(March 28, 2013 at 5:54 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Yes, scientific theories can be disproved.... but, so far, all the research indicates that this one is a good representation of reality.

Then it is wrong according to my proof!
Ask anyone to prove otherwise?

Quote:In fact, newtonian mechanics is a good representation of reality, at a planetary scale.... even solar system scale. The physics that Newton devised can and are still applied in a lot of scenarios where it is sufficient.
Relativity becomes important at very long distances, or accelerations (typically, from gravity).
Quantum mechanics are more noticeable at very small scales, atoms and molecules scales.
QCD becomes important at even smaller scales.... quarks and the like.
But, when you average QCD to larger scales, you get Quantum mechanics. When you average quantum mechanics over larger scales, you get newtonian mechanics. When you take into consideration the electromagnetic laws (Maxwell's laws) you arrive at relativity. If you take relativity and apply it to slow speeds and low accelerations, you arrive at newtonian mechanics.

It all fits nicely. It all works. You can't disprove these theories by one experiment gone awry... You need a lot of experiments going in a very strange direction to disprove them.

I did not reject those theories!
I just rejected the concept of anything being infinite
Bring me any proof (even a weak one) for that?

Quote:your premise has no firm ground to hold itself. You propose it, and I refuse/reject the proposition. How does that leave you and your premise?

My proof is simple yet very powerful
It depends on one fact
The Universe is changing
Then Axioms about time, which is nothing but utilizing part of the definition of time (Sequence of events)

Those are the only two premises which are not refutable
The rest is just set theory and proof by contradictions

I challenge to find a single flaw in it.

---

Most of you are trying to use a illogical methods to refute the proof
You need to work only inside the realm of the proof not outside it.
(Any scientific theories about time, universe is irrelevant because science is not definite, logic is)

Another point is to recognize that the creator is unique, so don't try to understand details about him; except by using logic
(Mechanism, cause, shape, space, time, etc.) don't apply for him and cannot be used to refute or assert anything.

God gave you what is needed to prove himself, so don't pretend again that you are Atheists or even Agnostics, you are repudiates

(March 30, 2013 at 1:25 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: God created time itself (as proved), so you cannot apply something created after God to God before it was created.
God is eternal

Riddle me this Muslim boy.
How can something exist without duration? how can something exist if there is no time to exist in?

And remember "god can just coz" is not an acceptable answer.

(March 30, 2013 at 1:34 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Most of you are trying to use a illogical methods to refute the proof
You need to work only inside the realm of the proof not outside it.
(Any scientific theories about time, universe is irrelevant because science is not definite, logic is)

Another point is to recognize that the creator is unique, so don't try to understand details about him; except by using logic
(Mechanism, cause, shape, space, time, etc.) don't apply for him and cannot be used to refute or assert anything.

God gave you what is needed to prove himself, so don't pretend again that you are Atheists or even Agnostics, you are repudiates

It isn't that anyone is trying to repudiate your 'proof'. We recognize that you have created your own little alternative reality in there but surprise, surprise! We are not required to join you there and neither are we required to show you the way out. Stay in there for all I care. I prefer the wider world. May fuck be upon you.

(March 30, 2013 at 1:34 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

---

(March 28, 2013 at 5:54 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Yes, scientific theories can be disproved.... but, so far, all the research indicates that this one is a good representation of reality.

Then it is wrong according to my proof!
Ask anyone to prove otherwise?

Quote:In fact, newtonian mechanics is a good representation of reality, at a planetary scale.... even solar system scale. The physics that Newton devised can and are still applied in a lot of scenarios where it is sufficient.
Relativity becomes important at very long distances, or accelerations (typically, from gravity).
Quantum mechanics are more noticeable at very small scales, atoms and molecules scales.
QCD becomes important at even smaller scales.... quarks and the like.
But, when you average QCD to larger scales, you get Quantum mechanics. When you average quantum mechanics over larger scales, you get newtonian mechanics. When you take into consideration the electromagnetic laws (Maxwell's laws) you arrive at relativity. If you take relativity and apply it to slow speeds and low accelerations, you arrive at newtonian mechanics.

It all fits nicely. It all works. You can't disprove these theories by one experiment gone awry... You need a lot of experiments going in a very strange direction to disprove them.

---

I did not reject those theories!
I just rejected the concept of anything being infinite
Bring me any proof (even a weak one) for that?

Reject away.
Show me that it is so..... surely it should me much easier to prove that something is finite rather than infinite.
And if I am asking this, it's because whatever proof you've brought forth has not managed to sway me. Try again, try better.

(March 30, 2013 at 1:34 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:your premise has no firm ground to hold itself. You propose it, and I refuse/reject the proposition. How does that leave you and your premise?

My proof is simple yet very powerful
It depends on one fact
The Universe is changing
Then Axioms about time, which is nothing but utilizing part of the definition of time (Sequence of events)

And then you jump the gun and state that time had a beginning... How would you know that?

(March 30, 2013 at 1:34 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Those are the only two premises which are not refutable
The rest is just set theory and proof by contradictions

Too bad I just don't accept one of them, heh?...

(March 30, 2013 at 1:34 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I challenge to find a single flaw in it.

---

Most of you are trying to use a illogical methods to refute the proof
You need to work only inside the realm of the proof not outside it.
(Any scientific theories about time, universe is irrelevant because science is not definite, logic is)

Another point is to recognize that the creator is unique, so don't try to understand details about him; except by using logic
(Mechanism, cause, shape, space, time, etc.) don't apply for him and cannot be used to refute or assert anything.

God gave you what is needed to prove himself, so don't pretend again that you are Atheists or even Agnostics, you are repudiates

refutation: time is infinite. Physicists have, in the past, arbitrarily set t=0 at the big bang, just because we have no way of knowing about anything that happened before it.... but it can go to minus infinity.
Now, why would I be limited to after the big bang? Why would time not exist before the big bang? Physics does not provide an answer to "was there space-time before the big bang?" so you should not propose it as an assumption.
Knock yourself with these guys: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...e-big-bang

(March 30, 2013 at 9:21 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: How can something exist without duration? how can something exist if there is no time to exist in?

The answer for any How is unknown not only that, even if God answered you, you wouldn't understand

We only know what is inside the universe, what is outside is not necessary following the same laws
We can only apply logic not science/observation to what is outside

The other point, asking questions or not getting answers is irrelevant to the proof itself.

to refute a proof, either prove that one of its premises is false, or a methods used to reach the conclusion is wrong.

(March 30, 2013 at 9:55 am)whateverist Wrote: It isn't that anyone is trying to repudiate your 'proof'. We recognize that you have created your own little alternative reality in there but surprise, surprise! We are not required to join you there and neither are we required to show you the way out.

That is a fact of life, you have a choice but you will be responsible for the consequences.

At the end God will ask you, you had a proof of God existence and no refutation? why did you choose not to worship me

---

(March 30, 2013 at 1:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And then you jump the gun and state that time had a beginning... How would you know that?

I didn't jump, It is a very clear conclusion
I did not use the full/scientific definition of time
So it is MyTime which had a beginning
Mytime can be "Events" or "Relative events"
Any way, what I proved is that events had a start
not only that the first event must be only one event from one source
Don't confuse yourself with other definitions of time!

Quote:refutation: time is infinite.

What is that? an assertion from an Atheist.

Quote:Now, why would I be limited to after the big bang? Why would time not exist before the big bang? Physics does not provide an answer to "was there space-time before the big bang?" so you should not propose it as an assumption.

Not an assumption, I proved that.

LOL, I'll play the questions in the hereafter game.
"You had a proof of God existence and no refutation? why did you choose not to worship me"

-Who lied to you (and how did they manage to decieve you in the first place)? In any case, I didn't worship you because you aren't worthy of worship, unless you'd like to massively amend the bullshit your sycophants have been peddling about you.

Easy questions, easy answers.

(March 31, 2013 at 5:43 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(March 30, 2013 at 9:55 am)whateverist Wrote: It isn't that anyone is trying to repudiate your 'proof'. We recognize that you have created your own little alternative reality in there but surprise, surprise! We are not required to join you there and neither are we required to show you the way out.

That is a fact of life, you have a choice but you will be responsible for the consequences.

At the end God will ask you, you had a proof of God existence and no refutation? why did you choose not to worship me

Now you are being boorish as well as boring. Your secret friend is going to kick my ass? Right. Oh how will I sleep at night?

(March 31, 2013 at 5:43 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(March 30, 2013 at 1:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And then you jump the gun and state that time had a beginning... How would you know that?

I didn't jump, It is a very clear conclusion
I did not use the full/scientific definition of time
So it is MyTime which had a beginning
Mytime can be "Events" or "Relative events"
Any way, what I proved is that events had a start
not only that the first event must be only one event from one source
Don't confuse yourself with other definitions of time!

Ah.... "your time"!!!
And here I was thinking we were talking about standard universal time...
Oh well, another looney trying to redefine things and coming up with his own version of the world.... -.-'
Have fun with "your time".

(March 31, 2013 at 5:43 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:refutation: time is infinite.

What is that? an assertion from an Atheist.

A hypothesis which renders your whole "god as first cause argument" useless. You can't demonstrate that time is finite (not "your time", but the actual spacetime continuum). It is impossible to demonstrate an infinite, but there is no theory (that I'm aware of) which ends up with a finite spacetime as a result.

(March 31, 2013 at 5:43 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:Now, why would I be limited to after the big bang? Why would time not exist before the big bang? Physics does not provide an answer to "was there space-time before the big bang?" so you should not propose it as an assumption.

Not an assumption, I proved that.

Your proof is erroneous and looks a lot like an assumption.
Try again.
Just in case you missed where the error was... after some 10 pages, someone is going to show it to you.
You defined Set1 as a finite set.
Then you claim that there are three possibilities for the number of members in that set: empty, finite or infinite.... since you defined the set as finite, it will have to have finite members... well duh!
But wait, what happened to set2, the infinite one? You claim that it is false that is not empty... because of something no one understands related to set1... what does set1 have to do with set2?


Now, here's a nice analogy to your random toothpick drop.
Imagine that you dropped some 10^10 toothpicks (this is like... 10 billion of those... there aren't enough trees to make that many). How likely is it that you'd find 3 in a straight line? Damned difficult to find, but not impossible.

Look at the Universe... it's huge, enormous, incomprehensibly large. Life, as we know it, may be out there, but we have no knowledge of it. We've probed far into our galaxy and looked into other galaxies.... life is nowhere to be found, or very difficult to find. Life exists in one tiny planet, circling one unremarkable star, lost in one arm of a standard spiral galaxy. So... life is very difficult to find in this galaxy... but it's not impossible, because we're here.

(March 31, 2013 at 8:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Ah.... "your time"!!!
And here I was thinking we were talking about standard universal time...
Oh well, another looney trying to redefine things and coming up with his own version of the world.... -.-'
Have fun with "your time".

My definition is much better; why?
because it is a partial definition of time
It is accepted by all people
The universal definition of time, is not even definite or agreed on.
So just analyzing the sequence of events is better than using the whole definition of time which is not universally agreed on.

Quote:It is impossible to demonstrate an infinite, but there is no theory (that I'm aware of) which ends up with a finite spacetime as a result.

Now there is! mine

Quote:Your proof is erroneous and looks a lot like an assumption.

Empty assertions!

Quote:Just in case you missed where the error was... after some 10 pages, someone is going to show it to you.

Is this a belief?

Quote:You defined Set1 as a finite set.

I didn't

Quote:because of something no one understands related to set1... what does set1 have to do with set2?

Members of set 2 must start after (before in time) members of set 1

Quote: How likely is it that you'd find 3 in a straight line? Damned difficult to find, but not impossible.

My proof doesn't include any probabilities.