The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Alexis Jacobi]

I seem to live rent free in your head.

This isn't about "me," it's about the argument. See if you can catch up.

I have assimilated “the argument” (as you put it), understand why you and Boneman are stuck in an impasse, but frankly my understanding transcends the problem. I don’t even have to think much about it.

I will admit to you and to all who read here that you qua fanatic Christian and wannabe Jew (a bizarre configuration) have placed before me the proverbial ‘stumbling block’. I mean really a challenge, a formidable obstacle to be overcome. I have in fact spent years working through it. Such is the strength of indoctrination.

In you I see the depth of spiritual error which besets both the Hebraic (my background) and the Christian scheme (your fanatical position) and this too (I believe) I have transcended. You cannot conceive how valuable you have been to me. You have helped me to see what I must (and I believe we all must) weed out of our perceptual stances.

Rent free?! I have been subtracting payments from your account for a decade! Do you ever go through your bank statements?

[Immanuel Can]

I seem to live rent free in your head.

This isn't about "me," it's about the argument. See if you can catch up.

I have assimilated “the argument”...

If you had, you'd have something to say about it, instead of just whining about him or me. But you don't. So you don't even get what we do here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So you don't even get what we do here.

::: hearty laughs! :::

There is not much to get, son. How might I sum it up? Wilbur’s stance does not allow him to conceive of a divine instigator, that much is clear. But overall the theistic turn, and the conversion you pretend to seek through your apologetics, is useless to him — a post-modern man with philosophy degrees. He tells you: It is all concoction! Pick a story that expresses your aesthetics. Put your heart and soul into it. Put it on billboards, the silver screen, in a leather-bound set of philosophical articles …

It’s just “story-telling”.

You are really very very simple to define. The root of it is sheer conformity to a specific belief-trope. Your mind operates through mathematical and “logical” pictures and patterns, and when you received “the Lord” you simultaneously adapted your mental structure to the established doctrines in the most literal manner possible for a modern man, which indeed you are.

You did not, so to speak, go “back in time” in the sense of abandoning the modern means of reasoning. You bent reason to the need to believe at all costs. You forced reasoning to take on, to accept, to “believe in” a pre-digested absolutist, bible-literal story. The Genesis story is literal history. The revealing key here is your marrying of 2 incompatible epistemes. Adam & Eve are “the original mating pair”!

You represent something incredible, in fact extraordinary. You are a ‘wonder’ to behold. I marvel that you do it, that you can uphold it without cracking.

You and Wilbur are “emblems” of a much larger conflict where two structures of thought and projected perception and belief lock horns in eternal, unresolvable battle. As I understand it these are conflicts that were dealt on in detail in the 17th century.

I transcended both poles of this conflict ages ago. Mostly these days I float around the planet in the Hyperborean currents and look down contemplatingly on human affairs, just scratching my chin, much like Lucretius in the first part of Book Two.

Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds Roll up its waste of waters, from the land To watch another's labouring anguish far, Not that we joyously delight that man Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet To mark what evils we ourselves be spared; ‘Tis sweet, again, to view the mighty strife Of armies embattled yonder o'er the plains, Ourselves no sharers in the peril; but naught There is more goodly than to hold the high Serene plateaus, well fortressed by the wise, Whence thou may'st look below on other men And see them ev'rywhere wand'ring, all dispersed In their lone seeking for the road of life…

[Age]

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

Well, then, you don't believe in science (because it requires causality), and you don't believe in logic (because maths proves infinite regress impossible), and you don't believe in entropy (because it's a 'clock' on energy redistribution)...and you believe in impossible things instead. You believe in an eternal universe, though everything around you proves it's temporal.

There is not a single thing that proves the Universe is temporal. In fact the very opposite is True. But, like every one with beliefs they are closed to the actual Truth. As you keep showing and proving, here, "immanuel can". And, the fact that you are not able to argue with me, here, proves my claim absolutely so.

I can't say I know how to overcome an aversion to evidence, when it operates at such a total level.

If only 'this one' knew.

[Age]

Apparently, I don't need to. You've already judged it probabilistically, and decided you believe I have a body. I also believe it, though on much better probabilistic evidence.

What is your evidence?

I'm here. I have a body. I use it every day. It's how I do things, including writing stuff, or getting to the gym, where I exercise it. And you believe in my body, since you ask me to use it to "prove" things to you.

you can not, logically, claim, 'I' have a body, when 'you' can not even answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and Correctly.

So clearly, the burden of (dis-)proof doesn't fall on me. It's up to somebody else to convince me that none of the probabilities as they seem to me are really probable, if they can do such a thing. And unless they can do that, the default assumption has to remain that I do have a body. That's the rational way to proceed.

LOL 'this one' is, still, 'trying to' claim that assuming things is the 'rational way'.

It was because of these types of beliefs, and assumptions, why people like "immanuel can" take so, so long to 'catch up'.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Existence as a whole is not infinite because that is not possible.

What limits do you put on possibility? More to the point, why? Why is anything impossible?

Possibility or impossibility is a basic characteristic of anything.

Existence as a whole exists because that is possible. Absolute Nothing, on the other hand, does not exist, because that is not possible.

To exist, the element must have all that is necessary for existence. It must have its existentiality. If it doesn't, it can't exist.

For example, god as creator should have a possibility to create the universe (in some variations, even from nothing).

Existence is eternal, and it was never created, so god doesn't have the necessary possibility to create it, which is also the proof that he does not exist as creator.

The map is not reality. In theory, everything is possible; you just think about it, and it is there. In practice, there are limitations to what can exist and what can't.

Some even say that if you can think about god, he must exist, presenting this mental fallacy as "evidence" for god's existence. Or, as the believers say, "I believe in god, so god exists," mixing delusion with existence.

[Age]

Existence as a whole is not infinite because that is not possible.

What limits do you put on possibility? More to the point, why? Why is anything impossible?

Possibility or impossibility is a basic characteristic of anything.

Existence as a whole exists because that is possible. Absolute Nothing, on the other hand, does not exist, because that is not possible.

To exist, the element must have all that is necessary for existence. It must have its existentiality. If it doesn't, it can't exist.

It is, logically, possible that there is only nothing. In fact it is even an actuality that there could be only nothing. However, because the Universe consists of both matter, and, space this means that the Universe in the 'current form' has always existed in 'this form'.

For example, god as creator should have a possibility to create the universe (in some variations, even from nothing).

But, even you said, previously, that this was not possible.

Existence is eternal, and it was never created, so god doesn't have the necessary possibility to create it, which is also the proof that he does not exist as creator.

As soon as you used the word, 'he', you have just provided the irrefutable proof that 'that thing' could not exist.

Now, if you want to persist with your claim that God is Creator, then this actually further proves that 'that Thing' exists.

The map is not reality. In theory, everything is possible; you just think about it, and it is there. In practice, there are limitations to what can exist and what can't.

Some even say that if you can think about god, he must exist, presenting this mental fallacy as "evidence" for god's existence. Or, as the believers say, "I believe in god, so god exists," mixing delusion with existence.

Why is it only 'others' who mix delusion with existence?

What you are have clearly not yet realised is that your own beliefs are causing to mix delusion with existence, as well. But, you are not open to this Fact, just like everyone else is who has beliefs, also.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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

Well, then, you don't believe in science (because it requires causality), and you don't believe in logic (because maths proves infinite regress impossible), and you don't believe in entropy (because it's a 'clock' on energy redistribution)...and you believe in impossible things instead. You believe in an eternal universe, though everything around you proves it's temporal.

I can't say I know how to overcome an aversion to evidence, when it operates at such a total level.

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

Oh. Mysticism. The old "we are God" thing. How dull. How implausible.

I explained what cosmos is.

Try again.

The universe is a whole, and a cosmos is a part of it.

Wait: so "universe," to you, means all the material stuff that exists? And when you say "cosmos," you only mean a "part" of it?

...one cosmos in Existence (the universe).

Wait. Now you say that "cosmos" means "universe"? So it's no longer just a "part" of the universe?

You can see why your explanation is problematic to me. You just said two different things were "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...

Wait. So now, "dimension" does not mean "universe," and "universe" no longer means "all that exists," but "cosmos" now means the same as "universe"?

...inhabitants of other planets know the truth about one Existence or the Universe, many cosmoses, and many dimensions inside them.

So...now you're wanting to tell me about what "inhabitants of other planets" know? And now the "dimensions" are "inside" the "universe," which has "many cosmoses"? Could you just provide a concise definition for each of these terms, and use them consistently? In your above message, you've mixed them up to the point that it's impossible to judge what you're saying.

If you want to learn the truth about life on other planets, read my article on lucid dreaming...

Well, there's certainly some "dreaming" going on, but I'm not finding it at all "lucid."

In your desperation, you constantly ad hominem misquote me, misrepresenting my position, and even turning me into a religious believer. You must understand that that won't change the truth about Existence, let alone affect my knowledge. It just presents your dogmatic stubbornness and fanatical rejection of reason. Existence is eternal, and it will stay eternal no matter what you say or do.

I understand the limitations of Earth science, and I know that it will evolve beyond causality.

My first piece of valid evidence is logical, so I believe in logic. Energy can not be created or destroyed, which means that it is Eternal. That is the reason that infinite regress is impossible, and at the same time, that the universe was never created and has no beginning.

The fact that the infinite regress is impossible does not mean that the universe was created and has a beginning. Quite contrary, it means that it was never created, and it is eternal. That is the true explanation of it.

Entropy is just another term for energy processes in a lower frequency dimension, like our part of the cosmos.

Prove that everything around is temporal. From where it came, to where it goes? From and to Absolute Nothing?

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

No mysticism here, just pure fact and in harmony with eternal Existence. We are not god, as god does not exist.

I explained correctly and even simplified it for you, but you are playing a victim of your own pretense.

Existence or All that is, has two elements, Pure Awareness and Energy = matter. We can also call it the Universe.

The universe has many cosmoses.

Cosmos is a space in which there are galaxies, solar systems, and planets.

In our Cosmos, there are many dimensions or sub-cosmoses. In some of them, like in ours, there are galaxies, solar systems, and planets. In higher-dimensional sub-cosmos, there are no galaxies, solar systems, or planets. There live energy beings in an empty space.

Religious believers are lost in oblivion. Only when they deconstruct and deprogram themselves will they become lucid.

Your mocking is just a symptom of profound fear that god really does not exist.

You want evidence for my statements about life on other planets, but when I offer you a way to check it, you are too afraid to try it.

Any serious researcher who wants to learn the truth will do everything possible to find it. Lucid dreaming is a superb research method to check and confirm life on other planets.

Manipulating, misquoting, ad hominem, straw man, gaslighting, and mocking are not the way to the truth. They are just a desperate attempt to deny it. Or, in other words, and as some priests say, "The truth is not important, faith is above it".

Sooner or later, you will face the truth: god does not exist because that is not possible.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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:

Licid dreaming is a technique whereby one realizes one is in a dream and holds that awareness for periods of time in the dream. The technique is likely universal but as I remember it the Tibetans developed the practice as part of their branch of Buddhism. In the 70’s and 80’s the practices of Carlos Castaneda involved lucid dreaming.

A man I knew who was involved in the Castaneda scene in LA was a master at lucid dreaming according to his own stories. He was very good at it. But he told me that in the end one sees ‘there’ what one creates through the imagination faculty. And he felt he lost lots of time chasing phantasms.

In my own case I have had at least a handful of lucid dreams and yes it was all interesting but in the final analysis rather empty.

Why do you place such emphasis on it? And do you not consider that the world you ‘assemble’ there (to use a Castaneda term) is phantasmagorical, not ‘real’?

I learned lucid dreaming from the CC book The Art of Dreaming.

Psychologists claim that dreaming is reviewing our daily events, mixed with unconscious fears, wishes, and fantasies. For them, we dream inside our minds while we sleep. Their theory of only subjective dreaming is wrong.

There are two forms of dreaming:

1. Inside the body - right before we exit the physical body with our energy body.
2. Outside the body - we fly with our energy body to the energy planet of our incarnate. That planet is an energy replica of the real planet.

On that planet, we meet real people from a real planet who also dream as we do, and who exited their physical bodies to come to the dream planets.

Dream planets are objective, and they exist independently of us. Because of their characteristic of being energetically very fluid, we can partially affect them and change a scene or two. They are not our fantasies; they exist in their reality.

The place here is too limited to tell you all about it, so I suggest you read my article https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/

Considering that you had lucid dreams before, it will be much easier for you to continue. Just use the instructions from the article.

When you become a true lucid dreamer who dreams regularly and stays lucid for hours, you can do a lot of interesting things in your dreams. You can fly, you can jump, you can transform your body, etc.

There is another use of lucid dreams, and that is intentional contact with inhabitants of other planets. Ask them for their personal names, the name of their planet, a state, and a city. Ask them about the new life: is it true that they got new, young, healthy, and beautiful bodies; is it true that incarnations are finished; is it true that they got free estates and new houses, etc - I present the list of questions in my article.

Then, you will realize that dreams are not your subjective fantasies, but true worlds.

For the time being, that is the only way to check and confirm my statements about life on other planets.

When you realize that I am speaking the truth, you will also change your opinion about my work and understand its importance.

If you have a contact with your friend, send him a link to my article with a new use of lucid dreaming.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Existence as a whole is not infinite because that is not possible.

Maybe it's possible. Maybe it's not. Anything you can't exhaust is effectively infinite.

You can't be sure it's finite until you get to the end of it.

Energy, a part of Existence, is finite.

How do you know that? Have you exhausted all energy?

If you don't like the word "infinite" - use the word "unbounded"; or "limitless".

You can prove the negative by proving that it is impossible that it to exist.

Proofs of impossibility only work within some specified theoretical contexts. That doesn't lead to universal truths of any kind - it only proves impossibility within that specific logical framework.

If you want to prove that it's impossible for a needle to exist any given haystack - you actually have to search it. All of it.

For example, Existence is eternal.

How do you know that? If existence is eternal why is the universe only 14 billion years old? How can something "eternal" have a finite age?

Existence as a whole is not infinite because that is not possible.

Existence is eternal.

If existence is eternal then it's infinite in age. But you said existence is not infinite.

Contradiction.

Energy can't be created or destroyed. That means that there is a constant amount of Energy. That means that it is not infinite. Energy = matter which is another proof that is not infinite because that is not possible.

Yes, I agree with you about the specific logical framework. In this case, it is Existence. It was never created, which means that nobody created it, which means that god as creator does not exist. There is no need to search for god to prove that he does not exist. He does not exist because he can't exist.

Existence was not created, which means that it is eternal. "The universe" you talk about is, in fact, just a cosmos, one of many in Existence. In our cosmos, there are many sub-cosmoses or dimensions. When the scientists say that the "universe" is 14 billion years old, they in fact talk about the age of just one of the many sub-cosmoses.

Existence has many parts in it. Some are small and some are big. The age of these parts is measured by their presence in Existence.

While the whole Existence is in the eternal Now, its parts have different ages or lengths. 14 billion years is a measure that describes how long the timeline of our sub-cosmos is.

So, the parts of Existence are eternal and at the same time, temporarily limited. Their position in Existence is eternal, but their range is only 14 billion years in time/space.

Existence is in the eternal Now. It was never created and has no beginning or end in time. In Existence, Everything has already happened.

Existence has two parts: Pure Awareness, a nonmaterial superstate which is infinite, and Energy = matter, which is material and finite. That is the reason that Existence is not infinite as a whole, because one part of it is finite.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

What limits do you put on possibility? More to the point, why? Why is anything impossible?

Possibility or impossibility is a basic characteristic of anything.

Existence as a whole exists because that is possible. Absolute Nothing, on the other hand, does not exist, because that is not possible.

To exist, the element must have all that is necessary for existence. It must have its existentiality. If it doesn't, it can't exist.

It is, logically, possible that there is only nothing. In fact it is even an actuality that there could be only nothing. However, because the Universe consists of both matter, and, space this means that the Universe in the 'current form' has always existed in 'this form'.

For example, god as creator should have a possibility to create the universe (in some variations, even from nothing).

But, even you said, previously, that this was not possible.

Existence is eternal, and it was never created, so god doesn't have the necessary possibility to create it, which is also the proof that he does not exist as creator.

As soon as you used the word, 'he', you have just provided the irrefutable proof that 'that thing' could not exist.

Now, if you want to persist with your claim that God is Creator, then this actually further proves that 'that Thing' exists.

The map is not reality. In theory, everything is possible; you just think about it, and it is there. In practice, there are limitations to what can exist and what can't.

Some even say that if you can think about god, he must exist, presenting this mental fallacy as "evidence" for god's existence. Or, as the believers say, "I believe in god, so god exists," mixing delusion with existence.

Why is it only 'others' who mix delusion with existence?

What you are have clearly not yet realised is that your own beliefs are causing to mix delusion with existence, as well. But, you are not open to this Fact, just like everyone else is who has beliefs, also.

God is not the creator.

By "others", and in this context, I mean religious believers.

Name and prove my "beliefs" that are causing me to mix delusion with existence.

[Fairy]

So now we have a list of characteristics of whatever it was that created the universe. What candidates fit that description?

The only thing I think fits that description is “Consciousness” an invisible formless presence that could also be called LIGHT

I’ve talked about this many times.

Consciousness as in awareness aware it is conscious on contact with itself as sensation is known. Sensation being the cause and effect of reactionary responses to stimulus.

That’s the only description that makes sense to me anyway. Some people have called this uncaused causer, GOD

Also, I think the reason people get confused about God is because of the Label. In reality, existence doesn’t need a story made of words and labels or language to exist. Existence is before anything was named.

Naming everything is of the mind which is a secondary overlay upon what has always existed without knowing. Knowledge about this unknowing existence is the dream that the awakened ones talk about.

[Skepdick]

Energy can't be created or destroyed.

Can numbers be created or destroyed?

That means that there is a constant amount of Energy.

That means that there is a constant amount of numbers.

That means that it is not infinite.

Non-sequitur. Constant doesn't imply non-infinite. Nor does it imply finite.

It only implies an unchanging quantity. Whether that quantity is finite or infinite is a separate concern.

Yes, I agree with you about the specific logical framework. In this case, it is Existence.

Existence is not a logical framework. That's a map-teritory confusion.

It was never created

So it didn't begin to exist? So it's infinite in the time dimension? Contradiction.

which means that nobody created it, which means that god as creator does not exist. There is no need to search for god to prove that he does not exist. He does not exist because he can't exist.

From a contradiction any conclusion follows.

Existence was not created, which means that it is eternal.

So it's infinite. Which you said is impossible.

"The universe" you talk about is, in fact, just a cosmos, one of many in Existence.

Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. Multiverse is the standard sleight of hand for people who reject simpler explanations for the universe.
If you can't explain the origin of a single universe; you are certainly going to have a harder time explaining the origin of an Existence full of cosmoses.

In our cosmos, there are many sub-cosmoses or dimensions. When the scientists say that the "universe" is 14 billion years old, they in fact talk about the age of just one of the many sub-cosmoses.

No, they don't. They are talking about the one and only universe we know of. The one we live in. Otherwise known as "Existence".

You are working really really hard to lie to yourself. You have started with your desired conclusion (God doesn't exist), then you have invented ad hoc metaphysical structures (multiverse, sub-cosmoses) to avoid problems, redefining standard terms when convenient. Even Ignoring your own contradictions.

You are a master class in motivated reasoning. What you are doing is atheist apologetics.

[Age]

Possibility or impossibility is a basic characteristic of anything.

Existence as a whole exists because that is possible. Absolute Nothing, on the other hand, does not exist, because that is not possible.

To exist, the element must have all that is necessary for existence. It must have its existentiality. If it doesn't, it can't exist.

It is, logically, possible that there is only nothing. In fact it is even an actuality that there could be only nothing. However, because the Universe consists of both matter, and, space this means that the Universe in the 'current form' has always existed in 'this form'.

For example, god as creator should have a possibility to create the universe (in some variations, even from nothing).

But, even you said, previously, that this was not possible.

Existence is eternal, and it was never created, so god doesn't have the necessary possibility to create it, which is also the proof that he does not exist as creator.

As soon as you used the word, 'he', you have just provided the irrefutable proof that 'that thing' could not exist.

Now, if you want to persist with your claim that God is Creator, then this actually further proves that 'that Thing' exists.

The map is not reality. In theory, everything is possible; you just think about it, and it is there. In practice, there are limitations to what can exist and what can't.

Some even say that if you can think about god, he must exist, presenting this mental fallacy as "evidence" for god's existence. Or, as the believers say, "I believe in god, so god exists," mixing delusion with existence.

Why is it only 'others' who mix delusion with existence?

What you are have clearly not yet realised is that your own beliefs are causing to mix delusion with existence, as well. But, you are not open to this Fact, just like everyone else is who has beliefs, also.

God is not the creator.

By "others", and in this context, I mean religious believers.

Name and prove my "beliefs" that are causing me to mix delusion with existence.

If you 'now' saying and claiming that you are not defining nor relating the God word with 'Creator', as "belinda" previously claimed you were, then how are you defining the God word, here, exactly?

'I' do not want to tell 'you' what your beliefs are, so 'I' will let 'you' tell 'us' what 'your beliefs', here, are, exactly. If you inform 'us' of what your beliefs are, exactly, then I will show how 'they' are causing you to mix delusion with existence.

By the way, you have your own religious beliefs. But, as you will show and prove, you will 'religiously' 'believe' otherwise.

[Will Bouwman]

Cogito ergo sum.

That means, "I think, therefore I am." I'm not sure how you think that raises an issue. You'll have to spell it out.

Descartes failed to prove anything other than that there is thought. It may be, as idealists believe, that is all there is, which has an elegant parsimony, and is irrefutable, which, to be clear, doesn't make it true.

I have a body.

Which I believe, but prove it.

I just did. It's much more probable than not, since I'm writing to you, among all the other things I mentioned. And you believe it.

What are your grounds for asserting that whatever you believe is more probable than idealism?

So now it's on the skeptic to prove there's reason to disbelieve what seems obviously true. Burden of proof.

There is no such burden of proof. Scepticism is not an assertion that some proposition is false, it is that the burden of proof hasn't been met by whoever asserts that proposition is true.