(May 25, 2013 at 6:51 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 25, 2013 at 6:38 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I have no problem with that as source of creating an "Image" of God

Using this as an excuse for God non-existent is illogical as I already proved God existence and you are not able to refute the proof.

You have no choice (if you are sane) but to accept the proof as a fact (till somebody refute it).

Kindly point me to that proof, I am not going to read all your posts to filter out the potentially meaningful parts from the deepities.

Just go to the first Post!

(May 25, 2013 at 7:08 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Just go to the first Post!

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Part I
3. Assuming that time is infinite t ɛ { -∞, -∞+1, ……, 0, 1, 2, 3, … ,∞-1,∞}

There's your first mistake right there....

Quote:This is very easy to prove!
Just focus inside the proof context
A first event must exist, so only one entity must exist to start this event.

Why couldn't two entities exist to start the event?

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Part I
Premises
I’ll only use Axioms about time & universe
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)

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.)

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

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)

Sorry but you can't apply ordinary algebra to infinite sets. Otherwise, you would get:

∞ + ∞ = ∞

2 ∞ = ∞

therefore, 2 = 1

You can't add, subtract, divide or multiply with infinity, it just gives ridiculous results. With sets, you get {∞} U {∞} = {∞}, etc.

Here's a scenario that illustrates the weirdness of infinity: suppose there is a hotel with an infinite numbers of rooms, all occupied. You show up asking for a vacant room. You would think there is no room for you, but all I have to say is, "everyone moves one room to your right", and presto, there is a vacant room for you.

(May 25, 2013 at 10:54 am)paulpablo Wrote:

Quote:This is very easy to prove!
Just focus inside the proof context
A first event must exist, so only one entity must exist to start this event.

Why couldn't two entities exist to start the event?

Because the first event is just one
for two entities to start the event they must have another event of coordination between them

---

(May 25, 2013 at 11:26 am)little_monkey Wrote: Sorry but you can't apply ordinary algebra to infinite sets. Otherwise, you would get:

∞ + ∞ = ∞

2 ∞ = ∞

therefore, 2 = 1

You can't add, subtract, divide or multiply with infinity, it just gives ridiculous results. With sets, you get {∞} U {∞} = {∞}, etc.

I didn't apply algebra at all, it is only logic!

Quote:Here's a scenario that illustrates the weirdness of infinity: suppose there is a hotel with an infinite numbers of rooms, all occupied. You show up asking for a vacant room. You would think there is no room for you, but all I have to say is, "everyone moves one room to your right", and presto, there is a vacant room for you.

It is a paradox, i.e. impossible to exist in reality
Infinity itself is a conceptual term and nothing can be of infinite time time in the future or history or have an infinite number of real elements.

---

(May 25, 2013 at 8:09 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(May 25, 2013 at 7:08 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Just go to the first Post!

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Part I
3. Assuming that time is infinite t ɛ { -∞, -∞+1, ……, 0, 1, 2, 3, … ,∞-1,∞}

There's your first mistake right there....

What is the mistake?
This is just an axiom i.e. it could be correct of false
it is like saying your salary =S
where S is a number, Axioms cannot be wrong!

Quote:Because the first event is just one
for two entities to start the event they must have another event of coordination between them

Why?
By the way I'm not saying they did both start the event, I'm saying another entity or more could exist and not effected the event.

(May 26, 2013 at 6:36 am)paulpablo Wrote:

Quote:Because the first event is just one
for two entities to start the event they must have another event of coordination between them

Why?
By the way I'm not saying they did both start the event, I'm saying another entity or more could exist and not effected the event.

Go back to my proof, in this case time will exist

Assume two entities A, B pre-existed the Universe
A created the universe, we can say (relating to B) time of A creating the Universe

but according to the proof time didn't exist, i.e. it contradicts with the hypothesis of A,B existing.

Only one entity can exist outside time.

(May 26, 2013 at 7:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Only one entity can exist outside time.

(May 26, 2013 at 7:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 6:36 am)paulpablo Wrote: Why?
By the way I'm not saying they did both start the event, I'm saying another entity or more could exist and not effected the event.

Go back to my proof, in this case time will exist

Assume two entities A, B pre-existed the Universe
A created the universe, we can say (relating to B) time of A creating the Universe

but according to the proof time didn't exist, i.e. it contradicts with the hypothesis of A,B existing.

Only one entity can exist outside time.

You seem to have a pretty special idea of what it means for something to exist. Normally, to exist is to be locatable in both time and place (for things), or to be experienced as a thought by an individual (this experience also being mediated by time, for without time, there can be no flow of thought). In either case, you have the framework which time provides, and which allows for things to happen-- like new stuff getting made.

Now, perhaps God exists outside of our own particular framework; maybe he lives in meta-time, where he is free to arrange as many universes as he likes. However, if he is NOT said to be dependent on any framework, then the obvious answer is that he exists as a thought, and is therefore (as all thoughts are) dependent on the pre-existence of time for His own existence. And if he IS dependent on any framework, then why does that framework happen to exist? Now you will need a meta-God to explain the existence of meta-time.

Saying that ANY thing exists without a framework in which to exist is not a religious idea-- it's a refusal to let "exist" mean what it means.

(May 26, 2013 at 7:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Only one entity can exist outside time.

You haven't demonstrated this. What's to stop two beings, both with this apparent timeless magic power you've ascribed to A, from existing in a pre-time reality?

Fuck, what's to stop one and a half such beings existing, since we're just talking in unproved, impossible to demonstrate assertions anyway.