The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Senad Dizdarevic]

We suffer a sense prejudice that doesn't allow us to be able to conceive of space as a universe that came into being... because we have to picture a place where this happened. This place has to already be there for the beginning to happen in. See, you're doing it right now. You're imagining that big bang poster on your 12th grade science class wall to the left of the microscope shelf. You're looking at the left most stage... the singularity... from which the cone of space material explodes out to the right across the poster. Doesn't make any psychologistical sense (we can't 'picture' a beginning... and we need to to have the idea). That singularity had to exist somewhere... it wasn't the beginning I don't think.

Something can only happen in Something, and not in nothing as nothing can not exist.

Big Bang happened from the singularity of something in the space of the already existing Something. It is like blowing up a balloon from a small piece of rubber in your room.

Do you understand what's called "the infinite regress problem"? If what you were saying were true, then nothing would ever exist, because an infinite regress of causes is impossible -- mathematically, logically and empirically.

What logic and mathematics forces everybody to realize is that there had to be a time when something uncaused caused the first event. You can't suppose the existence of anything prior to that whatever-it-was, because then infinite regress of causes applies, and then again, nothing would or could exist.

And infinite chain of causes could never commence, because there would be an infinite number of prerequisites to it ever beginning. That's about the simplest way to put the point. It takes a moment or two to get your head around it, but when you do, you'll see that it's inescapable.

My statement about a singularity has nothing to do with infinite regress which, I agree, is impossible.

I said that changes like Big Bang are happening in already present space of Existence. That means that they are already present, and not created from nothing.

Logic does not force anybody to believe in the false causal-consequential model. Religious believers abuse logic and mask their nonsense claims with it. Even worse, theologists claim that god is eternal, while Creation is temporary.

Only religions believe in non-logical Creation from nothing.

True logic says that that is not possible. When Something is Eternal, Everything is Eternal. That means that there was no "Cause" and no "Creation".

Absolute Nothing from where god would create Creation and put it into absolute empty space, does not exist because that is not possible.

Existence is Eternal. It was never created and will be never destroyed (1. law of thermodynamics confirms that).

In Existence, Everything already happened. Existence functions in simultaneity.

I know that you will deny everything I say because you are fighting for your delusion. You will also gladly deny yourself to keep your fantasmatical god alive. Believers are doing it by default: "Your will shall be done not mine". You will kenose yourself empty to make a space and fill you up with a delusion of god's existence.

Priests from the planet Palki said that the Truth is not important and the faith is above it.

Read my book series, now is free in public libraries, https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-no ... n-history/, honestly analyze the chapter on Evidence in Book 4 (it is 25 pages long), and refute it with logical arguments, if you can, and not manipulate with the desperate straw man fallacies.

[Immanuel Can]

Something can only happen in Something, and not in nothing as nothing can not exist.

Big Bang happened from the singularity of something in the space of the already existing Something. It is like blowing up a balloon from a small piece of rubber in your room.

Do you understand what's called "the infinite regress problem"? If what you were saying were true, then nothing would ever exist, because an infinite regress of causes is impossible -- mathematically, logically and empirically.

What logic and mathematics forces everybody to realize is that there had to be a time when something uncaused caused the first event. You can't suppose the existence of anything prior to that whatever-it-was, because then infinite regress of causes applies, and then again, nothing would or could exist.

And infinite chain of causes could never commence, because there would be an infinite number of prerequisites to it ever beginning. That's about the simplest way to put the point. It takes a moment or two to get your head around it, but when you do, you'll see that it's inescapable.

My statement about a singularity has nothing to do with infinite regress which, I agree, is impossible.

Then what can you mean when you claim "nothing can not exist"? Must you not mean that there was something that was always there, always some prior substance from which things were causally assembled? If that's not what you mean, then it's not clear that it's even a coherent statement. But maybe you can explain.

If it's your view, however, that there is always some substance in existence, then you have the infinite regress problem: what is the first step in an infinite causal chain? And, of course, there can be no answer to that question, because infinite regress of causes is impossible.

I said that changes like Big Bang are happening in already present space of Existence.That means that they are already present, and not created from nothing.

Same problem. In finite causal regress applies.

You've still got no argument, if this is what you mean.

[Gary Childress]

Everything in this thread pro and con to God is built on potentially problematic assumptions that cannot be verified. To pretend we know what happened first or even that there was an uncaused cause is absurd.

[Immanuel Can]

To pretend we know what happened first or even that there was an uncaused cause is absurd.

Actually, you can test it for yourself, Gary. Or, just a very basic knowledge of mathematics will prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Gary Childress]

To pretend we know what happened first or even that there was an uncaused cause is absurd.

Actually, you can test it for yourself, Gary. Or, just a very basic knowledge of mathematics will prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt.

We can pretend to know what the beginning was, but it's not verifiable by our current science, perhaps never will be. It will always be an assumption.

[Immanuel Can]

To pretend we know what happened first or even that there was an uncaused cause is absurd.

Actually, you can test it for yourself, Gary. Or, just a very basic knowledge of mathematics will prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt.

We can pretend to know what the beginning was, but it's not verifiable by our current science, perhaps never will be. It will always be an assumption.

Well, the point is very simple: there had to be an original causal event, which could have been either something impersonal/unintelligent, or something personal/intelligent. Either way, it would have to be something causeless. And that much, we know with absolutely certainty.

However, there are no impersonal/unintelligent entities we know that are both eternal and even plausibly capable of producing a universe. So there had to be something personal/intelligent, because it had to be a sufficient Cause for the universe we observe we have.

And there we are. When there is only one plausible Candidate, we can be quite confident about that "assumption," Gary.

[Belinda]

Actually, you can test it for yourself, Gary. Or, just a very basic knowledge of mathematics will prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt.

We can pretend to know what the beginning was, but it's not verifiable by our current science, perhaps never will be. It will always be an assumption.

Well, the point is very simple: there had to be an original causal event, which could have been either something impersonal/unintelligent, or something personal/intelligent. Either way, it would have to be something causeless. And that much, we know with absolutely certainty.

However, there are no impersonal/unintelligent entities we know that are both eternal and even plausibly capable of producing a universe. So there had to be something personal/intelligent, because it had to be a sufficient Cause for the universe we observe we have.

And there we are. When there is only one plausible Candidate, we can be quite confident about that "assumption," Gary.

Immanuel could have said "why is there something instead of nothing?"

And Immanuel's point about mathematics is the binary 0 or 1. Either nothing is the case or something is the case. Applying Descartes' scepticism , we find that thinking is happening here and now , so there is something, not nothing.

[Will Bouwman]

The response can only be proportional to the experience. If it's out of proportion, one way or the other, the response is unwarranted.

Do you think something as trivial as there is experience isn't profound? That any experience isn't therefore profound?

See if you can find that thought in anything I wrote.

It's right there: if "The response can only be proportional to the experience." then it seems to me you are committed to a range of responses that include proportionately warranted responses to trivial experiences.

...Atheists lie. That's all.

You are putting yourself beneath Age and his claim that we don't agree with him because we are 'closed' to his interpretation; or Senad Dizdarevic who assures us that we will agree with him if we learn his lucid dreaming. They at least don't call me a liar.

I'm not insulting you, Will. Nothing I said had your name attached to it, and I have no way of knowing if you regard yourself as an agnostic, an honest seeker, or an Atheist. We could be having the same conversation, were you any of the three. Rather, I'm treating you as a conversation partner who has every right to keep his commitments to himself, as a matter of fact, and haven't tried to pry them out of you.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have made it clear that I regard myself an atheist. I do not find the evidence you offer compelling and you say:

But the problem isn't in the evidence; it's in the viewer.

So yeah, you are insulting me.

But I can speak of Atheism, the ideology, which pretends to certainties it simply does not have, and hence, intrinsically is deceptive. It's a lie.

People who have different experiences to you are not liars; that is a stupid, ugly and frankly desperate position to hold. It is pathetic; as is anyone who holds such a view.

[Will Bouwman]

Your graphic book is very interesting...

Thank you.

...but is too blurry to read. Do you have a better copy?

If you click on one of the images, it goes to higher resolution.

[Age]

We suffer a sense prejudice that doesn't allow us to be able to conceive of space as a universe that came into being... because we have to picture a place where this happened. This place has to already be there for the beginning to happen in. See, you're doing it right now. You're imagining that big bang poster on your 12th grade science class wall to the left of the microscope shelf. You're looking at the left most stage... the singularity... from which the cone of space material explodes out to the right across the poster. Doesn't make any psychologistical sense (we can't 'picture' a beginning... and we need to to have the idea). That singularity had to exist somewhere... it wasn't the beginning I don't think.

Something can only happen in Something, and not in nothing as nothing can not exist.

Big Bang happened from the singularity of something in the space of the already existing Something. It is like blowing up a balloon from a small piece of rubber in your room.

Do you understand what's called "the infinite regress problem"? If what you were saying were true, then nothing would ever exist, because an infinite regress of causes is impossible -- mathematically, logically and empirically.

What logic and mathematics forces everybody to realize is that there had to be a time when something uncaused caused the first event. You can't suppose the existence of anything prior to that whatever-it-was, because then infinite regress of causes applies, and then again, nothing would or could exist.

And infinite chain of causes could never commence, because there would be an infinite number of prerequisites to it ever beginning. That's about the simplest way to put the point. It takes a moment or two to get your head around it, but when you do, you'll see that it's inescapable.

Here 'we' have another example of two people believing that their own belief is absolutely true, but what they are both believing is true is actually Wrong, and False.

[Age]

To pretend we know what happened first or even that there was an uncaused cause is absurd.

Actually, you can test it for yourself, Gary. Or, just a very basic knowledge of mathematics will prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt.

LOL

'This', here, really was how absolutely blind and stupid some people really were, back when this was being written.

[Age]

To pretend we know what happened first or even that there was an uncaused cause is absurd.

Actually, you can test it for yourself, Gary. Or, just a very basic knowledge of mathematics will prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt.

We can pretend to know what the beginning was, but it's not verifiable by our current science, perhaps never will b<e. It will always be an assumption.

What the actual Truth is, exactly, which none of you human beings could counter nor refute is already known. you people, here, are just not yet ready for It.

[Age]

Actually, you can test it for yourself, Gary. Or, just a very basic knowledge of mathematics will prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt.

We can pretend to know what the beginning was, but it's not verifiable by our current science, perhaps never will be. It will always be an assumption.

Well, the point is very simple: there had to be an original causal event, which could have been either something impersonal/unintelligent, or something personal/intelligent. Either way, it would have to be something causeless. And that much, we know with absolutely certainty.

However, there are no impersonal/unintelligent entities we know that are both eternal and even plausibly capable of producing a universe. So there had to be something personal/intelligent, because it had to be a sufficient Cause for the universe we observe we have.

And there we are. When there is only one plausible Candidate, we can be quite confident about that "assumption," Gary.

Here, again, is another 'assumption' believed to be absolutely true.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

Do you understand what's called "the infinite regress problem"? If what you were saying were true, then nothing would ever exist, because an infinite regress of causes is impossible -- mathematically, logically and empirically.

What logic and mathematics forces everybody to realize is that there had to be a time when something uncaused caused the first event. You can't suppose the existence of anything prior to that whatever-it-was, because then infinite regress of causes applies, and then again, nothing would or could exist.

And infinite chain of causes could never commence, because there would be an infinite number of prerequisites to it ever beginning. That's about the simplest way to put the point. It takes a moment or two to get your head around it, but when you do, you'll see that it's inescapable.

My statement about a singularity has nothing to do with infinite regress which, I agree, is impossible.

Then what can you mean when you claim "nothing can not exist"? Must you not mean that there was something that was always there, always some prior substance from which things were causally assembled? If that's not what you mean, then it's not clear that it's even a coherent statement. But maybe you can explain.

If it's your view, however, that there is always some substance in existence, then you have the infinite regress problem: what is the first step in an infinite causal chain? And, of course, there can be no answer to that question, because infinite regress of causes is impossible.

I said that changes like Big Bang are happening in already present space of Existence.That means that they are already present, and not created from nothing.

Same problem. In finite causal regress applies.

You've still got no argument, if this is what you mean.

If there is "always something in existence," that means that it is eternal. When Something is eternal, Everything is eternal. Absolute Nothing does not exist, and there is nothing prior or beyond Existence.

Nothing can not exist means exactly what it states: nothing as Absolute Nothing, where there is nothing and even that does not exist. That means that something exists. When something exists, it is eternal. Creating requires nothing (creating from nothing or transforming nothing to something, which is impossible), while transformation works in something and transforms something that already exists into something else, like the Big Bang.

No, there was nothing before substance or Existence or Energy ( which is also matter). Existence is eternal; it was never created, and it will never be destroyed. That is the reason that god as Creator does not exist.

There is nothing beyond or out of Existence, which consists of two elements: Pure Awareness, a non-material superstate, and Energy in all energetic and material forms. Existence is eternal, the causal-consequential model is false, there was no Causer, cause, and causation, there is only eternal Existence.

The infinite regress problem exists only in the false causal-consequential model. Religious manipulators tried to evade it with the nonsensical contradiction, trying to separate the World into uncaused god, eternal, and caused - the universe created by god. The god's creation of the Universe would require nothing from which he could create the caused Universe and put it into another part of nothing or into himself.

No nothing, no god Creator, no Creation.

In eternal Existence, Everything already exists; there is no creation, just a transformation of an eternal something into an eternal something different.

[Immanuel Can]

We can pretend to know what the beginning was, but it's not verifiable by our current science, perhaps never will be. It will always be an assumption.

Well, the point is very simple: there had to be an original causal event, which could have been either something impersonal/unintelligent, or something personal/intelligent. Either way, it would have to be something causeless. And that much, we know with absolutely certainty.

However, there are no impersonal/unintelligent entities we know that are both eternal and even plausibly capable of producing a universe. So there had to be something personal/intelligent, because it had to be a sufficient Cause for the universe we observe we have.

And there we are. When there is only one plausible Candidate, we can be quite confident about that "assumption," Gary.

And Immanuel's point about mathematics is the binary 0 or 1. Either nothing is the case or something is the case.

Um...no. That actually has nothing to do with the mathematics that inform the infinite regress problem.