The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

You cannot prove your god exists,

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

Show me your proof, and I will accept it.

What would it look like, to you? What form of proof will you accept? I've given some before, like the infinite regress argument, and your response has been rejection. So you must tell me what you *would* accept, because I have no other way of knowing.

The difference between you and I is not that you have proof, it is that you have faith.

What you aren't aware of is that those aren't mutually-exclusive. They always work together.

That's the problem with an unformed view of faith: it settles too easily on the assumption of the two being opposite, instead of realizing they are in dynamic, mutually-supportive relationship in all knowing, particularly in inductive situations (logic) and empirical ones (like science).

I don't claim to know that there is no god,
Here is an actual definition of:
agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism

It's a flawed definition, obviously. And you can detect that it is, by considering the claim "humans cannot know of anything...etc." Just ask yourself: how would one person -- say, you -- know what your neighbour or somebody who's an expert or the academic at the local university CANNOT know? If one person does not know Dallas, does that imply nobody else can? The suggestion doesn't even have a chance of being credible.

So why did Britannica make such an obvious mistake? I don't know. But you can see they did. Nothing can warrant such a claim. How could you know that nobody else can know God? So you can't be that kind of "agnostic," obviously. Nobody could...at least, not rationally.

That is not my position, so no, I am not an agnostic.

Well, they got it wrong, so maybe you are. If you still regard it as even possible that there might be a God, you're at least within the broad agnostic camp. But if you've foreclosed on that possibility, what's your evidence for doing so?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I reply to the original post:-

But there were no atheists until the last few hundred years. There is no recorded history of people who did not believe in the existence of God or gods until the last few hundred years.

I assume that this is your statement, Belinda?

See the Charvaka school of materialism:

Charvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक; IAST: Cārvāka), also known as Lokāyata, is an ancient Indian school of materialism. It is an example of the atheistic schools in the Ancient Indian philosophies, dated 900 BCE. Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism, and rejects ritualism. In other words, the Charvaka epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.

It was a well-attested belief system in ancient India. Brihaspati, a philosopher, is traditionally referred to as the founder of Charvaka or Lokāyata philosophy, although some scholars dispute this. Charvaka developed during the Hindu reformation period in the first millennium BCE and is considered a philosophical predecessor to subsequent or contemporaneous heterodox philosophies such as Ajñāna, Ājīvika, Jainism, and Buddhism. Its teachings have been compiled from historic secondary literature such as those found in the shastras, sutras, and Indian epic poetry. Charvaka is categorized as one of the nāstika or "heterodox" schools of Indian philosophy.

[Belinda]

I reply to the original post:-

But there were no atheists until the last few hundred years. There is no recorded history of people who did not believe in the existence of God or gods until the last few hundred years.

I assume that this is your statement, Belinda?

See the Charvaka school of materialism:

Charvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक; IAST: Cārvāka), also known as Lokāyata, is an ancient Indian school of materialism. It is an example of the atheistic schools in the Ancient Indian philosophies, dated 900 BCE. Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism, and rejects ritualism. In other words, the Charvaka epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.

It was a well-attested belief system in ancient India. Brihaspati, a philosopher, is traditionally referred to as the founder of Charvaka or Lokāyata philosophy, although some scholars dispute this. Charvaka developed during the Hindu reformation period in the first millennium BCE and is considered a philosophical predecessor to subsequent or contemporaneous heterodox philosophies such as Ajñāna, Ājīvika, Jainism, and Buddhism. Its teachings have been compiled from historic secondary literature such as those found in the shastras, sutras, and Indian epic poetry. Charvaka is categorized as one of the nāstika or "heterodox" schools of Indian philosophy.

I don't think so. From what you quoted Charvaka seems to be epistemic belief not ontological belief. As epistemic it applies to all ontologies.

[Belinda]

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

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


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'.


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.

you appear to be claiming that you understand what they mean by the word, 'God', in the context of when they uttered the word, 'God'. So, what did both of them mean, exactly?

It is clear from his context that Will Bouwman is talking about the Creator all.
Some people think the creator of all is uncaring and unwitting nature. Others believe the creator of all is more like a person with intentions as to what must happen.The word for the latter is telos. Look it up.Will Bouwman doubts that God purposed or purposes(present tense)

Immanuel Can clearly believes that God is a purposeful being who intends that events will happen.

Look up 'teleology' , think about what you read, and try to decide what you believe or don't believe.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't think so. From what you quoted Charvaka seems to be epistemic belief not ontological belief. As epistemic it applies to all ontologies.

My understanding is that their ‘materialism’ was definitely an ontological position and that its bold atheism arose in a similar context as our own version: a disgust with the fantastic, hallucinatory tilt of religious ritualism of the epoch. A soberness and a resolve to become sensible and ‘grounded’.

My understanding is that their written works were often suppressed (cancelled I guess we might say) and that what they did say is mostly recorded in the writings of those who opposed their positions since their works were destroyed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, but while it may give you satisfaction in presenting clarifications, the obvious feedback from rational explanations offers no evidence of interrupting the continuity of delusion in those hell-bent on trashing Christianity under the cover of atheism or agnosticism, or just plain ignorance, which is not honest dialogue.

You may be failing to take something crucial into consideration. The issue in question hinges precisely on the question of delusion. There are nearly infinite examples of lunatic Evangelicals whose theology is in no sense clear, lucid or believable. And there is a thing called “intellectual rigor” that prompts those with agnostic or atheistic positions to throw the baby out along with the bathwater because they find that accepting the apologetic line really does not serve them in the living of life.

V. Nabokov said there are two things that drive believing evangelicals up a wall: the discovery of a homosexual couple living in a balanced, committed relationship until death does them part; and a happy, well-adjusted, socially-minded atheist …

I have a strong feeling that you do not have enough background in why people may specifically reject Christianity. As with many controversial subjects the issue is not merely black and white. It is not hard at all to see why some people reject religious practice and all the mumbo-jumbo associated with it. Once out of it (i.e. not growing up with it perhaps) there are so many ways to live nicely and satisfactorily without a resort to the religious turning.

Why an aggressive nationalistic Christianity is on the rise in America (I intuit you are likely in this camp? Definitely you seem attracted to the MAGA current) is a complex sociological and political question. But very interesting. And less theological than one might imagine.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

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.

"Entropic" does not mean that the universe had a beginning.

Entropy (2. law of thermodynamics) is a characteristic of a closed system (1.law of thermodynamics), which means that it has no beginning and it has no end. That is the meaning of the closed system in cosmic terminology. In other words, it is eternal.

Our cosmos is not the only one - that is another assumption.

Our cosmos is just a part of the Energy part of Existence. So, if anything expands, it expands in the bigger space and not in an empty space. Beings who created (I speak in consequential language for better understanding) our cosmos have the power to expand and contract it at will, like any other balloon in an already existing room.

Scientific observations of our cosmos are limited, local, temporary, and not final. Things can change in our cosmos, and they will.

Physical laws in our dimension are not valid in the higher dimensions. There, they don't have the same characteristics - no entropy or energy cooling. Our cosmos is just one energy room in the Big Energy field of Existence.

Energy can not be created or destroyed. Existence, not Creation, is eternal. Inside it, there are many processes in action, but they don't affect the wholeness and eternity of Existence.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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

Or, in other words, reason is bad, and faith is good. Or, in other words, god exists.

Let's see your logic that invalid logic proves faith's supremacy and god's existence.

First, your method:

Copilot:

The Core Contradiction

The debater is using logical reasoning (e.g., “if this, then that”) to argue that logic is invalid. That’s a self-defeating position—a classic example of performative contradiction. They rely on logic to undermine logic. If logic were truly invalid, their argument couldn’t be valid either.

It’s ironic that a debater uses logical inference to argue that logic is unreliable. If logic truly lacked epistemic authority, his own reasoning—built on ‘if this, then that’—would collapse. He is standing on the very foundation you’re trying to demolish.

What Kind of Fallacy Is This?

• Self-refutation: The argument invalidates itself by relying on the very principle it denies.
• Inconsistency fallacy: The debater applies logic selectively—using it when convenient, rejecting it when inconvenient.
• Performative contradiction: They perform the act of reasoning while denying the validity of reasoning. - Copilot

So, just another typical, apologetic, and shallow try to manipulate, deny logic while using it, and desperately prove god's existence.

Why didn't you use faith instead of logic to disprove logic and prove god's existence?

Let's now see your "argument" or another collection of logical fallacies and manipulations.

Copilot:

The flaw in the so-called Dean’s paradox lies in a misrepresentation of what logic actually claims and a category error in conflating mathematical abstraction with physical reality.

1. Misunderstanding of Logic and Infinity

Dean’s paradox hinges on the idea that logic (or mathematics) claims motion is impossible because between any two points lies an infinite number of divisions. But this is a misreading of how infinity works in calculus and set theory:

• Mathematics does not claim motion is impossible. It acknowledges that between any two points on a line, there are infinitely many points (this is the concept of a dense set), but it also shows—via convergent series—that an infinite number of steps can sum to a finite distance or time.
For example, the series 12+14+18+…\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} + \dots converges to 1. This is how Zeno’s paradox was resolved: infinite divisions do not imply infinite duration.
• Logic and mathematics do not deny motion—they provide the tools (like limits and calculus) to explain how motion is possible even in a continuum.

2. Category Error: Logic ≠ Physical Reality

Dean’s argument assumes that because logic uses abstract constructs (like infinite divisibility), and because we don’t experience those divisions, logic must be invalid. But this is a category mistake:

• Logic is a formal system—a tool for reasoning, not a direct mirror of sensory experience.
• The fact that reality appears continuous and traversable doesn’t invalidate logic; it simply shows that models are not the same as the phenomena they describe.

3. The Leap to God and Faith Is a Non Sequitur

Even if Dean’s paradox revealed a limitation in logic (which it doesn’t), the conclusion that “therefore God exists and faith is superior to reason” is a non sequitur—a logical fallacy where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

• Invalidating logic doesn’t validate faith. If logic were flawed, it wouldn’t automatically make faith a superior epistemic tool.
• This is a false dichotomy: reason and faith are not the only two options, and undermining one doesn’t prove the other.

Final Thought

Dean’s paradox is not a paradox in the formal sense—it’s a rhetorical device that misrepresents the nature of logic and infinity. It’s not a disproof of logic, but rather a misunderstanding of how abstract reasoning models physical processes. Using it to justify the supremacy of faith over reason is not only philosophically weak—it’s logically incoherent.

The argument behind Dean’s paradox commits several logical fallacies and rhetorical manipulations. Here's a breakdown of the most relevant ones:

1. Straw Man Fallacy

Dean misrepresents what logic and mathematics actually claim. Logic does not say motion is impossible due to infinite divisions—it provides tools (like calculus and limits) to explain how motion occurs despite infinite divisibility. By attacking a distorted version of logic, the argument avoids engaging with its real principles.

2. Category Error

This fallacy occurs when someone confuses concepts from different domains. Dean treats abstract logical constructs (like infinite sets) as if they must behave identically to physical processes. But logic models reality—it doesn’t mirror it. The fact that we can move from point A to B doesn’t invalidate the mathematical model of infinite divisibility.

3. Non Sequitur

Even if Dean’s paradox revealed a limitation in logic (which it doesn’t), the leap to “therefore God exists and faith is superior to reason” is a non sequitur—the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Discrediting logic doesn’t automatically validate faith or theism.

4. False Dichotomy

The argument implies that if logic fails, faith must be true—as if those are the only two epistemic options. This ignores other frameworks like empirical science, metaphysics, or experiential knowledge. It’s a manipulative narrowing of the debate.

5. Appeal to Mystery

By invoking paradox and claiming logic fails, the argument subtly promotes mystery as a superior epistemic tool. This is often used to justify faith-based claims without evidence, suggesting that because something is hard to explain, it must be divine.

Summary

Dean’s paradox is not a genuine paradox—it’s a rhetorical device built on misunderstanding infinity, misrepresenting logic, and making unjustified leaps to metaphysical conclusions. It’s a classic case of philosophical sleight of hand: confuse the audience with abstraction, then insert dogma as the “solution.” - Copilot

When everything you have is just a manipulation, you have nothing.

Existence was never created and will never be destroyed.

Existence is eternal.

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

There is no logical fallacy manipulation that will ever produce him. Only faith is keeping him alive in religious delusion.

Read my book series “It’s Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History” https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/, and learn the Truth.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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'.

Define matter.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

"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"?

There are no entities behind me. I am not a channel for anybody. I write my books and articles myself.

Even if there were an entity behind me, but it isn't, simple logic that Energy can not be created or destroyed, is enough evidence for god's nonexistence. And I have two more valid pieces of evidence in my book series.

There is a saying, you can say what you want, but eat only what you have.

Different research fields have different search methods. Philosophers think. Astronomers observe. Archaeologists dig.

For the time present, there is an easy method to check and confirm my statements. Read, learn, and use it: https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/

Read my books and you will learn the Truth. Now for free, https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/

Realizing what is really going on may help you lift from the cynical mind to an open and free-thinking person.

You will find out that you were programmed to be nihilistic, and there is a way to reprogram yourself, exit the Matrix, and live as an awakened being in Pure Awareness. Don't self-pity yourself; rather, empower yourself and get out of the mental prison of self-depreciation.

[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.

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.

You are contradicting yourself - first, you say that "only nothing is possible", and then, in the same sentence, denying yourself, that nothing is not possible "only nothing is ever possible".

There are two nothings:

1. Relative nothing: space which seems empty but is full of invisible energy, like gases. This nothing exists.

2. Absolute Nothing: in which there is nothing, and even that is missing. This Nothing does not exist.

Blowing up a balloon in the room would be in the first, relative, and existing "nothing".

Nothing from nothing. The Big Bang happened from something, from the singularity of a dense point. That is logical and true.

Prove that Absolute Nothing exist, and that the Big Bang happened from it. But, not with faith, with logic.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

Energy, as one of two elements of Existence, another is Pure Awareness, a non-material superstate, was never created and will never be destroyed. Existence is eternal. There is no first cause, first causer, or Causation (Creation).

[Senad Dizdarevic]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Any valid proof for God's non-existence requires an omniscient non-existence prover. This puts you in the usual epistemic pickle.

An omniscient being exist which knows that God doesn't exist. Ooops?

Wrong predisposition, just "scient" or reason and evidence that god does not exist is enough, obviously.

Here is a mirror to your cheap straw man attempt:

Copilot:

1. Straw Man Fallacy

He misrepresents your position by implying that you claim to have omniscient knowledge in order to disprove God's existence. But that’s not what you're doing.

You’re offering logical, metaphysical, and empirical arguments—not claiming omniscience.

By framing your argument as requiring omniscience, he’s attacking a distorted version of your claim, not the actual reasoning you’ve presented.

This is the classic straw man: misstate the opponent’s position, then refute the misstatement.

Category Error: Epistemology vs Ontology

He conflates epistemic certainty (what we can know) with ontological truth (what exists). You don’t need omniscience to argue that something doesn’t exist—just sufficient evidence and logical coherence.

For example, we don’t need omniscience to say unicorns don’t exist—we just need to show that all known evidence fails to support their existence.

Likewise, arguments against God’s existence can be based on contradictions, lack of evidence, or incoherent definitions—none of which require omniscience.

3. Performative Contradiction

Ironically, his argument implies that only an omniscient being could disprove God, but then imagines such a being who knows God doesn’t exist, which would itself be a proof of God’s nonexistence. So he’s using the very concept he claims is impossible to make his point.

If disproving something required omniscience, then no belief could ever be questioned—including yours. That’s not epistemology. That’s dogma. - Copilot

If everything you have is manipulation, you have nothing.

I am not omniscient, but I proved that god does not exist.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

"Entropic" does not mean that the universe had a beginning.

No: it means it's "running down," distributing energy from a state of higher complexity to lower complexity...and THAT means it had to have a beginning.

Our cosmos is not the only one - that is another assumption.

What do you mean when you say "cosmos"? There is, and can be, only one "universe." That's because "universe" means, "all that exists." So if we were to discover something more, it would be yet another compartment within THIS "universe," not another one. If it's genuinely "another universe," we can have no access to it, ever.

You still have no argument, not "valid evidence that god does not exist," as you claim.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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 …

Your observation is excellent. Christianity is truly mutating into national hysteria, denying Christ and praising Trump.

In the USA, we can see the failure of Freudian collective mental health, or more precisely, mental illness analytical therapy. Instead of "where id was, there ego shall be", the unconscious is killing the ego, and obsessing the superego.

Trump abducted already harmful Christianity and selfishly weaponized it as his personal dogma doctrine for justification of his fanatical narcissistic delusion: I am the chosen One, and I am doing a god's work. Christian nationalists who waited for Christ to come and to lead them to the Final Solution "recognized" Trump as their saviour.

My book series will end this vicious cycle of religious slavery, racism, misogyny, homophobia, hate, and violence by removing the foundation of their belief. When the majority of Earthlings will understand and accept valid evidence that god does not exist, the religious minority will present them in their true light: irrational, fanatical, and delusional maniacs. It will take time, but that is the way. The future is the world without religion.

The first enlightenment moved people from superstition to reason. The second enlightenment presents evolution from reason to awareness. This is the way out of the Matrix of oblivion and into the aware world of truth, reason, and logic.

Read my book series “It’s Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History”, it is now free in public libraries: https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/

I present the Big Picture of our cosmos, and the fantastic future for Earthlings on the new planets without Evil, religions, hate, crime, violence, illnesses, and death.