The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

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.

Once again, there being absolutely only nothing is possible, however, and again, that there is already matter existing, and 'space', or areas of nothing, only nothing is never possible.

Big Bang happened from the singularity of something in the space of the already existing Something.

Which would be another example of an 'area of nothing'.

It is like blowing up a balloon from a small piece of rubber in your room.

It is nothing like that. you are just repeating what you have been taught, and told, without ever actually 'thinking about' what you were told to believe is true.

[Age]

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"?

Do you understand that what you call a 'problem', here, has already been resolved, and answered, already?

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.

your misinterpretations just keep leading you completely astray, here, "immanuel can".

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Yes, that's very true.

The irony is that the Atheist isn't a man without a faith; he actually has faith that something logic tells him he can never justify is still certain. And then he even has the faith, in many cases, to think he can tell others that they cannot have faith in God, because his faith in no evidence at all is more "intellectual" than their probabilistic evidence for God.

But Atheism isn't really a knowledge. It's a wish, as you suggest. Richard Dawkins, for example, freely admits he did not come to his Atheism as an adult biologist, but rather as a 17-year-old, who then obviously had no academic training at all. And though his faith was the faith of a 17-year-old, he now confidently pronounces that God is a "delusion," and that other people should disbelieve in God. But why should a the wish of a 17-year-old be compulsory to anybody else?

Whatever justification he thinks he has subsequently uncovered, he was clearly guilty of what so many Atheists since Freud have accused Theists of -- namely, a "wish-fulfillment fantasy." Christians, he says, believe because they want there to be a God; but Dawkins disbelieves because he doesn't want there to be one. And that exposes just how poor the whole wish-fulfillment criticism actually is: it really doesn't favour a side at all...rather, it's a kind of ad hominem that can be tacked on to any ideological position at all, and really fails to tell us anything about the justifiability of the position. It's a handle for every pot, but not necessary for any.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Do you want to know the truth about that?

[Immanuel Can]

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,

Neither of us thinks that. In fact, modern cosmology has been very helpful in exposing the follies of the eternal-universe hypothesis, and getting us to move beyond it. We need not attribute any superior knowledge of such things to ancient peoples. But if the same God existed then as now, then there may indeed be things they learned that we are yet to learn.

Whether a god exists is a separate issue to whether the biblical account of cosmology and evolution is correct.

No, not really. But it's logically downstream from it.

However, there are no terms on which Atheism can be made rational -- at least, none I've yet encountered. If there are such, I'd be open to seeing what you think they are. Without evidentiary warrant, Atheism remains nothing more than a wish.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Not at all, of course. Why would I, when God announces His own name? We're not just making these things up, you know.

[MikeNovack]

Turtles all the way down ........

The notion that there would have to be a first (uncaused) cause is an inescapable conclusion only if thinking in FINITE terms.

Consider the positive and negative integers (I) and the operation "less than" (LT) What is the problem if I say "For every I, there is an I' such that I' LT I"? How is that different for saying "for every cause C, there is a cause C' such that C' is the cause of C"? We run into a problem onlyif the number of causes is finite.

[MikeNovack]

However, there are no terms on which Atheism can be made rational -- at least, none I've yet encountered. If there are such, I'd be open to seeing what you think they are. Without evidentiary warrant, Atheism remains nothing more than a wish.

This is a matter of assigning burden of proof. Are you being consistent with how you otherwise assign burden of proof or not? Ordinarily we seem to assign that burden according to our estimation of the probability of the assertion.

IC, do you believe in the existence of pink unicorns with purple hooves? Do you say that you are agnostic about their existence, neither believe in them or disbelieve in them? Or do you disbelieve in them, arguing that with something so improbable, don't first need to seek evidence to disprove their existence. Is that latter position irrational?

When the atheist says "there are no pink unicorns with purple hooves" without presenting evidence do you say "irrational"? If so, you are being consistent but deprecating the ordinary use of "does not exist". But if you say different (from when it is "God does not exist") see that the difference comes not from objective reality but YOUR belief "God exists" v "pink unicorns with purple hooves exist".

[Immanuel Can]

However, there are no terms on which Atheism can be made rational -- at least, none I've yet encountered. If there are such, I'd be open to seeing what you think they are. Without evidentiary warrant, Atheism remains nothing more than a wish.

This is a matter of assigning burden of proof.

I'm not assigning it. I don't have to. Neither do you. We can see who has this burden.

The Atheist assigns it to himself when he claims, "You're irrational to believe in God."

When he says that, he invites the questions, "What reasons justify your claim?" or "What evidence do you have for that?" If he has none, then there is no rational warrant to believe he knows anything of the kind.

[Immanuel Can]

Turtles all the way down ........

That old story is precisely what the infinite regress problem deals with: it's just as absurd and impossible as that story suggests.

The notion that there would have to be a first (uncaused) cause is an inescapable conclusion only if thinking in FINITE terms.

No, just basic mathematics.

We run into a problem onlyif the number of causes is finite.

Yet that is exactly the problem we run into. An infinite regress of causes never starts.

This is because every prior cause is an absolute prerequisite for the next.

Let's take any effect. Call it "E." But "E" can't happen until its cause (call it L2) is already present and has done its work. But...

L2 can't happen until L1 already has, and that can't happen until L-0 has occurred, and that can't happen until L-1 has already occurred, and L-1 can't have happened until after L-2 has already occurred...and so on, infinitely. So nothing can have occurred, because the prerequisite is never available. It is infinitely distant from the "E." And infinity, by definition, never is reached. It cannot even be reached.

[MikeNovack]

Turtles all the way down ........

That old story is precisely what the infinite regress problem deals with: it's just as absurd and impossible as that story suggests.

Better if we go back to the turtles.

That you see a problem with the relation "is supported by" (no implication of temporal order) means you recognize that your issue is NOT with the nature of the relation.

There is no problem with "'infinite regression" UNLESS the number of turtles is finite.

The existence of a turtle immediately calls into existence the turtle that supports it. Are you thinking that there would be some limit to "propagation of induction?

[Immanuel Can]

There is no problem with "'infinite regression" UNLESS the number of turtles is finite.

That's incorrect. It's because of the postulate of infinite regressions of causes that the problem occurs at all. If the "turtles" are finite, there's no problem. That's exactly what the proof shows.

How would you like to find out you're wrong...mathematically or empirically? I can give you the proof either way.

[Age]

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.

Yes, that's very true.

The irony is that the Atheist isn't a man without a faith; he actually has faith that something logic tells him he can never justify is still certain. And then he even has the faith, in many cases, to think he can tell others that they cannot have faith in God, because his faith in no evidence at all is more "intellectual" than their probabilistic evidence for God.

Here, 'we' have another example of what is called 'projection', itself.

But Atheism isn't really a knowledge. It's a wish, as you suggest. Richard Dawkins, for example, freely admits he did not come to his Atheism as an adult biologist, but rather as a 17-year-old, who then obviously had no academic training at all. And though his faith was the faith of a 17-year-old, he now confidently pronounces that God is a "delusion," and that other people should disbelieve in God. But why should a the wish of a 17-year-old be compulsory to anybody else?

Not that it matters at all about what age it was, what matters is what it is wishing 'now'.

Even you just said it 'now' is confidently pronouncing God is a delusion and is 'now' wishing that others disbelieve in God. So, once more, your attempts at deception does not go unnoticed.

And, lol you also confidently pronounce people should believe in God being real and wish others believe in God. So, the two of you are, equally, just as closed and as stupid as the other is.

Whatever justification he thinks he has subsequently uncovered, he was clearly guilty of what so many Atheists since Freud have accused Theists of -- namely, a "wish-fulfillment fantasy." Christians, he says, believe because they want there to be a God; but Dawkins disbelieves because he doesn't want there to be one. And that exposes just how poor the whole wish-fulfillment criticism actually is: it really doesn't favour a side at all...rather, it's a kind of ad hominem that can be tacked on to any ideological position at all, and really fails to tell us anything about the justifiability of the position. It's a handle for every pot, but not necessary for any.

And, here, is the proof that 'this one' attacks 'others' with the exact same 'illconceived logic'.

[Age]

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,

Neither of us thinks that. In fact, modern cosmology has been very helpful in exposing the follies of the eternal-universe hypothesis, and getting us to move beyond it. We need not attribute any superior knowledge of such things to ancient peoples. But if the same God existed then as now, then there may indeed be things they learned that we are yet to learn.

Whether a god exists is a separate issue to whether the biblical account of cosmology and evolution is correct.

No, not really. But it's logically downstream from it.

However, there are no terms on which Atheism can be made rational -- at least, none I've yet encountered. If there are such, I'd be open to seeing what you think they are. Without evidentiary warrant, Atheism remains nothing more than a wish.

Believing a man, or a thing with a penis, created the whole Universe remain nothing more than a wish.

And, just believing that the Universe was created remains nothing more that just a wish, also.

That people like you and "will bouwman" refuse to look into facts and into the proof that the Universe is infinite and eternal only goes to further prove some of my other claims, here.

[Age]

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?

Do you want to know the truth about that?

In other words you, once again, literally can not explain "your" 'self'.