The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing can not exist because that is not possible.

This is the same category error. The term "nothing" refers only to the total absence of any things. "Nothing" is not something that you can expect to "exist," or anybody else can imagine could "exist," or that one can use the predication "exist" to refer to.

So there's no new information in the fact that it does not exist. It's not some kind of a wondrous realization; it's a dull and circular observation.

For those who think that nothing exists...

Nobody who knows what the word “nothing” refers to thinks that.

Again, you’re mistaking the idea that “nothing” is some kind of “substance” out of which things could be made. That completely misunderstands the claim, as well as the word itself. That is actually the error buried in your own attempted refutation: you didn’t understand the claim in the first place, apparently. To say “God created ex nihilo” is the same as to say, “When God created, there was no pre-existing matter from which he assembled what he made. He generated it by means of his creatorial word, rather than from existing substances.” It doesn’t mean that God had some kind of substance called “nothingness,” which he then molded around until it became a universe. That’s not even a coherent idea.

I hate to tell you, but your so-called disproof doesn’t disprove anything, because it doesn’t refer to anything anybody believes or asserts.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

To look in a dictionary you would see one word leading to another, one word nested within and through other words. To say "x" is "x means y". This is the natural course of definition.

Given the universality of "distinction and nothingness" and God having a universal nature, to equate the two conceptual paradigms is not irrational nor a stretch.

If cyclicality is universal to all things by degree of things repeating across time, and the inherent symmetry of things by degree of repeated limits, the cycle can be congruent to a Divine Order which is inevitable in existence as existence.

So...evidence? Evidence is purely an interpretation that match perceptual patterns. You have to be more precise what you mean by evidence. Some claim empiricality is pure evidence, others abstraction (logic, math).

If God is subject to purely existence than God would cease to be all powerful as existence precedes God. Existence would be the God above God. God must be beyond existence...effectively nothing so to speak.

If God is everpresent, and distinction is everpresent across all existence, than God exists through everpresent distinction. Distinction is existence itself, it allows for the empirical and abstract but is not limited to them and what is empirical and what is abstract are but distinctions. Distinction is proto-existence.

So God is both nothing and occurs through distinction (proto-existence).

What now?

Nothingness is the everpresent potentiality by which distinction occurs. We know distinction by change for change manifests contrast.

Change occurs as the emergence and dissolution of distinctions (you can use the term "limits, boundaries, forms" if this is easier to conceptualize).

The emergence and dissolution of distinction can only occur if there is the space to do so, this space to do so is 'void as potentiality'. Things occur only of specific things are absent in the space by which the thing occurs.

Each distinction is the means for further distinctions as a distinction is empty it itself without the relationship to other distinctions. Each distinction as empty in itself is the space for other distinctiona to occur from said distinction.

If all distinctions are void in themselves and are the means by which other distinctions occur than nothingness is the central cause of being by which distinction is the actuality of nothingness.

Void is beyond being, as not being. This is God.

Void is everpresent across distinction as the means of distinction. This is God.

You are again jumping from "if" to "sure".

Nothing can't exist because that is not possible.

Void as nothing also does not exist.

God as Creator does not exist because that is not possible.

There is only Existence that was never created and will never disappear.

Existence is eternal.

Nothingness exists as a distinction of absence. For every one things that occurs there are infinite absences of other things. Each thing is a relative void.

Dually the intrinsic emptiness of a thing, evidenced by transformative change, observes void as ever present.

This void can be observed as the act of attention itself.

This void can be observed in the emptiness of a particle or the quantum vacuum of space.

Creation is the act of attention, for the only thing truly known is attention. By attention distinctions emerge and dissolve.

Creation is the act of transformation, reality is perpetually created.

The everpresent cause is potentiality as void.

All distinctions which emerge and dissolve from void results in the recursion of distinction itself.

Infinite existence is God. The void that underlies existence, is God beyond existence.

[Eodnhoj7]

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

Ah, well the lunacy is not in the ideas, it is in the conviction with which they are held. I can't prove that the ideas of Mr Can, Senad Dizdarevic, Age or any of the other prima facie nutters are wrong. What would make any of them actual nutters would be their insistence that only their interpretation could be true. I think the tentative way you present your ideas excludes you from that.

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

Ya gotta understand that materialism is a very broad church. In its simplest form, it is just the belief that there is something other than ideas, and the working hypothesis of day to day physics is that the something is at least one quantum field. For practical purposes, a field is anywhere that a force can, at least in theory, be measured, generally by observing the effect on objects upon which the field has influence. Materialism is the belief that something other than ideas causes those effects, which seems entirely plausible, but no competent physicist will insist we really understand any of the mechanisms that result in fields such as electric, magnetic or gravitational, all of which we can measure very accurately without knowing what causes them.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yup. But then all creation stories are unprovable.

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

For the same reason I didn't mention the ideas of Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel or any of the thousands of possibilities explored by scientists and philosophers over the ages - there's just too many of them. But since you bring it up, yeah it's a doozy. Here's the thing I'm struggling with at the moment: if something is possible, what is there to stop it being actual? To put it another way, if you remove everything that exists, including any gods, have you eliminated possibility? I don't know the answer and while I understand Senad Dizdarevic argues that you can't create something out of nothing, and I suspect Mr Can would claim that without his god nothing is possible, my gut feeling, my aesthetic choice as I sometimes frame it, is that even if god is removed, or does't exist in the first place, possibility remains. Therefore there is something greater than any god and all versions of the ontological argument are unsound; unless possibility in some sense is god. Now, am I mad enough to think that is possible? Absolutely, but not so mad as to believe that because it is an irrefutable hypothesis, it is therefore true.
It's a fun idea though and it is a context that can make sense of the many worlds interpretation. If it is possible that possibility is in some sense 'god' and can create anything, what prevents 'god' from creating every world that is possible? Is a god that does that not greater than a god that can only create one imperfect world? How might a god create every possible world, you say? Well, one way is to create a universe in which every possible quantum state is real - if a particle can go left, then in one corner of the universe, it does so; in another, it goes right and, here's the bit that really freaks you out, in every possible corner, the particle goes in every possible direction. If a god that could do that exists, why would it not do so?

Existence is eternal. It was never created, which proves god's nonexistence as Creator; it also means that Everything is already actualized. "Possibility" or the Buddhist potentiality is not possible.

There is no empty space in Existence in which actuality could boil, and there is no empty space to which it could actualize and materialize.

Existence is full, and there is nothing beyond it.

Existence is a process of change, existence is perpetually created as processes within processes.

[Age]

You can't prove that something doesn't exist. That's the whole point. The only possible 'evidence' for non-existence is a lack of evidence. 'God' isn't supposed to provide evidence either. That's what the word 'faith' is all about. This is probably the most ridiculous thread title to date.

I don’t often (ever?) agree with you, but you’ve summed up the whole business here. BTW, that is why I am an agnostic. I suppose theists as well as atheists could cite the same reasons.

Yes, you can. It is enough to prove that something can not exist. In this case, god can not exist as a Creator god who created Something from Nothing. That means that he does not exist.

1. Why do you persist with claiming that some 'thing', which you believe, absolutely, does not even exist, is male gendered? What is your fascination with 'males', here?

2. Imagine going to a public forum, or writing a book, and, essentially, all you do is claim that a logically and physically impossible to exist 'male thing' does not exist. What would be the actual purpose of doing that?

Believers claim that the omnigod is Everything. They say that is the Evidence of his existence.

If he is not to provide evidence, why did he create the World at all?

Are 'your claims', and, 'your question', here, meant to be related somehow?

If yes, then how, exactly?

This is just a theoretical question, as god does not exist because that is not possible. [/quote]

Is there any actual purpose, here, in you providing a description of some 'male thing' that is theoretically and empirically impossible to exist, calling it 'god', and then just say and claim that 'that God' does not exist?

If yes, then what is that actual purpose, exactly?

Christian apologists like Frank Turek translate faith as trust. In this case, god could exist; his believers would know him and have trust in him.

Read my book series “It’s Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History”, author Senad Dizdarevic, and if you are an honest and reasonable man, you will become an atheist.

You can get it for free now, in the Amazon Kindle Unlimited program, or in a public library. Read more about it here: https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/

you were previously asked to provide 'the definition' that 'you' have, and are using, here, for the 'God' word, but you failed to answer and clarify, so I will ask again if you will provide your answer and clarification, here, now, and if no, then why not?

[Age]

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.

Just saying some thing never means, nor makes, 'that thing' true.

If there were not areas of what can be, and is, called 'nothing', then there would exist one thing, only.
Areas of what can be, and are, called 'nothing' has to exist.
Therefore, 'nothing' is not just possible but actually has to exist, always.

And, as always if any one would like to have a discussion and/or the further irrefutable proof, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion.

When Something is, Nothing is not.

Again, just saying some thing does not make 'it' true.

Now, although it is an absolute impossibility for only 'nothing', only, to exist, (again if absolutely any one wants the irrefutable proof for this Fact, the let 'us' just have a discussion), the fact that there is some thing, this does not exclude areas of 'nothing' from existing. By the way, these areas of 'nothing' can also be, and are, referred to as (some) things, as well.

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

Once again, just because you believe some thing is true just saying 'it' does not make 'it'.

you claimed to have, written somewhere else, the proof of some things, so why not just write, here, in 'a way' that proves your beliefs and claims true, instead of just saying and claiming they are true?

There is no Creation; there is eternal Existence.

Obviously you, still, have not yet comprehended and understood what the word 'created' meant in the bible. your misinterpretations, here, keep letting you down, like for example, what the word 'creation' means and actually refers to, exactly.

No Creation, no Creator. Existence.

So, well to "senad dizdarevic" anyway, there is absolutely nothing at all that is, was, nor will be created. Which, coincidently, fits in perfectly with its own already, very strongly, held onto belief, here.

[Age]

First answer your own questions, support them with valid evidence, and then formulate a conclusion.

Why do you not follow you own advice and do 'this' "yourself", here?

[Age]

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.

you have absolutely no clue at all as to what 'my story' even is, exactly, so for you claim what you just did, here, is further proof of how one's ability to 'look at' and thus then 'see' things gets absolutely distorted and prejudiced by one's pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

LOL claiming that 'my story' is no more believable than others, when one does not even know 'my story', is irrefutable proof of just how closed some people can be, and really are.

[Belinda]

Eternal is a term defining time. Eternity is not out of time or absence of time; it expresses the Totality of Time - not in the linear sequence but eternal time in "everlasting" Now. In Eternity, all Time and its times, past, present, and future, are unified in the eternal Now.

I use the term Eternity to describe the temporal nature of Existence itself. It describes the time status of Existence of being eternal.

There is no Eternity beyond Existence, nor any standalone realm. That is possible only in metaphysical speculations like religions that falsely divide Reality with impossible borders.

In your terms, Existence as a whole is the Eternal Totality of Time and all times, while everlasting refers to partial and sequential times within it.

"God" is a general term for mythological beings, and not a personal name.

For example, god is a general term, while Yahweh is a personal name.

English speakers elevated god to God as a sign of their praising and subordinating themselves as small potatoes to the Capital G.

I don't know how I can engage with you in a discussion. You are all over the place, in everything you say.

Explain:

*for a start, your use of English is odd. The god of theism is a person and gets a proper name name, God, Allah, Jehovah and literally thousands of other proper names. Personal names get capital initial letters. God/Allah/Jehovah etc. is a person by virtue of purposeful(teleological) behaviour regardless of reverence. God's proper name is often taken to be honorific , but this is an error due to lack of theological knowledge.

* You are stuck in the popular and imprecise usage of 'eternity'.

* You don't understand that all creation stories are poetic language-----allegories----ways to understand the human condition. As means of understanding creation including from moral perspective, creation stories are heuristic devices.

*Your overall tone lacks humility i.e any feeling that your theory is doubtful.

[Age]

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.

you speak as though 'your version' or 'your definition' of things, here, overrides others.bSome so-called "thinkers" might understand what you claim, here, but the question of, 'How many, exactly?' is some thing to 'think about' consider.

Also, "knowers" understand, and know, something else, entirely.

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.

[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.

you speak as though 'your version' or 'your definition' of things, here, overrides others.bSome so-called "thinkers" might understand what you claim, here, but the question of, 'How many, exactly?' is some thing to 'think about' consider.

Also, "knowers" understand, and know, something else, entirely.

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.

All my points of objection to Senad's theory and use of English can be addressed by extensive reading either in his native language or in English. I respect Senad's native language which I think is Bosnian, however English happens to be the main international language.

If Senad is reared as a Muslim, there is no need for him to abandon Allah. The Koran is historical as well as a guide to morality. and may be interpreted historically, while retaining Allah as divinity of love, mercy, and all other good things.

If Senad's national background is Israeli there is no need for him to abandon God as portrayed in the Torah. Nationalism is not a substitute for love, peace, prosperity and all good things.

[Age]

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.

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

And let 'us' not forget that "will bouwman" believes, absolutely, 'the story' that the Universe began, from no thing. Now, how 'unbelievable' is this?

[Age]

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.

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

Is a theory based on principles of physics in the same or even a worse league credibility-wise with random dreams, illusions or guesses based on vague hunches that make us think something is the case? It seems like coming to the conclusion that there could be a multiverse based on logical, mathematical or theoretical implications of physics is qualitatively different from a scientific standpoint, than me concluding that I saw God in a patch of clouds in the sky that reminded me of a sculpture of Jesus I once saw or something.

The scientific perspective implies that with enough smarts and good enough experiments we might be able to learn the inner workings of reality itself someday.

And, just as one has 'religious faith and belief' in a particular theological community "will bouwman" has a, unshakable, 'religious faith' in scientific community And, it does not matter how Wrong what some say in anymore all of those communities people like "will bouwman" will just follow and abide by what is said and claimed. Again, no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect what is said and claimed.

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding and did not begin. However, because "will bouwman" has chosen to follow, religiously, the 'teachings' of some within a particular community "will bouwman" will continue to believe, religiously, what it does, here, until 'the one/s' that it worships, say otherwise.

That seems to me to be somewhat on a better footing than one person having a lucid dream that he met aliens who told him about the nature of reality (If that's the sort of "proof" the OP is using).

you have been informed that the, laughably called, 'evidence' for the claim, and the story, that the Universe began is actually a misinterpretation of data. But, instead of being open and curious anyway at all, again because of your 'current' belief, and story, that you are, religiously, 'holding into', you prefer to remain fixed on and with 'your current story'. Just like every other 'religious person' does.

Just imagine if 'the people', in the olden days, had not been holding onto their religious beliefs, and the story, that the earth is at the centre of the Universe how much quicker, simpler, and easier the actual irrefutable proof and Fact could have been explained, shown, seen, and recognized.

Well the exact same phenomena was happening in the olden days when this was being written, as can be clearly seen from 'the likes' like "will bouwman" who religiously believe that the Universe began and is expanding. The irrefutable proof could not be seen and recognized because 'these people', religiously believed their 'current story/s'.

But, unlike previous 'believers', these ones would hold onto 'their stories' and beliefs much more religiously because they had and were deceiving, tricking, and fooling "themselves" more, because they believed that their chosen religious following was more, laughably, accurate and reliable.

'This one' has never even considered that the very first or following assumption/s, theories, or claimed facts from the outset onwards could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, from the very beginning, but which then the following assumptions, theories, or claimed facts are based on or upon.

Another reason why none of these posters, here, had the courage to question and/or challenge me over my claims is because they were absolutely fearful that if I did end up proving my claims, which were in opposition of their beliefs or claims, then they would 'have to' retract and change their 'current' beliefs and stories, which they have been religiously holding onto and worshipping. And, change is some thing people who are 'followers', and not 'thinkers', do not want to do. Unless, of course, those they worship and/or the community that they have a religious devotion to changes 'their views', as well.

[Gary Childress]

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

Is a theory based on principles of physics in the same or even a worse league credibility-wise with random dreams, illusions or guesses based on vague hunches that make us think something is the case? It seems like coming to the conclusion that there could be a multiverse based on logical, mathematical or theoretical implications of physics is qualitatively different from a scientific standpoint, than me concluding that I saw God in a patch of clouds in the sky that reminded me of a sculpture of Jesus I once saw or something.

The scientific perspective implies that with enough smarts and good enough experiments we might be able to learn the inner workings of reality itself someday.

And, just as one has 'religious faith and belief' in a particular theological community "will bouwman" has a, unshakable, 'religious faith' in scientific community And, it does not matter how Wrong what some say in anymore all of those communities people like "will bouwman" will just follow and abide by what is said and claimed. Again, no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect what is said and claimed.

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding and did not begin. However, because "will bouwman" has chosen to follow, religiously, the 'teachings' of some within a particular community "will bouwman" will continue to believe, religiously, what it does, here, until 'the one/s' that it worships, say otherwise.

That seems to me to be somewhat on a better footing than one person having a lucid dream that he met aliens who told him about the nature of reality (If that's the sort of "proof" the OP is using).

you have been informed that the, laughably called, 'evidence' for the claim, and the story, that the Universe began is actually a misinterpretation of data. But, instead of being open and curious anyway at all, again because of your 'current' belief, and story, that you are, religiously, 'holding into', you prefer to remain fixed on and with 'your current story'. Just like every other 'religious person' does.

Just imagine if 'the people', in the olden days, had not been holding onto their religious beliefs, and the story, that the earth is at the centre of the Universe how much quicker, simpler, and easier the actual irrefutable proof and Fact could have been explained, shown, seen, and recognized.

Well the exact same phenomena was happening in the olden days when this was being written, as can be clearly seen from 'the likes' like "will bouwman" who religiously believe that the Universe began and is expanding. The irrefutable proof could not be seen and recognized because 'these people', religiously believed their 'current story/s'.

But, unlike previous 'believers', these ones would hold onto 'their stories' and beliefs much more religiously because they had and were deceiving, tricking, and fooling "themselves" more, because they believed that their chosen religious following was more, laughably, accurate and reliable.

'This one' has never even considered that the very first or following assumption/s, theories, or claimed facts from the outset onwards could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, from the very beginning, but which then the following assumptions, theories, or claimed facts are based on or upon.

Another reason why none of these posters, here, had the courage to question and/or challenge me over my claims is because they were absolutely fearful that if I did end up proving my claims, which were in opposition of their beliefs or claims, then they would 'have to' retract and change their 'current' beliefs and stories, which they have been religiously holding onto and worshipping. And, change is some thing people who are 'followers', and not 'thinkers', do not want to do. Unless, of course, those they worship and/or the community that they have a religious devotion to changes 'their views', as well.

Why are galaxies moving further and further away from each other? Was there ever a point where all the galaxies were much closer to each other than they are now?

[Age]

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

Is a theory based on principles of physics in the same or even a worse league credibility-wise with random dreams, illusions or guesses based on vague hunches that make us think something is the case? It seems like coming to the conclusion that there could be a multiverse based on logical, mathematical or theoretical implications of physics is qualitatively different from a scientific standpoint, than me concluding that I saw God in a patch of clouds in the sky that reminded me of a sculpture of Jesus I once saw or something.

The scientific perspective implies that with enough smarts and good enough experiments we might be able to learn the inner workings of reality itself someday.

And, just as one has 'religious faith and belief' in a particular theological community people like "will bouwman" have an, unshakable, 'religious faith' in scientific community, as well. And, it does not matter how Wrong what some say in any of all of those communities people like "will bouwman" will just follow and abide by what is said and claimed. Again, no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect what is said and claimed.

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding and did not begin. However, because people like "will bouwman" have chosen to follow, religiously, the 'teachings' of some within a particular community they will continue to believe, religiously, what they do, until 'the one/s' that they worship, say otherwise.

That seems to me to be somewhat on a better footing than one person having a lucid dream that he met aliens who told him about the nature of reality (If that's the sort of "proof" the OP is using).

The, laughably called, 'evidence' for the claim, and the story, that the Universe is expanding, and thus began, is actually a misinterpretation of data. But, instead of being open and curious anyway at all, again because of their 'current' belief, and story, they religiously, 'hold onto', and remain fixed on 'their current story'. Just like every other 'religious person' does.

Just imagine if 'the people', in the 'olden days', had not been holding onto their religious beliefs, and the story, that the earth is at the centre of the Universe, and how much quicker, simpler, and easier the actual irrefutable proof and Fact could have been explained, shown, seen, and recognized.

Well the exact same phenomena was happening in the 'olden days' when this was being written, as can be clearly seen from 'the likes' like "will bouwman" who religiously believe that the Universe began and is expanding. The irrefutable proof could not be seen and recognized because 'these people', religiously believed their 'current story'.

But, unlike previous 'believers', these ones would hold onto 'their stories' and beliefs much more religiously because they had and were deceiving, tricking, and fooling "themselves" more, because they believed that their chosen religious following was, laughably, more accurate and more.reliable. Which obviously is some thing all those with religious faith say and believe is true.

'These people' appear to never even consider that the very first, or following assumption/s, theories, or claimed facts from the outset onwards could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Again, from the very beginning, but which then the following assumptions, theories, or claimed facts are based on or upon. Which all could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Another reason why none of these posters, here, had the courage to question and/or challenge me over my claims is because they were absolutely fearful that if I did end up proving my claims, which were in opposition to their chosen beliefs, or claims, then they would 'have to' retract and change their 'current' beliefs and stories, which they have been religiously holding onto and worshipping. And, acknowledging being Wrong, and changing, is some thing people who are 'followers', and not 'thinkers', do not want nor like to do. Unless, of course, those that they worship, and/or the community that they have a religious devotion to, changes 'their views', as well.

[Age]

Is a theory based on principles of physics in the same or even a worse league credibility-wise with random dreams, illusions or guesses based on vague hunches that make us think something is the case? It seems like coming to the conclusion that there could be a multiverse based on logical, mathematical or theoretical implications of physics is qualitatively different from a scientific standpoint, than me concluding that I saw God in a patch of clouds in the sky that reminded me of a sculpture of Jesus I once saw or something.

The scientific perspective implies that with enough smarts and good enough experiments we might be able to learn the inner workings of reality itself someday.

And, just as one has 'religious faith and belief' in a particular theological community "will bouwman" has a, unshakable, 'religious faith' in scientific community And, it does not matter how Wrong what some say in anymore all of those communities people like "will bouwman" will just follow and abide by what is said and claimed. Again, no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect what is said and claimed.

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding and did not begin. However, because "will bouwman" has chosen to follow, religiously, the 'teachings' of some within a particular community "will bouwman" will continue to believe, religiously, what it does, here, until 'the one/s' that it worships, say otherwise.

That seems to me to be somewhat on a better footing than one person having a lucid dream that he met aliens who told him about the nature of reality (If that's the sort of "proof" the OP is using).

you have been informed that the, laughably called, 'evidence' for the claim, and the story, that the Universe began is actually a misinterpretation of data. But, instead of being open and curious anyway at all, again because of your 'current' belief, and story, that you are, religiously, 'holding into', you prefer to remain fixed on and with 'your current story'. Just like every other 'religious person' does.

Just imagine if 'the people', in the olden days, had not been holding onto their religious beliefs, and the story, that the earth is at the centre of the Universe how much quicker, simpler, and easier the actual irrefutable proof and Fact could have been explained, shown, seen, and recognized.

Well the exact same phenomena was happening in the olden days when this was being written, as can be clearly seen from 'the likes' like "will bouwman" who religiously believe that the Universe began and is expanding. The irrefutable proof could not be seen and recognized because 'these people', religiously believed their 'current story/s'.

But, unlike previous 'believers', these ones would hold onto 'their stories' and beliefs much more religiously because they had and were deceiving, tricking, and fooling "themselves" more, because they believed that their chosen religious following was more, laughably, accurate and reliable.

'This one' has never even considered that the very first or following assumption/s, theories, or claimed facts from the outset onwards could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, from the very beginning, but which then the following assumptions, theories, or claimed facts are based on or upon.

Another reason why none of these posters, here, had the courage to question and/or challenge me over my claims is because they were absolutely fearful that if I did end up proving my claims, which were in opposition of their beliefs or claims, then they would 'have to' retract and change their 'current' beliefs and stories, which they have been religiously holding onto and worshipping. And, change is some thing people who are 'followers', and not 'thinkers', do not want to do. Unless, of course, those they worship and/or the community that they have a religious devotion to changes 'their views', as well.

Why are galaxies moving further and further away from each other?

Because of what is called a big bang.

Was there ever a point where all the galaxies were much closer to each other than they are now?

It appears there was. Infact it appears that all of the observed galaxies were together as one infinite compression of matter.