The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Senad Dizdarevic]

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?

Numbers can be infinite in theory, but not in practice. There is an end to counting them. The last one is the last the counter will be able to count.

I use the terms temporal-eternal for time, and finite-infinite for space. Have you heard of eternity?

Our cosmos has a physical beginning but has no temporal beginning in the absolute sense - as a part of Eternal Existence is eternal, while at the same time, it has its own timeline which is limited.

For example, it is eternal (absolute value), and at the same time, it is 14 billion years old (relative value) in the inner space-time continuum. One meter has 100 centimeters. They are all parts of the whole, while having their own measure, which is smaller than the meter. They have two characteristics at the same time - one as part of the whole, and another as their own.

I have already answered you this, but you don't understand it, or you don't want to understand it.

Existence was not created, has no temporal beginning or end, so it is eternal.

[Age]

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.

Once again, are you going to tell me what your beliefs are, exactly?

If no, then why not? What are you afraid or scared of, exactly?

Also, will you present proof for your claim about me manipulating?

[Age]

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.

'This' may well be True, however wanting or expecting money for just 'thoughts', or teaching, is reprehensible.

But, you people in the days when this is being written do not, yet, comprehend and understand this.

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.

Let 'us' follow 'this logic', and see how it works. "send dizdarevic" as creator can not exist, so it 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.

Is any one, besides you, following your books?

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?

[Age]

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?

Numbers can be infinite in theory, but not in practice. There is an end to counting them. The last one is the last the counter will be able to count.

I use the terms temporal-eternal for time, and finite-infinite for space. Have you heard of eternity?

Our cosmos has a physical beginning but has no temporal beginning in the absolute sense - as a part of Eternal Existence is eternal, while at the same time, it has its own timeline which is limited.

For example, it is eternal (absolute value), and at the same time, it is 14 billion years old (relative value) in the inner space-time continuum. One meter has 100 centimeters. They are all parts of the whole, while having their own measure, which is smaller than the meter. They have two characteristics at the same time - one as part of the whole, and another as their own.

I have already answered you this, but you don't understand it, or you don't want to understand it.

'it' is not being understood because inconsistencies or contradictions are not able to be 'understood'.

Thus why people do not understand 'your it, beliefs, and claims', here.

you have been asked to clarify 'it'. you choose not to. So, because you will not express what you are actually meaning, this is why others do not understand 'it'.

Existence was not created, has no temporal beginning or end, so it is eternal.

So what?

None of 'this' infers, let alone proves, that a 'creator' does not exist.

Until you want to have a Truly open and honest discussion, you will just keep expressing only 'your beliefs', here. Which are, obviously, not being understood. And, why 'it/they' are not being understood is also clearly obvious.

[Fairy]

Immanuel Can if you’re reading this, please know you’re not alone in knowing God exists.

God exists without doubt or error. I’ve personally never doubted the existence of God because existence is impossible to not exist.

God created everything.

[Skepdick]

Numbers can be infinite in theory, but not in practice. There is an end to counting them. The last one is the last the counter will be able to count.

That's precisely what "infinite" means in practice! Even if you stop counting at N, you could've counted to N+1. For ANY N!

I use the terms temporal-eternal for time, and finite-infinite for space. Have you heard of eternity?

Which is precisely the same thing as infinite numbers. There is always the next second. And the next. And the next!

Our cosmos has a physical beginning but has no temporal beginning in the absolute sense - as a part of Eternal Existence is eternal, while at the same time, it has its own timeline which is limited.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that to be true. For all you know Existence is also limited. Maybe it's just less limited than our cosmos.

Existence was not created, has no temporal beginning or end, so it is eternal.

How do you know that? How do you know that Existence didn't begin a mere moment before our cosmos did?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

FYI I don’t necessarily discount anything.

I have not thought about the CC world for quite a few years now but I did read every book of his. And I was involved for years with people who in LA had to deal with the fallout and destruction when his cultish scene fell apart.

“Castles made of sand …”

In your system how do you understand “omens from the world”? (Introduced first in Journey to Ixtlan).

[Skepdick]

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

It can't be "universal". It starts with an "IF". Universals aren't conditional.

Your "universal law" is just a conditional claim dependent on an unproven premise

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

Nobody accused you of committing a crime. You are only accused of being motivated to pretend you aren't wrong.

You are financial inceitivised to defend your argument even at the expense of truth.

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

Oh, so the cosmos is also eternal now? Like Existence.

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

My thinking isn't "founded" on anything. Thinking is what I do as a matter of course.

I know how to do it - so I do it.

[Belinda]

To be successful the fantasy genre must resound with people's real feelings and loyalties.

You may be right, but do you have "real feelings" about Hobbits, and Elves, and Dwarfs, and Orcs, and Trolls, and Nazgûl, and Dragons, and magical rings?

Do those "resound with your loyalties" (whatever that means)?

To be successful in the fantasy genre you simply need to create epic stories that carry us off into new and interesting worlds as an escape from the doldrums of either a mundane existence, or that of a terrible existence, or, more likely, just for funzies.
_______

Yes, Seeds, I do have real feelings about Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Pilgrim's Progress, Genesis, and His Dark Materials. I am a little disconcerted by which are the more true to the human condition, and that is what I mean by resound samong my loyalties. I also enjoy The Day of the Triffids,

Any literature that is nothing but meaningless entertainment is a waste of time, which classifies me as a puritan. Commercial success is no guarantee of literary merit.

[Immanuel Can]

Why don't you try lucid dreaming and find out what it is?

I'm a big fan of reality.

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

I've done so, and repeatedly. I really don't know why you fail to understand it. And I'm at a loss to help you to understand something when it's been presented so simply to you. Perhaps somebody else watching can make it simpler: I can't.

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

And you've mistaken this argument, too. And I've explained it by the simplest analogies I know. Again, I don't know if I could make it easier to understand.

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.)

Okay, that's simple enough. Are you going to stick with those definitions in future, or change the definitions in the middle of sentences again?

Cosmos contains many sub-cosmoses or dimensions.

Whoops. Now we have to define "dimension." I really don't know what you mean when you use that word. Here, you say it's the same as "sub-cosmoses." But you said that "sub-cosmoses" are like "floors in the apartments," which means they're material, and exist in this realm. Clear that up for me, if you can.

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

"Visit"? Physically? Or only imaginatively?

Absent physical "visiting," how do you confirm that you're not merely imagining?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've done so, and repeatedly. I really don't know why you fail to understand it. And I'm at a loss to help you to understand something when it's been presented so simply to you. Perhaps somebody else watching can make it simpler: I can't.

Can God be explained with any sort of reasoning process? Or through mathematical expressions?

I'm a big fan of reality.

Perhaps. But you are also a big fan of extraordinary fantasies. How do you square this?

[Immanuel Can]

I've done so, and repeatedly. I really don't know why you fail to understand it. And I'm at a loss to help you to understand something when it's been presented so simply to you. Perhaps somebody else watching can make it simpler: I can't.

Can God be explained with any sort of reasoning process? Or through mathematical expressions?

Well, flip it around: if you can't explain God, can God not still explain Himself to you? Why would an all-powerful Being be unable to do something (explanation) that even you and I can do routinely?

But the point of the mathematics is not to "explain God": it's merely to point to the inescapable necessity of the existence of some origin point for the universe. That's a much more humble and limited goal than you're supposing.

[Belinda]

I've done so, and repeatedly. I really don't know why you fail to understand it. And I'm at a loss to help you to understand something when it's been presented so simply to you. Perhaps somebody else watching can make it simpler: I can't.

Can God be explained with any sort of reasoning process? Or through mathematical expressions?

Well, flip it around: if you can't explain God, can God not still explain Himself to you? Why would an all-powerful Being be unable to do something (explanation) that even you and I can do routinely?

But the point of the mathematics is not to "explain God": it's merely to point to the inescapable necessity of the existence of some origin point for the universe. That's a much more humble and limited goal than you're supposing.

Sorry Immanuel, but "the origin point for the universe" is not sufficient to describe the personal God who intervenes in history."The origin point of the universe " also describes nature .

[Immanuel Can]

Can God be explained with any sort of reasoning process? Or through mathematical expressions?

Well, flip it around: if you can't explain God, can God not still explain Himself to you? Why would an all-powerful Being be unable to do something (explanation) that even you and I can do routinely?

But the point of the mathematics is not to "explain God": it's merely to point to the inescapable necessity of the existence of some origin point for the universe. That's a much more humble and limited goal than you're supposing.

Sorry Immanuel, but "the origin point for the universe" is not sufficient to describe the personal God who intervenes in history."The origin point of the universe " also describes nature .

Don't be sorry. The mathematical argument is not intended to do more than it does, which is to show that the universe is not past-eternal. There are other arguments that fill the role you're thinking of, but I haven't presented them here. We're still on step 1.

But let's test your alternate explanation: how can "nature" be the origin of nature?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel Can if you’re reading this, please know you’re not alone in knowing God exists.

God exists without doubt or error. I’ve personally never doubted the existence of God because existence is impossible to not exist.

God created everything.

I agree! And I want to, in a supreme act of generosity, offer a 3 month subscription to The 40 Week Email Course to both of you — for free!!

Existence is simply too weird to have been somehow “made”. It must always have existed! Yes! There has never been non-existence.

Additionally, after weeks and months of thought and calculation l’ve also arrived at this conclusion:

The Earth is round, like an orange