The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

...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?

It seems that you don't want to understand a simple fact and are stubbornly mixing two different things.

I understand that you don't like the truth about eternal Existence because it cancels out your god as Creator. Liking or disliking does not affect the truth. Your fight against reality, reason, and facts just shows your desperate attempt to deny reality and keep religious delusion.

Energy can not be created or destroyed. Existence - All that is, as a closed system, was never created and will never be destroyed. You can deny it but that does not change the fact that that is true.

2. Law of thermodynamics is not about creation but about transformation in the already existing closed system.

1. Existence of a closed system like Existence - All that is - is one thing.
2. What is happening inside a closed system is another thing.

Process does not say anything about the existence of a closed system, let alone about its "creation".

You claim it does - prove it with the 2. Law of thermodynamics definition.

About the universe and cosmoses.

Religious, primitive, and limited biblical theory claims that:

1. There is a god, who is immaterial, despite being incarnated in a human and becoming Jesus, luckily only in myth.
2. He thinks and speaks, but is immaterial, which is not possible as thoughts and words are energetic and material.
3. He exists beyond time, even though there is an eternal Now as the prime time of Everything that exists, and it is a temporal measure.
4. He exists beyond the World or the universe, despite the simple fact that there is nothing beyond Existence, which consists of two parts: Energy = matter, and Pure Awareness, a nonmaterial superstate which is not a being, an agent, or a doer.
5. He created the universe out of nothing, by one line, and out of something, by another line. Both are wrong. In Existence, a closed system that was never created, there are no creators and no creations. Everything already exists.

So, there is a god and the universe, and nothing else. False.

There is Existence, Energy = matter, and Pure Awareness. We can also name it the universe. Inside the universe, there are many cosmoses.

Existence is eternal, and cosmoses are also eternal.

Our cosmos has many dimensions, at least 16.

Our part of cosmos, we, Earthlings, live in 2.6 dimension, has its own world. For the bibliotic believers, that is the only world or even the universe out there. Wrong.

Every dimension has its own world, cosmos, or "universe". Lower ones, like ours, have different operating laws than the higher ones.

For example, we measure time by the rotation of the stars and planets. Above the human part of our cosmos, above 15. dimension, there are no galaxies, stars, or planets. Beings living there are energetic clouds who float and fly in an energetic field. They don't have time as we do. Their energy field is constant; there is no entropy of any kind. There is no "cooling down". One of the most absurd apologetic claims is that energy in our cosmos is becoming "bad" and "useless", and that is supposed to be proof that the Big Bang exploded from nothing, which is just another term for god's creation from nothing.

Frank Turek claims that science proves that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, and that that means that god created it from nothing, while lying that science clearly states that the Big Bang happened out of singularity, a small dense primal point of energy, and not from nothing.

That is typical theist, religious, and apologetic manipulation they use to cheat themselves and try to fool others. They just say something, anything, and then pretend it is true. It is not.

Existence, or the universe, is like a room with many balloons (cosmoses) inside it. If one balloon is inflating and expanding, that does not affect the room. It can maybe reach the walls of the room or the Existence Energy border, but it won't affect its size. When it comes to the wall or the border, it will stop expanding. One balloon can also become smaller, merge with another balloon, or dissolve into the base energy field of Existence or the room, and that won't affect the totality of Existence as its outer size will stay the same.

Like it or not: Existence is eternal, it was never created, and it will never disappear. Nobody created it: god as creator does not exist.

Deny it, manipulate it, fight it, but that won't change the truth. You can inflate your balloon as much as you want, you can also explode, but the truth about Existence will stay the same.

[Skepdick]

Well if that's how you do your sums "a+theist" means "not+theist", which describes me perfectly.

Does not chicken soup also describe you perfectly?
How about not 7; or not Chinese?

All of the above.

So atheist didn't describe you "perfectly"...

Seeming you are a not-7, not-Chinese, not-chicken soup atheist.

As I said, you and your "Atheist" are both labouring under the delusion that you can prove your proposition.

Yeah, but you are not being asked to "prove your proposition". You are being asked to explain what persuaded you to abandon the default position for your current one (atheism).

If you are currently in a different location than the one you started at - you must have taken some route to get there. Unless, of course you are labouring under the delusion that you have arrived at atheism.

Well, if it is your belief that theism is the default position, I disagree.

And if it's not my belief that theism is the default position? It's also not my belief that atheism is the default position.

It seems to me that we are born without a concept of god, and it is only through education that we develop one.

We are also born without a concept of "atheist".

I didn't arrive at atheism, I started there.

I can't imagine how that's possible. Unless you believe atheism is the default position.

It might be my failure to accept theism, or it might be a failure of all the different shades of theists to persuade me that their version is true.

Yeah... Ditto. When somebody fails to persuade me - I remain at my default position. The same with atheism.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand that you don't like the truth about eternal Existence because it cancels out your god as Creator.

If it were possible, you'd be right -- but an eternal-past-causal-chain would not just eliminate the need for a Creator. It would eliminate us, as well.

Yet we exist. And we exist within causality. Therefore, there cannot have been an eternal-past-causal-chain.

QED.

And it has nothing to do with "liking."

About the universe and cosmoses.

Religious, primitive, and limited biblical theory claims that:

1. There is a god, who is immaterial, despite being incarnated in a human and becoming Jesus, luckily only in myth.
2. He thinks and speaks, but is immaterial, which is not possible as thoughts and words are energetic and material.
3. He exists beyond time, even though there is an eternal Now as the prime time of Everything that exists, and it is a temporal measure.
4. He exists beyond the World or the universe, despite the simple fact that there is nothing beyond Existence, which consists of two parts: Energy = matter, and Pure Awareness, a nonmaterial superstate which is not a being, an agent, or a doer.
5. He created the universe out of nothing, by one line, and out of something, by another line. Both are wrong. In Existence, a closed system that was never created, there are no creators and no creations. Everything already exists.

So, there is a god and the universe, and nothing else. False.

This is what you like to believe, I can see. But "liking" has nothing to do with truth. At least you and I wholeheartedly agree on that.

Whereas, my demonstration is mathematical. We can also do it empirically and logically.

Our cosmos has many dimensions, at least 16.

I keep asking what you mean when you say "cosmos," and you never explain. I'll ask again: what do you mean when you say "cosmos"? Do you even know what you mean?

Like it or not: Existence is eternal,

Well, God's existence is. Christians agree with you about that. But then, God is not the product of a causal chain.

We are. And the products of a causal chain cannot be past-eternal. That's so certain as to be undeniable, in fact.

You're right: somebody's not understanding the argument. However, it might not be me who's having the struggle.

[Will Bouwman]

If one attends to Descartes, one comes to believe one does not even know one's own body exists...

Correct. If that troubles you, prove you have a body.

Well, Descartes' Meditations is a big subject, but I have him here, on my desk, if you want to go into it.

Anytime you wish. Meanwhile, prove you have a body.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

Pure Awareness (in your terms, consciousness) is not a being; it is just a non-material superstate that allows us consciousness, attention, and awareness of Pure Awareness. So, humans can not be copies of non-being, as we are clearly beings.

In Existence, Everything has already happened, it is happening at the same time, and it will be happening forever.

Causal-consequential model is wrong; there was no cause, cause, and causation (god, creation, and Creation). We are all originals.

There is no Dreamer, and Existence (All that is, Energy = matter and Pure Awareness) is not his Dream.

Nothing was "before" and nothing was "later", Everything is at the same time.

Being poetically cute and relativizing reality with the butterfly mystery does not change the fundamental truth about Existence. It is not a dream, it is Reality. There are dream states inside it as part of our lives, but that does not mean that we are not real.

Humans have two bodies, a physical one and an energy one. When we sleep, we exit our physical body with our energy body and fly to the dream planets that are energy replicas of the real planets. When we are in dreams or on the dream planet, we are also real, just in a different state of mind.

Energy beings from the higher dimension have only an energy body, so they don't dream as we do.

The dream theory is just another variation of nihilism.

Imagine two nihilists meeting each other, claiming the same thing: "You are not a real person, you are just me thinking that you are independent."

You can also claim that you don't exist at all, and that you are just a quantum vacuum dreaming of being a human. Or even claiming that you are nothing. Denying your own existence is proving it, as you must first exist to claim that you don't.

A thought exists, but the Thought or god or the first cause or Creator does not, because that is not possible. Existence was never created, and will never disappear. It is Eternal.

If you like dreams, I suggest you learn to lucid dream and find out more about that special state. Read my article https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/, with explanation and instructions, learn to lucid dream, meet inhabitants of other planets, talk with them, and you will find out what is happening outside of the Earth Matrix. If you need support, just ask.

Read my book series and you will see the Big Picture. You can read all 4 books for free, here is how: https://www.academia.edu/144571964/God_ ... _Libraries In book 4, I present valid evidence that god does not exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Correct. If that troubles you, prove you have a body.

Well, Descartes' Meditations is a big subject, but I have him here, on my desk, if you want to go into it.

Anytime you wish. Meanwhile, prove you have a body.

Probabilistically? Or absolutely?

[Will Bouwman]

...prove you have a body.

Probabilistically? Or absolutely?

Well, probabilistically wouldn't be proof, but since there is no chance you can prove it absolutely, go for the probable.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

First, I doubt very much that your books, or anyone’s books, will have or even could have the result you predict. For this reason most who read your posts or sales presentations will notice the “grandiosity” in your claims. However, you can certainly influence some people who are, let’s say, primed and prepared to take advantage of the intellectual strategy you offer to get out of a circular trap of proposing god, then believing one must succumb to this or that, in a non-productive loop.

Let’s face it: we all desire to progress and, again referring to Nietzsche, there is a glorious, expansive feeling when obstacles fall away and doors open before us.

I do not accept what surely looks like a paragraph of convenient reductions with which you outline your mission. I do accept that “religious slavery” is a real spiritual and social-political condition. But I also have noted that men, deeply grounded in spiritualized metaphysics which seem to transcend their specific religious vehicle, achieve veritable mental and spiritual freedom. Harsh and simplified reductions are, one can say, part of a negative methodology quite common in brutal theologies. So, in my view, subtle thinking modes are necessary. (This is why I light a candle every so often before my mental icon of Wilbur Boneman who, gloriously, and Englishly, sees through the intellectual vapors and carves wisdom-phrases in these fields of electrons) (excuse me, I sometimes get carried away when my Muse grabs hold!)

Racial notions, race-preference, the social structure of a society, even racial prejudice: these are real things and real concerns for human communities. This must be faced squarely. It is a ‘religious-influenced thinking’ that has so vilified someone, anyone, or any community or people, that incorporates self-selection or self-favoritism. I luv guacamole but that does not mean it is my moral obligation to welcome 3/4ths of Mexico to my dinner table.

So actually the entire issue, the entire topic, can only be broached carefully, realistically, and fairly. One additional fact is that when Big Capital is involved in importing foreign populations and masses of people from different cultural and racial backgrounds, they do so in accord with non-sensitive and non-thought-through executive decisiveness. They are never culture preservers they are just businessmen out for a buck.

I am uncertain why you introduce this hot-term “misogyny”. It is really a term of the Hard Left (and one used by Marxist operators, no?). Once the term has been tossed, the one being labeled is forced into defensive positions. It is a trick rhetorical term like “racist” “sexist” and so many others. These terms are infused with black & white pseudo-moralistic conclusiveness.

The actual issue about women, fambly, reproduction, child-rearing and Tic-Toc compulsions, not to mention that of teaching our bitches to cook decently and fuck our brains out with regularity and abandon — all of this is part of extensive conversation and expositions that take time and must be handled carefully. You are aware of course that “we” are no longer reproducing enough people to maintain civilization? (Speaking principally of the Occident). These are not minor issues.

Obviously the other topics you refer to glossingly also have to be looked at carefully.

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.

There is a play by Sartre: Huis Clos (No Exit) that has that great line L’infer c’est les autres. (Hell is other people). Though Sartre ended as a Maoist, the play is really apropos and of course deliciously hilarious.

For this reason I intend to create a modern version, set the a cafeteria during an interminable pandemic lockdown where no one can escape in an American Walmart, and I will have my cast of four as: Acellafine, Age, Immanuel Can, Iambiguous. Locked down together, and with perspectives that cannot ever be reconciled, but needing human companionship and even ‘love’, there they’ll be for eternity having to face each other, and face those ‘mirrors’ that so horrify and distress us all …

I might have to include Lucid Dreaming as a means of escape from such a hell, except that the adjacent planet has Lacewing, Promethean, Fairy and Walker ….

Anyone of us — you too possibly — would call out to the non-existent God for deliverance! Talk about a fate worse than death …

Every planetary “ascent” just another descent and a confrontation with the fact that : here we all are, there is no escape.

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.

Fact: I am working on The Third Enlightenment (with franchise options) which, of course, I reveal with every shimmering utterance.

(I’m modifying a Trumpism; “Since I fucked everything up I am the only one who can fix it!”)

(Seeds at least will appreciate this …)

Skip me, focus on the main point of the book series - valid evidence that god does not exist, and think about the benefits of the world without religion. Ad hominem does not change the validity of my evidence.

Yes, I am an author, writing and selling books. The only way to present my books is to present them.

I am answering all questions, actively participating in the debate, so I am not just a salesman.

I think you are not a stranger to books, and probably have bought some of them. Did you complain or label the authors of writing, presenting, and selling them being grandiose, or were you curious and satisfied that you would have a chance to buy and read them? Were you optimistic when you bought them, or did you not believe they would change anything? Be fair, and give me the same chance.

I understand that you have a pessimistic view of the future. It is based on history and the present, which really does not look pretty.

Doubts lead to cynicism, defeat, and despair.

If you want to change the world, join in and start with yourself.

I suggest you read my article Awakening Into Pure Awareness: A Guide to Self-Awareness Through Practical Exercises, https://www.letterstopalkies.com/awaken ... exercises/ with exercises for awakening into Pure Awareness. They will help you to easily realize who you really are and what is happening in the Simulation.

Neo had to exit the Matrix to learn that he was just sleeping and dreaming that his world was real, while in fact it wasn't. There was a way out of the Matrix, and there is a way out of our oblivion as well. Neo had to take the pill to realize it, as words were not enough to believe it. My exercises for awakening will help you to get out of your mind and move to Pure Awareness.

I awakened in 2004, am already out, and inviting, inspiring, and supporting all of you to attain at least partial freedom. When you awaken, too, you will better know me and understand my work.

Misogyny and all other features of hate are harmless characteristics of primitive persons, so we have to abolish them and evolve into a society of equal beings, honest, kind, friendly, and loving.

[Immanuel Can]

...prove you have a body.

Probabilistically? Or absolutely?

Well, probabilistically wouldn't be proof, but since there is no chance you can prove it absolutely, go for the probable.

Right. Probability is empirically all we can mean by "proof." We can't mean anything like a mathematical demonstration of the existence of a physical body. That's a category error, if we did.

Okay, let me start by asking you this: how do you expect me to "prove" anything, if you don't also believe I have a body? How am I going to type?

[Will Bouwman]

Does not chicken soup also describe you perfectly?
How about not 7; or not Chinese?

All of the above.

So atheist didn't describe you "perfectly"...

Well, atheist isn't a complete description, but not+theist describes my take on that issue flawlessly.

Seeming you are a not-7, not-Chinese, not-chicken soup atheist.

Again: all of the above.

I didn't arrive at atheism, I started there.

I can't imagine how that's possible. Unless you believe atheism is the default position.

I do.

[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.

Currently there is no proof either way. The atheists can't 'Know' their isn't and the theists can't 'Know' there is. Both currently can only believe their views. Since I'm an agnostic, meaning that I'm standing on the fence, I can see farther than either of the two.

Well, if you don't have a knowledge, then you can't see anything, let alone "farther". Agnosis is not gnosis.

Read my book series, and jump off the fence of not knowing to the firm ground of knowing. You can read them for free, here is how: https://www.academia.edu/144571964/God_ ... _Libraries Let me know what you think about.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

Yes, that is true.

Existence, All that is, is in the final and broader view still.

We have limited perception, so we see things moving, seemingly appearing, and disappearing while in fact they are always on their original positions and they will stay there forever. A movie as a whole consists of still images that are put in motion, presenting a moving picture (film) and creating an impression of action. If we had a larger perception, we could see the whole movie with all its pictures at once in stillness.

Same, the absolute perception would allow us to see Existence as a whole phenomenon in eternal motionless stillness.

Existence is eternal, and Everything has already happened. That is the reason the infinite regress is impossible. We are just perceiving what already exists, picture by picture.

[Will Bouwman]

Okay, let me start by asking you this: how do you expect me to "prove" anything, if you don't also believe I have a body? How am I going to type?

I do believe you have a body. So prove it.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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%.

Existence as a whole is not infinite because that is not possible. Energy, a part of Existence, is finite. Pure Awareness, the second Element, is a nonmaterial superstate, and it is infinite, but it is not a being, let alone the creator or god.

You don't need to be omniscient or to have omniscience to prove logically valid facts.

You can prove the negative by proving that it is impossible that it to exist. For example, Existence is eternal, it was never created, and it will never be destroyed. God does not exist because that is not possible.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

I understand that you don't like the truth about eternal Existence because it cancels out your god as Creator.

If it were possible, you'd be right -- but an eternal-past-causal-chain would not just eliminate the need for a Creator. It would eliminate us, as well.

Yet we exist. And we exist within causality. Therefore, there cannot have been an eternal-past-causal-chain.

QED.

And it has nothing to do with "liking."

About the universe and cosmoses.

Religious, primitive, and limited biblical theory claims that:

1. There is a god, who is immaterial, despite being incarnated in a human and becoming Jesus, luckily only in myth.
2. He thinks and speaks, but is immaterial, which is not possible as thoughts and words are energetic and material.
3. He exists beyond time, even though there is an eternal Now as the prime time of Everything that exists, and it is a temporal measure.
4. He exists beyond the World or the universe, despite the simple fact that there is nothing beyond Existence, which consists of two parts: Energy = matter, and Pure Awareness, a nonmaterial superstate which is not a being, an agent, or a doer.
5. He created the universe out of nothing, by one line, and out of something, by another line. Both are wrong. In Existence, a closed system that was never created, there are no creators and no creations. Everything already exists.

So, there is a god and the universe, and nothing else. False.

This is what you like to believe, I can see. But "liking" has nothing to do with truth. At least you and I wholeheartedly agree on that.

Whereas, my demonstration is mathematical. We can also do it empirically and logically.

Our cosmos has many dimensions, at least 16.

I keep asking what you mean when you say "cosmos," and you never explain. I'll ask again: what do you mean when you say "cosmos"? Do you even know what you mean?

Like it or not: Existence is eternal,

Well, God's existence is. Christians agree with you about that. But then, God is not the product of a causal chain.

We are. And the products of a causal chain cannot be past-eternal. That's so certain as to be undeniable, in fact.

You're right: somebody's not understanding the argument. However, it might not be me who's having the struggle.

No, we don't exist in causality, as there is no causality in Eternity. We live in simultaneity.

We do not come into existence; we come into consciousness of our existence.

In the Timeline of Existence, we are eternally present. Same as Existence, we were never created; we are eternal. At the exact moment in the Timeline we become conscious of our existence, partially in the mother's body, and more later, after the birth. When we die, we lose consciousness of our existence, but that does not affect our personal timeline. We will forever stay in the same position in the Timeline of Existence, and in our part, we will always be conscious of our personal existence.

Eternity excludes god as the creator of Existence and keeps us alive, real, and eternally present and conscious of our existence in our stretch of the Existence Timeline.

Read again my previous post, I explained what cosmos is.

The universe is a whole, and a cosmos is a part of it. The universe is a building, and the cosmos is one of the apartments in it. Cosmos, as one apartment, has more rooms or dimensions, or worlds inside it.

Earth is one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one cosmos in Existence (the universe).

So, what you see when you look up to the sky is just one part of our cosmos as a whole. There are many skies in our cosmos, as there are many dimensions in it stacked like pancakes. Every dimension has its own sky or "cosmos" or "universe" - for the inhabitants, that is their World.

However, that was before; now, inhabitants of other planets know the truth about one Existence or the Universe, many cosmoses, and many dimensions inside them.

Except for Earth, where people still think that they are alone in the "universe", some speculating about the many worlds theory, while believers are "sure" that there is only one Universe and only one "true" god who created it, in some variations even from nothing.

If you want to learn the truth about life on other planets, read my article on lucid dreaming, learn it, and check it out for yourself: https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/

If you want to get a Big Picture of Existence and our position in it, read my book series, now for free: https://www.academia.edu/144571964/God_ ... _Libraries, use my exercises for awakening into Pure Awareness in Book 3 to find out who you really are, and use lucid dreaming to meet inhabitants of other planets and confirm my statement.