The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

Honestly, if someone can't be on the same page with me, I'm far too lazy to try and explain things to them. That didn't use to be the case but age, pardon the pun, has caught up with me, with all my own health related issues. So I'm looking for someone that can argue these issues that at least understands the points I make. It's nothing personal.

OK, I'll explain one thing before I go: The reason I chose the word "Impossible" is because in the truest sense of the word and the points being made by you and I, Atheists can't know what it is that they don't know, and not seeing something yet, has no necessary bearing on the future, as humans are relatively babies in terms of knowing the universe completely. And Theists can only say that god has talked to them or that they only have faith, which is without knowledge, but I know that humans lie and some of them are schizophrenics, that hear voices in their heads, I know because I have a friend that is one. And a so called all knowing, omnipresent god hasn't made itself visible to all of us which would be the best way to get us to believe in it, and it would know that we know that people lie, so why would it just tell a few and have them tell the rest, because we might believe them to be liars or schizophrenics, that would mean that god is a dumb ass and it's supposed to be all knowing. See what I mean, IMPOSSIBLE! Neither side can 'prove' either side. An agnostic can at least 'believe', not Know, that either belief has a chance of being true, that the jury is still out. Now does the logic speak for itself. If not "logically" prove it wrong. You can't, no one can. Oh, they can make up stories alright and try and confuse you, but no one can logically 'prove' that a god does or doesn't exist.

Remember Logic has to have "Valid" premises that are "True" and "Sound" for the conclusion to be necessarily "True".

Obviously you, still, have missed and/or misunderstood the point, completely.

Keep side stepping and running scared, it's hilarious. I'm done playing with the special needs class. Don't worry, I really feel sorry for you. I care for all the damaged people. Maybe I just had you all wrong those years ago. Sorry I misjudged you, you obviously didn't deserve it.
Peace my friend!

you are so wrong.

[Belinda]

Honestly, if someone can't be on the same page with me, I'm far too lazy to try and explain things to them. That didn't use to be the case but age, pardon the pun, has caught up with me, with all my own health related issues. So I'm looking for someone that can argue these issues that at least understands the points I make. It's nothing personal.

OK, I'll explain one thing before I go: The reason I chose the word "Impossible" is because in the truest sense of the word and the points being made by you and I, Atheists can't know what it is that they don't know, and not seeing something yet, has no necessary bearing on the future, as humans are relatively babies in terms of knowing the universe completely. And Theists can only say that god has talked to them or that they only have faith, which is without knowledge, but I know that humans lie and some of them are schizophrenics, that hear voices in their heads, I know because I have a friend that is one. And a so called all knowing, omnipresent god hasn't made itself visible to all of us which would be the best way to get us to believe in it, and it would know that we know that people lie, so why would it just tell a few and have them tell the rest, because we might believe them to be liars or schizophrenics, that would mean that god is a dumb ass and it's supposed to be all knowing. See what I mean, IMPOSSIBLE! Neither side can 'prove' either side. An agnostic can at least 'believe', not Know, that either belief has a chance of being true, that the jury is still out. Now does the logic speak for itself. If not "logically" prove it wrong. You can't, no one can. Oh, they can make up stories alright and try and confuse you, but no one can logically 'prove' that a god does or doesn't exist.

Remember Logic has to have "Valid" premises that are "True" and "Sound" for the conclusion to be necessarily "True".

Obviously you, still, have missed and/or misunderstood the point, completely.

Keep side stepping and running scared, it's hilarious. I'm done playing with the special needs class. Don't worry, I really feel sorry for you. I care for all the damaged people. Maybe I just had you all wrong those years ago. Sorry I misjudged you, you obviously didn't deserve it.
Peace my friend!

Age has sometimes been reasonable. His emotional need to do that passive -aggressive thing sometimes gets the better of his reason. Intellectually I find him worth talking to but I FOE him as I don't enjoy his passive - aggressive snubs.

[Will Bouwman]

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.

Well it does to people who haven't nailed their credulity to some particular cross. You clearly don't recognise it is as an inference from Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am,' which, as I was taught, is the cleft between Medieval and modern philosophy. The power of the Cogito, with a little refinement, is that it is self contradictory to say, or write, or hear or read that experience doesn't exist.
That something can come from nothing, while it seems intuitively certain that it can't, but good luck proving it, isn't self contradictory; so your infinite regress argument is unsound. Come up with a premise, the negation of which is self contradictory, and you will have your proof, which I will be compelled to believe.

[Age]

Obviously you, still, have missed and/or misunderstood the point, completely.

Keep side stepping and running scared, it's hilarious. I'm done playing with the special needs class. Don't worry, I really feel sorry for you. I care for all the damaged people. Maybe I just had you all wrong those years ago. Sorry I misjudged you, you obviously didn't deserve it.
Peace my friend!

Age has sometimes been reasonable. His emotional need to do that passive -aggressive thing sometimes gets the better of his reason.

What is this 'thing', exactly, which you call and claim is 'that passive-aggressive thing'?

Also, will you provide any examples of this 'passive-aggressive thing', which you claim I have an emotional needs to do?

If no, then why not?

And, if you do not provide any examples at all, then absolutely no one can check and verify your other claims, here, about me, 'that thing' so-called getting the better if my reason.

See, if you do not provide absolutely any examples at all, then what you are saying and claiming could all just be a figment of your imagination. After I absolutely no emotional needs to any so-called 'passive-aggressive thing', I also have never ever done such a thing in 'the way' you portray, here. And, as for 'my reasoning' not until some one checks and clarifies, what the actual Truth, here, is, exactly, will remain to be seen.

Intellectually I find him worth talking to but I FOE him as I don't enjoy his passive - aggressive snubs.

Just out of curiosity is it possible that what you 'see' and claim are some so-called 'passive-aggressive snubs', by me, not be 'that' at all?

Are you open to 'this', or are you absolutely closed to 'this'?

Also, I write in a very particular way, for a very specific reason.

Which, when seen, and understood, will reveal far more knowledge and understanding than was seen, at 'first glance'.

[Age]

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.

Well it does to people who haven't nailed their credulity to some particular cross. You clearly don't recognise it is as an inference from Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am,' which, as I was taught, is the cleft between Medieval and modern philosophy. The power of the Cogito, with a little refinement, is that it is self contradictory to say, or write, or hear or read that experience doesn't exist.
That something can come from nothing, while it seems intuitively certain that it can't, but good luck proving it,

It has already been proved True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

That you have absolutely no curiosity nor interest in learning the proof, and becoming wiser, here, in no way means that it can not be proved.

isn't self contradictory; so your infinite regress argument is unsound. Come up with a premise, the negation of which is self contradictory, and you will have your proof, which I will be compelled to believe.

[Fairy]

Infinite regress is impossible. What’s absolutely certain is the infinite immediacy of the present moment which is perfectly still and motionless.

Regression is simply the movement of mental activity, a momentary distraction.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well it does to people who haven't nailed their credulity to some particular cross.

No, it has nothing to do with what one personally knows or believes -- me or you. It's just obvious, isn't it? I can't say what you "can know," and you can't be dogmatic about what you suppose I "can know," unless you have some compelling rationale that isn't obvious here. And what would that be?

So the dogmatic agnostic, the kind who says, "I don't know, and you can't either," is no more intellectually tenable than the Atheist who says, "There are no Gods." To be reasonable, agnosticism must be a humble, modest and moderate thing, and can perhaps go as far as to say, "I don't know, and maybe you don't either," but is rationally incapable of being any more dogmatic than that.

If an agnostic exceeds that, then he's just wearing the same intellectual rags as the Atheist: dogmatic claims to know things he can't possibly know. However, I have found that most admitted agnostics tend to be either centrist, close to the 50-50 line and willing to confess the limitations of human possibility of knowing, or even more open to the possibility of God than that. Somewhere between the center-doubtful and the extreme of openness is where an intellectually solid agnosticism can land. But it can't be hardened agnosticism, or it's just Atheism with less nerve. After all, the core meaning is "I don't know."

That something can come from nothing, while it seems intuitively certain that it can't, but good luck proving it, isn't self contradictory;

"Self" contradictory? Perhaps not that. But it is irrational and impossible, according to mathematics and logic.

Come up with a premise, the negation of which is self contradictory, and you will have your proof, which I will be compelled to believe.

Oh, that's easy. I already have. Atheism.

No human being is ever adequate to make the claim, "I know there is no God." That's absurd. To do that, one would have to have to do a set of tests so exhaustive that we know no human being, or even a collective of the same, has either means or lifespan in which to do it. For Theism posits that a God exists transcendent to the natural world, beyond time, omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Thus, to say that God does not, will not and has never existed would require the speaker to BE God. And if the Atheist is God, then it's no longer true that there's no God: there is one, and it's the Atheist himself!

Obviously, that's both self-contradictory and absurd. But such are the lengths of absurdity which Atheism implies...which is precisely why people like R.Dawkins abandon Atheism for (what he calls) "strong agnosticism" the very minute he's challenged on it. Even he knows Atheism is indefensible rationally, and he's too clever to want to be caught out on such an obvious false claim.

[Immanuel Can]

Infinite regress is impossible.

Yes! You're absolutely right. And that's why an infinite regress of causes is impossible. And yet, it's very easy to observe scientifically, or even just by looking around, that we live in a causal universe, where one thing initiates another. That is exactly what science itself requires us to believe...that the things we study in science have some sort of causal relation to things that have gone before. Scientific explanation is in terms of cause and effect.

So if there's no possibility of infinite regress, then this universe cannot exist as the product of an infinite regress of causes.
But this universe does exist.
Therefore, this universe must have had a cause, and that cause cannot have been part of a regressive chain, because that's impossible.

And this is how you and I can know for certain that whatever "exists," it had a beginning point. The mathematics are decisive.

[Skepdick]

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.

So "obvious" that you don't understand the problem.

When making universal non-existence claims in an infinite search space the sufficient and necessary conditions coincide - the claims require exhaustive (TOTAL!) knowledge of the search-space.

Omniscience.

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.

Nothing of that sort. I am not implying that you've claimed omniscience. I am implying that you need omniscience (which you don't have) to prove God's non-existence.

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

Contradiction.

P1. Omniscience is necessary for proving god's non-existence.
P2. You are not omniscient
C It is impossible for you to prove god's non-existence.

Our intuitive sense that “reason and evidence are enough” might work in finite or bounded contexts, but breaks down in unbounded, infinite, or universal contexts — precisely where the God-question lives.

You don’t need omniscience to argue that something doesn’t exist—just sufficient evidence and logical coherence.

This is what happens when you can't think for yourself and let an AI do your thinking for you. That statement is blatantly false.

You can't prove that NO needle exists a haystack by searching only 99% of it.
No amount of "evidence" is sufficient to support the claim except 100%.

[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.

Our own Pious Immanuel regularly declares that my focus on ‘the man’ (ad hominem) is morally devious. I have adamantly disagreed. We must focus on the man while we also examine and sort through the ideas that are the stuff of philosophical enquiry.

What caught my eye here was your reference to your view that there is a “trashing” of Christianity which, you state, is not quite honest but is done “under the cover of atheism or agnosticism, or just plain ignorance, which is not honest dialogue”.

I am not closed to the examination of your proposal for the following reason: all religious philosophies derive from one core idea that there is an Order of Heaven and, to introduce a Confucian notion, there are Decrees of Heaven in the sense of rules of conduct that are demanded by Powers outside and beyond the world. Simply put man is called to adapt to these Laws and this Order and rebellion is all acts that undermine Heaven and those who work to establish — to institute — that order in the here-below.

If Dear Immanuel has an argument, and he has one basic and operative argument, it is really and precisely the condensation, the encapsulation, that I just offered.

God above, i.e. the god of the Hebrews, is the ordering power. Revealed doctrine is the structure of the Divine Commands. And Immanuel Can himself (and those of his cohort) is the human vessel who has acceded to ‘bow his knee’ to God’s avatar in the figure of Jesus Christ. Obviously, this can be not other than an absolute picture and therefore, logically and as presented, no one can argue contrarily against it.

Now who are you, Walker? You hear Immanuel’s voice, and through Immanuel’s voice you recognize the figure of the Avatar who descended into the matter and flesh of this world to bring the salvific Message, and you sense and you believe that through the Avatar the ‘Commands of Heaven’ have been revealed. All that is needed then is to align your human will with The Will of Heaven.

In a nutshell this is in essence what Immanuel is preaching. I guess it goes without saying, right? but it is useful for us to really see the core of what is being expressed.

In order to understand your particular and peculiar offense at those who you believe are ‘trashing’ Christianity, we are compelled to examine you as a man within a cultural and a political milieu. Thus the examination of the man becomes not merely sensible, but rather a required undertaking.

So we can turn from you singular to a larger plurality of operatives — i.e. those who see themselves as God’s agents down here in this bizarre mutable world, but specifically at a rather late date in a specific evolution of world culture in the form of The American Experiment — and in our viewing try to understand just what is being asked for. That is to say that a ‘conversion’ is called for, and (supposedly) the conversion will do a whole range of things. Save the individual, that is one. But also ‘save the entire world’ which is another.

You must be aware that ‘it’ is in no sense as simple as that since, in fact, entire ranges of episodes, catastrophes, upheavals, and fabulously destructive Final Wars have been prophesied before the absent Avatar returns to round up his true disciples, to literally destroy one phase of the world (i.e. the world as it is) before initiating a New World that, if I have understood the Medieval concept, will be a perfectly rounded but empty sphere hovering in space from which the blessèd will have been removed to the Eternal Paradise called Heaven.

We really have to see clearly the structure of the mythic picture …

… before we can then jump to considerations of the activities and recommendations of the Christian Zionists, the great powers and their representatives, people like Benny Hinn and a slew of Evangelists, but also people like Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and those emerging as ‘mouthpieces’ of the very Lord of Heaven in the Glorious Project of making America great again, the reestablishment of Israel, the Incoming and the Return, and let us not thoughtlessly exclude the Jewish believer’s project of rebuilding the Temple on or in any case quite near the location of the Al Aqsa mosque.

(Which inspired the Palestinian flying monkeys to ruthlessly attack those prancing & dancing boys & girls of Israel stoned out of their brains on exotic psychedelic compounds under effigies of the Buddha …)

We cannot either exclude the Tech Bros and for example Peter Tiel with his discourses on The AntiChrist. And let us be truly frank: we cannot exclude a multitude of persons who are deeply involved in these currents, evidently profoundly psychological, within which, Dear Walker, I must assume that you also swim (?) or by which you are carried along (?) To where is your ship a’sailing, Walker?

Let us sincerely examine that key word you yourself used:

…delusions…

Now do you understand why I chose to develop my Forty Week “See-the-Whole” Email Course® which I offer to the denizens of Planet Earth for a self-sacrificing nominal fee?!

[Fairy]

Infinite regress is impossible.

Yes! You're absolutely right. And that's why an infinite regress of causes is impossible. And yet, it's very easy to observe scientifically, or even just by looking around, that we live in a causal universe, where one thing initiates another. That is exactly what science itself requires us to believe...that the things we study in science have some sort of causal relation to things that have gone before. Scientific explanation is in terms of cause and effect.

So if there's no possibility of infinite regress, then this universe cannot exist as the product of an infinite regress of causes.
But this universe does exist.
Therefore, this universe must have had a cause, and that cause cannot have been part of a regressive chain, because that's impossible.

And this is how you and I can know for certain that whatever "exists," it had a beginning point. The mathematics are decisive.

If this universe was caused to have a beginning then when did the beginning begin, do you happen to know the exact time the beginning began Immanuel?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Obviously you, still, have missed and/or misunderstood the point, completely.

Keep side stepping and running scared, it's hilarious. I'm done playing with the special needs class. Don't worry, I really feel sorry for you. I care for all the damaged people. Maybe I just had you all wrong those years ago. Sorry I misjudged you, you obviously didn't deserve it.
Peace my friend!

Age has sometimes been reasonable. His emotional need to do that passive -aggressive thing sometimes gets the better of his reason. Intellectually I find him worth talking to but I FOE him as I don't enjoy his passive - aggressive snubs.

Well he definitely sounds like someone not even remotely familiar with the basics of philosophy. I only had a couple years in a college classroom, and actually my professor was far too captivated by Wilhelm Reich, as far as I'm concerned. The whole "Orgone Energy" thing, I thought was completely wrong.

Anyway I probably won't be communicating any ideas with Age anymore. He sounds like a loser that just comes here to troll. I, on the other hand, actually care about the truth of things, such that philosophical discourse can provide, with the engagement of honest, like minded people, that at least have some basic knowledge of philosophy.

[Age]

Keep side stepping and running scared, it's hilarious. I'm done playing with the special needs class. Don't worry, I really feel sorry for you. I care for all the damaged people. Maybe I just had you all wrong those years ago. Sorry I misjudged you, you obviously didn't deserve it.
Peace my friend!

Age has sometimes been reasonable. His emotional need to do that passive -aggressive thing sometimes gets the better of his reason. Intellectually I find him worth talking to but I FOE him as I don't enjoy his passive - aggressive snubs.

Well he definitely sounds like someone not even remotely familiar with the basics of philosophy. I only had a couple years in a college classroom, and actually my professor was far too captivated by Wilhelm Reich, as far as I'm concerned. The whole "Orgone Energy" thing, I thought was completely wrong.

Anyway I probably won't be communicating any ideas with Age anymore. He sounds like a loser that just comes here to troll. I, on the other hand, actually care about the truth of things, such that philosophical discourse can provide, with the engagement of honest, like minded people, that at least have some basic knowledge of philosophy.

To 'this one', only those with who hold the exact same 'truths' are those who engage honestly and who have some basic knowledge of philosophy.

Which just goes to show, and prove, how closed, blind, and deaf some people had actually really become, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

[Belinda]

Keep side stepping and running scared, it's hilarious. I'm done playing with the special needs class. Don't worry, I really feel sorry for you. I care for all the damaged people. Maybe I just had you all wrong those years ago. Sorry I misjudged you, you obviously didn't deserve it.
Peace my friend!

Age has sometimes been reasonable. His emotional need to do that passive -aggressive thing sometimes gets the better of his reason. Intellectually I find him worth talking to but I FOE him as I don't enjoy his passive - aggressive snubs.

Well he definitely sounds like someone not even remotely familiar with the basics of philosophy. I only had a couple years in a college classroom, and actually my professor was far too captivated by Wilhelm Reich, as far as I'm concerned. The whole "Orgone Energy" thing, I thought was completely wrong.

Anyway I probably won't be communicating any ideas with Age anymore. He sounds like a loser that just comes here to troll. I, on the other hand, actually care about the truth of things, such that philosophical discourse can provide, with the engagement of honest, like minded people, that at least have some basic knowledge of philosophy.

I tried to get him to look up on or two basic lexical items from academic philosophy, but without recognisable success.

[Immanuel Can]

Infinite regress is impossible.

Yes! You're absolutely right. And that's why an infinite regress of causes is impossible. And yet, it's very easy to observe scientifically, or even just by looking around, that we live in a causal universe, where one thing initiates another. That is exactly what science itself requires us to believe...that the things we study in science have some sort of causal relation to things that have gone before. Scientific explanation is in terms of cause and effect.

So if there's no possibility of infinite regress, then this universe cannot exist as the product of an infinite regress of causes.
But this universe does exist.
Therefore, this universe must have had a cause, and that cause cannot have been part of a regressive chain, because that's impossible.

And this is how you and I can know for certain that whatever "exists," it had a beginning point. The mathematics are decisive.

If this universe was caused to have a beginning then when did the beginning begin, do you happen to know the exact time the beginning began Immanuel?

Nobody knows exactly that. But we do know it had to have a specific beginning point.

It's just like we know that a mathematical sequence of prerequisites has to have a starting point, or it never starts at all.