"What's north of the north pole?"

(March 19, 2013 at 9:03 am)Rhythm Wrote: "What's north of the north pole?"

Exactly, and when Aquinas was asked what was God doing before the creation of the universe, Aquinas replied there was never a moment before God created the universe.

I think that on the one hand, it's nice to have people trying to work these things out for god-the-blundering, he clearly wasn't making any progress...but on the other hand, relying on people to work these things out has left us in the predictable position of having worked things out in an absurd an uninformed manner directly related to the level of knowledge available to the person offering the apology at the point in time when it was offered.

Just imagine how much more educated future apologists will have to become to keep this charade plugging along. Silver lining to every cloud.

Here is another thing. Whatever God (If there is a god and he created the universe) made the universe at point zero, that would be indistinguishable as the first cause from God as the first cause, as far as the cosmological argument goes.

Because it would be at time zero and then initialize everything else. If you want to get into teleological territory, then that's a different argument.

(March 19, 2013 at 1:56 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Please use time as I defined within the context of the proof
We are not using the global known definition of time.

Yes I also find myself to be more persuasive if everyone will agree to understand things the way that I do. Good move.

(March 19, 2013 at 1:56 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: True, numbers are finite as well!
Actually anything is finite, infinity is just an approximation we made to represent something very big or unlimited

for example numbers, they exist just as a concept until you start writing them, then they really exist and connote be infinite

That is a pretty interesting concept of number you have there. Who knew the pen that writes them down had so much power?


I'll give you this much, you dress your balderdash up in finer clothes than most of the nutjobs we get through here.

(March 19, 2013 at 8:27 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:Christianity claims that God had a son, which is impossible (even for God himself) because it is a Paradox
The word "Son" means two things
1- The son came after the Father
2- Son is somehow similar to God (i.e. a God)

This would be true of a creature with some sort of biological heredity, and you perceive it this way because you are such a creature, but why the things that hold true for you would hold true for a god is a mystery.......

If God used the word "Son" to describe Jesus, and directed these words to us, then he must mean something we understand
So it must mean something very close to what we understand by Son
Or God is intentionally trying to mislead us!!!

Quote:You, personally, don't feel that a created thing could be a god

That's the point, if you call him a creature and God, then what do you mean by God?

---

(March 19, 2013 at 8:41 am)ManMachine Wrote: 1. We cannot assume time is a 'relation between two events'. There is not always a causal or temporal relationship between certain quantum events.

2. We cannot assume time is infinite. Time is only our relative view of a phenomenon called (unhelpfully) spacetime. Time and space are two parts of the same thing that only appear to us as seperate. We simply do not know enough about the Universe to make this assumption.

Why we cannot assume that? can you explain the term time when there is no events or just one event?
Another way to understand it, forget about the term time
Let's call it RE (Relative events)
then replace the word time by RE in my proof
Relative events cannot be infinite, so there was some time where one event occurs at a time from a single source.....................

Quote:For the second part, you have assumed that the universe cannot come into existance from nothing without the help of 'G'. This is also not true.

It is very obvious, Mutually exclusive events/adjectives cannot exist simultaneously, a static object will remain static forever till something change it.

Quote:U(0) can equal nothing and still give rise to a universe of matter independantly. This is all built on the Law of least Action. The Universe is essentially lazy.

This is impossible something cannot come from nothing. (paradox)

(March 19, 2013 at 10:36 am)whateverist Wrote: Yes I also find myself to be more persuasive if everyone will agree to understand things the way that I do. Good move.

You don't understand the concept of mapping, these are Axioms
I can define any term I want then use it in my proof
you are allowed only to debate conclusions or logical reasoning inside the proof
for example you cannot say, G doesn't exist so you cannot use it in the formula!

Quote:

Quote:for example numbers, they exist just as a concept until you start writing them, then they really exist and connote be infinite

That is a pretty interesting concept of number you have there. Who knew the pen that writes them down had so much power?

Yes, really interesting that no body thought about this before

(March 20, 2013 at 7:00 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: You don't understand the concept of mapping, these are Axioms
I can define any term I want then use it in my proof

Turnabout is fair play. If you think you can define things however you want, then so can we. This gets us nowhere; how about you just go with what things actually mean and build from there, rather than insisting that everyone agree with you before they begin arguing?

Quote:you are allowed only to debate conclusions or logical reasoning inside the proof

If the proof has no logical basis or valid conclusions- say, they were made on the basis of terms that have been redefined inaccurately- then there is no need to offer anything in rebuttal.

Quote:for example you cannot say, G doesn't exist so you cannot use it in the formula!

No, you can't. That would be patently ridiculous. As would deciding that G should actually be pronounced like L, and demanding that everyone use this new pronunciation. Do you see?

(March 20, 2013 at 4:31 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Why we cannot assume that? can you explain the term time when there is no events or just one event?

I can describe it with no event.

Time is a function of spacetime.

(March 20, 2013 at 4:31 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Another way to understand it, forget about the term time
Let's call it RE (Relative events)
then replace the word time by RE in my proof
Relative events cannot be infinite, so there was some time where one event occurs at a time from a single source.

You are still using 'time' to describe your proof. Your statement above is fallacious.

(March 20, 2013 at 4:31 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: It is very obvious, Mutually exclusive events/adjectives cannot exist simultaneously, a static object will remain static forever till something change it.

This is the same arguement that St Thomas Aquinas used as one of his proofs for the existance of God. The Prime Mover, something must be the cause of the first movement therefore God [or in our case 'G'] is the only terminus to infinite regression. Which is patent nonsense.

(March 20, 2013 at 4:31 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: This is impossible something cannot come from nothing. (paradox)

While I accept you may find the Physics behind this hard to comprehend it is theoretically possible and more importantly the theory fits with current M-Theory.

I can assure you it is not a paradox, in fact it is very reasonable if you have a mind that does not require a 'G' as a prop.


MM

(March 20, 2013 at 4:31 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: If God

Hell of an assumption.

Quote: used the word "Son" to describe Jesus, and directed these words to us, then he must mean something we understand

granting you your first assumption, you've made another..actually, a few. Will this pile of assertions become convincing at some point? Did god direct anything at us, why must god mean something we can understand? Which notion of son is it that you prefer again and why do you feel that this is the correct amount of wiggling around with the word?

Quote:So it must mean something very close to what we understand by Son
Or God is intentionally trying to mislead us!!!

There are other options, a great many other options.

Quote:That's the point, if you call him a creature and God, then what do you mean by God?

I'm not sure I understand, is there some problem with being both a creature and a god? Why?