The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Fairy]

God doesn’t want to send anyone to Hell.

[Fairy]

To deny a creator is to deny creation.

To deny creation is to deny your very own life.

There’s no you if there’s no creator of you. But there is you, and that’s blindingly self evident, it’s enough evidence because it’s closer than your own skin. You are infinity. Infinity is looking out behind every single eye. Even the blind who is unable to physically see, is still aware of itself as presence. This presence belongs to God.

God doesn’t want to send anyone to Hell. But we send ourselves to Hell through our sins. God chose to die for us so that He could offer us eternal life and give us an example of holiness. And now it’s up to us to accept we make our own misery. Refusing to be responsible and not willing to be held accountable for our own misgivings is our own fault. God won’t force on us to be any other way than to make our own choices in how to be in the world.

Hell is your own toxic guilty negative thoughts tormenting you, only.

( He )is symbolic of the creator. ( She ) is symbolic of creation. Both (He and She) are one together in divine holy marriage.

( SHE ) This duality are symbolic of conjoined twins, two, but not two. Non dual duality. The absolute. Infinity for eternity.

[Will Bouwman]

If "nobody is supposed to deduce anything," then there is no such thing as knowledge --

Well, when it comes to philosophical questions, that is true; that is what makes them philosophical.

Wow. That strikes me as a jaded, unduly pessimistic view of human knowledge and of philosophy. Why even be here, if there's no such thing as "knowledge"?

For someone trying to show superior understanding, that is not a good start.

And how could you KNOW there's no such thing as knowledge?

I don't claim to; you simply don't understand what makes a philosophical question philosophical.

You don't understand that idealism is an argument based on the same evidence as your own argument for common sense realism.

No, I don't agree that it is. I understand what you're saying, I just find it to be premised on a fallacy. For it is not the case that evidence is ever "the same" for any two propositions...

It is; that is why people argue about how the evidence should be interpreted.

...I do think that Idealism has some arguments particularly going for it, and I know what some of them are supposed to be. I don't find them conclusive, or even close to conclusive. But I know of them.

Interestingly, you don't seem to know what they are. If you do, you won't say which ones you think work. So, based on that data, whom should we guess doesn't "understand"?

Well, you demonstrably do not understand the difference between evidence and arguments.

[Immanuel Can]

And how could you KNOW there's no such thing as knowledge?

I don't claim to; you simply don't understand what makes a philosophical question philosophical.

I am unaware of any reputable source that would suggest that not being able to know anything is a prerequisite of doing philosophy. It would seem, rather, to make the whole exercise pointless. If you can never arrive anywhere, why set out at all?

I think somebody's poisoned your view of philosophy. I don't know who would possibly agree with your claim.

You don't understand that idealism is an argument based on the same evidence as your own argument for common sense realism.

No, I don't agree that it is. I understand what you're saying, I just find it to be premised on a fallacy. For it is not the case that evidence is ever "the same" for any two propositions...

It is; that is why people argue about how the evidence should be interpreted.

If evidence is limited and incomplete, it may be possible to hover between two hypotheses in confusion, at least until further evidence comes in. Then, people can disagree: the prosecutor can say the guy's guilty, and the defense can swear he's innocent. Sure.

But that's trivial. It is not at all true that no matter how much evidence one accumulates, no amount will ever conduce to one hypothesis more than another. Were it so, court proceedings would be quite impossible. And manifestly, they're not. They're so automatic that we perform them all the time: the guilty party is located by the accumulation of evidence, until the hypothesis of innocence is impossible to sustain rationally. Then the jury declares a verdict.

But in fact, evidence is only ambiguous when very incomplete and vague. The minute evidence becomes more specific, one hypothesis gains a leg up on another. And if the evidence continues to come in, inevitably one hypothesis becomes so compelling that rivals can be rejected outright. It's no longer believable that the accused was innocent, or that he was guilty, and the verdict comes.

Just so, I'd like to see your evidence for Idealism. If you're simply confused about that, it does not mean that there's no possible evidence -- I know what it is supposed to be, by advocates of Idealism, in fact, and you could also just look it up -- what it means, instead, is that you don't know what the relevant evidence is, or don't want to say what you know, because you know it's weak and would fail to convince a rational observer, or even would favour another hypothesis.

Maybe you're sincerely confused and relativistic. Maybe. But certainly, you're too pessimistic about knowledge. You haven't thought enough about how it is formed, and how it relates to evidence. Knee-jerk skepticism can set in when we're really only talking about our own experience of mental confusion. But more precise understanding banishes that.

That's what we mean when we speak of "learning" -- it's the movement from uncertainty among many hypotheses toward a more narrow set of possibilities, and then toward the truth. And philosophy is about that, not about hovering endlessly among hypotheses we can't resolve.

[Will Bouwman]

And how could you KNOW there's no such thing as knowledge?

I don't claim to; you simply don't understand what makes a philosophical question philosophical.

I am unaware of any reputable source that would suggest that not being able to know anything is a prerequisite of doing philosophy.

It isn't, nor did I say it was.

I think somebody's poisoned your view of philosophy. I don't know who would possibly agree with your claim.

I don't imagine you are drawing from a particularly deep well. The fact that you misrepresent what I wrote notwithstanding, you clearly haven't heard of Socrates.

[Belinda]

If "nobody is supposed to deduce anything," then there is no such thing as knowledge --

Well, when it comes to philosophical questions, that is true; that is what makes them philosophical.

Wow. That strikes me as a jaded, unduly pessimistic view of human knowledge and of philosophy. Why even be here, if there's no such thing as "knowledge"?

And how could you KNOW there's no such thing as knowledge? If you KNOW it, it can't be true. If you don't KNOW it, then why believe it?

...and you cannot possibly be having the knowledge that this is so, since that would undermine your own theory.

One can know that a number of deductions can be made from the same sensory data, not least because people manifestly do.

Again, if you KNOW anything, then epistemic relativism is false. So you could say, "I wish to think that any number of deductions...etc." But you can't say you KNOW. If you did, you'd disprove yourself.

If not a single person in the world knew what "gravity" was, gravity would still kill those who step off cliffs.

I think most people are aware that stepping off a cliff isn't going to end well. What nobody knows is the mechanism that causes gravity.

And yet, it will continue to work, despite that lack of knowledge.

And that's the important point: what people know does not alter reality. It only alters their own assumptions about reality, their own relation to the truth, and those can be correct or incorrect. The misperceiving individual always loses, in that conflict.

As I said, quantum mechanics seriously challenges that assumption.

It doesn't, actually. All it tells us is that our earlier understandings were not complete. We really don't know what quantum mechanics is "telling" us yet. So far, all its doing is indicating in some strange directions, but none of them tells us what our definite conclusions should yet be. If it's otherwise today, it's very recent.

Again, our faulty epistemology, whether CSR or Idealism or quantum speculations, will not change reality. Reality will always win. It's up to us, and to science, to catch up with reality, and not lose our way in faulty speculations.

Secondly, I'm not convinced the leap from numbers to reality is valid.

You don't have to be. You can prove it is. Because you can do the same experiment both mathematically and empirically, with as many tries as you like, and you'll get identical results in both. You can do as many trials as you need to convince yourself, and the same results will issue every time.

You don't understand that idealism is an argument based on the same evidence as your own argument for common sense realism.

No, I don't agree that it is. I understand what you're saying, I just find it to be premised on a fallacy. For it is not the case that evidence is ever "the same" for any two propositions, and certainly not for Idealism and CSR, except where a) two theories are so tightly close to each other as to be indistinguishable, in which case they don't present significant alternatives, or b) data taken is so limited that it applies to everything equally...and thus is uninformative of any theory at all.

Meanwhile, Common Sense Realism has the default going for it, as it's the way everybody lives and operates. Idealism has...what going for it? Nothing, you say. Everything, you say. Nothing different from CSR, you say. And I do think that Idealism has some arguments particularly going for it, and I know what some of them are supposed to be. I don't find them conclusive, or even close to conclusive. But I know of them.

Interestingly, you don't seem to know what they are. If you do, you won't say which ones you think work. So, based on that data, whom should we guess doesn't "understand"?

Common Sense Realism
What is real?

*Is what is real everything that can be detected by senses?

* Is what is real what remains after senses have been proved not to have been deceptive?

*Are real things things in themselves before anyone has detected them?

*Is what is real an aggregate of things such as trees, rocks, bacteria, horses, shirts, worms, oceans, books, mountains, human bodies, shoes, and so forth?

[MikeNovack]

To deny a creator is to deny creation.
To deny creation is to deny your very own life.

You can't DO that. You are using the ASSUMPTION "existence of the physical universe implies it was created" to get to "then there must have been a creator".

But WHERE did that assumption come from? Is that NECESSARILY true. For example, why not always was, is, and will be" at least conceivable?

[Belinda]

To deny a creator is to deny creation.
To deny creation is to deny your very own life.

You can't DO that. You are using the ASSUMPTION "existence of the physical universe implies it was created" to get to "then there must have been a creator".

But WHERE did that assumption come from? Is that NECESSARILY true. For example, why not always was, is, and will be" at least conceivable?

Mike, I think your question could have been put in the form of "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Fairy's error then is to presume the question is answerable.

Fairy's error is like Descartes' error-------- I think therefor I am therefore there must be something (because at the very least I am.)

[Fairy]

To deny a creator is to deny creation.
To deny creation is to deny your very own life.

You can't DO that. You are using the ASSUMPTION "existence of the physical universe implies it was created" to get to "then there must have been a creator".

But WHERE did that assumption come from? Is that NECESSARILY true. For example, why not always was, is, and will be" at least conceivable?

It’s already conceivable in it’s conception, that’s what “creation” means. To conceive of something. There’s something that was, is, always existing. That something is God.
It’s not seen in a visible sense, it’s known conceptually.

Unseen, it is no thing, but known, it is every thing as conceived in this conception.

[Will Bouwman]

I am unaware of any reputable source that would suggest that not being able to know anything is a prerequisite of doing philosophy.

It isn't, nor did I say it was.

Crickets. I take it that the penny has finally dropped.

[Belinda]

To deny a creator is to deny creation.
To deny creation is to deny your very own life.

You can't DO that. You are using the ASSUMPTION "existence of the physical universe implies it was created" to get to "then there must have been a creator".

But WHERE did that assumption come from? Is that NECESSARILY true. For example, why not always was, is, and will be" at least conceivable?

It’s already conceivable in it’s conception, that’s what “creation” means. To conceive of something. There’s something that was, is, always existing. That something is God.
It’s not seen in a visible sense, it’s known conceptually.

Unseen, it is no thing, but known, it is every thing as conceived in this conception.

“Conceive, conception, and concept all come from old words meaning to take in — first in the sense of receiving a seed, and later in the sense of taking in an idea.
Create and creation come from old words meaning to bring something into existence.
So one group is about receiving ideas, and the other is about making things.”(ChatGPT)

You need to understand etymology .Etymology means the history of a word:
where it came from, what it used to mean, and how its form and meaning changed over time.

In short: etymology is the story of a word’s life. It's an error to mistake etymology for evidence.

[Fairy]

You can't DO that. You are using the ASSUMPTION "existence of the physical universe implies it was created" to get to "then there must have been a creator".

But WHERE did that assumption come from? Is that NECESSARILY true. For example, why not always was, is, and will be" at least conceivable?

It’s already conceivable in it’s conception, that’s what “creation” means. To conceive of something. There’s something that was, is, always existing. That something is God.
It’s not seen in a visible sense, it’s known conceptually.

Unseen, it is no thing, but known, it is every thing as conceived in this conception.

“Conceive, conception, and concept all come from old words meaning to take in — first in the sense of receiving a seed, and later in the sense of taking in an idea.
Create and creation come from old words meaning to bring something into existence.
So one group is about receiving ideas, and the other is about making things.”(ChatGPT)

You need to understand etymology .Etymology means the history of a word:
where it came from, what it used to mean, and how its form and meaning changed over time.

In short: etymology is the story of a word’s life. It's an error to mistake etymology for evidence.

Words are shit.

God is silence, and that is why silence is golden, and every word is rust.

[Belinda]

It’s already conceivable in it’s conception, that’s what “creation” means. To conceive of something. There’s something that was, is, always existing. That something is God.
It’s not seen in a visible sense, it’s known conceptually.

Unseen, it is no thing, but known, it is every thing as conceived in this conception.

“Conceive, conception, and concept all come from old words meaning to take in — first in the sense of receiving a seed, and later in the sense of taking in an idea.
Create and creation come from old words meaning to bring something into existence.
So one group is about receiving ideas, and the other is about making things.”(ChatGPT)

You need to understand etymology .Etymology means the history of a word:
where it came from, what it used to mean, and how its form and meaning changed over time.

In short: etymology is the story of a word’s life. It's an error to mistake etymology for evidence.

Words are shit.

God is silence, and that is why silence is golden, and every word is rust.

You confuse metaphor with sound and fury signifying nothing.

[Fairy]

“Conceive, conception, and concept all come from old words meaning to take in — first in the sense of receiving a seed, and later in the sense of taking in an idea.
Create and creation come from old words meaning to bring something into existence.
So one group is about receiving ideas, and the other is about making things.”(ChatGPT)

You need to understand etymology .Etymology means the history of a word:
where it came from, what it used to mean, and how its form and meaning changed over time.

In short: etymology is the story of a word’s life. It's an error to mistake etymology for evidence.

Words are shit.

God is silence, and that is why silence is golden, and every word is rust.

You confuse metaphor with sound and fury signifying nothing.

You confuse the noise inside your head for reality.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't claim to; you simply don't understand what makes a philosophical question philosophical.

I am unaware of any reputable source that would suggest that not being able to know anything is a prerequisite of doing philosophy.

It isn't, nor did I say it was.

It seems you did.

If "nobody is supposed to deduce anything," then there is no such thing as knowledge --

Well, when it comes to philosophical questions, that is true; that is what makes them philosophical.