(June 12, 2013 at 9:05 am)pocaracas Wrote: 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.

The impossibility of infinity is not an assumption or based on our universe
It is based on our definition of terms

Quote: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.

You cannot even prove that!
Maybe it is Santa who is pulling things to each other.

Quote:Red light has a longer wavelength than blue light.

Maybe in another universe it is not so

Quote:My nick is pocaracas.

This is something I cannot argue with

---

(June 12, 2013 at 9:36 am)bennyboy Wrote:

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

Never happened.

If the creator is unique, his actions must be a mystery, i.e. not similar to anything we know

Quote: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.[/quote]
It is also based on the disjoint, either creator(s) exist or not, there is no other option
If a No creator is impossible then a creator (or more) is a must.

I think this thread is too advanced to your (mutated) mind!

---

(June 12, 2013 at 10:00 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(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.

QM is just an assumption not real!
It is based on uncertainty so they formulated a mathematical model to be able to use it practically

---

(June 12, 2013 at 10:22 am)paulpablo Wrote: 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).

The question is meaningless as we only know/understand things similar to what we observe in the Universe, God is not like anything we know so even our words cannot explain How he do things.

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

It is conforming with the uniqueness of God not to understand

Quote: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.

Explaining How and Why god do things in not part of the proof!

Quote: 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.

Correct, but I didn't talk about physics at all

Quote: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.

you are mixing logic with science!

Quote: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

No, he can, because this will be the first event
You see; using the word "Before" can only be applied if you have more than one event (as you just did: 1-Descision 2-Creation)

---

(June 12, 2013 at 6:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

I neither claimed that God think without time nor claimed that God is changeless

(June 15, 2013 at 6:19 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I neither claimed that God think without time nor claimed that God is changeless

Now we're getting somewhere. You are claiming that God is part of a framework, since by your definition time is the conceptual relationship between changes in state, and you do not assert that God is state-changeless. But you've made a fatal error. This time framework which you now concede God has access to ('cuz he has to think or he's not sentient, which disqualifies him from being called "God") must either be finite or infinite, and is therefore subject to the same logic you presented in the OP. Your "proof" that time cannot be infinite means that God's time framework must also be finite, and you're right back into infinite regress, because even God can't solve the philosophical problem you invoked him to solve.

You, of course, will pull out your philosophical magic box, and say that since God is beyond our comprehension, he (and the timeframe in which he is now said to operate) don't have to follow any of the rules (read: simple definitions of words) that we naturally assume when we talk about sentient beings thinking, creating things, and so on.

Or to summarize. . . "Time cannot be infinite therefore (special pleading)."

Quote:

Quote: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

No, he can, because this will be the first event
You see; using the word "Before" can only be applied if you have more than one event (as you just did: 1-Descision 2-Creation)

[/quote]



So what you are saying is there was an event before creation of the universe? God deciding to create the universe was the first event and not the actual creation of the universe? If so then how did god decide to start time before time started? How did he decide to start time while being outside of time? He would have had no time in which to make this decision.

---

Quote: 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.

you are mixing logic with science!

I'm not at all, it is illogical, unscientific, whatever way you want to phrase it, to assume that if two entities exist outside of our time and space that time will be created because the two things will relate to one another.

---

I just want to try and show to you how mixed up you are.
I'll give you a list of things which are logically impossible then next to them I'll tell you why they are impossible.

God has conscious fluid thought and can make decisions - God is outside of time, he has no fluid inner moving parts.

God has a son which he sent down to earth, while at the same time as being outside of our space and time - Impossible since god is outside of space and time.

Ok so when I ask you, how does god do the first example you say "We cannot understand how"
Ok so you ask a christian how does he do the second example they say "We cannot understand how"
It's exactly the same thing, not one bit of difference at all in the slightest. You are just making the same unsubstantiated claim as a christian, and every other religion for that matter.

(June 15, 2013 at 8:40 am)paulpablo Wrote: So what you are saying is there was an event before creation of the universe? God deciding to create the universe was the first event and not the actual creation of the universe?

I didn't assert or prove that, it is just possible!
The proof is about the first event (whatever it can be)

Quote: If so then how did god decide to start time before time started? How did he decide to start time while being outside of time? He would have had no time in which to make this decision.

You have tried so many times to use this trick,
Asking Why doesn't prove or refute anything

Quote:I'm not at all, it is illogical, unscientific, whatever way you want to phrase it, to assume that if two entities exist outside of our time and space that time will be created because the two things will relate to one another.

Time is not created, it will simply apply
Time is a concept or relation between two events
Time itself is not a thing to exist, however events can exist as actions from a deity.

Quote:Ok so you ask a christian how does he do the second example they say "We cannot understand how"
It's exactly the same thing, not one bit of difference at all in the slightest. You are just making the same unsubstantiated claim as a christian, and every other religion for that matter.

It is not the something, let me ask you what is the meaning of Son?

(June 15, 2013 at 9:23 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 1) Time is not created, it will simply apply
2) Time is a concept or relation between two events
3) Time itself is not a thing to exist, however events can exist as actions from a deity.

1) Time has the advantage over god in this.
2) God is a concept which relates the idea of a person to the idea of megalomania.
3) God too is not a thing to exist, however events and everything we know can be thought of as having been ordained by an all powerful god.

Quote: Quote: If so then how did god decide to start time before time started? How did he decide to start time while being outside of time? He would have had no time in which to make this decision.

You have tried so many times to use this trick,
Asking Why doesn't prove or refute anything

It isn't a trick, I know a lot of Muslims and atheists see this type of thread as a type of football match, atheists vs Muslims who can score the most points or make the other look like a dick but I'm not doing that.

You fact is you say your proof is based on axioms, concepts which we have already defined as true.

Decisions, thought processes, or processes in general as a definition take some time, god did this while according to you being outside of time.
This is illogical and a paradox.
You can also say it is a mystery, a mystery that god can do this even though it is illogical, but then if you allow that then you may aswell allow any number of illogical mysteries, god having a son, god turning himself into a man and coming to earth while at the same time as being outside of the universe, just as plausible as god creating a flood or getting a virgin pregnant while being outside of the universe.

---

Quote: Ok so you ask a christian how does he do the second example they say "We cannot understand how"
It's exactly the same thing, not one bit of difference at all in the slightest. You are just making the same unsubstantiated claim as a christian, and every other religion for that matter.

It is not the something, let me ask you what is the meaning of Son?

The meaning of son as far as the christians are concerned I think means to be divine, god being on earth.

---

Quote: I'm not at all, it is illogical, unscientific, whatever way you want to phrase it, to assume that if two entities exist outside of our time and space that time will be created because the two things will relate to one another.

Time is not created, it will simply apply
Time is a concept or relation between two events
Time itself is not a thing to exist, however events can exist as actions from a deity.

So then two gods can exist outside of time as long as one of them doesn't have any actions?

(June 15, 2013 at 10:03 am)whateverist Wrote:

(June 15, 2013 at 9:23 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 1) Time is not created, it will simply apply
2) Time is a concept or relation between two events
3) Time itself is not a thing to exist, however events can exist as actions from a deity.

1) Time has the advantage over god in this.
2) God is a concept which relates the idea of a person to the idea of megalomania.
3) God too is not a thing to exist, however events and everything we know can be thought of as having been ordained by an all powerful god.

1) God existence is proved to you
2) Non-existence of God is just a refuted Concept
3) God will put you in hell for not worshiping him

---

(June 15, 2013 at 11:56 am)paulpablo Wrote: You fact is you say your proof is based on axioms, concepts which we have already defined as true.

Decisions, thought processes, or processes in general as a definition take some time, god did this while according to you being outside of time.
This is illogical and a paradox.

I think my words is too professional for common people to understand; my professors told me before that I take what I understand as a fact without explaining it enough.
Let me rephrase it again.
Events had a start
Relations between events also had a start
so a first event (only one) is a must
An initiator for that event must exist

Forget about the word time!

Quote:The meaning of son as far as the christians are concerned I think means to be divine, god being on earth.

Then the word son is misleading!
if he is God himself, so there is no need to say Son, Just call him god
or God in a picture of human, etc.

Quote:So then two gods can exist outside of time as long as one of them doesn't have any actions?

Maybe, I'll think about that and answer your later.
but in this case we care only about our God.

Quote:I think my words is too professional for common people to understand; my professors told me before that I take what I understand as a fact without explaining it enough.

You can't speak english correctly, that's why I have difficulty understanding you, It isn't because as you put it your words is too professional.

Incase you're wondering why I put that in bold, do some research, learn how to speak english and you will find out.

(June 18, 2013 at 4:43 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Relations between events also had a start
so a first event (only one) is a must
An initiator for that event must exist

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that first cause(s) is/are a must. Physics does not demands it, only religions do.

For the 100th time: infinite causality chain is perfectly plausable

In finite causality chain land, multiple first events are possible too, try to wrap your brain around that one, lol

Your writing is not too professional. Your writing makes no logically sense, when we have not been brain washed by religion.

We do not redefine how science and logic works.