Surgenator, you might want to look at posts dates and realize that MS was sitting on a train platform with nothing to do and decided to send in a quick troll post just for giggles.

(September 4, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Wrong,

A succinct summary of pretty much all of his posts.

(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

Waiting for you to show the Islamic reference to god making everything from water.

And how you explain the quran saying god created everything yet you believe there was some static type of water somewhere that god didn't create which he just manipulated.

(September 4, 2014 at 6:52 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Surgenator, you might want to look at posts dates and realize that MS was sitting on a train platform with nothing to do and decided to send in a quick troll post just for giggles.

I did notice it. I refuted his arguments more as a mental exercise for myself than his benefit.

(March 18, 2013 at 6:44 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: G's attributes matches God in Islam

Your argument seemed logical and had my interest until you said this.

(March 18, 2013 at 6:44 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 6:35 am)Rayaan Wrote: Looks interesting ... but I probably have to study this for a long time until I finally get it.

I appreciate the effort.

Thanks a lot
I'll summarize it in very few words

1- If time is infinite, there must be a time in the past where infinite numbers of seconds passed which is not, so time & universe had a start.

why do you think that points to a god?

Quote:2- As the universe was nothing or something static, something (else) must have started it to be time sensitive, we will call it G.

no you will call it G.

Quote:3- G must have some attributes, those attributes are not by choice but by logic, so they define G.

but, your definition of 'G' is totally subjective. it's not an objective definition.

Quote:G's attributes matches God in Islam

again, subjective. Many religious people don't follow islam, so their idea of a god will be different. who is correct?

(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)

Well actually this very premise might be physically wrong. According to general relativity you can't really define a function of time to the whole universe, as relativity actually states time flows diferently at different locations of the universe, depending on gravity (distortion of spacetime) and speed of the object.
So there's no such thing as t --> t+1 linear time function in the universe , since in fact in some places of the universe it went from like t--> t+0,1, others jumped from like t --> t+2 and many in between.
in a same apparent referential time rate.

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

This is true, but you must consider that it just work when we're talking about a referential time frame of Earth that we all percieve about the same.
But in fact i would add that "time" is directly correlated not only with events, but with their density. The more events "happening" at the same time, the slower time flows, as if that part of the universe was under "lag" at that spot.

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

Matematically time is more simillar with the set of Real numbers, and not Natural numbers. We just happen to measure time by a natural rate, but it doesn't mean it isn't actually "continuous".
Between 1 second you can contain an eternity if you have infinite spacetime distortion (blackholes)
And don't put -∞+1 and the sorts into that, since it represents nothing. ∞+1 = ∞ always.
Infinity wouldn't be infinity if you can add a finite number to have a "bigger" number, because infinity isn't actually a number, infinity is a concept of "greater" than any finite sum or set of natural numbers.

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 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 very function you're trying to define yourself is not well defined.
You can't separate "infinity" from finite, as entry to a function, and U(infinite+n) can not be in itself a "finite" ammount of infinities too. Infinite is infinite, there's no such thing as finite ammounts of infinity, since infinity in itself is an infinite ammount of infinity. So obviously if you consider there is at least 1 "infinite point in time" than there exists "infinite infinitys by necessity"

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

This again, is not true. Time being "continuos" and with different time rates than referentials. And if time is infinite, S1 must necessarily have infinite points as a function of it, and obviously an infinite ammount of images.

Also let's say an object within a infinitelly strong spacetime distortion, will not only have 1 position within a time "frame" but several of them, possibly infinite positions within the blackhole (a spaghettification for example)

(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

4. S1≠ɸ & S2= ɸ
which is the only true and possible option

S1 is finite and S2 is infinite. Your function is still endomorphic so you're defining
S1:
IN |---> S1(IN) € K^n(IN) in which n is all the number of states possible
x ---> (a(x),b(x),c(x), ... an(x), bn(x), cn(x),....) € U(x)
S2:
∞ |---> S2(∞) € K^n(∞)
∞ ---> ( ak(∞), bk(∞), ... ) in which k € (IR U {∞}) ( due to continuos effective time)

In fact you always have endomorphic aspect of the function, in which the dimension of output is in fact equal or higher than the dimension of input.

So in conclusion, the reality is that S1 is finite and S2 is infinite.

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 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 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 complete Universe function must include another parameter to change from constant to dynamic at t=0 E(0,p)=C+G(p)
It should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p)
G must exist and did created/changed the universe at its beginning
We can call this parameter the actions of a creator (G)

(This part is a proof by contradiction, based on the definition of
static vs. dynamic (constant vs. variable))

This is aprioristical nonsense.

Lets assume you got it right-- Allah is responsible for the creation of the universe. Now show me the math involved in beheadings.

(September 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 6:44 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Thanks a lot
I'll summarize it in very few words

1- If time is infinite, there must be a time in the past where infinite numbers of seconds passed which is not, so time & universe had a start.

why do you think that points to a god?

Of course you're right Deidre, the jump to a god which remains undefined except for its solving all the riddles should make you wonder. So convenient. Until god is defined there is no way to say whether any of these kinds of speculations point it.

For that matter why assume that there has not already been a point in time where infinite seconds have passed? In fact, between one tick of a clock and the next, an infinite number of points in time have passed. As Madness has just said, time is continuous. Infinity is shot right through continuous functions.

Would someone care to explain to me what is going on in the OP?