(June 12, 2013 at 7:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(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.

LOL angry... LOL, just LOL. You people always too eager to call atheists angry... This is not anger, this is facepalming, head-banging on desk and other such reactions to your inability to understand how your premisses fail.
Your initial assumptions fail because they are not verifiable. They are not obvious. They may apply to our Universe, but you then infer something out of the Universe from them, hence you need to take into account the events out of our Universe... if such a thing exists.... and those could be infinite, which lead to your assumption failing.

3 facts that are more solid than yours? LOL
Gravity exists is a good assumption for someone who lives in the vicinity of a massive object, like our planet Earth.
Red light has a longer wavelength than blue light.
My nick is pocaracas.

(June 12, 2013 at 7:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I didn't use the concept of mystery, I proved it

Never happened.

Quote: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.

Not when you've created a false dilemma. You don't just get to say, "Here are the two options I think we must consider, and A fails, so B must be true." Either you can see that you are working backward from history's worst confirmation bias, or you are a child molester.

(June 12, 2013 at 7:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 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.

It doesn't work in QM. Either a photon is a particle or a wave. Yet, it's neither and both.

Quote: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?

There is nothing near sighted with what I'm saying you are just failing to provide proof of the part of your claims I'm focusing on.
(This is typical of muslims who cannot speak english properly like yourself)
Are you saying that you cannot prove that god is unique and that it is actually just an unsubstantiated claim?

You make a claim about what is outside of space and time and say god must be unique because if there was another one like him then there would be time because time is related events between two things.

I didn't disagree with you on this I simply asked you to then explain how god does things such as decide to create a universe or have thoughts himself if he cannot have time or processes due to your own definition of god (a single entity with no inner processes or parts).

You then said you could not explain this.

This means your proof that god is unique is actually just an unsubstantiated claim and nothing more nothing less.

You claim he did something and you don't know how he did it, it is just as much of a believable claim as someone saying god had a son but they don't know how he did it, or me saying the great giant elephant created the universe I just don't know how he did it.

If you have an unsupported claim it is just as unsupported as any other unsupported claim.

It isn't that I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you but you just cannot explain your own proof that god is unique. And you're imposing rules on what is outside of space and time.

We don't know what exists outside of space and time so we have no rules of physics regarding what is outside of space and time. Your claim that god has to be unique because if there were another one like him then time would exist is useless because there could be two entities existing separate from each other just as the god you claim exists can be separate from our time and space.


In summery

1 Your claims of what happens outside of space and time cannot be verified anyway because no scientist knows what happens outside of our space and time. THIS ALSO MEANS IT IS ILLOGICAL TO MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY LOGICALLY MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE LAWS OF TIME WITHIN OUR TIME AND SPACE (just because I know you are going to say something along the lines of logic is more reliable than science or some other babble)

2 Even if your claims are true they prove god cannot have a conscious because he has no time or processes in which to think, so he could not have decided to create the universe before time existed.

(June 12, 2013 at 10:22 am)paulpablo Wrote: 2 Even if your claims are true they prove god cannot have a conscious because he has no time or processes in which to think, so he could not have decided to create the universe before time existed.[/b]

Nonono you don't understand. Time can't be infinite, so God must think without time. We define thinking as a change in the state of mind (i.e. over time), and God must be changeless, so with God, thinking means exactly what it doesn't mean. It's sooo obvious.

Fictional characters are without a state of mind, so they can be changeless.

(June 13, 2013 at 8:06 am)little_monkey Wrote: Fictional characters are without a state of mind, so they can be changeless.

Therein lies the rub. If you are examining the nature of a character, and you've absolutely proven that it cannot possibly "exist" under any normal meaning of the word, do you:
a) Say, "Whoah, this character cannot in any sense be said to exist. What was I thinking?"
b) Say, "Whoah, I've proven that this character, which I'm super-duper-sure must exist, magically breaks all the rules of language and logic. That makes him extra-cool and even more necessary than before!"

(June 12, 2013 at 7:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 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.

You need to read more about false dilemmas.

Actually, you just need to read up an article on Logic 101 in general.

But guys, the cats! What about the cats! THEY KILL SCORPIONS!

(June 13, 2013 at 11:22 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: But guys, the cats! What about the cats! THEY KILL SCORPIONS!

Well fuck I'm sold. Praise be Allah, the scorpion killer!