(March 18, 2013 at 4:11 pm)whateverist Wrote: It is incomprehensible to imagine a moment before which there was nothing and no way to mark time. Lets some god (imagine your own here) existed who is credited with having created the universe, space and time. Well then if your god itself existed before the beginning of time, then there was something before that first moment and that something certainly had the capacity to mark time if it so desired.

Before anything there was that which made possible everything we see today. You want to call that God, I prefer to call it a mystery.

I called it G not God

but it is not a total mystery as we can prove some attributes for him/it
Go to part III and check which you don't agree with!

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Go to part III and check which you don't agree with!

Part III
Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. G is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. G is unique
3. G has actions (p)
4. G is outside time, G must be one unit as if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other, but as time did not exist, then G is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)
5. G is outside and separate from the Universe
6. G has a will; as if he didn’t then creating/starting the universe must be initiated from an external source which contradicts with the (proved) non-existence of time.
7. As G is unique and not similar to matter in the universe, he doesn’t have an image (an image is a reflection of light from objects; objects are constructed from molecules and atoms)
Any religion that claims an image for God is a false religion by default

Those are mere statements from the perspective of someone who thinks God is real. There is no proof provided there.

So Scholar, I find it interesting that you apply all of this "logic" to the universe in an effort to prove your god exists but fail to apply any logic at all to determining how that god exists in the first place.

So (in your own words) "let's assume" all of your "calculations" are correct and god exists. Where did he come from?

If the universe was either static or did not exist, would not the same reasoning apply to your god? You claim that time must exist for actions to take place. You then claim that god had to take action to change the state of the universe (or bring it into existence) to bring time into existence. However, by your own definition, there was no time for god to have taken action in.

So after all of your huffing and puffing, all of your "calculations" and ridiculous proofs, you are still at square 1 because you cannot say where your god came from, or how he managed to take these actions in the first place. And please do not try to justify this with special pleading for your god.

Now, let's stop assuming. The fact is that if your god existed in any way, you would not have to go through all this esoteric bullshit to come up with some kind of backhanded, out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye, but-you-can't-prove-me-wrong "evidence" for the existence of a god that you were told about by an illiterate, bronze age sheep fucker.

(March 18, 2013 at 3:46 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 10:44 am)pocaracas Wrote: Others have bugged you with other details, I'll bug you with this detail.
You're missing, at least, one term, there.
E = U + N + G
N = UNknown Universe (which, as far as we are aware, is much much more than the known universe).
As N is very large, G must be very, very small.

I did not miss it!
I wrote "Known universe" on purpose
Anything else is G (including the possibility that G may equal N1+N2+...+G)

G must be a single unit (Singularity)
because if more than one object exist, time (as I defined it) must exist as well

Another point, as G is unique there no meaning of asking is it big or small or even compare its size to anything, it doesn't have a size at all
It is something beyond all what we know, so we cannot even question things like what its size? is it male or female? what color? etc.

So, your G can be N1+N2+...+G', but then "G must be a single unit"? OR are you referring to this G'?
Even so...

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Part III
Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. G is the creator/initiator of the Universe

How do you know there has to be a creator/initiator?

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 2. G is unique

Not necessarily.... think, multiple-universes..... These can be in the N1+N2+...

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 3. G has actions (p)

Why? Because it is the initiator of the Universe? Maybe G is an action, or maybe G is just quantum fluctuations...

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 4. G is outside time, G must be one unit as if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other, but as time did not exist, then G is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)

First you say that time stretches out to minus infinity, and then glue this G outside of this time. Did you define time as a property of the Universe? Or a property of space-time? Or is Space-time a property of the Universe? Or is the Universe in space-time?

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 5. G is outside and separate from the Universe

Ah, from your equation, only outside the "known universe". Unless your talking about G', again...

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 6. G has a will; as if he didn’t then creating/starting the universe must be initiated from an external source which contradicts with the (proved) non-existence of time.

Am I mentioned on this will? I do hope I got a fair share of G's wealth.

Now for some brain twisting: can there be a will, if there is no time? Can there be a consciousness apart from time?
As far as we are aware, consciousness, awareness of the environment, and other mental activities require a physical brain, where mental processes require time for neural information to transmit through the network and arrive at a fully formed thought.
How can you postulate the existence of an entity capable of forming thoughts while not having this brain mechanism? I'd say that takes a special kind of imagination, thus relegating the whole concept of G to fiction.
And, while fiction may in the future become reality, it most certainly is not.... and the likelihood of becoming reality if quite meager.

Quote:I already proved it

No. You asserted it. You really need to learn the fucking difference.

(March 18, 2013 at 3:46 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 10:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The problem with it all starts very early. "a consistent (as we assume) set of repeated events we use as a reference (e.g. clock ticks, radiation, moon cycle, etc."

I would imagine the whole thing runs into problems when you realise these "reference" points are relative and not consistent throughout the whole universe simultaneously.

I would also imagine that the OP would sooner reinterpret the argument to take things like this into account than to admit the conclusion is faulty.

Actually it doesn't matter at all if it is really consistent or not

Time can be just a relation between two events
"I went home while eating a sandwich"
If there is more than one event happening, then time can exist

We can call it MyTime instead of time, in the context of the proof I can name anything as long it is not setting a false fact.

So your argument is essentially - while it may appear that I can split the time between 1 second and 2 seconds into infinite numerical values - but because I can get to 2 seconds, time must be made of finite "bits" and therefore not infinite.

By the same reasoning - you prove numbers are finite - because you can count up to 2. Even thou there appears to be infinite "bits" of number. 1.11, 1.123... etc - You can count to 2, therefore there must be finite bits between 1.00000001... and 1.999999999... therefore numbers are finite.

And you don't think your reasoning might be faulty at some point in this assumption.

4. G is outside time,

Indeed, your Lord is Allah , who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne.




5. G is outside and separate from the Universe

7. As G is unique and not similar to matter in the universe, he doesn’t have an image (an image is a reflection of light from objects; objects are constructed from molecules and atoms)

Using this logic that something which isn't constructed of similar matter wouldn't reflect light, then how do you explain something which is separate and unique from the universe speaking to individual people within the universe, making a virgin pregnant, causing floods, turning a stick into a snake, giving a man a horse which can fly up to where allah lives ?

(March 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I called it G not God

"I'm guessin yer the kind of feller what'd wear hot pink camo"

Well, here is the thing with me. I am convinced a higher power exists (not certain though but feel close to certain) but I don't believe it's worthy of worship and believe the opposite, that it's not. The reason being not that it's not ultimate in it's attributes, but that it didn't earn it's character and praise and that earned praise is greater then unearned praise.

I don't really know what the makes me. Sort of something in between a deist and an atheist I think.

(March 18, 2013 at 9:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Well, here is the thing with me. I am convinced a higher power exists (not certain though but feel close to certain) but I don't believe it's worthy of worship and believe the opposite, that it's not. The reason being not that it's not ultimate in it's attributes, but that it didn't earn it's character and praise and that earned praise is greater then unearned praise.

I don't really know what the makes me. Sort of something in between a deist and an atheist I think.

Why? Not that I disagree (about earned praise), but if we're going to call that a reason for something and connect it to this idea of a higher power as it were somehow explanatory (and just how is it connected anyway?), we're gonna need a little more than that, eh?