme Being they claim to have?

It depends on which deity they don't believe in, or if they disbelieve in all deities, or if they think the question of deities does not even make sense.

All that's required is that any conception of the Deity is in view; the particulars won't change anything. What data could the Atheist possibly be offering us to justify his confidence that we, and everybody else, presumably, should disbelieve in the existence of God, of whatever description?

I'll look at the Atheists data, if he has any. But I can't imagine what it would consist of.

[Belinda]

Is it your assumption that every experience a person can have is equally profound?

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

Yet there isn't any "experience" an Atheist can claim to have that even possibly could warrant Atheism. So what can you say about somebody who cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, and who still says, "I'm certain there's no God?" How can that be anything but a lie? From whence this certainty of the non-existence of the Supreme Being they claim to have?

It depends on which deity they don't believe in, or if they disbelieve in all deities, or if they think the question of deities does not even make sense.

All that's required is that any conception of the Deity is in view; the particulars won't change anything. What data could the Atheist possibly be offering us to justify his confidence that we, and everybody else, presumably, should disbelieve in the existence of God, of whatever description?

I'll look at the Atheists data, if he has any. But I can't imagine what it would consist of.

Proof that your deity does not exist is yourself , his spokesman fails to recognise or esteem all the names that refer to God.

[Immanuel Can]

It depends on which deity they don't believe in, or if they disbelieve in all deities, or if they think the question of deities does not even make sense.

All that's required is that any conception of the Deity is in view; the particulars won't change anything. What data could the Atheist possibly be offering us to justify his confidence that we, and everybody else, presumably, should disbelieve in the existence of God, of whatever description?

I'll look at the Atheists data, if he has any. But I can't imagine what it would consist of.

Proof that your deity does not exist is yourself , his spokesman fails to recognise or esteem all the names that refer to God.

Names are irrelevant. Names are often misassigned. Many people have names they don't deserve, such as "freedom fighter," or "liberator," or "dear leader," all the while being no more than terrorists, despots and tyrants, or "humanitarian" and "enlightened one," when they are merely the preening rich or the leader of a pernicious cult. People are named "president" or "prime minister" who were not legitimately elected, or who were very far from the "prime" minister of any administration. One can even "call people names" when they don't deserve those names. No doubt, that happened to all of us, at some time, in the schoolyard.

What matters is truth. Nothing else matters.

[Gary Childress]

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

It's right there: if "The response can only be proportional to the experience." then it seems to me you are committed to a range of responses that include proportionately warranted responses to trivial experiences.

Is it your assumption that every experience a person can have is equally profound?

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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have made it clear that I regard myself an atheist.

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

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.

People who have different experiences to you are not liars...

Yet there isn't any "experience" an Atheist can claim to have that even possibly could warrant Atheism. So what can you say about somebody who cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, and who still says, "I'm certain there's no God?" How can that be anything but a lie? From whence this certainty of the non-existence of the Supreme Being they claim to have?

If they know with certainty that there is a God, then they would be liar to be an atheist, however, not being able to disprove something doesn't necessarily make one a liar.

[Immanuel Can]

It's right there: if "The response can only be proportional to the experience." then it seems to me you are committed to a range of responses that include proportionately warranted responses to trivial experiences.

Is it your assumption that every experience a person can have is equally profound?

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have made it clear that I regard myself an atheist.

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

People who have different experiences to you are not liars...

Yet there isn't any "experience" an Atheist can claim to have that even possibly could warrant Atheism. So what can you say about somebody who cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, and who still says, "I'm certain there's no God?" How can that be anything but a lie? From whence this certainty of the non-existence of the Supreme Being they claim to have?

If they know with certainty that there is a God, then they would be liar to be an atheist, however, not being able to disprove something doesn't necessarily make one a liar.

No...it makes one an agnostic. But nothing will warrant Atheism. So the former is at least being honest, even if all he's honest about is not knowing anything about it. But the latter...well, claiming to know that is something one can only do by lying.

[Gary Childress]

Is it your assumption that every experience a person can have is equally profound?

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

Yet there isn't any "experience" an Atheist can claim to have that even possibly could warrant Atheism. So what can you say about somebody who cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, and who still says, "I'm certain there's no God?" How can that be anything but a lie? From whence this certainty of the non-existence of the Supreme Being they claim to have?

If they know with certainty that there is a God, then they would be liar to be an atheist, however, not being able to disprove something doesn't necessarily make one a liar.

No...it makes one an agnostic. But nothing will warrant Atheism. So the former is at least being honest, even if all he's honest about is not knowing anything about it. But the latter...well, claiming to know that is something one can only do by lying.

I suppose a person typically has faith that there is a God, not faith that there isn't a God. Or they might be angry and pessimistic and assume there's no God for whatever reason. However, knowing is a whole different matter.

[Belinda]

All that's required is that any conception of the Deity is in view; the particulars won't change anything. What data could the Atheist possibly be offering us to justify his confidence that we, and everybody else, presumably, should disbelieve in the existence of God, of whatever description?

I'll look at the Atheists data, if he has any. But I can't imagine what it would consist of.

Proof that your deity does not exist is yourself , his spokesman fails to recognise or esteem all the names that refer to God.

Names are irrelevant. Names are often misassigned. Many people have names they don't deserve, such as "freedom fighter," or "liberator," or "dear leader," all the while being no more than terrorists, despots and tyrants, or "humanitarian" and "enlightened one," when they are merely the preening rich or the leader of a pernicious cult. People are named "president" or "prime minister" who were not legitimately elected, or who were very far from the "prime" minister of any administration. One can even "call people names" when they don't deserve those names. No doubt, that happened to all of us, at some time, in the schoolyard.

What matters is truth. Nothing else matters.

What is truth?

[janeprasanga]

colin leslie dean proves God exists

• Dean’s paradox ( of colin leslie dean) highlights a core discrepancy between logical reasoning and lived reality. Logic insists that between two points lies an infinite set of divisions, making it "impossible" to traverse from start to end. Yet, in practice, the finger does move from the beginning to the end in finite time. This contradiction exposes a gap between the abstract constructs of logic and the observable truths of reality. Thus The dean paradox shows logic is not an epistemic principle or condition thus logic cannot be called upon for authority for any view-see below for the differences between the dean paradox and Zeno-Zeno is about motion being impossible for dean there is motion with the consequence of the dean paradox

The dean Paradox: Logic is Broken

The document defines the Dean Paradox as the fundamental contradiction between formal logic and observable reality.

The Contradiction: Logic insists that moving between two points is "impossible" because it requires traversing an infinite set of divisions. Yet, in practice, motion occurs in finite time (a finger moves from start to end).

The Implication: This contradiction exposes a devastating flaw: Logic is misaligned with reality and is therefore not a condition of truth or a reliable guide to reality.

2. The Collapse: Death of Rational Systems

Since logic is the bedrock of all rational systems, the paradox acts as an "epistemic bomb" that shatters the foundation of modern thought.

Systems Fail: All structured systems—science, mathematics, and philosophy (including empiricism and rationalism)—are built on this flawed logic. They are therefore exposed as "painted veils," not transparent lenses for truth.

Authority Annihilated: The paradox "kills the authority outright" of these systems, forcing us into an intellectual void where no structured system holds absolute truth.

Nietzsche Reversed: Where Nietzsche declared "God is dead" through reason, Dean declares "Logic is dead" through paradox.

3. The Resurrection: God Reborn

The destruction of rational authority creates a new epistemological landscape for faith.

God is Un-Disprovable: For centuries, God was "disproven" by logic. But if logic is no longer valid, no logical disproof stands. Atheists can no longer use logic or science to disprove God because their rational framework has been destroyed by the paradox.

Faith is Liberated: Dean does not prove God's existence directly. Instead, he "removes the very possibility of disproving Him". Faith is no longer under the jurisdiction of reason, but exists beyond it.

The Price: The conclusion is that in the intellectual void, God reigns again. However, the price of this resurrection is the definitive collapse of all rational certainty: "the price you pay for God to reign is 'science is dead, mathematics is dead, philosophy is dead'".

Every philosophical system, scientific theory, mathematical proof, logical argument, ethical principle, political theory, and metaphysical claim uses the same logic that fails on finger moving from A to B.
EVERYTHING IS DESTROYED.
The entire edifice of human thought from Thales to ChatGPT is built on a foundation that demonstrably fails on the simplest possible phenomenon.
And we just... keep going. Building more theories. Writing more proofs. Doing more science.
On a foundation we KNOW is broken.
That's Dean's apocalypse.

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... aradox.pdf
or

scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/8857714 ... ion-spirit

[Will Bouwman]

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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have made it clear that I regard myself an atheist.

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

Well yes, we can both choose to believe that some people two thousand years ago knew more about how the universe works than we do, but you are playing with a busted flush. Whether a god exists is a separate issue to whether the biblical account of cosmology and evolution is correct. Which it isn't, and the evidence you have to invent to defend the indefensible is all bullshit. But, as you say:

...the problem isn't in the evidence; it's in the viewer.

[Age]

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.

Everywhere where there is not matter.
For the fact that if there was only matter, then there would be only one piece of matter.
There is not one piece of matter, only.
Therefore, there are 'areas of nothing'.

[Belinda]

All that's required is that any conception of the Deity is in view; the particulars won't change anything. What data could the Atheist possibly be offering us to justify his confidence that we, and everybody else, presumably, should disbelieve in the existence of God, of whatever description?

I'll look at the Atheists data, if he has any. But I can't imagine what it would consist of.

Proof that your deity does not exist is yourself , his spokesman fails to recognise or esteem all the names that refer to God.

Names are irrelevant. Names are often misassigned. Many people have names they don't deserve, such as "freedom fighter," or "liberator," or "dear leader," all the while being no more than terrorists, despots and tyrants, or "humanitarian" and "enlightened one," when they are merely the preening rich or the leader of a pernicious cult. People are named "president" or "prime minister" who were not legitimately elected, or who were very far from the "prime" minister of any administration. One can even "call people names" when they don't deserve those names. No doubt, that happened to all of us, at some time, in the schoolyard.

What matters is truth. Nothing else matters.

If "names are irrelevant" for you, then you would accept that Allah is a name for God.

[promethean75]

"Wake up, Neo, and awaken to the Truth"

And we're back to square one: some entity is fucking with you. This is not news, though, and it changes nothing of the terms and conditions of life. Call it god, your landlord, your employer, your doctor, karmicons, the courts or the POleece, they're all out to fuck you. Now, with this in mind, what would a guy like me do differently in life? What would i do that I'm not already doing with this new information?

What does a renegade anarcho-nihilist have to learn from your post? What would a Stirner or a Novatore say to your karmicons? "Hey, cool spacesuit"?