The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree.

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

LOL Here, 'we' have 'another one' who believes, absolutely, that 'mathematics' is 'the solution', here.

LOL "Immanuel can" actually believes because a finite thing, like "itself", is not able to count, infinitely, then the Universe, Itself, nor absolutely any thing could be infinite.

Which is absolutely hilarious 'the one' who claims that God is infinite, say and claim.

"immanuel can" really does say and claim some of the most Truly absurd and ridiculous things, which some of even oppose and contradict its others sayings and claims about God.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

I gather that Immanuel believes God is the single first cause that originally caused time, space, and force. Without time, space, and force there could be no change from one state of reality to another state of reality.

Well, if time and space come before the Creation of matter, then we're not going back far enough. For time only exists when there are at least two particles of matter, plus a space between them that can become time. This interstice can be a physical one or a chronological one, but if there's no such interval, then neither can we speak of their being such a things as "time," I would suggest.

Moreover, if time and space pre-existed God, then we would have to say they were the 'cause' or at least 'preconditions' of God, which means we now are talking about a contingent, not necessary god, not THE God, not the First Cause, and not the Supreme Being, either. And the actual Supreme Entity would be time and space themselves, not God.

The Gnostics have a belief that would resonate with that, in that they believe in a contingent, fallible, dependent creator called a "demiurge." And behind him, they say, is only a great unknown thing called (various things and) "Abyss," about which nothing can possibly be said or thought.

But that's certainly not the Christian view.

This is not infinite regress but to the contrary implies that God is finality, Alpha and Omega, the transcendent unchanging Cause at the beginning and end of time, space, and force.

Yes, that is what the infinite regress mathematics would cause us to conclude: that "Something" had to be before all created things, including time and space. That "Entity" could not itself be contingent, dependent or caused, since that would cascade into the incoherence of infinite regressions again, and thus signal that we had no cogent explanation for origins at all.

Even the Gnostics grasped that there had to be a First Cause. They just thought it was something mysterious and unknowable, rather than a conscious, purposive, personal God.

[Age]

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

I gather that Immanuel believes God is the single first cause that originally caused time, space, and force. Without time, space, and force there could be no change from one state of reality to another state of reality.

Well, if time and space come before the Creation of matter, then we're not going back far enough. For time only exists when there are at least two particles of matter, plus a space between them that can become time. This interstice can be a physical one or a chronological one, but if there's no such interval, then neither can we speak of their being such a things as "time," I would suggest.

Moreover, if time and space pre-existed God, then we would have to say they were the 'cause' or at least 'preconditions' of God, which means we now are talking about a contingent, not necessary god, not THE God, not the First Cause, and not the Supreme Being, either. And the actual Supreme Entity would be time and space themselves, not God.

The Gnostics have a belief that would resonate with that, in that they believe in a contingent, fallible, dependent creator called a "demiurge." And behind him, they say, is only a great unknown thing called (various things and) "Abyss," about which nothing can possibly be said or thought.

But that's certainly not the Christian view.

Once more, "immanuel can" introduces a distorted perception, and then attacks the distorted perception, instead of just focusing on original points.

How many times are you going to keep doing 'this' "immanuel can" before you realize 'doing this' is only hindering you and not helping you.

This is not infinite regress but to the contrary implies that God is finality, Alpha and Omega, the transcendent unchanging Cause at the beginning and end of time, space, and force.

Yes, that is what the infinite regress mathematics would cause us to conclude: that "Something" had to be before all created things, including time and space.

Nothing 'causes' any one to 'conclude' any thing.

All of you human beings are absolutely free to 'choose' to 'conclude' absolutely any thing you like.

Now, 'your chosen conclusion' about some so-called 'infinite regress' thing is because 'choosing' 'that conclusion' you believe will help you and support you in 'your chosen conclusion' that a 'man created absolutely every thing all at once', because you, literally, have absolutely nothing else that could help you and support you, here.

That "Entity" could not itself be contingent, dependent or caused, since that would cascade into the incoherence of infinite regressions again, and thus signal that we had no cogent explanation for origins at all.

"immanuel can" has obviously not yet considered that the 'man with the penis entity' in fact could do the so-called 'infinite regress problem', which "Immanuel can" laughably claims can not be done.

Which, obviously, would then be self-refuting, anyway.

Even the Gnostics grasped that there had to be a First Cause. They just thought it was something mysterious and unknowable, rather than a conscious, purposive, personal God.

As least 'they' did not think and believe that the first cause of absolutely every thing had a penis., like "christians" do.

Imagine doing what "christians" do and think that 'It' is not some thing mysterious and unknowable because 'we' know that 'It' has a penis, and that 'It' will allow, only, 'us' to live in peace and harmony.

The "christians" have a belief that only 'they' know is not mysterious and is knowable.

[Will Bouwman]

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree.

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

Ha. The one time you admit fallibility, you were right in the first place. That there is no smallest number, therefore finite antecedents does not follow, much less transcendent, personal god. It is a perfectly serviceable premise, it may even be true, but one you cannot prove just by repeating it over and over. What is the logical connection between numbers and events?

[Will Bouwman]

...time only exists when there are at least two particles of matter, plus a space between them that can become time. This interstice can be a physical one or a chronological one, but if there's no such interval, then neither can we speak of their being such a things as "time," I would suggest.

This is more like it. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by space becoming time, but the general point, and that which Belinda made about change, I think is true.

[Belinda]

...time only exists when there are at least two particles of matter, plus a space between them that can become time. This interstice can be a physical one or a chronological one, but if there's no such interval, then neither can we speak of their being such a things as "time," I would suggest.

This is more like it. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by space becoming time, but the general point, and that which Belinda made about change, I think is true.

Empirically, entanglement demonstrates that space does not exist except as a convenient measure of quantity.

Time may be analogous to space . Force may be analogous to space.

Immanuel Can's way of thinking puts de cart before de horse.

[Will Bouwman]

Empirically, entanglement demonstrates that space does not exist except as a convenient measure of quantity.

Really? How does it do that?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

Ha. The one time you admit fallibility, you were right in the first place...

No, mathematics is not a mere hypothesis, because maths are provable. They're a closed system of symbols, not an empirical and open one, and mathematical proofs are not only possible but routine. That's why we speak of mathematical "proofs," but not (correctly) of empirical "proofs," but rather of empirical "evidences."

However, you can do the same thing inductively, empirically, when it comes to the maths, so it's confirmed on both bases, actually.

That there is no smallest number, therefore finite antecedents does not follow,

Now you understand the problem. There is no "smallest number," therefore there is also no infinite regress of causes. Just so.

much less transcendent, personal god.

Transcendence is required, (as whatever initiated the causal sequence must, necessarily also have "transcended" the causal chain), but the infinite regress problem is not even intended to argue for "personal." For that, we have other lines of argument. The first step is to realize the essentiality of a First Cause of some kind, the nature of that cause not yet being specified.

What is the logical connection between numbers and events?

Numbers are placeholders for causal events, in this case. That's the "logical connection" you're looking for. What is manifestly true of the numbers turns out also to be inevitably true of a causal chain.

[Immanuel Can]

...time only exists when there are at least two particles of matter, plus a space between them that can become time. This interstice can be a physical one or a chronological one, but if there's no such interval, then neither can we speak of their being such a things as "time," I would suggest.

This is more like it. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by space becoming time, but the general point, and that which Belinda made about change, I think is true.

That point being...what? Which of Belinda's claims are you affirming?

As for space and time, I would suggest that "time" means "interval." ("Interval" can mean something dimensional, as in "the space between here and there," or chronological, as in "the space between now and later," of course.) And "interval" can only happen between two points.

One cannot speak of a "time" between ONE point. There's no "between," in such a case. So space has to be in existence so time can exist, or better to say, the two appear at the same moment: space and time were created together, in an instant, being mutually-entailing concepts.

[Belinda]

Empirically, entanglement demonstrates that space does not exist except as a convenient measure of quantity.

Really? How does it do that?

By demonstrating that two bits of a split particle react exactly the same to the same event. In entanglement, two particles can be separated by light-years, yet their states remain correlated in a way that cannot be explained by any signal traveling through space.
This suggests that the relationships between quantum states may be more primitive than the spatial positions we assign them.

[Will Bouwman]

There is no "smallest number," therefore there is also no infinite regress of causes.

So there is an infinite regress of numbers, therefore there is no infinite regress of causes.

Numbers are placeholders for causal events, in this case. That's the "logical connection" you're looking for.

It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges.

What is manifestly true of the numbers turns out also to be inevitably true of a causal chain.

I don't think that is what you mean.

[Will Bouwman]

In entanglement, two particles can be separated by light-years,...

What is there light years of, between entangled particles?

[Will Bouwman]

Which of Belinda's claims are you affirming?

I remember Ted Honderich describing time as the dimension of change, which has stayed with me. I think the idea of time without change is incoherent.

As for space and time, I would suggest that "time" means "interval." ("Interval" can mean something dimensional, as in "the space between here and there," or chronological, as in "the space between now and later," of course.) And "interval" can only happen between two points.

Well again, in my view (thanks Ted) something has to happen.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no "smallest number," therefore there is also no infinite regress of causes.

So there is an infinite regress of numbers, therefore there is no infinite regress of causes.

Numbers can be suggested to infinity. But it's not a "regress" unless we make each number an absolute prerequisite for the next -- which is the case in causality, but not in merely numbering things that have no causal relationship. So essentially, the answer is "yes." The causal relationship is not implicated in all numbering.

Numbers are placeholders for causal events, in this case. That's the "logical connection" you're looking for.

It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges.

See above. It's the causal or prerequisite relationship between the numbers that would mirror causality. It's not just any numbers. You can write 1, 5, 1000, etc. to infinity. What you can't do is write even ONE number if the chain is infinite, and if the causal condition is specified -- namely that the writing of each number must be written first, as prerequisite to the next.

[Immanuel Can]

Which of Belinda's claims are you affirming?

I remember Ted Honderich describing time as the dimension of change, which has stayed with me. I think the idea of time without change is incoherent.

That's our empirical experience of time, for sure...it always entails some kind of change, if only entropic. Time, in our experience, might also be called a measurement of our decrepitude or proximity to death.

But that's how we experience things: it may not be the comprehensive description of the concept.

As for space and time, I would suggest that "time" means "interval." ("Interval" can mean something dimensional, as in "the space between here and there," or chronological, as in "the space between now and later," of course.) And "interval" can only happen between two points.

Well again, in my view (thanks Ted) something has to happen.

Again, that's our experience, and it may be right. It may not be the end of the story. I'm open to suggestions on what a "happening" of the Honderich type might entail; but not knowing the context, I can't say.