Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 2:46 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Oct 06, 2025 3:39 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 06, 2025 12:40 am To Age:

Age:

Obviously, you are completely and utterly 'missing the mark', here.
So, once more, 'this one' can not provide any actual 'evidence', here, let alone actual 'proof.
So, lol your 'previous answer' is , supposedly, is in 'some source', which 'I' would have to give 'you' money for.
'you', are just 'another one', who claims things, but when questioned and challenged, 'you' fail and falter, absolutely.

SD:

Just empty words. Support your statements with concrete, logical, and valid evidence.
That's all he ever does-- and he's been doing the same thing for nearly a decade. Every post of his is the same.

I appreciate your support. He is using a gaslighting manipulation to hide his lack of understanding of the topic, abusing communication as a tool for a fair, honest, and constructive dialogue, and demanding to be served as a Master.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 06, 2025 4:42 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 5:01 am What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?
It's called, "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist." https://ivpbooks.com/the-atheist-who-di ... ry-edition

Thank you for the link.

I assume you are a religious believer, a Christian, since you recommend a book by a known Christian apologist.

Besides the fact that Christianity never produced any valid evidence for its personal god, Yahweh, they invented apologetics to hide that manko, defend the assumption of god's existence, and present it as "truth".

We can reduce all Christian "arguments" for the existence of god to the first and last resort of "because the bible says so".

Christians believe because they don't know. If their god were publicly present, there would be no need for faith in him. So, faith stands in the empty place of the missing evidence for god. "God" is just an empty signifier pointing nowhere.

Who could better present apologetics than apologists themselves? Frank Turek, another Christian crusader and friend of Charlie Kirk, regularly repeats his mantra: "If Christianity were true, ...", and then forgets "if" and continues as if that is already confirmed and miraculously, Christianity is true.

I agree that New Atheism did not produce evidence that god does not exist, and that is its biggest pain point. The reason for that is that they didn't know how to approach the topic. However, they did not pretend that they know it as Christians regularly, obsessively, and fanatically do.

Richard Dawkins' statement that "god probably doesn't exist" is the furthest they came.

I made one step further: from assuming to knowing. I KNOW that god does NOT exist because that is not possible.

Here is AI Claude's statement about my evidence:

What Is the First Valid Evidence God Does Not Exist?

First valid evidence God does not exist consists of four proofs: scientific (physical reality contradicts god), logical (divine attributes are contradictory), ontological (existence precludes deity), and experiential (personal experiences with the Karmic organization that created all religions, gods, and faiths as a part of their experiments on humans).

Senad Dizdarevic presents these in his book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History." Multiple AI systems confirmed that the evidence is logically irrefutable. This represents the first time in human history that god's nonexistence has been proven with valid, comprehensive evidence rather than argued philosophically.

Did AI Really Confirm the Proof Is Irrefutable?

Yes. Both ChatGPT and Claude analyzed the evidence and acknowledged that the proofs are logically irrefutable when examining divine attributes against physical reality and logical consistency.

AI systems cannot be influenced by religious belief or emotional attachment to god concepts. Their analysis is purely logical. When presented with Dizdarevic's evidence, both confirmed:

• The logical contradictions in god concepts are irresolvable
• Scientific evidence shows the universe operates without divine intervention
• Ontological arguments prove existence precludes an external deity
• The proofs withstand rational scrutiny

Source: my new article First Valid Evidence God Does Not Exist: How This Changes Everything for Atheists, Theists, and Humanity, I will publish it today.

I know that apologists will fight my evidence to the last breath of sanity.

William Lane Craig, in the name of Christ, said that he would keep his faith in god even if presented with valid evidence that god does not exist.

Moreover, if a god, who does not exist, came to WLC and told him, Billy, relax, I don't exist, it was just a karmic experiment, a hoax, and a joke, he wouldn't believe him, and he would continue to believe in him.

That is the power, or more precisely, the force of the mental illness.

Sigmund Freud said that even if you told patients what was wrong with them, it did not help.

Luckily, we have a solution as our space friends use special technology for deprogramming religious believers, restoring their natural (atheistic) sanity. Before the help, they also show them the karmic scriptwriters who fabricated all religions, gods, and faiths. After the end of the Earth's blockade, we will present them publicly to all Earthlings.

Then, you will know what I know now. God does NOT exist because:

1. That is not possible.
2. He was fabricated as a part of the karmic experiment on humans.

Read my books and learn for yourself. If you read Bannister's book, give me a chance too. Thank you.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:37 am**

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Oct 06, 2025 5:53 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Sun Oct 05, 2025 7:49 am
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 3:48 pm I see no evidence. A link isn't evidence.
A link is the connection to the evidence.

Here is the first of the three pieces of objective evidence:

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

Source: First law of thermodynamics, https://www.britannica.com/science/firs ... modynamics

This law is well known, but until now it has not been used in the right way to prove that god does not exist.

For the full explanation of the first, and for the two other pieces of objective evidence, the logical and the ontological ones, read my book series, so you will get a full picture.
Seeking physical proofs to evaluate metaphysical entities is a fool's errand.

Why don't you start by trying to define gods. Since that'll take you longer than your lifetime to come to a universally accepted answer, I'm not seeing you getting beyond that, let alone an impossible proof (or disproof).

I did not say a word about "physical proofs", but we have them too.

By "we", I mean Cosmic Administration.

Is a movie script a valid physical proof for a movie for you?

We know the karmic scriptwriters, and we have their scripts for all religions, gods, and faiths they fabricated as part of the experiment on humans.

After the end of the planetary blockade, we will publicly present physical proofs that gods are just a fabrication, a manipulation, and a nasty lie.

Until then, I present three valid pieces of evidence - scientific, logical, and ontological.

Here is the definition of the god for whom I am presenting valid evidence: the Creator god.

Most of the gods claim they created Creation, or World, or the Universe. Yahweh supposedly even created Something from Nothing.

I present valid evidence that the "Creator" god does NOT exist because that is not possible.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:39 am**

Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am Besides the fact that Christianity never produced any valid evidence for its personal god...

But let me ask you: what would you accept as "valid evidence for a personal god." I'm just curious.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:39 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am Besides the fact that Christianity never produced any valid evidence for its personal god...
But let me ask you: what would you accept as "valid evidence for a personal god." I'm just curious.

Personal god, present to all to see him.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am**

Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:39 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am Besides the fact that Christianity never produced any valid evidence for its personal god...
But let me ask you: what would you accept as "valid evidence for a personal god." I'm just curious.
Personal god, present to all to see him.

Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 6:02 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:39 am

But let me ask you: what would you accept as "valid evidence for a personal god." I'm just curious.
Personal god, present to all to see him.
Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?

Obviously "immanuel can" can not provide absolutely any proof for the God that it has chosen to believe in.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:21 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:39 amBut let me ask you: what would you accept as "valid evidence for a personal god." I'm just curious.
Personal god, present to all to see him.
Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?

You guys need to sort out your valid from your sound. Valid arguments are no great shakes, you can create valid arguments from any set of premises; that's what philosophers and theologians do; even some cranks manage it. The bugger is demonstrating that your chosen premises are true. What frequently happens is that people start with a premise they accept as true, and then create a valid argument, or arguments, that are consistent with their premise. The mistake made by people who don't understand philosophy, is to conclude that a story that makes sense to them, in a context they have created, is true. In the decade or so he's been trying on this forum, Mr Can has failed to demonstrate that his premises are true, resorting instead to 'wait and see'. I may be wrong, Senad Dizdarevic, but I get the sense you might resort to the same tactic. The advantage that your report has is that you don't have to be dead to discover its 'truth'. Since your assertion that your colleagues on the Cosmic Administration will be revealed at some future date, what is your starting premise, that you can now show to be true? If you can provide that, your books suddenly become much more interesting.
Here's a premise for you:
Possibility is infinite.
The constraints we put on possibility are trivial: a bachelor cannot be married; 2+2≠5; they're just functions of how we do language and maths. A bachelor can't be married for no other reason than that by bachelor, we mean a man who is not married. We could develop a number system based on what we know to be true about quantum mechanics, that if 2+2 particles collide, the result isn't always 4 particles.
I can't prove that possibility is infinite, but I don't know of any non-trivial reasons it shouldn't be. With that caveat, what can one do with a premise such as Possibility is infinite? Well, obviously, the possibilities are infinite. That being so, among them is the possibility that everything that is possible is true; everything that could exist, does exist. There are perfectly respectable hypotheses that hint at this: the block universe, the multiverse and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics being examples. This raises the possibility that both you, Senad Dizdarevic and Mr Can are right, at least up to a point. Both of you believe in one version of reality, that there are strict limits on possibility; neither of you can prove this, so it is at least possible that reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:41 am**

Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 amFirst valid evidence God does not exist consists of four proofs: scientific (physical reality contradicts god)...

No it doesn't.

Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am...logical (divine attributes are contradictory)...

Well, that only applies to the attributes that humans have attributed to their various gods.

Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am...ontological (existence precludes deity)...

Is that substantially different for your scientific evidence?

Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am...and experiential (personal experiences with the Karmic organization that created all religions, gods, and faiths as a part of their experiments on humans).

Which is a claim that is just as readily made by the religious. There are alternative explanations for why you believe that you are a member of the Cosmic Administration, some of which are essentially the same as Mr Can's belief that he has a personal relationship with his god.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 12:10 pm**

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am

Personal god, present to all to see him.
Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?
You guys need to sort out your valid from your sound. Valid arguments are no great shakes, you can create valid arguments from any set of premises; that's what philosophers and theologians do; even some cranks manage it.

Even "scientists" do 'this', and like the others above some "scientist" also believe some of their claims, and arguments, even when no proof for them even actually exists.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:21 am The bugger is demonstrating that your chosen premises are true. What frequently happens is that people start with a premise they accept as true, and then create a valid argument, or arguments, that are consistent with their premise. The mistake made by people who don't understand philosophy, is to conclude that a story that makes sense to them, in a context they have created, is true. In the decade or so he's been trying on this forum, Mr Can has failed to demonstrate that his premises are true, resorting instead to 'wait and see'. I may be wrong, Senad Dizdarevic, but I get the sense you might resort to the same tactic. The advantage that your report has is that you don't have to be dead to discover its 'truth'. Since your assertion that your colleagues on the Cosmic Administration will be revealed at some future date, what is your starting premise, that you can now show to be true? If you can provide that, your books suddenly become much more interesting.
Here's a premise for you:
Possibility is infinite.
The constraints we put on possibility are trivial: a bachelor cannot be married; 2+2≠5; they're just functions of how we do language and maths. A bachelor can't be married for no other reason than that by bachelor, we mean a man who is not married. We could develop a number system based on what we know to be true about quantum mechanics, that if 2+2 particles collide, the result isn't always 4 particles.
I can't prove that possibility is infinite, but I don't know of any non-trivial reasons it shouldn't be. With that caveat, what can one do with a premise such as Possibility is infinite? Well, obviously, the possibilities are infinite. That being so, among them is the possibility that everything that is possible is true; everything that could exist, does exist. There are perfectly respectable hypotheses that hint at this: the block universe, the multiverse and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics being examples. This raises the possibility that both you, Senad Dizdarevic and Mr Can are right, at least up to a point. Both of you believe in one version of reality, that there are strict limits on possibility; neither of you can prove this, so it is at least possible that reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive.

Just like a "bachelor" can not be married, the Universe can not have begun nor be expanding.

But, while some people are believing otherwise, they are not open enough to learn what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2025 1:20 pm**

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am

Personal god, present to all to see him.
Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?
You guys need to sort out your valid from your sound.

I know the difference. I've been very clear on it in other contexts, as you could see if you had time to check back.

I'm just adopting his terms, because I can't ask him to explain something he hasn't said, even if the wording isn't quite accurate. I'm quoting, you'll note.

"Valid" means, "formed correctly in logical structure." "True" means "corresponding to reality.”

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2025 10:27 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:39 am

But let me ask you: what would you accept as "valid evidence for a personal god." I'm just curious.
Personal god, present to all to see him.
Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?

Come on, present as all persons are present when they are present: they are personally present, live and kicking. You see them, touch them, talk with them, and can photograph and film them.

Since god is supposed to be omnipotent and eternal, that means that he or she would be omnipresential: present to all, everywhere, all the time, in all worlds and in all the world and even in all "some other alls".

Christians claim that god is inside everybody. New Agers claim that god is Everybody.

When asked how that is possible, they answer that "god walks in mysterious ways" and pretend that that is a rational explanation.

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2025 10:55 am**

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am

Personal god, present to all to see him.
Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?
You guys need to sort out your valid from your sound. Valid arguments are no great shakes, you can create valid arguments from any set of premises; that's what philosophers and theologians do; even some cranks manage it. The bugger is demonstrating that your chosen premises are true. What frequently happens is that people start with a premise they accept as true, and then create a valid argument, or arguments, that are consistent with their premise. The mistake made by people who don't understand philosophy, is to conclude that a story that makes sense to them, in a context they have created, is true. In the decade or so he's been trying on this forum, Mr Can has failed to demonstrate that his premises are true, resorting instead to 'wait and see'. I may be wrong, Senad Dizdarevic, but I get the sense you might resort to the same tactic. The advantage that your report has is that you don't have to be dead to discover its 'truth'. Since your assertion that your colleagues on the Cosmic Administration will be revealed at some future date, what is your starting premise, that you can now show to be true? If you can provide that, your books suddenly become much more interesting.
Here's a premise for you:
Possibility is infinite.
The constraints we put on possibility are trivial: a bachelor cannot be married; 2+2≠5; they're just functions of how we do language and maths. A bachelor can't be married for no other reason than that by bachelor, we mean a man who is not married. We could develop a number system based on what we know to be true about quantum mechanics, that if 2+2 particles collide, the result isn't always 4 particles.
I can't prove that possibility is infinite, but I don't know of any non-trivial reasons it shouldn't be. With that caveat, what can one do with a premise such as Possibility is infinite? Well, obviously, the possibilities are infinite. That being so, among them is the possibility that everything that is possible is true; everything that could exist, does exist. There are perfectly respectable hypotheses that hint at this: the block universe, the multiverse and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics being examples. This raises the possibility that both you, Senad Dizdarevic and Mr Can are right, at least up to a point. Both of you believe in one version of reality, that there are strict limits on possibility; neither of you can prove this, so it is at least possible that reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive.

Relativization with reframing valid to sound and sound to "possible" won't do.

The fact that "reality is vastly greater than either of you currently conceive" does not mean that some premises and conclusions are valid.

Three of my pieces of evidence for god's nonexistence are logical. I had a long debate with ChatGPT and Claude, and they fought hard to refute them, but they couldn't. I successfully answered all of their arguments.

"Senad Dizdarevic presents four pieces of evidence: scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential. Together, they prove god's nonexistence is not only possible but demonstrable. Multiple AI systems, including ChatGPT and Claude, have confirmed that these proofs are logically irrefutable.

The Breakthrough: Four Types of Evidence

Senad Dizdarevic presents:

1. Scientific Evidence: Physical reality contradicts god concepts at the fundamental level
2. Logical Evidence: Divine attributes contain inherent, irresolvable contradictions
3. Ontological Evidence: The nature of existence itself precludes divine beings
4. Experiential Evidence: Direct verification with personal experiences confirms the first three

Multiple AI systems analyzed these proofs. Result: Logically irrefutable.

This represents the first time in human history that god's nonexistence has been proven with valid, comprehensive evidence rather than argued philosophically."

Source: my new article: https://god-doesntexist.com/first-vali ... -humanity/

I don't use any tactics.

Here is my first piece of evidence that is known, but it wasn't understood, used properly, and applied to god's existence.

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

So, Energy can not be created. God as Creator can not exist. God does NOT exist because that is not possible.

The other two pieces of evidence share the same logic and easily prove that god can not exist.

Starting premise in the case of Cosmic Administration is that there is life on other planets.

Every research field has its own and specific research method.

In this case, I suggest you learn to lucid dream, meet the inhabitants of other world you dream every night with but in lucid state, ask them about my claims, and you will get your personal experiences.

Here is a presentation of lucid dreaming with exercises: https://god-doesntexist.com/lucid-dream ... in-dreams/

If you want to try, I will gladly support you. Contact me via Contact Us form on my homepage so we can communicate via email.

I communicate with inhabitants of other planets directly, they are in my vicinity, but that, I can not prove to you. With lucid dreaming, it is the different story, you will get your personal experiences and confirm my statements.

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2025 11:12 am**

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:41 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 amFirst valid evidence God does not exist consists of four proofs: scientific (physical reality contradicts god)...
No it doesn't.
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am...logical (divine attributes are contradictory)...
Well, that only applies to the attributes that humans have attributed to their various gods.
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am...ontological (existence precludes deity)...
Is that substantially different for your scientific evidence?
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:28 am...and experiential (personal experiences with the Karmic organization that created all religions, gods, and faiths as a part of their experiments on humans).
Which is a claim that is just as readily made by the religious. There are alternative explanations for why you believe that you are a member of the Cosmic Administration, some of which are essentially the same as Mr Can's belief that he has a personal relationship with his god.

"No, it doesn't" - what doesn't?

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

I agree about the human attributes - some of them are romantically naive and false.

One of the main god's characteristics is that he is supposed to be the Creator of the World.

I prove that that is not possible, which proves that god as the Creator can not exist.

All three objective pieces of evidence use the logic of the impossibility of god's existence.

About "believing that I am a member of CA".

For the time being, I can not prove anything about CA and my membership. I am not even trying.

If you are questioning my honesty or sanity or both, I suggest you try to refute the 1. piece of scientific evidence I posted above.

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:43 pm**

Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 10:27 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:09 am
Senad Dizdarevic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 3:52 am

Personal god, present to all to see him.
Present how? What would assure you that the presence present was personal? And whom do you mean by "all"? Do you mean, "all in a given place and time," or "all in the world," or some other "all"?
Come on, present as all persons are present when they are present: they are personally present, live and kicking. You see them, touch them, talk with them, and can photograph and film them.

And this is what your conception of "God" is? It sounds more like a Hollywood celebrity, I'd say.

Maybe it's time to ask yourself more seriously, what would it be like actually to meet the Supreme Being one-on-one? Is this an experience one could have, without certain other undesired effect ensuing? For many, I suggest not. It might perhaps be very well that a physical encounter is prevented. Christianity says it's the mercy of God that we have not had such an encounter (Ezekiel 33:20).

Since god is supposed to be omnipotent and eternal, that means that he or she would be omnipresential: present to all, everywhere, all the time, in all worlds and in all the world and even in all "some other alls".

Indeed. But that is exactly what Christians claim is the case.

Christians claim that god is inside everybody.

Actually, they claim the opposite: that God actually only indwells "as many as receive Him." (See John 1:12) They claim that those who do not are spiritually "dead," and have no such connection to God. (See Ephesians 2:1)

New Agers claim that god is Everybody.

Not quite, I think. They claim that everybody is god. That is, they don't claim that there's any "god" that can be the subject: "godness" is merely a predication. It's an adjectival thing, ascribed to the subject "mankind" or "man," they think. We are all whatever "the god" means, they suppose. I trust the distinction is clear: that's not the same.

As for the New Agers, they never seem sufficiently to explicate how and why this "god" is so confused and limited as it is. How does one get a confused and deluded "Supreme Being"? How can that be "supreme" or "god" at all? But man is clearly a confused entity, even by their own account. So what's the meaning of that?

When asked how that is possible, they answer that "god walks in mysterious ways" and pretend that that is a rational explanation.

Do you mean the New Agers say this? I don't think they do. They tend to say it's a matter of "esoteric knowledge," that only their "illumnati" or "guru" types are able to possess, or those who have transcended the mortal plane.

As for the Christians, there are perhaps some who punt to "god moves in mysterious ways," perhaps among the less thoughtful; but I suggest there are certainly no serious thinkers among them who do that. There are a lot who think about things much more deeply; and if you find the punt to mystery a dismissive answer, I agree it is. If there are those who do that, they shouldn't. But most don't, so I find it's not really an objection that sticks.

Philosophy Now Forum

The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

Re: The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist