The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Belinda]

Yes, but again, I don't see what that adds to what we were actually discussing. Or are you now just taking the subject off in a completely different direction?

I was replying to this from you:-

Consider the same in regard to God. To say that you can't know everything there is to say about Him, or His "essence," to use your terms, does not even remotely imply you cannot know God, or have experience of God, or learn things about God, or make correct and true statements about aspects of God

I'm still not seeing the connection you seem to want me to make. It's certainly not obvious, so you'll have to make it explicit.

Do you really think the following (from me )is not explicit:-"The Incarnation is important because that event combined God the Father (the transcendent essence) and God the Son (the immanent works and process of God)" Or more poetically

Christ, by highest heaven adored;
Christ, the everlasting Lord;
Late in time behold Him come,
Offspring of the Virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,

[Will Bouwman]

...it can be known, for sure, that 'thoughts', themselves, exist. Which are, obviously, some thing other than awareness.

What is a thought without awareness?

[Will Bouwman]

Is it not a fact that you cannot know ALL of god? It seems to me that your experience is just one more cup of seawater with no more claim to be true than anyone else's.

Hey, don't despise a cup of seawater. It's a genuine sample of the Pacific Ocean, which remains fully real, despite my limitations in sampling it.

I don't despise the seawater you have in your cup, I just reject your belief that it gives you a better insight to the Pacific ocean than anyone else's cupful.

[Will Bouwman]

...in this new parable dealing with a cup of sea water, God is far more mysterious, for it seems to be the equivalent of trying to deduce God's overall being from observing a few of the elephant's skin cells.

Amen.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As the ancient seers, prophets, magicians and healers in our own archaic past eventually formed our own Occidental traditions of the intelligentsia — the professional learned class or the intellectual élite of which the clergy and the medieval priesthood with subordinate orders of clerks and the religious order generally are their evolution …

… and as the clergy formed the early University and a sacred language that held the seeds of knowledge and wisdom, still the intellectual class guides culture to the degree that it does not completely succumb to vulgarism and general barbarism.

The Time and the Aeon itself, struggling in the travail of birth, severing the heads of the mindless, repelling the peasant-pea-brained with imperious swipes & merciless quips, extrudes the true Intellectual Guide who is also a Guardian at the threshold of higher knowledge and renewed purpose: Alexis Jacobi.

Please consider a donation.

[Immanuel Can]

I was replying to this from you:-

I'm still not seeing the connection you seem to want me to make. It's certainly not obvious, so you'll have to make it explicit.

Do you really think the following (from me )is not explicit:-"The Incarnation is important because that event combined God the Father (the transcendent essence) and God the Son (the immanent works and process of God)"

It's explicit to a different topic. I can't see its relevance to the questions we had been debating previously.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it not a fact that you cannot know ALL of god? It seems to me that your experience is just one more cup of seawater with no more claim to be true than anyone else's.

Hey, don't despise a cup of seawater. It's a genuine sample of the Pacific Ocean, which remains fully real, despite my limitations in sampling it.

I don't despise the seawater you have in your cup, I just reject your belief that it gives you a better insight to the Pacific ocean than anyone else's cupful.

I haven't said that. All I'm implying is that the little cup of seawater would give that man a genuine experience with the Pacific Ocean, however small; and somebody else's dry cup would give them nothing at all.

I might have a very limited knowledge of God. No doubt, I do: how could a human vessel have anything close to a comprehensive one? But I'm still going to be ahead of the guy who freely admits he has no such experience, and thus thinks there's no such thing as God.

And if the experience I've had is a genuine one, it's going to be more than enough to secure to us the rationality of belief in God, just as one toe dipped in the Pacific Ocean is a genuine -- but limited -- experience of the Pacific.

So an Atheist can only insist there's no God by also insisting nobody has ever had any genuine experience of God -- never anyone, in any religion or by any miracle, and never in history, even once. And we might well ask how the confident Atheist has secured his own confidence that nobody has done such a thing. If he cannot, then why should we accept the Atheist's disbelief as obligatory to us?

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Just because some human beings are 'not looking' and/or 'not listening' in no way means that God, Itself, is 'not present' in 'any way' that no one could doubt it.

One only has to be open to see, hear, and recognize where God, Itself, actually is, exactly. And, if one can not see, hear, nor recognise God anywhere, then, 'just maybe', 'that one' is not yet open as they think or believe they are.

Your observation assumes that god already exists, but some can not see it.

My observation does not assume any such thing.

The reason why you presumed such a thing is because if your already held onto belief.

It is not about perception; it is about existence.

1. What, exactly, is, supposedly, not about 'perception: but is about 'existence'?

2. My observation is based upon what actually exists, which you and others could not refute.

People, even believers, can not see god because he does not exist.

Once again you make presumptions. Presuming God has male genitals will help you lead you the conclusion, God does not exist.

your perspective presumes God does not exist. But, if God exists or not is about 'existence' instead, obviously.

If you say: "One only has to be open to see, hear, and recognize where God, Itself, actually is, exactly.", it means that you assume that god exists, but some can not see him. That is about perception. You are trying to reframe the debate from existence to perception, and on the way, fabricate god's existence, claiming that he exists but people can not see him.

I am talking about the existence, or more precisely, non-existence of god, not about the perception of him. It is logical that if god does not exist, and he doesn't, nobody can see him.

I don't presume god does not exist, I know it and I proved it logically. God as Creator of the World from nothing does not exist because that is not possible. I have three pieces of evidence to prove it. I had a long and thorough debate with two AI machines, and they tried every possible thing to refute it, but they couldn't. Finally, they confirmed that my evidence god does not exist is solid and logically irrefutable. Check it here: https://god-doesntexist.com/first-valid ... -humanity/.

You deny my logical evidence, but not with reason of other logical counterevidence, but with faith. You can't operate in the field of reason and logic, so you are constantly shifting to the magical realm of faith, where fictional creatures perform miracles like creating the World from nothing.

Your statement about god's genitals is a typical logical fallacy called a strawman. You are misrepresenting my claim about the nonexistence of god by falsely suggesting that I base my conclusions on god's genitals. You are trying to divert the debate into the muddy and foggy swamp of apologetic manipulations. Manipulating means that you are a manipulator, and you don't have any legitimate arguments, let alone evidence for god's existence, but just irrationalizing your despair. As soon as you start manipulating, you admit you are lost. I did not say a word about god's genitals.

My claim that god does not exist is based on three pieces of evidence: scientific, logical, and ontological, and not on a nonexisting god's gender.

I know that you are fully programmed and indoctrinated into faith, but I offer you a chance to read the whole chapter with my three pieces of valid evidence, or even better, the whole series, if you want, get the whole picture, and think about it. Observe your urges to deny, fight, and pervert it with cheap manipulations. Analyze it with reason, and conclude with logic.

I have enrolled my series in Amazon KDP Select and Kindle Unlimited. If you are a member, you can find and read my books on KU. Amazon also started to cooperate with the public libraries so you can ask for my series in your local library to order it, and you will read it for free. Read more about it in my new article: God Does NOT Exist Books Free in Kindle ... in History

I friendly suggest you to be honest with yourself, as you can not trick me. Some things are possible, and some are not. Creating out of nothing is not possible, and it never will be. Creator god does not exist because he just can't.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Actually it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter. And nothing implies that an omnipotent God would be remotely incapable of doing exactly the lack of which what you say "proves" He cannot exist.

Meanwhile, you've forgotten the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that the universe had a definite beginning point. Entropy proves there was a state of higher order from which entropy is marking the decline to a state of lower order.

So there was some original "creation" event: now we have to find a plausible doer for the action of creating a universe.

I'm always bemused by the confidence with which skeptics claim to have closed the book on the question, while having no sufficient argument of the kind in hand at all. It's almost like they're in a desperate hurry to keep us from thinking further...

You deny my statement by confirming it.

I said that the 1. Law of thermodynamics states that the impossibility of creating energy means that god as Creator does not exist.

But, 'this' is absolutely not necessarily True at all.

You said that "it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter."

You first deny it, and then confirm it.

I said that energy is not created from nothing, and you confirm it.

With this confirmation, you stripped god to naked, took him away all goodness, and presented him as any other energy being or human capable of creating something from something. In fact, creating is transforming something into something and not creating something from nothing.

But, then, as your guilt for denying god's creativity backfired on you, you try to show that god nevertheless keeps his almightiness with creating valid evidence that he does not exist. Or in other words, your god is able to create Nothing (probably from something or even from nothing), so I can use it to prove he does not exist.

you are both as insane as each other.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not show "that the universe had a definite beginning point". Here it is: "In any cyclic process, the entropy will either increase or remain the same." Where do you see the "that the universe had a definite beginning point"?

You are just fabricating context to fit your need for god.

Do you just fabricate context to fit your needs for no God?

Or, are 'you' not fallible to your own beliefs and assumptions, like everyone else is?

The 2. Law also states an important fact that entropy can stay the same, which you and Christian apologists blindly and quickly skip.

There was no "creation event". Energy from the 1. Law is, in fact, a matter in various states (hard, liquid, gas, atomic, etc.). Energy, matter, and the universe are all the same thing. That means that the universe was never created from nothing. Existence - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness), and Energy (Matter), is eternal.

Even if there were a "creation event", but it wasn't, its creator would be just an ordinary craftsman who transformed something into something else, one existing cosmos into another cosmos.

The infinite and eternal Universe, Itself, which is in eternal Creation, through evolution, is in fact the irrefutable proof that the Creator, in fact, does, and has to, exist.

Universe means Everything, and it is the same as Existence. The Universe has many cosmoses; for example, we live in one cosmos, and there are beings above our cosmos who "created" or, more precisely, transformed our cosmos, living in their cosmos.

How do you know 'this', for absolutely sure?

What irrefutable proof can you, and will you, present, here, for 'us'?

They are not gods, they just have higher capabilities that come together with living in higher dimensions. My space friends Selini from the 6. dimension have fantastic abilities beyond our imagination, but they are not gods. No different from the higher beings of the higher cosmos.

You are heavily biased defending undefendable, so your first instinct reaction is to say "No!" denying everything that could threaten your doctrinal programming.

One of the first things you would say, when some one tells you that God does exist, is, 'No'. Denying every thing that could, and would, threaten your own doctrinal programming.

Strangely, you then deny creatio ex nihilo, the very core of god's supremacy, and state that god created something from something.

Here is the reason: you so desperately need to keep your investment in god safe that you are prepared to degrade your godly fantasma from Creator god, a supreme being creating the universe from nothing, to an ordinary second-class, minor, and obscure god who is creating something from something.

What would Yahweh say if he existed? Isn't that a sin, a capital one?

Concerning my statements, you are just twisting most of my words and throwing them back at me, which is not serious.

2. Law of thermodynamics is not my fabrication to fit my evidence god does not exist claim.

1. Law states the basics about energy, and 2. describes what is happening in this energy field. Importantly, 2. Law describes only what is happening in our dimension, while in higher dimensions, where energy is neutral with no temperature or entropy changes, it does not apply.

I will answer you two things:

1. Eternal means that Existence exists from ever to forever, it was never created and will never be destroyed. That also means that the Creator does not exist. Eternal excludes creation. When Something is eternal, Everything is eternal. Think about that.

2. About evidence for other worlds, and cosmoses in the Universe, or more precisely, Existence. I suggest you start with neighboring planets, learn to lucid dream, meet their inhabitants, and get some personal experiences. Here is the article with explanations and exercises: https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/.

This is the chance that you get out of your head and assumptions, do some real research, and get real experiences and true data.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

I reply to the original post:-

But there were no atheists until the last few hundred years. There is no recorded history of people who did not believe in the existence of God or gods until the last few hundred years.

Hi, I asked AI Copilot for some of the sources:

Ancient Atheists and Non-Believers

1. University of Cambridge Study

Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture, argues that atheism is as natural to humans as religion. His research shows that ancient societies tolerated and even embraced atheistic thought, especially in polytheistic cultures like Greece and Rome.
“People in the ancient world did not always believe in the gods… atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world.”

Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/dis ... s-religion

2. Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World

This book by Tim Whitmarsh explores ancient Greek thinkers who rejected divine authority. Key figures include:

• Diagoras of Melos – openly mocked religion and was labeled “the first atheist.”
• Theodorus the Atheist – denied the existence of gods and was exiled for his views.
• Democritus – proposed a materialist universe without divine intervention.

Source: https://www.worldhistory.org/review/180 ... ent-world/

3. Wikipedia: History of Atheism

The entry outlines how explicit atheism dates back to ancient India, China, and Greece. Philosophers like Charvaka in India and Xunzi in China rejected supernatural beliefs.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

The karmicons, energy beings, and humans from higher dimensions, and members of the Evil Karmic Organization, believed that the universe is in balance between Good and Evil. They created our part of the cosmos in a dialectical form of dual opposition - yin-yang, white and black, theists and atheists, to establish the "balance" between opposing forces.

They were Evil, so they made a step further and intentionally created conflicts between the oppositions to produce negative energy. Read more about the Karmic Organization here: https://god-doesntexist.com/the-karmic- ... the-truth/

The karmicons also created all religions, gods, and faiths, including Yahweh, Jesus (who never existed as a real person), angels, and Satan and demons. If you start observing the world, you will see this dual pattern. If you want to check my statement, I suggest you learn lucid dreaming and use it to meet inhabitants of other planets you dream with every night.

They will tell you that I am telling the truth, and that incarnations are ended. What does that mean? People from the higher planets were forcibly incarnated into people from lower planets. Earth is the lowest, and that is the reason we didn't incarnate. Before incarnation, the karmicons created plans and karmic scripts for the incarnants with details from birth to death. They predetermined everything - thoughts, feelings and emotions, words, and acts. All of them.

Part of the karmic script was also religious orientation. Religious believers on Earth believe in god because the karmicons programmed them to believe. The atheist on Earth doesn't believe in god because the karmicons did not program them to believe in him.

Learn to lucid dream and ask people from other planets about incarnations - if they were forced to go and if they have ended. Here is the article with explanations and exercises: https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/

If you want, I will assist you gladly.

By the way, in my book series, I present three objective pieces of evidence and one subjective, experiential. I have decades-long and regular communication with the karmicons, and I know they created all religions, gods, and faiths as part of the incarnational scripts for incarnants who were forcibly incarnated on lower humans' baby bodies.

Religious believers believe that their god movie is real, while I know that it is just a movie, as I know the scriptwriters and directors who created them and their movie.

Remember The Matrix? That's it, a planetary Simulation.

Luckily, the karmicons' Drama is running out, and the day is coming when we, the new Cosmic Administration, https://god-doesntexist.com/cosmic-administration/, will present you the Truth, together with material evidence and concrete persons that created Earth, and in our case, all of its' religions, gods, and faiths, and programmed believers to believe in fairy tales.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

1. Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness). It is a non-material, superstate, infinite.

Well, we on Earth have demonstrated that the only thing we can be sure of is that there is awareness; credit for that goes to René Descartes, so with you so far.

2. Energy (all energy phenomena, material bodies, and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids, to matter). It is finite, and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness.

Ah, now you have some work to do. How do you prove there is anything other than pure awareness?

People mix awareness with consciousness, but they are not the same. To be conscious like Descartes is something different as to aware of Pure Awareness. Consciousness is bound to Energy and the material world, while awareness deals with Pure Awareness.

Consciousness, attention, and awareness (special ability to notice awareness or to be aware of awareness, like self-reflecting awareness) are different states of Pure Awareness.

Energy or material world (Energy is matter) is evidence that there is something besides Pure Awareness.

By the way, Descartes, as homo sapiens, was trapped in the mind. He, like all unawakened, lived with thinking and propelling his life with thoughts. I created exercises for awakening into Pure Awareness, with which you can exit the mind and move to Pure Awareness. With exercises, you learn to stop the mind at will and use it like any other washing machine. When you need it, you use it; when you stop, you shut it down. As awakened, you live in inner silence, profound peace, and bliss.

I present exercises for awakening in Book 3 of my new series.

Read here how you can get my whole series for free if you are a member of Amazon's Kindle Unlimited, or know somebody, or borrow them in public libraries: https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/ Evidence that god does not exist is in Book 4.

[Belinda]

Thank you for your reply. However not all gods are supernatural.
* Jahweh walked and talked with humans at one time.

* polytheistic pantheons contained gods who mingled with humans e.g. Zeus fathered children by human women whom he seduced.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Again, there's no problem here if God is transcendent. If He were something subject to physical laws, there would be; but then, if he were less than and subject to His own physical laws, He would not be transcendent, and we would not even be talking about what is meant by "God."

The starting premise, creation from nothing, is false. That renders the remainder of his argument invalid. There is no need to address anything else.

The Bible does not declare creation from nothing, and in fact explicitly declares “with God nothing shall be impossible”, Luke 1:37.

As Senad says himself, what he is expressing is myth.

Yes, the Bible, the story of one man, a woman and a talking snake, and apples that confer knowledge upon being eaten. Great stuff. Right up there with stories about Santa Claus.

Don't misquote me: What I express is not myth. God does NOT exist because that is not possible.

Existence is eternal. When Something is eternal, Everything is eternal. Eternal means that it was never created. A person who transforms something into something is not god; we are doing it every day.

There are higher beings with fantastic abilities, but they are not gods.

The karmicons from the Evil Karmic Organization created all religions, gods, and faiths on Earth. They also wrote all incarnational scripts for our lives. Religious believers believe in god because they are programmed to believe. Same for atheists - they don't believe in god because they weren't programmed to believe. Read more about the karmicons and have to check my statements: https://god-doesntexist.com/the-karmic- ... the-truth/

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Thank you for your reply. However not all gods are supernatural.
* Jahweh walked and talked with humans at one time.

* polytheistic pantheons contained gods who mingled with humans e.g. Zeus fathered children by human women whom he seduced.

I agree, but they are all mythical.

[Belinda]

Thank you for your reply. However not all gods are supernatural.
* Jahweh walked and talked with humans at one time.

* polytheistic pantheons contained gods who mingled with humans e.g. Zeus fathered children by human women whom he seduced.

I agree, but they are all mythical.

True.
Another point; how can ruling elites keep control unless there is some variety of higher authority than human power?