The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

Names are irrelevant. Names are often misassigned. Many people have names they don't deserve, such as "freedom fighter," or "liberator," or "dear leader," all the while being no more than terrorists, despots and tyrants, or "humanitarian" and "enlightened one," when they are merely the preening rich or the leader of a pernicious cult. People are named "president" or "prime minister" who were not legitimately elected, or who were very far from the "prime" minister of any administration. One can even "call people names" when they don't deserve those names. No doubt, that happened to all of us, at some time, in the schoolyard.

What matters is truth. Nothing else matters.

If "names are irrelevant" for you, then you would accept that Allah is a name for God.

Not at all, of course. Why would I, when God announces His own name? We're not just making these things up, you know.

you could not come across any more closed, and thus any more stupid, here, "immanuel can".

[Age]

Turtles all the way down ........

That old story is precisely what the infinite regress problem deals with: it's just as absurd and impossible as that story suggests...

That you, still, after all this time have not yet seen and recognized that that perceived problem has been resolved already just shows how blind and closed you really are, here, "immanuel can".

The notion that there would have to be a first (uncaused) cause is an inescapable conclusion only if thinking in FINITE terms.

No, just basic mathematics.

We run into a problem onlyif the number of causes is finite.

Yet that is exactly the problem we run into. An infinite regress of causes never starts.

This is because every prior cause is an absolute prerequisite for the next.

Let's take any effect. Call it "E." But "E" can't happen until its cause (call it L2) is already present and has done its work. But...

L2 can't happen until L1 already has, and that can't happen until L-0 has occurred, and that can't happen until L-1 has already occurred, and L-1 can't have happened until after L-2 has already occurred...and so on, infinitely. So nothing can have occurred, because the prerequisite is never available. It is infinitely distant from the "E." And infinity, by definition, never is reached. It cannot even be reached.

Once again, absolutely blinded by belief in one's own made up story.

And, that 'these two' are arguing and disputing over the exact same things that have been argued and disputed over for thousands of years already is further irrefutable proof of just how closed and stupid a disbelieving or believing human beings can, and does, become.

The actual irrefutable Truth, here, I have presented and out forward in front of 'these two', as well others, here, yet not a one of them has yet obtained the actual ability to look, and see, clearly. And, for the very reasons I have shown and provided, here.

[Age]

There is no problem with "'infinite regression" UNLESS the number of turtles is finite.

That's incorrect. It's because of the postulate of infinite regressions of causes that the problem occurs at all. If the "turtles" are finite, there's no problem. That's exactly what the proof shows.

How would you like to find out you're wrong...mathematically or empirically? I can give you the proof either way.

LOL Let 'us' see you provide both "immanuel can".

And, then let the readers see if you are open in any way at all into considering that what you individually, and personally, call might not actually be proof at all.

Show the readers, here, what you are really capable of "immanuel can".

[Belinda]

Names are irrelevant. Names are often misassigned. Many people have names they don't deserve, such as "freedom fighter," or "liberator," or "dear leader," all the while being no more than terrorists, despots and tyrants, or "humanitarian" and "enlightened one," when they are merely the preening rich or the leader of a pernicious cult. People are named "president" or "prime minister" who were not legitimately elected, or who were very far from the "prime" minister of any administration. One can even "call people names" when they don't deserve those names. No doubt, that happened to all of us, at some time, in the schoolyard.

What matters is truth. Nothing else matters.

If "names are irrelevant" for you, then you would accept that Allah is a name for God.

Not at all, of course. Why would I, when God announces His own name? We're not just making these things up, you know.

The very first verse of the Bible — Genesis 1:1 uses Elohim, which comes from the same ancient Semitic root as Allah. So it’s not a foreign name; it’s just the same old word in another branch of the family. Like how we say God in English, Dios in Spanish, and Dieu in French — different languages, same Creator.

[Will Bouwman]

The very first verse of the Bible — Genesis 1:1 uses Elohim, which comes from the same ancient Semitic root as Allah. So it’s not a foreign name; it’s just the same old word in another branch of the family. Like how we say God in English, Dios in Spanish, and Dieu in French — different languages, same Creator.

Here's something I wrote a while back:

Eventually Cronus was overthrown by his own son, Zeus, who remained the most powerful of all the Greek gods. His name has its roots in PIE, the ancestral proto indo-european language that most linguists believe was spoken, but can’t agree where or when. The original word is thought to have been dyeu, meaning to shine; day is from the same root. Zeus is only one almighty god associated with daylight and sunshine; others include Dyaus in Sanskrit, Tiwas in Germanic languages and Deus in Latin. Modern Latinate languages use essentially the same word for the Christian god, for example, Dieu in French, Dios in Spanish.

As for the English word God:

God; Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." The notion could be "divine entity summoned to a sacrifice."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/god

[Belinda]

Turtles all the way down ........

That old story is precisely what the infinite regress problem deals with: it's just as absurd and impossible as that story suggests...

That you, still, after all this time have not yet seen and recognized that that perceived problem has been resolved already just shows how blind and closed you really are, here, "immanuel can".

The notion that there would have to be a first (uncaused) cause is an inescapable conclusion only if thinking in FINITE terms.

No, just basic mathematics.

We run into a problem onlyif the number of causes is finite.

Yet that is exactly the problem we run into. An infinite regress of causes never starts.

This is because every prior cause is an absolute prerequisite for the next.

Let's take any effect. Call it "E." But "E" can't happen until its cause (call it L2) is already present and has done its work. But...

L2 can't happen until L1 already has, and that can't happen until L-0 has occurred, and that can't happen until L-1 has already occurred, and L-1 can't have happened until after L-2 has already occurred...and so on, infinitely. So nothing can have occurred, because the prerequisite is never available. It is infinitely distant from the "E." And infinity, by definition, never is reached. It cannot even be reached.

Once again, absolutely blinded by belief in one's own made up story.

And, that 'these two' are arguing and disputing over the exact same things that have been argued and disputed over for thousands of years already is further irrefutable proof of just how closed and stupid a disbelieving or believing human beings can, and does, become.

The actual irrefutable Truth, here, I have presented and out forward in front of 'these two', as well others, here, yet not a one of them has yet obtained the actual ability to look, and see, clearly. And, for the very reasons I have shown and provided, here.

To be fair, Immanuel's story is not one he made up . He has been taught that story and no alternative story by his teachers, or parents, or others.

[Will Bouwman]

Then what I said would apply. But it's not my choice that it should apply to you: it would be yours.

Well yes, we can both choose to believe that some people two thousand years ago knew more about how the universe works than we do,

Neither of us thinks that.

So you agree that their explanation for how the world came to be is nonsense.

In fact, modern cosmology has been very helpful in exposing the follies of the eternal-universe hypothesis, and getting us to move beyond it.

Not true; all the big bang hypothesis demonstrates is that the visible universe, the bit we can actually see, appears to have sprung into being about 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. Few cosmologists are rash enough to insist there were no previous conditions in which this event took place. The main failing of Lawrence Krauss's book 'A Universe from Nothing', is that he equates relativistic quantum fields with nothing, which they clearly are not. It is just one hypothesis, but if the basic premise is tenable, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to call one or more quantum fields 'god'; if that was all there was, they were everywhere and capable of anything and, in fact, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that anything that could happen does. A god that creates every possible world is vastly more "Supreme" than yours who could only manage one, clearly flawed world. As it happens, Alvin Plantinga evokes possible worlds in his hopeless ontological argument:

A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
If that is true, then a god that only appears in one possible world isn't maximally great. Your god is too small to be what you believe it to be, and the reasons given for why such a god is so withered are bullshit.

We need not attribute any superior knowledge of such things to ancient peoples. But if the same God existed then as now, then there may indeed be things they learned that we are yet to learn.

What we have found out, that the ancients didn't know, is that if the biblical account of creation is the word of God, then God talks bollocks.

Whether a god exists is a separate issue to whether the biblical account of cosmology and evolution is correct.

No, not really. But it's logically downstream from it.

No really. You cannot prove your god exists, any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't. You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

However, there are no terms on which Atheism can be made rational -- at least, none I've yet encountered. If there are such, I'd be open to seeing what you think they are. Without evidentiary warrant, Atheism remains nothing more than a wish.

Well, as an atheist, rather than an "Atheist", I don't claim to know that there is no god, so find an "Atheist" and ask them for "evidentiary warrant".

[Skepdick]

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

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

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

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

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

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

Any valid proof for God's non-existence requires an omniscient non-existence prover. This puts you in the usual epistemic pickle.

An omniscient being exist which knows that God doesn't exist. Ooops?

[Skepdick]

Well, as an atheist, rather than an "Atheist", I don't claim to know that there is no god, so find an "Atheist" and ask them for "evidentiary warrant".

That's the usual Motte&Bailey from atheists, isn't it? OK, you don't claim to know that there is no god, but you believe it. As an agnostic - I simply question your belief-formation process. How did you arrive at that belief?

A balanced scale needs something - anything - to tip it in either direction - theism; or atheism.

No really. You cannot prove your god exists, any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't. You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

Well yeah. You can't prove your gravity exists, any more than a skeptic can prove it doesn't. If you assume symmetry in practice.

But on a scientific epistemology we use theoretical ideals all the time; and if you are in the business of knowing stuff an ideal knower seems like a super-useful bootstrapping assumption; else you'll have a bad time explaining what it even mean to know "more" or "less" without some reference point of complete knowledge.

[Will Bouwman]

OK, you don't claim to know that there is no god, but you believe it.

No. I don't believe there isn't a god; I just don't believe there is.

You can't prove your gravity exists...

Gravity is just the name given to whatever draws two massive objects together. It is demonstrable that something does just that.

[Skepdick]

OK, you don't claim to know that there is no god, but you believe it.

No. I don't believe there isn't a god; I just don't believe there is.

Yes. That is obvious. Hence my question. How did you form that belief?

You are playing this off on a two-valued logic. I can similarly say. I don't believe there is a god. I just don't believe there isn't.

Of course both statements (your and mine) are true about me - because I am an agnostic.

Gravity is just the name given to whatever draws two massive objects together. It is demonstrable that something does just that.

No, it's not "demonstrable". That requires a meta-theory. A meta-theory which tell you that the objects are "drawn" together - as opposed to say - the distance between them observably diminishes without postulating mechanism or cause; and a meta-theory that "something does just that".

You have mis-mashed phenomenology with a theoretical explanation.

So my point remains: you can't actually prove that such thing ("whatever draws two massive objects together") exists. That's a necessary presupposition to bootstrap your theoretical faculties.

[Will Bouwman]

OK, you don't claim to know that there is no god, but you believe it.

No. I don't believe there isn't a god; I just don't believe there is.

Yes. That is obvious. Hence my question. How did you form that belief?

What belief?

Gravity is just the name given to whatever draws two massive objects together. It is demonstrable that something does just that.

No, it's not "demonstrable". That requires a meta-theory. A meta-theory which tell you that the objects are "drawn" together - as opposed to say - the distance between them observably diminishes without postulating mechanism or cause; and a meta-theory that "something does just that".

You have mis-mashed phenomenology with a theoretical explanation.

So my point remains: you can't actually prove that such thing ("whatever draws two massive objects together") exists. That's a necessary presupposition to bootstrap your theoretical faculties.

Fine. Something does however you want to describe it. Or it just happens. Either way, it happens.

[Skepdick]

What belief?

The one you are lacking.

You said that you don't believe god exists.
You didn't say that you don't believe god doesn't exist.

I assume you left it out because you don't lack that one?

Fine. Something does however you want to describe it.

It's not fine. I don't care to describe "something" which may or may not exist.

Or it just happens. Either way, it happens.

Yes. So which one is it.

Does it just happen.
OR
Does it happen because of something?

Those are two different epistemologies.

[Will Bouwman]

What belief?

The one you are lacking.

So you are asking me to explain why I have a belief I don't have.

You said that you don't believe god exists.

Yup.

You didn't say that you don't believe god doesn't exist.

Because I don't.

Fine. Something does however you want to describe it.

It's not fine. I don't care to describe "something" which may or may not exist.

That's god out of the conversation then.

Or it just happens. Either way, it happens.

Yes. So which one is it.

Does it just happen.
OR
Does it happen because of something?

Those are two different epistemologies.

Sure, and if anyone cares to believe that things just happen to come together, they are welcome to that opinion. As you say:

It's a fact that you speak for no one but yourself. What a stupid little **** you are.

No way! You figured out how opinions work?!? Slow clap...

[Age]

That old story is precisely what the infinite regress problem deals with: it's just as absurd and impossible as that story suggests...

That you, still, after all this time have not yet seen and recognized that that perceived problem has been resolved already just shows how blind and closed you really are, here, "immanuel can".

No, just basic mathematics.

Yet that is exactly the problem we run into. An infinite regress of causes never starts.

This is because every prior cause is an absolute prerequisite for the next.

Let's take any effect. Call it "E." But "E" can't happen until its cause (call it L2) is already present and has done its work. But...

L2 can't happen until L1 already has, and that can't happen until L-0 has occurred, and that can't happen until L-1 has already occurred, and L-1 can't have happened until after L-2 has already occurred...and so on, infinitely. So nothing can have occurred, because the prerequisite is never available. It is infinitely distant from the "E." And infinity, by definition, never is reached. It cannot even be reached.

Once again, absolutely blinded by belief in one's own made up story.

And, that 'these two' are arguing and disputing over the exact same things that have been argued and disputed over for thousands of years already is further irrefutable proof of just how closed and stupid a disbelieving or believing human beings can, and does, become.

The actual irrefutable Truth, here, I have presented and out forward in front of 'these two', as well others, here, yet not a one of them has yet obtained the actual ability to look, and see, clearly. And, for the very reasons I have shown and provided, here.

To be fair, Immanuel's story is not one he made up . He has been taught that story and no alternative story by his teachers, or parents, or others.

But, the one known as "immanuel can", here, is at an age where it knows better than to believe unsubstantiated stories told to it.