You wouldn't know logic if it sat on your face.

(May 11, 2013 at 4:21 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Logic is the basic understanding method for human
Science is built on logic, that is why logic is more sound

There are many refuted and false scientific theories
On the other-hand logic concepts were never refuted of proved to be false; it is impossible because when we try to do that we need to use logic itself.

If you could actually demonstrate anything that you believe in, you wouldn't have to resort to these linguistic confabulations. The fact that you're still convinced your statements are logical is- while amusing- also very depressing.

And let's be clear, all these things you keep saying, none of them are why you believe. None of these were the things that convinced you, they're just the post hoc rationalizations of a man desperately scrabbling to try to make his baseless presuppositions appear to make sense. Because none of these things get you to a god, let alone the Muslim one, without a huge, unconnected leap of logic.

Quote:If I posted everything together it will be a chaos and most of you will not be able to correlate the pieces together

The problem is that you don't post anything at all; just an assertion that you can do something, some edging around the point in later posts, and then a few days later some terribly flawed, presupposition laden "evidence."

Quote:Assertion is not based on facts

Oh, so you do get the problem.

Quote:My proof is based on logic (whether you like it or not)
The problem is that you need to refute it (logically) to claim it invalid.

The problem is that your logic is non existent. Again, you're just asserting you're right, and whenever anyone points out that you haven't justified the leaps in logic you've made with anything other than "I really want this to be true," you just ignore us. It's a bit pathetic.

Beyond that... you haven't yet provided any evidence against evolution (which is what we were actually talking about, let's be clear) to refute. Just a bare assertion that it's a lie; where's our promised evidence, "Scholar?"

Quote: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

There's a whole fucking truck load of illogical shit in the points you have tried to prove but let me just point this one out to you first.

God is outside of time, so you say he can only be one unit otherwise and I'm quoting you

"if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other"

1 This is definitely incorrect English.

2 No idea where you got the idea that an entity can exist but no other entity can exist outside of time.
Explain to me in detail how you know about the laws of the area god occupies outside of the universe and time please, tell me how you observed these logical facts.

3 Even IF my previous point wasn't valid how can an entity exist outside of space and time and have actions.

4 How can an entity exist outside of time and have actions AND have the actions stated explicitly in your holy book as taking time, he created the world in 6 days or periods depending on which translation you believe.
His actions take time, he exists outside of time.

Still also have yet to tell me how you can prove god does not reflect light or how god can definitely not be a creature of any kind.

(May 11, 2013 at 2:00 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

Quote: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

There's a whole fucking truck load of illogical shit in the points you have tried to prove but let me just point this one out to you first.

God is outside of time, so you say he can only be one unit otherwise and I'm quoting you

"if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other"

1 This is definitely incorrect English.

2 No idea where you got the idea that an entity can exist but no other entity can exist outside of time.

It is not an idea it is the conclusion from the proof
You need to distinguish between what I used as the definition of time and the common word "Time"
I used only part of the common Time; which is related events
As it is proved that events had a start (first event)
So with a single event, there is no simultaneous other events (even within God himself)
So the First event is just single from a single source
(That's why scientist call is Singularity)

Quote: Explain to me in detail how you know about the laws of the area god occupies outside of the universe and time please, tell me how you observed these logical facts.

All my conclusions are based on "Disjoint" which is the opposite of terms

Quote:3 Even IF my previous point wasn't valid how can an entity exist outside of space and time and have actions.

How doesn't/cannot apply here!
Because we only know/understand what is inside the universe, even our languages doesn't support words to describe what is outside the universe.

Quote:4 How can an entity exist outside of time and have actions AND have the actions stated explicitly in your holy book as taking time, he created the world in 6 days or periods depending on which translation you believe.
His actions take time, he exists outside of time.

After the first event (creating the Universe) any actions can/must have time (Because other events are taking place)

Quote:Still also have yet to tell me how you can prove god does not reflect light or how god can definitely not be a creature of any kind.

Because the word "Image" we defined it as Light reflected from an object, God is proved to be not an object, so Image doesn't apply to him
Same as creature, God is proved to be not created, he is the first

Your question is like asking "Prove to me how a circle cannot be a square?"
My answer is that you defined (accepted) the definition of "Square" and "Circle", It is an Axiom and axioms don't need to proved.

---

(May 11, 2013 at 7:22 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:My proof is based on logic (whether you like it or not)
The problem is that you need to refute it (logically) to claim it invalid.

The problem is that your logic is non existent. Again, you're just asserting you're right, and whenever anyone points out that you haven't justified the leaps in logic you've made with anything other than "I really want this to be true," you just ignore us. It's a bit pathetic.

Beyond that... you haven't yet provided any evidence against evolution (which is what we were actually talking about, let's be clear) to refute. Just a bare assertion that it's a lie; where's our promised evidence, "Scholar?"

Ok, let's go step by step, as it seems that your brain cannot understand the whole proof

Do you accept the first part that events had a start?

(May 15, 2013 at 6:45 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Ok, let's go step by step, as it seems that your brain cannot understand the whole proof

Before that, I'd like you to go back and look at the post chain leading up to this point; you'll see that we began this exchange with me asking you to provide proof for your claim that evolution is a lie, not with me questioning your proof of the existence of god. Now, I don't accept your evidence for god either, but it'd be nice if you could at least follow the logic of your own posts, and maybe actually provide us with some evidence as to your bold assertion about evolution... which you have, a week later, failed to do.

Quote:Do you accept the first part that events had a start?

Perhaps. See, I'm not going to make this easy on you, nor am I completely disavowed of the notion that the universe is metastable and has existed in one form or another eternally. I'll accept your premise here for the sake of argument, though, because this isn't the point where you go completely off the fucking rails. That'll come later, and I simply can't wait for it.

So please, continue to explain your "proof."

(May 15, 2013 at 7:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: but it'd be nice if you could at least follow the logic of your own posts, and maybe actually provide us with some evidence as to your bold assertion about evolution... which you have, a week later, failed to do.

I'm sorry as I don't have enough time to write in several topics at the same time, it will be in another thread.

Quote:

Quote:Do you accept the first part that events had a start?

Perhaps. See, I'm not going to make this easy on you, nor am I completely disavowed of the notion that the universe is metastable and has existed in one form or another eternally. I'll accept your premise here for the sake of argument, though, because this isn't the point where you go completely off the fucking rails. That'll come later, and I simply can't wait for it.

So please, continue to explain your "proof."

If you went to this point then you must have accepted 2 things:
1- The concept of disjoint
2- The first conclusion that events had a start (we will call it t(0))
Using these 2 premises for the next stage
The universe was either nothing or static before t(0)
After t(0) i.e. t(1) the universe is dynamic not static

Dynamic is the opposite of static
Using the disjoint concept again, u(0) & u(1) are mutually exclusive
without something else to correct the equation
u(0)+G=u(1) i.e. G must change u(0) to u(1)
Which means that G started the first event by either creating the universe from nothing or changing it from something static to the dynamic universe we know now.

(May 15, 2013 at 7:33 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: If you went to this point then you must have accepted 2 things:
1- The concept of disjoint

Maybe go into a little more detail there, I ain't gonna put words in your mouth.

Quote:2- The first conclusion that events had a start (we will call it t(0))

For the sake of argument. You still haven't demonstrated this, but it's generally accepted, so okay.

Quote:Which means that G started the first event by either creating the universe from nothing or changing it from something static to the dynamic universe we know now.

And now your task is to prove that G is a conscious entity, and beyond that, that G is specifically your chosen god and not any multitude of other entities. I went back and took a look at your initial post, and you skipped the former, making any evidence you give for the latter specious at best. Frankly, your evidence for the latter is mainly equivocation, since if you spend enough time amongst the religious you'll find that every extant god is variously given the attributes you claim are exclusive to the god of islam, so...

(May 15, 2013 at 6:45 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: So the First event is just single from a single source
(That's why scientist call is Singularity)

You just love to make shit up don't you.

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

Quote:A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Quote:The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang,[4] but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[5] Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point

Hmmm STILL no proof!

(May 16, 2013 at 4:12 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Hmmm STILL no proof!

...not even a coherent argument.