The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

No, it does not - non sequitur, and another logical fallacy. Entropy describes transformation, not creation.

"Running down" does not mean that the universe has a beginning. It just means that the state of energy is changing from one state to another, keeping the same quantity. Energy is a closed system - 1. law of thermodynamics - which means that it is eternal and without beginning or end.

Universe or Existence is Everything, and cosmos is one of many cosmoses in the Universe. Above our cosmos, there is another cosmos. Or, in other words, there are many Worlds, and ours is just one of them.

[Immanuel Can]

"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.

No, it does not...

Sorry...it does. And a little thought will show you it does.

If something is decaying from a higher-complexity state to a lower-complexity state, you can use it as a kind of "clock," which while not precise, makes it absolutely certain there's a rate involved. And that rate can be "wound back," and gives you a sense of the origin point.

Simple illustration: if I look at you, I can judge your age by way of your decrepitude. That is, depending on the distance between your physical decline and the ideal peak of your powers, I can say, "This man's in his '30s, or '40s, or '50s, or whatever. And I know for sure that you are a time-dependent being, too: because if you had infinite time before you, your decrepitude would already be 100%. You'd be dead.

But the universe is the same. Because it's entropic, we can "wind back" the calendar, so to speak, and judge that at some point it had to be infused with immense original complexity, from which it has been steadily declining by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So it's beyond doubt, really.

...cosmos is one of many cosmoses in the Universe.

I asked you what you meant by "cosmos." You didn't answer. Here, you reveal you think it doesn't mean "universe." You say it's just "one of many" parts of that "universe." Okay. So what is included in what you're calling "the cosmos?" Do you mean, "our solar system"? Or do you mean "our Local Group" of solar systems? Or do you mean something else?

[Age]

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.

Are you blind and deaf? How many times do I have to say and write I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, before it is heard and seen/understood?

Also, I have already explained, in this forum, who and what the God/Creator is, exactly, and how It creates absolutely every thing/Everything. Which obviously no one has been able to counter, nor refute. So, as of 'now' remains an irrfutable absolute Truth.

What I have also said and written throughout this forum covers, absolutely, both "immanuel can's" and "will bouwman's" beliefs and claims, here.

Why have you not been able to understand what I have been saying and meaning, here, in the context of the way I have been uttering my words?

I have already explained who and what God is, exactly, in the both forms God exists, how they Create, among other things, and for the rest of consciousness no one will be able to counter nor refute what I have said and written, here.

you people with your Truly misinformed beliefs just can not hear and see this Truth. And, the very fact that none of you even attempt to 'argue' with me just proves none of you are capable of countering or refuting me, here.

[Fairy]

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.

Those arguing for God or No God are second hand copies of the original fundamental infinite consciousness that has no copyright.

So these artificial copies are nothing other than the dreamers manifested dreams.

What appears as a dream stays in the dream, as the dream, because there’s absolutely nothing outside of the dream.
God is being dreamt just as the dreamer is simultaneously dreaming.

Until we think more clearly and deeply about where exactly concepts come from, it can be realised that THOUGHT existed first before any thing else.


Can THOUGHT be denied to exist, does a THOUGHT not exist? The answer to that question is absolutely NOT.

[Age]

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.

Physical substance

[Age]

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".

Absolute nothingness could be possible if there was not already matter and space co-existing. Absolute nothing is theoretically, or logically, possible. That is if matter did not exist. However, because awareness and thoughts do exist, and which exist because of physical substances, then it is physically and empirically impossible for absolutely nothing to exist.

Now, if you sought out clarification, and obtained actual clarification, before you made up assumptions and jumped to conclusions, which in turn you believe are absolutely true, then you could, and would, learn and understand more, here.

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.

Why would I even want to prove, let alone attempt to prove, things that I know never even existed?

Have you ever considered that your interpretations and understandings, here, could not be any more Wrong?

[Age]

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."

Remember 'this' "immanuel can" while you are 'trying' your hardest, here, to fight and argue for your beliefs and fixed positions.

you have, by the way, just explained how and why your belief and position is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

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.

Exactly like you have not provided a sound and valued argument for your belief, position, and claim that God exists.

[Jori]

The so=called proofs that God exists and God does not exist all seem to involve fallacious reasoning. However, fallacy does not mean falsity. Fallacy only means that the argument does not logically lead to the conclusion, which may be true by accident. Thus, it seems that one cannot both prove and disprove the existence of God.

[Belinda]

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.

Are you blind and deaf? How many times do I have to say and write I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, before it is heard and seen/understood?

Also, I have already explained, in this forum, who and what the God/Creator is, exactly, and how It creates absolutely every thing/Everything. Which obviously no one has been able to counter, nor refute. So, as of 'now' remains an irrfutable absolute Truth.

What I have also said and written throughout this forum covers, absolutely, both "immanuel can's" and "will bouwman's" beliefs and claims, here.

Why have you not been able to understand what I have been saying and meaning, here, in the context of the way I have been uttering my words?

I have already explained who and what God is, exactly, in the both forms God exists, how they Create, among other things, and for the rest of consciousness no one will be able to counter nor refute what I have said and written, here.

you people with your Truly misinformed beliefs just can not hear and see this Truth. And, the very fact that none of you even attempt to 'argue' with me just proves none of you are capable of countering or refuting me, here.

If you had no ad hoc beliefs then you would be helpless and probably hospitalised.

I apologise for forgetting how you defined 'God'. Please refresh ; did you or did you not claim God is a purposeful being ?

If you did as I requested and familiarised yourself with the word 'teleological' then you and I could be more explicit.

[Belinda]

The so=called proofs that God exists and God does not exist all seem to involve fallacious reasoning. However, fallacy does not mean falsity. Fallacy only means that the argument does not logically lead to the conclusion, which may be true by accident. Thus, it seems that one cannot both prove and disprove the existence of God.

I agree that God is not a matter of proof of existence. God for philosophers is a matter of heuristics. Simply,

*Is or is not God a construct that furthers the cause of good, beauty and truth?

*Or conversely, does the construct of God further fear and power ?

* Or is the construct of God heuristically inert and useless?

[Belinda]

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.

Physical substance

1. Age, 'physical substance' is a synonym not a definition.

2. Matter is all one substance. It is evolved central nervous systems that differentiate matter into separate things and events.

[Age]

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.

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.

No, it does not...

Sorry...it does. And a little thought will show you it does.

If something is decaying from a higher-complexity state to a lower-complexity state, you can use it as a kind of "clock," which while not precise, makes it absolutely certain there's a rate involved. And that rate can be "wound back," and gives you a sense of the origin point.

Simple illustration: if I look at you, I can judge your age by way of your decrepitude. That is, depending on the distance between your physical decline and the ideal peak of your powers, I can say, "This man's in his '30s, or '40s, or '50s, or whatever. And I know for sure that you are a time-dependent being, too: because if you had infinite time before you, your decrepitude would already be 100%. You'd be dead.

But the universe is the same. Because it's entropic, we can "wind back" the calendar, so to speak, and judge that at some point it had to be infused with immense original complexity, from which it has been steadily declining by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So it's beyond doubt, really.

LOL Here, 'we' have another prime example of one who is being absolutely blinded by its own already obtained distorted belief.

'This one' actual believes because it began, therefore the Universe, Itself, has to have begun, as well.

...cosmos is one of many cosmoses in the Universe.

I asked you what you meant by "cosmos." You didn't answer. Here, you reveal you think it doesn't mean "universe." You say it's just "one of many" parts of that "universe." Okay. So what is included in what you're calling "the cosmos?" Do you mean, "our solar system"? Or do you mean "our Local Group" of solar systems? Or do you mean something else?

[Age]

The so=called proofs that God exists and God does not exist all seem to involve fallacious reasoning. However, fallacy does not mean falsity. Fallacy only means that the argument does not logically lead to the conclusion, which may be true by accident. Thus, it seems that one cannot both prove and disprove the existence of God.

Although it may well seem that way, to you, the actual irrefutable Truth is different.

[Age]

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.

Are you blind and deaf? How many times do I have to say and write I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, before it is heard and seen/understood?

Also, I have already explained, in this forum, who and what the God/Creator is, exactly, and how It creates absolutely every thing/Everything. Which obviously no one has been able to counter, nor refute. So, as of 'now' remains an irrfutable absolute Truth.

What I have also said and written throughout this forum covers, absolutely, both "immanuel can's" and "will bouwman's" beliefs and claims, here.

Why have you not been able to understand what I have been saying and meaning, here, in the context of the way I have been uttering my words?

I have already explained who and what God is, exactly, in the both forms God exists, how they Create, among other things, and for the rest of consciousness no one will be able to counter nor refute what I have said and written, here.

you people with your Truly misinformed beliefs just can not hear and see this Truth. And, the very fact that none of you even attempt to 'argue' with me just proves none of you are capable of countering or refuting me, here.

If you had no ad hoc beliefs then you would be helpless and probably hospitalised.

Here, 'we' have another one who believes, absolutely, that it and other human beings have to have, and thus can not live without, beliefs.

This really was how simply and easily these people, back when this was being written, were able to be manipulated to believe, absolutely, False, and Incorrect things.

I apologise for forgetting how you defined 'God'. Please refresh ; did you or did you not claim God is a purposeful being ?

I did not.

If you did as I requested and familiarised yourself with the word 'teleological' then you and I could be more explicit.

I have said and claimed what I have, and, hitherto, no one has questioned nor challenged me over my claim.

[Age]

The so=called proofs that God exists and God does not exist all seem to involve fallacious reasoning. However, fallacy does not mean falsity. Fallacy only means that the argument does not logically lead to the conclusion, which may be true by accident. Thus, it seems that one cannot both prove and disprove the existence of God.

I agree that God is not a matter of proof of existence. God for philosophers is a matter of heuristics. Simply,

*Is or is not God a construct that furthers the cause of good, beauty and truth?

*Or conversely, does the construct of God further fear and power ?

* Or is the construct of God heuristically inert and useless?

What is the purpose of the construct of each and every word and of each and every definition, to you?