Proving God Existence

[Muslim Scholar]

Well why can't it be continuous changing condition, only that you can't measure before time zero. So at time zero, it's as if it's changing, and as soon as it get's past time zero there is change?

---

Say God created the universe. At time zero, he is the "external" force. The universe then it is in motion (time is created). How can you tell the difference between an external force pushing the universe and it being internal property of the universe that caused the change?

It is impossible (Logically) that the universe be static then by itself start to change.

---

It is not my words
Actually most scientists are avoiding God by saying such misleading words
The universe is either is a static or continuous changing condition

Only by an external factor it can change from static to another state

The current states of the universe is either done by a single change by an external force, or .......... it is changing all the time by that external force.

I'm currently thinking about a proof that the Universe cannot be in continuous changing mode by itself.

muslim scholar, if you paid attention to class, you'd know that empty space (whatever existed before the Big Bang) is anything but static.
Nobel Lecture by Frank Wilczek(35 minutes)

The answer is very simple, just include that empty space (or whatever) in U
then U(including empty space) had a start as well
An external force must start this empty space to change.

---

If you like we can remove the word time
Just think about events (something changed)
the number of events must be finite......

I refer back to my original point. We simply do not know enough about the Universe to make that statement.

You cannot ignore simple facts just because it does not fit your 'logic'.

No, we know!
We defined the terms static and dynamic they must be mutually exclusive, it doesn't matter if we know about the Universe or not
It cannot be static then dynamic by itself.

Your 'logic' has its foundations in your understanding of the world. You believe that 'if something did not exist or was static then it cannot change by itself'. Your foundation is open to challenge and therefore so is the logic you build onto it.

The premises of the proof is simply (our definition) of opposites, that is why it cannot be refuted.

If you choose to say, I don't believe in that, then it is your turn to bring a proof!

It is impossible; because in any word you will write, you will use that concept, Any language word itself is just an application of that premises.