The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Non-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard.

We may discuss this topic in the other thread: viewtopic.php?p=793213#p793213


From the thread: viewtopic.php?p=654347#p654347

The coexistence of something and nothing is illogical. It isn’t even valid conceptually. Both something and nothing are things, are concepts, not no things, even in the mind, illustrating only things can be.

[Many are] basically conveying the idea that nonexistence, which has no basis, no identifiable basis as it is not and cannot be, extends or reveals itself conceptually through the terms nothingness and nonexistence. The argument literally has no basis.

Nothing, nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence. Rather nothingness is an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothingness. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually creates this abstraction of nothingness. Without consciousness nonexistence is not a worry. Without thought nonexistence is not a concern.

[Many] speak as if nonexistence is interwoven with existence, intimately connected, coexisting as “conjoined twins”. That, interwoven with existence, nonexistence is as ubiquitous, is as prevalent as existence. Yet essentially [they] concede that only paradoxical concepts, only allusive words can be referenced in the attempt to identify nonexistence. If nonexistence is ubiquitous as existence why all the difficulty identifying it?

Daniel, bravo, that's it.

Nothing can not exist because that is not possible. It is just an idea, like a god who also does not exist.

When Something is, Nothing is not.

Even if Something were absent, which is not possible, Nothing wouldn't be present because that is not possible.

There is no Creation; there is eternal Existence.

No Creation, no Creator. Existence.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Of course God does not exist, only things exist and if God is above all things, existence, than God is not a thing.

However is god is not a thing, than God exists as the relative absence of things, God is the thus the act of distinction as absence.

If God is distinction than God is everpresent through all things yet not limited to anything.

Things only exist because of distinctions and yet distinction is not limited to things. Reality is purely a distinction within distinctions, God is infinite cycles within cycles that appears as effectively nothing in the absolute sense while dually is everpresent cycles within the relative sense.

In this case, you don't need to call "nothing, distinction, and absence" "god". You can use their native names: nothing, distinction, and absence.

But, before that, two of your "ifs" put all your theory under the question mark. You first say "if", and then proceed like it is already true.

"if God is above all things" and "If God is distinction": first answer your own questions, support them with valid evidence, and then formulate a conclusion.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Hi, you can now read my book series “It’s Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History”, author Senad Dizdarevic, for free.

You can read the e-book version in Amazon's Kindle Unlimited program if you are a member or in the public library: "Amazon now allows Kindle Unlimited (KU) books to be distributed to public libraries."

Amazon link for e-book series: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DS26L2ND?bi ... sb_pc_tkin

It is a new program, so ask librarians for my series. Use your phone to photograph the title, author, and Amazon link, and show it to your librarian.

The series:

1. Book: Who really created all religions, gods, and faiths, and why? Exercises for lucid dreaming and life on other planets.
2. Book: Mythological god Yahweh is an Evil being, Jesus never lived, and the Church is a criminal organization.
3. Book: Religion is a madhouse, and faith is a mental illness. Full list of religious mental disorders. Exercises for awakening into Pure Awareness.
4. Book: Evidence god does not exist, World without religion, and the future of Earth.

Read more about the free reading here: https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/

[Will Bouwman]

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.

You also said:

The evidence of God is around us. It's on every side, actually. I can see it, and so can almost the entire rest of the human race, at least in partial measure; for 92% of them believe in at least the likelihood of some sort of "god."

And this in response to Gary Childress:

Unlike God, the ocean is easily visible.

I think God is, too. You can know him from the natural world, from your own nature, from conscience, and from revelation...all of which he's made available to everybody.

Leaving aside the argumentum ad populum nature of the first claim, it seems to me you are claiming that while everyone experiences god, anyone whose interpretation is different to yours is condemned to whatever your particular version of hell is. Which, eschewing the ugly spectacle of fire and brimstone, I understand you to mean an eternity without the god you perceive in your little cup. So what? It's a big ocean.

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.

I can't speak for anyone who thinks there is no god; you still can't get your head around not believing there is a god being different to thinking there is no such thing. It is, as I might have mentioned, an underdetermined hypothesis.

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.

I don't doubt your experience is a genuine one, in that I don't doubt you have had any number of experiences. What you need to demonstrate is that your interpretation of your experience is correct. It might seem plausible, because there are two thousand years worth of people working to protect the idea, and given that time, any proposition can be cocooned with yeah buts and what ifs, but strip that away, and the core story is no more believable than Senad Dizdarevic, Age or, shout out to me old mucker, seeds.

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?

Well now, your own god, you say, gave us free will, but that anyone who exercises it to explore the ocean beyond your cup, is excluded from the little god in your little cup. Again, so what? If there is a god, a possibility I am perfectly open to, I can't see that it would be contained by the arbitrary constraints you put on it. And definitely not those applied by bronze age scribes.

[Belinda]

Senad wrote:-

Existence, not Creation, is eternal. That means that it was never created and will never be destroyed. That also means that everything and everybody in Existence is also eternal.

But 'eternal' is not the same as everlasting. Eternity has nothing to do with time as direction of flow or as measurement on a scale between beginning and ending.

True, it is a popular misconception to conflate 'eternal' and 'everlasting'. However thinkers understand that 'eternal' pertains to absence of time, space, or force: 'everlasting' pertains to duration through time, space, and force.

BTW another , lesser deficit in your use of English is you should spell God with a capital letter as God is a personal name of the deity of monotheism.

[Will Bouwman]

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

Well, it's a bit hackneyed, but how do you prove there is a material world?

[Impenitent]

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

Well, it's a bit hackneyed, but how do you prove there is a material world?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHOevX4DlGk

-Imp

[Will Bouwman]

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

Well, it's a bit hackneyed, but how do you prove there is a material world?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHOevX4DlGk

-Imp

Ah, a song about dualism. How many songs = truth?

[Impenitent]

Well, it's a bit hackneyed, but how do you prove there is a material world?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHOevX4DlGk

-Imp

Ah, a song about dualism. How many songs = truth?

finding truth in a song is almost as efficient as eating soup with a tuning fork...

-Imp

[Will Bouwman]

finding truth in a song is almost as efficient as eating soup with a tuning fork...

-Imp

No problem with that. So why the reference to a particular song?

[Age]

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

What is a thought without awareness?

That does not matter at all, here, because what was being questioned was, 'What else can be know, other than awareness?'

And, the answer is, ' 'thoughts', can be and are known. Which is, obviously some thing other than awareness.

[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?

That does not matter at all, here, because what was being questioned was, 'What else can be know, other than awareness?'

And, the answer is, ' 'thoughts', can be and are known. Which is, obviously some thing other than awareness.

Okie dokie. So:
Blue
Is that a thought or an awareness?

[Age]

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:

There is no doubt that you have very False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect knowledge of God, as well, besides your very limited knowledge of God.

how could a human vessel have anything close to a comprehensive one?

Through just remaining open, and being curios. And, remember, being open, and curios, is how every human 'vessel' is born naturally anyway. See, when one remains open, then they can not not learn, and by being naturally curious one can then learn any thing. And, as a naturally open and curious species, eventually, every thing can be learned, and known, including the full and very simple knowledge of who and what God is, exactly.

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.

Here, is another distorted belief, which, again, will affect 'the way' that you 'look at' and 'see' things, onwards.

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?

Why should others accept your belief that God has male genitalia as obligatory to 'us'?

[Immanuel Can]

...it seems to me you are claiming that while everyone experiences god, anyone whose interpretation is different to yours is condemned to whatever your particular version of hell is.

Well, will, there are "experiences" and "experiences." Let me suggest what I mean by that.

I know who Taylor Swift is. In that sense, I have "experienced" her. I have seen her likeness on TV. I have heard her music. I have even heard some rumours of her romantic attachments lately. They're all in the press. But would you say I have "experienced" Taylor Swift? In a sense, yes; I know she exists. But in another sense, no; I've never met her, have no real contact with her, don't even desire one, and have little use for her music and none for her personal life.

Which way are we using the word "experience" when we say men all have an "experience of God"? I suggest it's in the first way. All men know He exists, that Creation displays his handiwork, that morality is real, and so forth. But that's not the important issue: the important question is, what is their relationship to Him? How deep and accurate and personally committed is that relationship? Or do they have only the relationship I have with Taylor Swift, which admittedly is full of holes, generally negative and disapproving, and practically dismissive?

I think we all know the answer, too.

...you still can't get your head around not believing there is a god being different to thinking there is no such thing.

No, I understand the difference: the first is mere "firm agnosticism," to use the term preferred by Dawkins; the second is Atheism. But I think it's clear that the first is unwarranted by the abundance of the evidence, and the second is logically incoherent.

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.

I don't doubt your experience is a genuine one, in that I don't doubt you have had any number of experiences.

Well, obviously you couldn't know what I, or anybody else has experienced. But you could examine the evidence for yourself, and discover what best summarizes the available evidence. You can see the Creation. You know who God is. Have you challenged yourself to examine and consider Jesus Christ? When you have considered all three, I think the right decision will be evident to you...and if, perchance, it turns out not to be, then I'm still content -- as a Christian, my job is merely to point out the right evidence, not to force you to accept it. As I said, compulsion is no part of faith.

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?

Well now, your own god, you say, gave us free will, but that anyone who exercises it to explore the ocean beyond your cup, is excluded from the little god in your little cup.

Not at all. You can explore the whole ocean. But it has to be the genuine Pacific you're exploring, or you still have no knowledge of the Pacific. If you're in the Atlantic or the Indian, you're simply in the wrong waters. So whatever we say about God, it needs to be true of God, not merely true according to some wish about God. If, as in Christianity, for example, Jesus Christ says, "I and the Father are one", and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and as in Islam, somebody else says, "God has no son," then you've got a decision to make: it's no longer a case of a big enough ocean, as you suggest -- rather, very clearly you're now in two different oceans. You'll have to pick.

But here's what won't make sense: believing contradictory things about God at the same time. That's not even logically possible

[Age]

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 of 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.

No it does not at all.

I will suggest you do not make these types of absurd assumptions at all.

I will also inform you that you made that ridiculous assumption because of your 'current' belief.

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.

1. I do not do 'debate', but if you want to keep doing it, then okay.

And,

2. I am not doing what you are 'trying to' claim I am, here.

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.

Why have you gone off on this absolutely nothing I have been talking about and meaning tangent for, exactly?

I don't presume god does not exist, I know it and I proved it logically.

But, as the other posters, here, have already pointed out, to you, you have not actually proved what you believe and claim you have. And, for some of the very reasons that they have given you already.

God as Creator of the World from nothing does not exist because that is not possible.

Obviously. Only a very closed person would believe that some thing could come from no thing. But, the Fact that every thing comes from at least two other prior things in no way at all proves that God does not exist.

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.

LOL

Did you even have a discussion with these 'artificially, only, intelligent contraptions' about who and/or what the 'Thing' even is, exactly, which you assume and believe, a absolutely, does not exist?

If no, then what even is 'it', which you claim does not even exist?

If you do not answer and clarify, then any claim that 'it' does not exist is just ludicrous.

Even your claim that you have three pieces of evidence to prove it is nonsensical.

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.

LOL you keep making these utterly False assumptions, without you realising how silly and

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.

Even so-called "atheists" do not claim that 'the World' was created from nothing. So, 'trying to' claim that 'the World' was not created from nothing could be interpreted and used as so-called 'further evidence' that God does exist. It certainly is not evidence that God does not exist.

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.

And you have, once more, just made another absolutely False presumption.

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.

Did I even think you did, let alone say you did?

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.

your continual distorted and False assumptions, here, are letting you down profusely, and absolutely so.

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

Here, 'we' have another example of 'another one' who can not see past its own beliefs

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.

LOL 'This one', still, believes God has a penis and gonads