(June 10, 2013 at 8:44 am)pocaracas Wrote: You're claiming there was a very first event... an absolute first event.

All I say is... maybe not.

You need to refute it by proving that either my premises are wrong
or a step doesn't lead to the next inside the proof

Other than that are just assertions.
You don't need to waist your time writing them.

---

(June 10, 2013 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: The problem is that you can attribute this philosophical magical quantity to ANY imaginary entity, not only to Allah, your preferred magical entity.

I didn't prove that (by this proof)

Quote:Problem: everything which exists must have a beginning, but infinite regression hurts my brain, so something must have the special power of already existing despite never having been created:
Solution 1: a magic space monkey which IS WHILE NOT BEING did it.
Solution 2: the four psychic winds of Boobledeeboo, which eternally co-create each other, created psychic eddies, which manifest as our universe.
Solution 3: the non-sentient "Divide by Zero" formula converted all numbers to infinity, and back into the form of its non-sentient (and therefore fully mindful) will.
Solution 4: Allah magically exists without having been created, despite the rule that all things must have been created

See the problem? All the specific solutions are just the same process with different imaginary friends executing the impossible. EVEN IF we are disposed to accept the necessity of a philosophical meat-grinder that turns the impossible into the possible, why should we choose yours? The others at least have the benefit of being fun, and of not causing people to crash airplanes into buildings.

Here you presented a weak proof (which is not mine) then refuted it, I agree with you!
Your proof doesn't prove God.

You need to discuss my proof not yours!

If God was real, theists would not have to waste their time in attempting to convince non-believers of their God's existence.

(June 10, 2013 at 10:30 am)paulpablo Wrote: So as you said it is impossible for you to know how your god (a god who does things while having no flow inside him of anything) is capable of conscious thought or decisions.

Yes this is exactly what I say!

Quote:This in itself is a paradox of logic, god has thought and conscious decisions, yet god has no fluid flowing inside parts at all and before the big bang has no time to operate in at all. So without time or moving parts or anything else which operates how would god be able to even create a slice of toast, he manages to create a universe.

This is not a PARADOX it is called a MYSTERY

Quote:You say you don't know which is fair enough but then why be critical of christians, they tell you god has a son they don't know how.

This is a PARADOX!

Quote:You are basically in the same position as everyone else, you know nothing about what is outside our time and space you are just guessing the quran is right.

Wrong, we know many things (by Logic) about God but we don't a lot of things which is related to How and Why.

---

(June 11, 2013 at 6:38 am)Maelstrom Wrote: If God was real, theists would not have to waste their time in attempting to convince non-believers of their God's existence.

Very strange statement!

It is like saying if traffic law is real, Policemen would not have to waste their time in attempting of making drivers follow it.

(June 11, 2013 at 6:35 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(June 10, 2013 at 8:44 am)pocaracas Wrote: You're claiming there was a very first event... an absolute first event.

All I say is... maybe not.

You need to refute it by proving that either my premises are wrong
or a step doesn't lead to the next inside the proof

Other than that are just assertions.
You don't need to waist your time writing them.

F'in hell.... I quit beating around the bushes!
When will you get it through that thick skull that your initial assumptions, your initial assertions, your base for the whole proof is not valid!?!!?

If the base is invalid, the whole building collapses.
Your proof, proves nothing, because it starts off wrong.

You have no way of knowing there was a first event, hence everything that follows is wrong, however logically valid the reasoning may be.

(June 11, 2013 at 6:42 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: It is like saying if traffic law is real, Policemen would not have to waste their time in attempting of making drivers follow it.

There are always going to be those who disobey the law, which has no bearing on God. Besides, I am confused by what you mean by if, considering that traffic law is real. The same cannot be stated of God.

(June 11, 2013 at 6:35 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: You need to refute it by proving that either my premises are wrong
or a step doesn't lead to the next inside the proof

Still showing off that fundamental, catastrophic misunderstanding of the burden of proof, huh "Scholar?"

Quote:Other than that are just assertions.
You don't need to waist your time writing them.

That's what we've been telling you for weeks.

Quote: This in itself is a paradox of logic, god has thought and conscious decisions, yet god has no fluid flowing inside parts at all and before the big bang has no time to operate in at all. So without time or moving parts or anything else which operates how would god be able to even create a slice of toast, he manages to create a universe.

This is not a PARADOX it is called a MYSTERY

Quote:You say you don't know which is fair enough but then why be critical of christians, they tell you god has a son they don't know how.

This is a PARADOX!

So tell me the difference between you saying an entity with no processes or time to have a process can have a thought process and decide to create the universe and a christian saying there is one god but he has a son who is also a god. Both make no sense whatsoever but for some reason you label yours a mystery while the other must be wrong because it is a paradox, but why?

(June 11, 2013 at 6:42 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: [

(June 11, 2013 at 6:38 am)Maelstrom Wrote: If God was real, theists would not have to waste their time in attempting to convince non-believers of their God's existence.

Very strange statement!

It is like saying if traffic law is real, Policemen would not have to waste their time in attempting of making drivers follow it.

What is stranger is a god -- who is all powerful and all-knowing -- would need idiots like you to tell the rest of people, a lot smarter than you, what they should believe.

(June 11, 2013 at 6:35 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:Problem: everything which exists must have a beginning, but infinite regression hurts my brain, so something must have the special power of already existing despite never having been created:
Solution 1: a magic space monkey which IS WHILE NOT BEING did it.
Solution 2: the four psychic winds of Boobledeeboo, which eternally co-create each other, created psychic eddies, which manifest as our universe.
Solution 3: the non-sentient "Divide by Zero" formula converted all numbers to infinity, and back into the form of its non-sentient (and therefore fully mindful) will.
Solution 4: Allah magically exists without having been created, despite the rule that all things must have been created

See the problem? All the specific solutions are just the same process with different imaginary friends executing the impossible. EVEN IF we are disposed to accept the necessity of a philosophical meat-grinder that turns the impossible into the possible, why should we choose yours? The others at least have the benefit of being fun, and of not causing people to crash airplanes into buildings.

Here you presented a weak proof (which is not mine) then refuted it, I agree with you!
Your proof doesn't prove God.

You need to discuss my proof not yours!

Your proof has too many assumptions and givens, which you've custom-designed to arrive at your desired conclusions. This is what is meant by "begging the question."

You talk about comparing moments of time t0, t1, etc. and how they must be discrete and measurable, that they are relative concepts, etc. This accords well with our understanding of deliberate creation: there's an idea about something, then the idea is executed, and then a thing exists which once did not exist. It is precisely time which links the intent, the execution, and the result.

However, you insist that the creation of the universe can be done only through the agency of God, who is infinite and singular, and who creates with deliberate intent despite not being subject to change. Okay, in what sense can he be said to think, or to do things, or to have a result (i.e. EXACTLY "a change in state") without time? Your answer is basically to say that you don't know, but with Allah all is possible. But this is not a statement about reality. It's a statement about how we use words: "With Allah, things mean what they don't mean."

Nobody needs to go into your "proof," because your method for solving it is to invoke the concept of "mystery." But the point of the proof isn't really to explain the universe-- it is to solve the MYSTERY of the existence of the universe. Moving the mystery to another agent does nothing to solve the problem, and so no proof has really been furnished.

(June 11, 2013 at 10:12 am)paulpablo Wrote: So tell me the difference between you saying an entity with no processes or time to have a process can have a thought process and decide to create the universe and a christian saying there is one god but he has a son who is also a god. Both make no sense whatsoever but for some reason you label yours a mystery while the other must be wrong because it is a paradox, but why?

The answer is very simple
You are very near sighted! (A typical way of how women think)

When we look (just) to your statement, yes there is no difference they are just claims, Islam is like Christianity or any other religion.

You need to build (scientifically) your thoughts
In a proof each step leads to the next
Step N is nothing without considering step N-1 as a solid fact

You can evaluate the proof in a different method as well, from bottom up instead of top down

Think about the conclusion; is it logical given that the previous step is true, then go back.

Even if you don't agree with the conclusion; is it consistent or not?

---

(June 11, 2013 at 6:54 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(June 11, 2013 at 6:42 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: It is like saying if traffic law is real, Policemen would not have to waste their time in attempting of making drivers follow it.

There are always going to be those who disobey the law, which has no bearing on God. Besides, I am confused by what you mean by if, considering that traffic law is real. The same cannot be stated of God.

I don't think there is much differences

Many people don't agree with traffic law, also many people don't agree with the concept of God

That is why it is necessary to explain (and proof) the existence of God for people how don't know/agree.

---

(June 11, 2013 at 2:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Your proof has too many assumptions and givens, which you've custom-designed to arrive at your desired conclusions. This is what is meant by "begging the question."

Mapping real event is not assumptions it is called Axiom
Axiom are by default true, there is no need to proof them as they are just assigning symbols to things

Quote:You talk about comparing moments of time t0, t1, etc. and how they must be discrete and measurable, that they are relative concepts, etc. This accords well with our understanding of deliberate creation: there's an idea about something, then the idea is executed, and then a thing exists which once did not exist. It is precisely time which links the intent, the execution, and the result.

Yes
whey I said in the proof "Time didn't exist" I didn't mean the universal definition of time, I meant just the sequence and relation of events.

Quote:Nobody needs to go into your "proof," because your method for solving it is to invoke the concept of "mystery." But the point of the proof isn't really to explain the universe-- it is to solve the MYSTERY of the existence of the universe. Moving the mystery to another agent does nothing to solve the problem, and so no proof has really been furnished.

I didn't use the concept of mystery, I proved it
You need to read more about proof by contradiction
If there are two options A & B

You can prove B by proving the impossibility of A, even if you cannot explain or know B.

---

(June 11, 2013 at 6:47 am)pocaracas Wrote: When will you get it through that thick skull that your initial assumptions, your initial assertions, your base for the whole proof is not valid!?!!?

If the base is invalid, the whole building collapses.
Your proof, proves nothing, because it starts off wrong.

You have no way of knowing there was a first event, hence everything that follows is wrong, however logically valid the reasoning may be.

You are very angry because I killed your "No" God!

My initial assumptions cannot be refuted because they are very simple and straightforward

The universe exists
The universe is dynamic
Mutually exclusive terms are "Mutually exclusive"

Here is another challenge for you
Can you bring 3 other facts in the whole world that are more solid than mine.