(September 1, 2014 at 3:45 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Till now and nobody was able to refute it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy fucking necro, Batman! Surely, there are rules?

(September 1, 2014 at 4:15 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: It is amazing how Atheists blindly believe in "no" religion
Are you following the book of no God

Here is a proof of God existence and no one was able to refute it

so what are you waiting for

This is you;



Also, your argument in the OP fails because you can't define a time relative to "infinity" because infinity is not a number, and there is evidence that the universe has finite age.

Quote:Here is a proof of God existence and no one was able to refute it

Boru

(September 1, 2014 at 5:15 pm)Tobie Wrote: Also, your argument in the OP fails because you can't define a time relative to "infinity" because infinity is not a number, and there is evidence that the universe has finite age.

Pretty much this.

One of the first statements by the OP involving these 'proofs' includes the statement...
"Assuming time is infinite."
.... which is not indicated at all by anything we know about the universe.

Everything we know today currently points to time beginning ~13.7 billion years ago.

I have a feeling the OP won't quite grasp that, but, meh.
Not really our problem is it?

(September 1, 2014 at 5:45 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(September 1, 2014 at 5:15 pm)Tobie Wrote: Also, your argument in the OP fails because you can't define a time relative to "infinity" because infinity is not a number, and there is evidence that the universe has finite age.

Pretty much this.

One of the first statements by the OP involving these 'proofs' includes the statement...
"Assuming time is infinite."
.... which is not indicated at all by anything we know about the universe.

Everything we know today currently points to time beginning ~13.7 billion years ago.

I have a feeling the OP won't quite grasp that, but, meh.
Not really our problem is it?

The universe post big bang is finitely old, but as we know nothing about the pre-big bang universe, it may or may not have infinite age. But it is still a faulty assumption.

So, the guy literally came back here and resurrected a long dead thread... just for a one sentence gloat?

Certainly says a lot about the character of the man...

(September 1, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Tobie Wrote:

(September 1, 2014 at 5:45 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Pretty much this.

One of the first statements by the OP involving these 'proofs' includes the statement...
"Assuming time is infinite."
.... which is not indicated at all by anything we know about the universe.

Everything we know today currently points to time beginning ~13.7 billion years ago.

I have a feeling the OP won't quite grasp that, but, meh.
Not really our problem is it?

The universe post big bang is finitely old, but as we know nothing about the pre-big bang universe, it may or may not have infinite age. But it is still a faulty assumption.

Yes, this is true. But now we're getting into 'weird' technical details.
For the purpose of the OP, I'm assuming he's talking about 'time as we know it within our universe'.
Even if there's time 'outside' or 'before' the big bang (which they may not even be), it's not 'our time', and may not function in a linear fashion like the time we know.
Which I guess again, would knock out the "time is infinite" assumption.

(September 1, 2014 at 6:00 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(September 1, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Tobie Wrote: The universe post big bang is finitely old, but as we know nothing about the pre-big bang universe, it may or may not have infinite age. But it is still a faulty assumption.

Yes, this is true. But now we're getting into 'weird' technical details.
For the purpose of the OP, I'm assuming he's talking about 'time as we know it within our universe'.
Even if there's time 'outside' or 'before' the big bang (which they may not even be), it's not 'our time', and may not function in a linear fashion like the time we know.
Which I guess again, would knock out the "time is infinite" assumption.

Oh, if you want to go all sci-fi about it, youcan even speculate that time 'outside' our universe may even be multi-dimensional. Maths allows for it, but my mind can't begin to fathom what that may be like!

(September 1, 2014 at 3:45 pm)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Till now and nobody was able to refute it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 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

Wrong, your inability to grasp an infinite regression doesn't mean an infinite regresssion is impossible.

In fact, I can prove to you that you don't buy this argument. You believe God has states that change (if you don't, you haven't read your Koran). A change in state is time according to your definition. So following your logic here, God has a beginning. Opps, I just found an internal contradiction in the Koran. I wonder what that could mean.

Quote:Part II
Then to prove the necessity for a creator
Assuming that Existence E=U+G where U is the universe and G is another object/deity (which can be 0 )
(E = Existence, U=Known Universe, G=something external to the universe)
According to Axiom 1; the universe states are dynamic not constant
As the universe is part of the existence (or all of it) then Existence is dynamic as well (i.e. can be represented by a function)
E(t)=U(t)+G

In addition as proved time itself had a start which means that that the universe state U(0) was not a function at all it was either nothing or a constant; taking Limit as t-->0 U=C or U= 0
As U(0) was constant then G must exist

Wrong, the U(0) can be birth of the universe without G. Right here, you're inserting that old argument that the universe existence must have a cause. The creation of the universe can be spontaneous, i.e. no cause necessary. We see plenty of things in our universe that are uncaused, e.g. virtual particles, fission, etc... Is it that much of a stretch that the universe can be uncaused?

Quote: and be dynamic as well G≠0 Ʌ G=G(p)
The correct formula should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p); p is another parameter that changes the states of G

A change is state is defined by time, why should god get a different variable?

Quote:A complete Universe function must include another parameter to change from constant to dynamic at t=0 E(0,p)=C+G(p)

Nope. Just imagine E(0,0)=C+G(0)=C+G. Do I have to add a Super God to explain how God can become dynamic?

If you say yes, then I have to explain the existence of the Super God with a Super Super God. And repeat this process ad infinitum.
If you say no, because God always existed. Then your part 1 is false.
If you say no, because God can create himself. Then there is nothing stopping the universe having the same property, as i mentioned earlier.

Quote:3. G has actions (p)
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
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)

Actions require a change in states, which require time. Hense, these two contradict. You cannot be outside of time and perform actions.

Quote:5. G is outside and separate from the Universe

i) If God is seperate from the universe, he cannot interact with it. God and our universe have to share something for God to interact with us.
ii) You'll need a bigger universe where at corner A we have our universe, and corner B we have God. How are you gonna explain the existence of the bigger universe.

Quote:6. G has a will; as if he didn’t then creating/starting the universe must be initiated from an external source which contradicts with the (proved) non-existence of time.

Using G(p) instead of G(t), doesn't mean God isn't affected by time. Changing variable names doesn't change the their definitions. You can have two different time references, but they are still time.

Quote:7. As G is unique and not similar to matter in the universe, he doesn’t have an image (an image is a reflection of light from objects; objects are constructed from molecules and atoms)
Any religion that claims an image for God is a false religion by default

How would you know that he isn't similiar to matter? He can be created by different matter. Your image definition is just wrong. Image is a representation of the external form. You don't need light to bounce off it. I can draw a representation of a black hole and light doesn't bounce off it.

So I count 9 things that I have found with your arguments. There are probabily more that I missed. Nevertheless, you didn't prove the existence of God or Islam. In fact, you showed contradictions in Islam if you take your arguments one step further.