The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

I don't lie to anybody, let alone to me.

Your misrepresenting my position is called a straw man logical fallacy or a cheap manipulation. To mask it, you use an ad hominem accusation that I lie to make it more dramatic and quasi-personal, presenting yourself as a victim of offense.

You lie as I didn't start with a wishful idea that god does not exist and then supported it with "invented ad hoc metaphysical structures (multiverse, sub-cosmoses)". I didn't invent multiverses, cosmoses, and sub-cosmoses; they exist independent of me. I also don't use them as evidence that god does not exist.

I realized that god can't exist based on the 1. law of thermodynamics. Later, I figured out that there are more pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence, which I present in my book series.

Is the 1. law of thermodynamics a lie?

1. Energy can not be created or destroyed.
2. That means that it is eternal.
3. That means that it was never created.
4. That means that god as creator does not exist.

Refute it with logic, if you can.

To avoid what problems?

Present my contradictions and prove them logically.

Wrong assumption, wrong conclusion.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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'.


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


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.


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.

God is a fabricated entity used for programming religious believers, controlling and abusing them.

"The burden of proof" is on you: you claimed that "my beliefs are causing me to mix delusion with existence". Present them.

Are you in plural? "Us"?

I am not a religious believer, and I don't have any religious beliefs. Prove it logically.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.


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

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


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.


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?



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.

What do you mean by, 'energy is not infinite', exactly?

Energy = matter which is another proof that is not infinite because that is not possible.

But, 'energy' is energy, while 'matter' is matter. One is not the other. So, what do you mean by, 'energy equals matter', exactly?

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.

God is not 'somebody'. So, if 'nobody' created Existence, Itself, this does not mean that God, as Creator, does not exist at all.

There is no need to search for god to prove that he does not exist. He does not exist because he can't exist.

Only an absolute imbecile would call the Creator of everything a "he". So, why do you keep doing this?

Is it because, obviously, if one calls the Creator of everything a "he", then 'that thing' could not exist.

Are you just defining 'a thing' in 'a way' that would be impossible to exist so then you can just say and claim, 'that thing does not exist', and say you have evidence, just so that you can feel like you have 'won' some thing, and/or so that you can feel better about "yourself"?

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum, defining 'a thing' in 'a way' that could never even exist, and then say and claim, 'The first valid evidence that 'that thing' does NOT 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.

Talk about presenting another prime example of one who will just 'look for' any words, and present them in 'a way' in the hope that they will somehow back up and support one's already obtained and hel onto well-maintained beliefs.

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.

Will you define the words, 'Universe' and 'cosmos' in the exact way that you are using them?

If no, then why not?

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.

Their presence in relation what, exactly?

Is the Universe, for example, in your own little personal view and belief, here, big, or, small?

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.

Who and/or what is this 'our' word, here, referring to, exactly?

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.

Again, 'this one' is 'grasping' at words, in the hope that they will somehow work for them and their already obtained belief, here.

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

So, 'tomorrow' has, already, happened, right?

Existence has two parts: Pure Awareness, a nonmaterial superstate which is infinite, and Energy = matter, which is material and finite.

If energy and material is finite then they have a beginning, and an end, and thus were created, somehow.

I suggest your revise 'your beliefs', and, your attempts at 'trying to' to justify 'thise already obtained beliefs'

That is the reason that Existence is not infinite as a whole, because one part of it is finite.

you are just making things worse, for "yourself", here, now.

My statement that Energy is not infinite means that it is finite. All matter has an energetic or-and physical beginning and end, so it is finite in space. Because it is part of Existence which is eternal, Energy = matter is also eternal. One measure is spatial, and the other temporal.

Energy is matter, and matter is energy. That means they are both material.

For many believers, god is somebody, a person. For others, god is energy, consciousness, everything, etc. No matter how you think of god, it doesn't exist, and he, she, or it didn't create Existence.

So, you call Hindus, Jews, Christians, and Muslims "imbeciles" because they believe that god is a man?

I use "he" as it is an ordinary term for god.

I don't claim that god can't exist as "he", god does not exist in any form as the creator of Existence.

About measures. A whole house is x, single rooms inside are y.

I am not guilty of your ignorance. I present my ideas as simply as possible. Obviously, you are "grasping" with fact that some elements have two characteristics at the same time, like time and space.

Yes, tomorrow has already happened, and it will be happening to eternity.

If you watch closely, you will see that you always step into something and never into the Absolute Nothing. You are entering the experience that is already in place for you. More precisely, you and all of us are travelers in time and space, perceiving and experiencing what already exists.

Energy and matter, both are the same, have a beginning and an end, but not in time, in space. In time, they are eternal, and they were never created.

The universe is all that is (I use the term Existence), and the cosmos is a part of it. A house is the universe, and single rooms in it are cosmoses.

Parts (cosmoses) of the whole (the universe or Existence) have different measures than the whole. A room is smaller than the house. That is their relation to each other - they are parts of the whole.

The universe (Existence) is big. You can see it by one of its parts, our cosmos. Simplified, if you are in a big room, and you know that a room is just a part of the house, then you know that the house is bigger than the room you are in.

Your conclusion is just another manipulation combination. First, you straw-man misrepresent my position, and then you attack me ad hominem.

Your childish mocking is presenting yourself, "here".

Why don't you rather logically refute the simple scientific fact of the 1. law of thermodynamics that says that energy can't be created or destroyed? If you can.

Energy can't be created or destroyed.
That means that it is eternal.
That means that nobody or nothing created it.
That means that god in any form or gender didn't create it.
That means that god as creator does not exist.

Refute it logically if you can.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.


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.

The funniest part about watching you two fighting and bickering, here, is the irrefutable Fact that the Universe is infinite and eternal, and that this Fact actually proves that a Creator exists.

The things that you two are 'trying to' claim, here, actually refute and prove 'your own conclusions and beliefs' False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

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.

Yet, LOL you are doing the exact same thing, here, "senad dizdarevic". you are both being as blind and as stupid as each other, here.

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.

But, this in no way means that the Creator does not exist.

Present your "irrefutable Fact that the Universe is infinite and eternal, and that this Fact actually proves that a Creator exists."

Ad hominem does not affect or change the simple fact that uncreated things are eternal.

Eternal Existence was never created because it is impossible to create Energy.

No creation, no creator. Prove the opposite.

[Age]

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.

God is a fabricated entity used for programming religious believers, controlling and abusing them.

If this is what you just want to believe is true, then okay.

"The burden of proof" is on you: you claimed that "my beliefs are causing me to mix delusion with existence". Present them.

I asked you to, but you obviously did not.

So, either you do not have beliefs, or you just can not or do not want to reveal them, here.

Are you in plural? "Us"?

Of course not. 'I' obviously would have to believe things, to have beliefs, like you do.

I am not a religious believer, and I don't have any religious beliefs. Prove it logically.

If you just want to tell me your beliefs, and what you believe is true, and do not want to seek out answers and clarity, then okay.

Do you believe or disbelieve any thing?

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.


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

Try again.


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

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


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.

I don't "turn you" into anything. You turn yourself into a believer in such esoteric things as "lucid dreaming" and "other cosmoses" and "many dimensional" things, or "inhabitants of other planets." Does it not even occur to you how extraordinary claims to these things are?

Existence is eternal, and it will stay eternal no matter what you say or do.

Mathematics is decisive. There is no eternal-past history for the Earth or the universe. It's an entropic system, so we know that empirically, as well.

You can ignore that, deny that, but as you say, reality will not change. (At least we agree on that last principle.)

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

See, that's the kind of crackers prophecy that gets you labelled "religious." How have you been enabled to predict such a thing, especially since the idea is actually absurd?

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.

Again, you've just contradicted yourself twice in a single sentence. If, as you say, infinite regress (of causes, presumably) is impossible, then the universe cannot be past-eternal. So it had to have a beginning. That's inescapable. "Energy" may always exist, but order in this universe is entropic: it tends toward a future state called "heat death," in which all energy is equally distributed, and then nothing happens forever. So unless something miraculously intervenes to arrest this process and to inject order into the universe, this universe is doomed.

The fact that the infinite regress is impossible does not mean that the universe was created and has a beginning.

Yes, it does.

Quite contrary, it means that it was never created, and it is eternal.

Then it could not be causal, and entropy could not be operating in it.

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

Gnosticism.

Is this your definition of cosmos?

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.

Wait: "sub-cosmoses"? So "cosmos" doesn't mean the solar system and planets, it means something "sub" that? And these "dimensions"...please tell me how you got access to those.

Why don't you try lucid dreaming and find out what it is? There are millions of lucid dreamers on Earth.

You are manipulating again. Mathematics does not prove that Earth doesn't have an eternal history. Present the mathematical evidence for your claim.

You are misrepresenting 2. law of thermodynamics, which is about the processes in a closed system, and not about its existence.

I understand that for a fanatic and bibliotical religious believer, the idea of the evolution of science is absurd. It is not hard to predict that science will develop further, and understand things better than today.

Energy as a part of Existence, is material. It has its beginning and end in space, but it is eternal in time.

It is not causal, it is simultane. We have limited perception, so we see things appearing and disappearing, while in fact they are always there. We are like travelers on a train watching the show passing by.

About cosmoses and sub-cosmoses.

1. Existence or the universe as a whole. A building.
2. Cosmoses as parts of the whole. Apartments.
3. Sub-cosmoses like floors in the apartments (duplex or triplex.

Cosmos contains many sub-cosmoses or dimensions. Some of them, like ours, have galaxies, stars, and planets, and some does not.

You are already in one of the dimensions, and you regularly visit another one.

When you sleep, you exit your physical body with your energy body and fly to the dream world, which is in another dimension or in another sub-cosmos. Learn to lucid dream, and find it out for yourself.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Please review section 3.b @ http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_o ... etaphysics

Explain how in the confines of the first egyptian mesopotamian pre-socratic dark age Augustinean Hermetic private cartesian skulls super-empirical concepts generated by the distortion of language and not the least bit of empirical investigation because they were lazy ass class conscious theorists with chronic jargonitis who sat on padded burgandy chair cushions didn't wanna get real jobs were imposed on reality laying the foundation for the western philosophy and politics of the ruling class of property owners that run the world today in twenty words or less, please.

With their personal example.

[Age]

Energy can't be created or destroyed. That means that there is a constant amount of Energy. That means that it is not infinite.

What do you mean by, 'energy is not infinite', exactly?

Energy = matter which is another proof that is not infinite because that is not possible.

But, 'energy' is energy, while 'matter' is matter. One is not the other. So, what do you mean by, 'energy equals matter', exactly?

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.

God is not 'somebody'. So, if 'nobody' created Existence, Itself, this does not mean that God, as Creator, does not exist at all.

There is no need to search for god to prove that he does not exist. He does not exist because he can't exist.

Only an absolute imbecile would call the Creator of everything a "he". So, why do you keep doing this?

Is it because, obviously, if one calls the Creator of everything a "he", then 'that thing' could not exist.

Are you just defining 'a thing' in 'a way' that would be impossible to exist so then you can just say and claim, 'that thing does not exist', and say you have evidence, just so that you can feel like you have 'won' some thing, and/or so that you can feel better about "yourself"?

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum, defining 'a thing' in 'a way' that could never even exist, and then say and claim, 'The first valid evidence that 'that thing' does NOT 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.

Talk about presenting another prime example of one who will just 'look for' any words, and present them in 'a way' in the hope that they will somehow back up and support one's already obtained and hel onto well-maintained beliefs.

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.

Will you define the words, 'Universe' and 'cosmos' in the exact way that you are using them?

If no, then why not?

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.

Their presence in relation what, exactly?

Is the Universe, for example, in your own little personal view and belief, here, big, or, small?

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.

Who and/or what is this 'our' word, here, referring to, exactly?

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.

Again, 'this one' is 'grasping' at words, in the hope that they will somehow work for them and their already obtained belief, here.

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

So, 'tomorrow' has, already, happened, right?

Existence has two parts: Pure Awareness, a nonmaterial superstate which is infinite, and Energy = matter, which is material and finite.

If energy and material is finite then they have a beginning, and an end, and thus were created, somehow.

I suggest your revise 'your beliefs', and, your attempts at 'trying to' to justify 'thise already obtained beliefs'

That is the reason that Existence is not infinite as a whole, because one part of it is finite.

you are just making things worse, for "yourself", here, now.

My statement that Energy is not infinite means that it is finite.

you appear to have misunderstood the question.

All matter has an energetic or-and physical beginning and end, so it is finite in space.

Which contradicts your other belief and claim.

Because it is part of Existence which is eternal, Energy = matter is also eternal. One measure is spatial, and the other temporal.

If you say so.

Energy is matter, and matter is energy. That means they are both material.

If this is the way you want to to think, here, then okay.

For many believers, god is somebody, a person. For others, god is energy, consciousness, everything, etc. No matter how you think of god, it doesn't exist, and he, she, or it didn't create Existence.

Has anyone in the history of the Universe ever said that God created Existence?

So, you call Hindus, Jews, Christians, and Muslims "imbeciles" because they believe that god is a man?

Why are you telling me what I call, but then you put a question mark at the end?

I use "he" as it is an ordinary term for god.

So, it does not matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect a term is for a word, you will just keep using 'that term' because it is a so-called 'ordinary term', right?

I don't claim that god can't exist as "he", god does not exist in any form as the creator of Existence.

Of course a so called "he" God does not exist. Absolutely everyone who can think for "them" 'self' can work this out and know this. Just like any one can work out and know that if God is, already, existing, then It can not create Existence, Itself.

All you are essentially doing, here, is just pointing out the blatantly obvious. As I pointed out, previously, you present impossible to exist definitions and terms, and just say and claim that those impossible to exist terms/definitions do not exist. Which is, really, rather useless.

About measures. A whole house is x, single rooms inside are y.

I am not guilty of your ignorance. I present my ideas as simply as possible. Obviously, you are "grasping" with fact that some elements have two characteristics at the same time, like time and space.

Yes, tomorrow has already happened, and it will be happening to eternity.

If this is, really, what you want to believe is true, then this is perfectly fine and okay, with me.

If you watch closely, you will see that you always step into something and never into the Absolute Nothing. You are entering the experience that is already in place for you. More precisely, you and all of us are travelers in time and space, perceiving and experiencing what already exists.

But, 'you' do not yet know who 'I' am, exactly,

Energy and matter, both are the same, have a beginning and an end, but not in time, in space. In time, they are eternal, and they were never created.

Yet they are not infinite and finite, right?

The universe is all that is (I use the term Existence), and the cosmos is a part of it. A house is the universe, and single rooms in it are cosmoses.

So what?

Parts (cosmoses) of the whole (the universe or Existence) have different measures than the whole. A room is smaller than the house. That is their relation to each other - they are parts of the whole.

Who cares?

The universe (Existence) is big.[/quote]

LOL Spoken from the Truly narrowed or closed.

You can see it by one of its parts, our cosmos. Simplified, if you are in a big room, and you know that a room is just a part of the house, then you know that the house is bigger than the room you are in.

Your conclusion is just another manipulation combination. First, you straw-man misrepresent my position, and then you attack me ad hominem.

If this is what you want to believe, then okay.

Your childish mocking is presenting yourself, "here".

Why don't you rather logically refute the simple scientific fact of the 1. law of thermodynamics that says that energy can't be created or destroyed? If you can.

LOL Are you under some sort of illusion that I am wanting to or trying to fight for some thing, here?

Energy can't be created or destroyed.
That means that it is eternal.

But finite right?

That means that nobody or nothing created it.
That means that god in any form or gender didn't create it.
That means that god as creator does not exist.

I am well aware of what you believe is absolutely true, here l. you have, after all, repeated your same belief enough times.

Refute it logically if you can.

Why would I even want to be bothered to refute your belief/s?

[Skepdick]

I realized that god can't exist based on the 1. law of thermodynamics.

That's faulty reasoning. Why should the laws of the creation apply to the creator?

Even if we use your framework - why should the laws of this universe apply to Existence with all of its multiverses?

Later, I figured out that there are more pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence, which I present in my book series.

Oooooh! Is that what this is all about? Selling books. Yeah.... even more motivated reasoning.

There is no such thing as evidence for non-existence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I guess, now that you've wasted your time writing those books and trying to sell them - I guess I can't convince you of being wrong.

Is the 1. law of thermodynamics a lie?

It's neither true nor false in the ontological sense. It's a postulate we assume so as to allow us to reason about the world with conserved quantities.

1. Energy can not be created or destroyed.
2. That means that it is eternal.

I have no idea what that means. If it's "eternal" why does the current cosmological paradigm predict the heat death of the universe?
Why should the universe end if energy is "eternal"?

Present my contradictions and prove them logically.

I've been doing that. You don't care about my feedback. It would undermine your book sales I guess.

Wrong assumption, wrong conclusion.

Which is why I lean towards a way of thinking which isn't founded on axioms/assumptions.

[Age]

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.

The funniest part about watching you two fighting and bickering, here, is the irrefutable Fact that the Universe is infinite and eternal, and that this Fact actually proves that a Creator exists.

The things that you two are 'trying to' claim, here, actually refute and prove 'your own conclusions and beliefs' False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

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.

Yet, LOL you are doing the exact same thing, here, "senad dizdarevic". you are both being as blind and as stupid as each other, here.

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.

But, this in no way means that the Creator does not exist.

Present your "irrefutable Fact that the Universe is infinite and eternal, and that this Fact actually proves that a Creator exists."

Do you usually tell others what to do?

Ad hominem does not affect or change the simple fact that uncreated things are eternal.

If you believe so.

Eternal Existence was never created because it is impossible to create Energy.

you appear to not have thought thoroughly through this, yet.

No creation, no creator. Prove the opposite.

So, to you there is absolutely no creation absolutely anywhere, correct?

[Skepdick]

Numbers are part of the Energy part of Existence; they are eternal, the same as Existence. That means that they can't be created or destroyed.

OK. Numbers can't be created or destroyed. And they are infinite.

I use the term "constant" in the meaning of "always the same", non-changing, and finite.

Yes, I know. That's called "equivocation".

Energy is finite, so everything in it is also finite or constant or non-changing its quantity.

Numbers are not finite - this doesn't mean they are infinite. It just means that you have no reason to believe they are finite.

If numbers are finite - what's the last one?

Maybe is confusing for you, but for me is very clear.

It is absolutely clear to me that you are confused.

Existence was never created, which means that it has no beginning.

But the universe you live in (and we all do) has a beginning. What or where is this "existence" and how did you come to know that it....exists?

You are mixing eternity with infinity. First is the temporal term, the second is spatial.

Any mix up you are sensing in this dialogue is all yours.
No such mix up is happening here. Infinity in any dimension (spatial; or temporal) is still infinity!

If the universe is temporally unbound but spatially bound - it's infinite.
If the universe is spatially unbound but temporally bound - it's infinite.

Present my contradiction for your conclusion.

Existence (universe and multiverse) has no origin; it is eternal.

Sure thing. The universe is ~14 billion years old. So it's not eternal.

Given finite temporal evidence how have you inferred eternal age?

[Senad Dizdarevic]

And what is truly ironic about his insistence that God cannot exist (shades of VA), is that he himself is a potential God who will create and preside over his own personal universe (his own personal "cosmos," to use his word).

Srila Prabhupada (the former guru-leader of the Hari Krishnas) wrote a book: Easy Journey to Other Planets. The thesis is, of course, completely Vedic: that there are infinite worlds and we bind ourselves to ‘worlds’ through laws of karma. Similarly, and this is a primary tenet of yoga-philosophy, we can ‘unbind’ ourselves from this specific world and reincarnate on “higher planets”. In fact there has been a sort of exodus from our strife-ridden planet by wise, elevated souls who use spiritual techniques to break the bonds (to entrapment in this world).

The actual fact which I try to bring to Immanuel’s attention is that, stripped down to its basics, Christianity presents an abbreviated form of the same paradigm. Just as with Vaisnavism (the worship of Vishnu: that aspect or manifestation of God that always incarnates in “fallen” worlds and offers a salvific path and teaching) this is quite precisely the picture that Christianity presents.

In Immanuel’s system the fallen one has to surrender to the savior and, as a result, the subject is ‘discipled’ on invisible planes and, after death, ushered into an Eternal World.

The Vaishnavas operate in the same paradigm except that it is embellished by 100 times. And just as Christians say that the second person of the Trinity is, somehow, God himself, similarly Krishna, Arjuna’s friend, is actually a manifestation of Brahma (who is the author of Being and Existence).

The object, however, in genuine Vaishnavism is not to ‘transcend the world’ and re-merge with Brahma, but rather to become pure devotees of Krishna and serve Krishna in whatever circumstance, or world, or body, in which one finds oneself.

Now, Castaneda is another animal altogether. I doubt that Senad is aware of the degree to which Castaneda ran an extremely cult-like operation in LA which I had some peripheral experience with because a Mexican friend of mine became a member of CC’s inner circle and was the “Blue Scout” (sister figure of the “Orange Scout”).

(For this to make any sense you’d have to have read CC’s books …)

(Also Amy Wallace, the daughter of the author Irving Wallace, was one of CC’s first devotees. She wrote a book about her experience but sadly died quite young. My other friend, “DL” the dreamer, lamented for years his entire association with CC who he regarded as a super-manipulator and immensely destructive. Castaneda is a fascinating figure and one must become familiar with the cultural guru figures, and the books they wrote, to understand post-Christianity (in America in any case).

However, I get the sense that Senad has made something out of dreaming that is distinct, personal and maybe idiosyncratic except he seems to have incorporated “flyers” which I believe correspond to his Karmicons (which correspond to demon-entities and perverted intelligence in other systems).

(I must admit that my ears perked up when the prospect of being assigned a hot new girlfriend/companion was dangled before my carnal greed. I’ve gotta have more than a mere ‘million’ dollars though. A Cosmic credit card filled with unlimited funds, good in this and any of the 20 million worlds is in fact necessary given the rate of universal inflation …)

I read all of CC's books, and most of his disciples, and all the articles that I could get.

I was a big fan until I learned the Big Picture, Karmic Organization, and their dirty work. Nagualism is just another of their religions, in this case, based on magics.

Don Juan's stories were very interesting, and some of his exercises were and are still beneficial.

Stopping the mind is necessary for any serious personal development. Detaching from the mind is a step toward personal freedom ( in nagualism, the mind is an artificial installation, and a control mechanism, symbolically the Flyer itself). Living in inner silence is the fundamental way of life. Recapitulation is the proper way to deal with your past and a reminder not to repeat the harmful patterns. Lucid dreaming opens you the doors to other worlds.

Despite the stories and useful exercises, nagualism as a Story about the Eagle (god creator), incarnation, and reincarnation, and "Freedom" for all who succeed, transform their physical body to an energy body and fly past the Eagle to the Unknown, is just a karmic hoax. It is a false promise, just like Jesus's second coming. He didn't come the first time, as he never lived as a real person, so he won't come the second time either.

You are partially right, the karmicons, karmic cons, and Flyers are in relation. But with a big difference. Don Juan presented them as non-human energy beings, while in fact most of them were humans from other planets.

About my "dreams" and gifts: use your old skill of lucid dreaming, revive it, and start exploring. It is free, it is easy, and you won't lose any time as you are doing it when you sleep. I will gladly support you all the way. If you know anybody who would like to learn it, send them the link to my article with instructions.

If my "story" about Existence is too much for you at the time, try exercises for awakening into Pure Awareness and lucid dreaming. Both are pure practice: first, how to learn to stop the mind, relax the body, and become aware of Awareness; second, how to become conscious that you dream, and what to do in dreams, when you become lucid.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

$29.99 per question or a flat fee of $49.99 for all. What is your preferred payment processor? (CashApp, Venmo, Zelle, Paypal and all major card accepted.)

If you are asking me about the price of my books, you can read the e-book versions for free in public libraries.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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.

God is a fabricated entity used for programming religious believers, controlling and abusing them.

If this is what you just want to believe is true, then okay.

"The burden of proof" is on you: you claimed that "my beliefs are causing me to mix delusion with existence". Present them.

I asked you to, but you obviously did not.

So, either you do not have beliefs, or you just can not or do not want to reveal them, here.

Are you in plural? "Us"?

Of course not. 'I' obviously would have to believe things, to have beliefs, like you do.

I am not a religious believer, and I don't have any religious beliefs. Prove it logically.

If you just want to tell me your beliefs, and what you believe is true, and do not want to seek out answers and clarity, then okay.

Do you believe or disbelieve any thing?

Don't manipulate and run away; present evidence for your claim about my beliefs.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

I realized that god can't exist based on the 1. law of thermodynamics.

That's faulty reasoning. Why should the laws of the creation apply to the creator?

Even if we use your framework - why should the laws of this universe apply to Existence with all of its multiverses?

Later, I figured out that there are more pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence, which I present in my book series.

Oooooh! Is that what this is all about? Selling books. Yeah.... even more motivated reasoning.

There is no such thing as evidence for non-existence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I guess, now that you've wasted your time writing those books and trying to sell them - I guess I can't convince you of being wrong.

Is the 1. law of thermodynamics a lie?

It's neither true nor false in the ontological sense. It's a postulate we assume so as to allow us to reason about the world with conserved quantities.

1. Energy can not be created or destroyed.
2. That means that it is eternal.

I have no idea what that means. If it's "eternal" why does the current cosmological paradigm predict the heat death of the universe?
Why should the universe end if energy is "eternal"?

Present my contradictions and prove them logically.

I've been doing that. You don't care about my feedback. It would undermine your book sales I guess.

Wrong assumption, wrong conclusion.

Which is why I lean towards a way of thinking which isn't founded on axioms/assumptions.

If creating is not possible, the creator can not exist. This law is universal and applies to all Existence.

Presenting ideas in books and selling them is a normal, legal, and common activity. Writers and salespeople are not criminals.

E-book versions are free in public libraries.

There is evidence for non-existence; it is called proving the negative. You can prove the negative by proving that something can not exist. God as creator can not exist, so he does not exist.

Writing the book series was time good spent. I learned a lot and developed my skills. I have published 12 books, and I will continue.

You are mixing two unmixable things: even if the cosmos were to "die" of "cold", which won't happen, it would still exist. "Cooling down" does not mean disappearing.

You didn't present not even one of the alleged contradictions; you only presented your ignorance ("I don't know what is eternal"), stubbornly misrepresenting my claims.

I answer all your comments. If you don't like my answers, that is another thing.

What is your thinking founded on then? On faith? Dogma? Are you a religious believer? A Christian? Which denomination?