(April 20, 2013 at 8:46 am)paulpablo Wrote: Right if light cannot be reflected off him because he is not an object and it impossible then it's also impossible for him to effect anything else which is an object.

How is that?
Can you prove that step by step as I did?

Quote:Also image may not have anything to do with light, you can have a mental image of something that involves no light, but if you want to use it in terms of our direct senses then the same would apply to hearing, or talking.

A Mental image is just a memory an approximation to a real image

Quote:Well my counter argument is god can have a son and reflect light, you just don't understand how.

You are again mixing science with logic
Let me explain more
We only know things from our experience and observation in the universe
A horse doesn't fly ( from our observation) so it may be possible that under other technology or laws a deity is defying these observation

But defying logic is completely different thing, it is not related to power or laws it is related to our definition of terms (just that)
God can turn a stick into a snake
but he cannot make a stick and a snake at the same time, because WE defined the two terms to be mutually exclusive

Quote:Why can't he live on earth as a creature?

Because the words "creature" and "God" are mutually exclusive.

---

(April 20, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Ryantology Wrote: This makes the unfounded assumption that the universe's beginning, as we understand it, is the true beginning and not the result of a collapsed universe or some other process.

Maybe you did not understood my statements well, I considered this by putting E (Existence) which include the possibilities for other universes/objects

Let me make it simpler; just consider the number of events (any event) without thinking about the universe or time
The number of events must be finite so there is a first event.......... then continue the proof.

Quote:This is an intellectually empty set of equations once you assume that G must exist. You do not demonstrate the fact as you state it, you merely state that it must necessarily be true

I didn't state it, I proved it based on the disjoint theory

---

(April 20, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 8:15 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: A logical proof is the strongest evidence ever.
It is stronger than science, statistics or anything else.

Logic is a system for analyzing the validity and soundness of an argument.

Sorry for the miss understanding
I'm not using the full definition of Logic in my proof

The proof is based on just one "Logical" premises

Logical Paradox are impossible to exist
Or in simpler words
two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot be true at the same time.

If you have a problem with the proof, you need to prove me wrong first.

I love it, everytime some apologist tries to float the exact argument the last apologist tried to float and gets shot down they retreat to "no, you just didn't understand"

No, jackasses, you fucked the pooch and failed at your attempt.

Show me how you proved that god cannot reflect light and then I'll show you my proof that god cannot oscillate air molecules to create sound or create a flood.

I could go into this more deeply but I don't honestly think it's worth it.

By the way I anticipate your response will involve something along the lines of "god is not an object and is therefore not going to reflect light" well ok then I can just say with that logic god is not a material being or thing and can therefore not manipulate anything that is material.

---

A mental image doesn't have to be a memory, I can think of an image I've never seen before, technically speaking all images are mental images, the brain makes sense of what the light is reflected off but it is perfectly possible to see images which aren't there, I know this from taking mushrooms and acid, I have seen plenty of images that weren't there by reflected light or by memory.

---

Prove the words creature and god are mutually exclusive.

I once read about a research into a device that looks into your retinas and, if you concentrate on an image, it can show you what image it is you're thinking about... then there was another that used brainwaves, but required some prior learning.

So is the argument essentially: 'everything had a beginning and so something must've caused it that is greater than everything, therefore this must be god'?

...or am I oversimplifying?

(April 23, 2013 at 9:14 am)Sansbury Wrote: So is the argument essentially: 'everything had a beginning and so something must've caused it that is greater than everything, therefore this must be god'?

...or am I oversimplifying?

Not very accurate

A First event must have existed
Events cannot happen by itself
A Starter for events must exist
The Starter must be self sufficient
The Starter is outside the Universe/creation
The Starter is Unique
The Starter is not similar to anything we know (or imagine)


These are the conclusions, and the premises is just the disjoint theory.

(April 27, 2013 at 3:39 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: A First event must have existed

Really lets look at your next line.

Quote:Events cannot happen by itself

This contradicts your first statement.

Quote:A Starter for events must exist

Again this contradicts what you said at the begginning. Do make your mind up.

Quote:The Starter must be self sufficient

What has a plot of land and a cow?
What are you saying here?

Quote:The Starter is outside the Universe/creation

Why?

Quote:The Starter is Unique

Why?

Quote:The Starter is not similar to anything we know (or imagine)

Why?

Quote:These are the conclusions, and the premises is just the disjoint theory.

You make conclusions based on no evidence.

(April 22, 2013 at 2:16 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Show me how you proved that god cannot reflect light and then I'll show you my proof that god cannot oscillate air molecules to create sound or create a flood.

I could go into this more deeply but I don't honestly think it's worth it.

By the way I anticipate your response will involve something along the lines of "god is not an object and is therefore not going to reflect light" well ok then I can just say with that logic god is not a material being or thing and can therefore not manipulate anything that is material.

---

A mental image doesn't have to be a memory, I can think of an image I've never seen before, technically speaking all images are mental images, the brain makes sense of what the light is reflected off but it is perfectly possible to see images which aren't there, I know this from taking mushrooms and acid, I have seen plenty of images that weren't there by reflected light or by memory.

---

Prove the words creature and god are mutually exclusive.

You don't see the power of this proof
I don't need to prove that, because they are AXIOMS

We (humans) defined the words Creator & Creature to be mutually exclusive

If you have different terms or usage you need to state them.

---

(April 27, 2013 at 3:47 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: You make conclusions based on no evidence.

You need to go back and read the proof
then specify which step is not leading to the next.

(April 27, 2013 at 3:51 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(April 22, 2013 at 2:16 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Show me how you proved that god cannot reflect light and then I'll show you my proof that god cannot oscillate air molecules to create sound or create a flood.

I could go into this more deeply but I don't honestly think it's worth it.

By the way I anticipate your response will involve something along the lines of "god is not an object and is therefore not going to reflect light" well ok then I can just say with that logic god is not a material being or thing and can therefore not manipulate anything that is material.

---

A mental image doesn't have to be a memory, I can think of an image I've never seen before, technically speaking all images are mental images, the brain makes sense of what the light is reflected off but it is perfectly possible to see images which aren't there, I know this from taking mushrooms and acid, I have seen plenty of images that weren't there by reflected light or by memory.

---

Prove the words creature and god are mutually exclusive.

You don't see the power of this proof
I don't need to prove that, because they are AXIOMS

We (humans) defined the words Creator & Creature to be mutually exclusive

If you have different terms or usage you need to state them.

---

(April 27, 2013 at 3:47 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: You make conclusions based on no evidence.

You need to go back and read the proof
then specify which step is not leading to the next.

Ok so now all you have to do is show me when all of humanity universally agreed that a creature and a god are mutually exclusive, show me where you proved god cannot reflect light, and explain yourself when you say mental images aren't images they are just memories, because I disagreed with you, I said they don't have to be memories.

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 1. The Universe is dynamic and each second will take a new state
so its states can be represented by a function of time U(t) ≠U(t+1)

The universe is currently dynamic because it is in its infancy.
Eventually it will not be dynamic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Quote:2. Time is a conceptual frame of reference; i.e. a relation between two events;
• Event 1: a consistent (as we assume) set of repeated events we use as a reference (e.g. clock ticks, radiation, moon cycle, etc.)
• Event 2: an event that we are trying to measure in reference to event(s) 1 (e.g. a car trip, age, etc.)

Time is a dimension as much as left right up and down. You live in 4 dimensional space time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Quote:By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

3. Assuming that time is infinite t ɛ { -∞, -∞+1, ……, 0, 1, 2, 3, … ,∞-1,∞}

Quote:4. Defining two sets of the Universe states in the past

Set 1: All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by a finite number of seconds
Set 2: All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by an infinite number of seconds
S1= {U(1), U(2), ….}, S2={U(-∞), U(-∞+1), U(-∞+2),….}

Each set can have (Finite, Infinite or 0) number of members
So the options are:
1. S1 = ɸ (i.e. it is empty)
False, as it contradicts with the ability to measure (time/seconds)

2. S1 has infinite no. of elements
False, as it contradicts with the definition of Set 1; it has only Statuses separated by a finite number of seconds so it must have a finite No. of elements.

3. S1 is finite & S2≠ɸ
False: it means that Set 1 has a last point where next points are away by an infinite time/seconds, but as the next point is separated by an extra 1 second, that point does not exist

4. S1≠ɸ & S2= ɸ
which is the only true and possible option

The conclusion is that
The universe had a finite number of states and had a start or beginning, Time itself had a start as well.

(This part is a proof by perfect induction, analyzing all options and proving that they lead to the same conclusion)
[quote]

Because the universe is analogue the space between any two distances is infinitely dividable. To cover any distance then would take an infinity , therefore movement is impossible.
See I can talk bollocks too.

[quote]
Part II
Then to prove the necessity for a creator
Assuming that Existence E=U+G where U is the universe and G is another object/deity (which can be 0 )
(E = Existence, U=Known Universe, G=something external to the universe)
According to Axiom 1; the universe states are dynamic not constant
As the universe is part of the existence (or all of it) then Existence is dynamic as well (i.e. can be represented by a function)
E(t)=U(t)+G

You make a lot of assumptions without providing evidence.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quote:In addition as proved time itself had a start which means that that the universe state U(0) was not a function at all it was either nothing or a constant; taking Limit as t-->0 U=C or U= 0
As U(0) was constant then G must exist and be dynamic as well G≠0 Ʌ G=G(p)
The correct formula should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p); p is another parameter that changes the states of G
A complete Universe function must include another parameter to change from constant to dynamic at t=0 E(0,p)=C+G(p)
It should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p)
G must exist and did created/changed the universe at its beginning
We can call this parameter the actions of a creator (G)

(This part is a proof by contradiction, based on the definition of
static vs. dynamic (constant vs. variable))

____________________________________________________________ 
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

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is ISLAM

So much stupid.