The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Belinda]

That you, still, after all this time have not yet seen and recognized that that perceived problem has been resolved already just shows how blind and closed you really are, here, "immanuel can".


Once again, absolutely blinded by belief in one's own made up story.

And, that 'these two' are arguing and disputing over the exact same things that have been argued and disputed over for thousands of years already is further irrefutable proof of just how closed and stupid a disbelieving or believing human beings can, and does, become.

The actual irrefutable Truth, here, I have presented and out forward in front of 'these two', as well others, here, yet not a one of them has yet obtained the actual ability to look, and see, clearly. And, for the very reasons I have shown and provided, here.

To be fair, Immanuel's story is not one he made up . He has been taught that story and no alternative story by his teachers, or parents, or others.

But, the one known as "immanuel can", here, is at an age where it knows better than to believe unsubstantiated stories told to it.

Actually young children are better than aged adults at learning new ideas .

[Skepdick]

So you are asking me to explain why I have a belief I don't have.

No. I am not. I am asking you for a more complete inventory of your beliefs.

You don't believe god exists - fine. I heard do you.
But you still haven't told me whether you do; or don't you believe that god doesn't exist.

Sure, and if anyone cares to believe that things just happen to come together, they are welcome to that opinion.

Obviously both choices exist, but that doesn't brush away your double standard.

If you believe (and you seem you do) that things don't just happen to come together, then what methodology are you using to prove the existence of the explanation which brings things together?

[Age]

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.

So you agree that their explanation for how the world came to be is nonsense.

In fact, modern cosmology has been very helpful in exposing the follies of the eternal-universe hypothesis, and getting us to move beyond it.

Not true; all the big bang hypothesis demonstrates is that the visible universe, the bit we can actually see, appears to have sprung into being about 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. Few cosmologists are rash enough to insist there were no previous conditions in which this event took place. The main failing of Lawrence Krauss's book 'A Universe from Nothing', is that he equates relativistic quantum fields with nothing, which they clearly are not. It is just one hypothesis, but if the basic premise is tenable, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to call one or more quantum fields 'god'; if that was all there was, they were everywhere and capable of anything and, in fact, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that anything that could happen does. A god that creates every possible world is vastly more "Supreme" than yours who could only manage one, clearly flawed world.

1. Why do you perceive and claim that 'the world' is flawed?

2. What is the word, 'world', referring to exactly?

As it happens, Alvin Plantinga evokes possible worlds in his hopeless ontological argument:

A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
If that is true, then a god that only appears in one possible world isn't maximally great. Your god is too small to be what you believe it to be, and the reasons given for why such a god is so withered are bullshit.

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.

What we have found out, that the ancients didn't know, is that if the biblical account of creation is the word of God, then God talks bollocks.

Just like those who claim/ed the earth is flat, is in the centre of the Universe, and/or the Universe began and/or is expanding are also talking so-called 'bollocks'.

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.

No really. You cannot prove your god exists, any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't. You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

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.

Well, as an atheist, rather than an "Atheist", I don't claim to know that there is no god, so find an "Atheist" and ask them for "evidentiary warrant".

The very reason you two, here, have not uncovered what they actual Truth is, exactly, is because you two, still, have not even discussed what the definition for the 'God' word is, yet. your own personal versions of God are clearly both ridiculous.

[Age]

OK, you don't claim to know that there is no god, but you believe it.

No. I don't believe there isn't a god; I just don't believe there is.

And, as 'I' keep informing 'you' human beings, 'disbelief' has the exact same negative effects as 'belief' does. Disbelieving some thing exits has the exact same negative consequences on someone as believing some thing does not exist, does.

As can be clearly recognised and seen, here.

You can't prove your gravity exists...

Gravity is just the name given to whatever draws two massive objects together. It is demonstrable that something does just that.

Why only 'massive' objects?

[Belinda]

Neither of us thinks that.

So you agree that their explanation for how the world came to be is nonsense.

In fact, modern cosmology has been very helpful in exposing the follies of the eternal-universe hypothesis, and getting us to move beyond it.

Not true; all the big bang hypothesis demonstrates is that the visible universe, the bit we can actually see, appears to have sprung into being about 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. Few cosmologists are rash enough to insist there were no previous conditions in which this event took place. The main failing of Lawrence Krauss's book 'A Universe from Nothing', is that he equates relativistic quantum fields with nothing, which they clearly are not. It is just one hypothesis, but if the basic premise is tenable, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to call one or more quantum fields 'god'; if that was all there was, they were everywhere and capable of anything and, in fact, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that anything that could happen does. A god that creates every possible world is vastly more "Supreme" than yours who could only manage one, clearly flawed world.

1. Why do you perceive and claim that 'the world' is flawed?

2. What is the word, 'world', referring to exactly?

As it happens, Alvin Plantinga evokes possible worlds in his hopeless ontological argument:

A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
If that is true, then a god that only appears in one possible world isn't maximally great. Your god is too small to be what you believe it to be, and the reasons given for why such a god is so withered are bullshit.

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.

What we have found out, that the ancients didn't know, is that if the biblical account of creation is the word of God, then God talks bollocks.

Just like those who claim/ed the earth is flat, is in the centre of the Universe, and/or the Universe began and/or is expanding are also talking so-called 'bollocks'.

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

No really. You cannot prove your god exists, any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't. You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

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.

Well, as an atheist, rather than an "Atheist", I don't claim to know that there is no god, so find an "Atheist" and ask them for "evidentiary warrant".

The very reason you two, here, have not uncovered what they actual Truth is, exactly, is because you two, still, have not even discussed what the definition for the 'God' word is, yet. your own personal versions of God are clearly both ridiculous.

Age, the usual way to understand what somebody means by a word is the context of the utterance. Still, I agree it's helpful for posters to provide a definition of their terms.

[Will Bouwman]

So you are asking me to explain why I have a belief I don't have.

No. I am not. I am asking you for a more complete inventory of your beliefs.

You don't believe god exists - fine. I heard do you.
But you still haven't told me whether you do; or don't you believe that god doesn't exist.

Er, yes I did:

You didn't say that you don't believe god doesn't exist.

Because I don't.

Sure, and if anyone cares to believe that things just happen to come together, they are welcome to that opinion.

Obviously both choices exist, but that doesn't brush away your double standard.

If you believe (and you seem you do) that things don't just happen to come together, then what methodology are you using to prove that which glues things together exists?"

I don't claim any proof. It is just my opinion that something actually causing massive objects to move as they do is a better explanation than, meh, it just happens.

[Skepdick]

Er, yes I did:

You didn't say that you don't believe god doesn't exist.

Because I don't.

That doesn't track.

You DIDN'T say you don't believe god doesn't exist. Because you don't hold such belief.
But then you DID say that you don't believe god doesn't exist. Also because you don't hold such belief?

It's very strange that you are silent about some beliefs you don't hold, and very vocal about others.
Very very odd behaviour for somebody who's genuinely neutral on the matter.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In a real and important — more important — sense, what is more interesting than the “endless debate” about a reigning god’s existence, or non-existence, is to take into consideration how the revivification of the belief in a Christian nationalist god is now forming, especially in the US. It is perhaps one thing for a man to ‘believe in’ a supernatural power with ultimate say and dominion over a soul, and to carry on quietly or perhaps ‘subtly’ is the word I seek. But it is quite another when a Neo-Christian theism, combined with a demonology, emerges in an advanced nation like the US with characteristics like mass-hysteria. See for example the social influencer Tucker Carlson with, on one hand, a Chomskian-like analysis of power-dynamics, and personal tales of demonic attacks in his bed …

Frankly if an ‘atheist’ with or without a capitalized ‘a’ describes ‘non-belief’ in the Maddened Imagery that is eternally wedded to Christian metaphysics and symbols, I would definitely have to stand on that side (though my refuge is metaphysics). In this sense a rigid Christianity is the worst enemy of Christian belief itself. But here the origin of the Christian metaphysical paradigm, when examined carefully, reveals traces of symbolism that extend far further back in time — in fact (unless I am incorrect) to the metaphysical concepts of ancient Egypt.

If this is no then one can, if one chooses, decide to achieve a ‘certain remove’ from the rather terrible and terrifying attendant myth-concepts that, certainly in IC’s case, have the Christian in its grip. It is one thing to entertain ‘a metaphysical dream’ (c.f. Richard Weaver) but quite another to become susceptible to entirely far-fetched and thoroughly imagination-ridden notions about our existence in this world.

The rejection of this ‘Christian picture’, that necessarily entails visions of hell-realms, roving demons, divine avatars, and nations called to serve in vast existential metaphysical battles, stretched between imagined outcomes of “heaven on earth” and “world-destruction” in the fires of Armageddon …

I think it safe to say that an atheist’s platform, if this madness is what one is asked to ‘believe in’, is saner.

Once again I can only conclude that if we need anything to make it through our world today it is the perspective of a qualified ‘Master Metaphysician” since, in that absence, we are in so many senses like passengers on a skiff adrift in a vast psychic ocean.

Do these Cultural Influencers see how they are being captured by psycho-spiritual currents that arise in that Jungian sense and take possession of people? This is very different from the meditations of a solitary individual while at sober prayer in his quiet room. Or concern over the state of one’s soul in the material confusion.

I am now thinking that Nietzsche’s prediction that with the collapse of the ‘horizon’ that is, or was, the Christian Picture, that bizarre and deformed god-pictures would for hundreds of years go on ‘living’ ‘dying’ ‘resurrecting’ in endlessly strange mutations within men writhing in that sense at the hand of possessive belief-systems …

[Will Bouwman]

Er, yes I did:

Because I don't.

That doesn't track.

You DIDN'T say you don't believe god doesn't exist. Because you don't hold such belief.
But then you DID say that you don't believe god doesn't exist. Also because you don't hold such belief?

OK, you don't claim to know that there is no god, but you believe it.

No. I don't believe there isn't a god; I just don't believe there is.

It's very strange that you are silent about some beliefs you don't hold, and very vocal about others.
Very very odd behaviour for somebody who's genuinely neutral on the matter.

You cannot prove your god exists, any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't. You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

[Belinda]

In a real and important — more important — sense, what is more interesting than the “endless debate” about a reigning god’s existence, or non-existence, is to take into consideration how the revivification of the belief in a Christian nationalist god is now forming, especially in the US. It is perhaps one thing for a man to ‘believe in’ a supernatural power with ultimate say and dominion over a soul, and to carry on quietly or perhaps ‘subtly’ is the word I seek. But it is quite another when a Neo-Christian theism, combined with a demonology, emerges in an advanced nation like the US with characteristics like mass-hysteria. See for example the social influencer Tucker Carlson with, on one hand, a Chomskian-like analysis of power-dynamics, and personal tales of demonic attacks in his bed …

Frankly if an ‘atheist’ with or without a capitalized ‘a’ describes ‘non-belief’ in the Maddened Imagery that is eternally wedded to Christian metaphysics and symbols, I would definitely have to stand on that side (though my refuge is metaphysics). In this sense a rigid Christianity is the worst enemy of Christian belief itself. But here the origin of the Christian metaphysical paradigm, when examined carefully, reveals traces of symbolism that extend far further back in time — in fact (unless I am incorrect) to the metaphysical concepts of ancient Egypt.

If this is no then one can, if one chooses, decide to achieve a ‘certain remove’ from the rather terrible and terrifying attendant myth-concepts that, certainly in IC’s case, have the Christian in its grip. It is one thing to entertain ‘a metaphysical dream’ (c.f. Richard Weaver) but quite another to become susceptible to entirely far-fetched and thoroughly imagination-ridden notions about our existence in this world.

The rejection of this ‘Christian picture’, that necessarily entails visions of hell-realms, roving demons, divine avatars, and nations called to serve in vast existential metaphysical battles, stretched between imagined outcomes of “heaven on earth” and “world-destruction” in the fires of Armageddon …

I think it safe to say that an atheist’s platform, if this madness is what one is asked to ‘believe in’, is saner.

Once again I can only conclude that if we need anything to make it through our world today it is the perspective of a qualified ‘Master Metaphysician” since, in that absence, we are in so many senses like passengers on a skiff adrift in a vast psychic ocean.

Do these Cultural Influencers see how they are being captured by psycho-spiritual currents that arise in that Jungian sense and take possession of people? This is very different from the meditations of a solitary individual while at sober prayer in his quiet room. Or concern over the state of one’s soul in the material confusion.

I am now thinking that Nietzsche’s prediction that with the collapse of the ‘horizon’ that is, or was, the Christian Picture, that bizarre and deformed god-pictures would for hundreds of years go on ‘living’ ‘dying’ ‘resurrecting’ in endlessly strange mutations within men writhing in that sense at the hand of possessive belief-systems …

Trump's bid to weaponise Christianity does not make sense for Trinitarian Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is God. It's obvious that Jesus Christ's moral principles oppose Trumpism.

It is true that when hundreds of MAGAs congregate to adore Trump they are like other sects which can be swayed by the cult leader. In The Bible , God advises people Joshua 1:9 (KJV)
Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

The very first verse of the Bible — Genesis 1:1 uses Elohim, which comes from the same ancient Semitic root as Allah.

The name of God is spelled in Hebrew "YHWH," sometimes pronounced "Yaweh," in English, because the Hebrew has no vowels. "Allah" apparently was the moon god of the Arabs, who was said to have the stars as daughters. (Arabs and progressivist anthropologists don't like this fact, and so you'll find no end of them who attempt to deny this, but the historical evidence is good. "Lah" was the chief God of the ancient pagans in that region, from which Mo derived the term "Al-Lah," meaning, "the god.) If you ever wondered why Islam's symbol is the crescent moon, now you know.

In any case, "Al-Lah" was not known as Allah until after Mohammed...which even Islamists claim was his 'great' contribution to Arab religiosity. You'll also find that Allah has very, very few of the same qualities or values as the Hebrew YHWH or the Christian equivalent name, "God." The reason it always seems like Mohammedans follow a different god is because...they do.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

So you agree that their explanation for how the world came to be is nonsense.

No, I agree that ancient peoples had to rely on revelation, not imagination...just as we have to. For nobody was present but God Himself in the starting moments of the universe.

In fact, modern cosmology has been very helpful in exposing the follies of the eternal-universe hypothesis, and getting us to move beyond it.

Not true; all the big bang hypothesis demonstrates is that the visible universe, the bit we can actually see, appears to have sprung into being about 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

You've just undermined your own point. If the BB is the start of the universe, then what caused the BB, and from what did it explode and expand?

Few cosmologists are rash enough to insist there were no previous conditions in which this event took place. The main failing of Lawrence Krauss's book 'A Universe from Nothing', is that he equates relativistic quantum fields with nothing, which they clearly are not.

Agreed. But if there were any "previous conditions," then it's not true that the BB is the origin point of the universe. Rather, it's a secondary step, which had to be preceded by some "previous conditions."

And in all cases, you're now arguing for a finite universe. If you call either the BB or the "previous conditions" the beginning of things, then you're saying the universe isn't eternal -- which is exactly what I'm pointing out is necessarily true. And all we're arguing now is the cause of the original event, not its existence.

You cannot prove your god exists,

Let's see. What will you accept as proof for the existence of God?

You cannot prove your god exists,[any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't.

But Atheism is the one making the claim that one can decisively disprove the existence of God. So you can see where they're placing the burden of proof...on themselves.

You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

If that were true, then it wouldn't save Atheism. It would just express an "et tu quoque" fallacy.

I don't claim to know that there is no god,

Then you're not an Atheist (or atheist) at all. You're an agnostic. It's there in your own wording: "I don't claim to know..." That, definitionally, is agnostic, because "a+gnosis" means "not+know."

You can stop defending Atheism, therefore. You aren't one.

[Skepdick]

No. I don't believe there isn't a god; I just don't believe there is.

It's really don't understand the grammatical composition of your sentences. What function does the "just" perform?

See, I neither believe there is a god; nor do I believe there isn't a god. I assign zero credence to both beliefs. If I had to weigh them on a scale - the scale would be balanced.

It sounds to me we believe the same thing, but then you qualify one with "just" and not the other.
You omit expressing one and not the other.

And lastly...

You cannot prove your god exists, any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't. You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

You call yourself an "atheist", you seem to insist that you don't believe god doesn't exist. But why would you need to prove something you (an atheist) don't believe?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Trump's bid to weaponise Christianity does not make sense for Trinitarian Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is God. It's obvious that Jesus Christ's moral principles oppose Trumpism.

Trump is, from my Jung-influenced perspective, a ‘manifestation’ of psychic content. Clearly, American culture has entered a strange and consequential phase in which (to all appearances) people are captured by currents of feeling and belief and hope and longing and fear and discomfort and dislocation — and are ‘acting out’ in bizarre and dangerous ways.

Yet it seems to me one must look beyond the figure of Trump to a whole realm of mythic-psychic content. It has (I suspect) very little to do with sober reasoning and even sober concepts, and more to do with irrational currents.

The new-fangled idea, a resurrection of an old idea, which is a new declaration within social politics, involves the notion of Christ as King. This is the resurrection of a very ancient idea that a King is invested with metaphysical justification by a superior being. The King has been assigned by the Supreme Power and must enforce kingship through application of law.

The entire Israel conflict, the melding of the Christian figure with the soon-to-arrive Jewish Messiah, undergirds American politics. I admit that Trump is a major player, but that the psychic dimension will live on when he no longer is in power.

Weirdly, the opposition is investing Trump with “kingship” while they deny that anyone should act as king in our present.

But the “true king” is a Divine Avatar who is outside of the world yet intimately involved in this world. And with America’s fate …

And by logical extension the metaphysical King must bring out a terrestrial king who harmonizes with the metaphysical intentions.

I am awaiting my orders! Alexis Jacobi is ready to serve!

[Belinda]

Trump's bid to weaponise Christianity does not make sense for Trinitarian Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is God. It's obvious that Jesus Christ's moral principles oppose Trumpism.

Trump is, from my Jung-influenced perspective, a ‘manifestation’ of psychic content. Clearly, American culture has entered a strange and consequential phase in which (to all appearances) people are captured by currents of feeling and belief and hope and longing and fear and discomfort and dislocation — and are ‘acting out’ in bizarre and dangerous ways.

Yet it seems to me one must look beyond the figure of Trump to a whole realm of mythic-psychic content. It has (I suspect) very little to do with sober reasoning and even sober concepts, and more to do with irrational currents.

The new-fangled idea, a resurrection of an old idea, which is a new declaration within social politics, involves the notion of Christ as King. This is the resurrection of a very ancient idea that a King is invested with metaphysical justification by a superior being. The King has been assigned by the Supreme Power and must enforce kingship through application of law.

The entire Israel conflict, the melding of the Christian figure with the soon-to-arrive Jewish Messiah, undergirds American politics. I admit that Trump is a major player, but that the psychic dimension will live on when he no longer is in power.

Weirdly, the opposition is investing Trump with “kingship” while they deny that anyone should act as king in our present.

But the “true king” is a Divine Avatar who is outside of the world yet intimately involved in this world. And with America’s fate …

And by logical extension the metaphysical King must bring out a terrestrial king who harmonizes with the metaphysical intentions.

I am awaiting my orders! Alexis Jacobi is ready to serve!

Jungian. Do you imply that Trump is a father figure, or a wise old man Jungian archetype? If so you may be right. Jesus Christ I have never seen depicted as a wise old man; which Jungian archetype do you suggest fits JC. The Caregiver, or the Hero?

I never heard that The King is a Jungian archetype.

The entire Israel conflict, the melding of the Christian figure with the soon-to-arrive Jewish Messiah, undergirds American politics. I admit that Trump is a major player, but that the psychic dimension will live on when he no longer is in power.

I like this interpretation and agree that the Wise Old Man archetype will survive Trump's demise. Let us hope we see manifestations of it only as balding Hollywood male film roles such as Kojak.