Proving God Existence

[pocaracas]

---

Yes, scientific theories can be disproved.... but, so far, all the research indicates that this one is a good representation of reality.

Then it is wrong according to my proof!
Ask anyone to prove otherwise?

In fact, newtonian mechanics is a good representation of reality, at a planetary scale.... even solar system scale. The physics that Newton devised can and are still applied in a lot of scenarios where it is sufficient.
Relativity becomes important at very long distances, or accelerations (typically, from gravity).
Quantum mechanics are more noticeable at very small scales, atoms and molecules scales.
QCD becomes important at even smaller scales.... quarks and the like.
But, when you average QCD to larger scales, you get Quantum mechanics. When you average quantum mechanics over larger scales, you get newtonian mechanics. When you take into consideration the electromagnetic laws (Maxwell's laws) you arrive at relativity. If you take relativity and apply it to slow speeds and low accelerations, you arrive at newtonian mechanics.

It all fits nicely. It all works. You can't disprove these theories by one experiment gone awry... You need a lot of experiments going in a very strange direction to disprove them.

---

I did not reject those theories!
I just rejected the concept of anything being infinite
Bring me any proof (even a weak one) for that?

Reject away.
Show me that it is so..... surely it should me much easier to prove that something is finite rather than infinite.
And if I am asking this, it's because whatever proof you've brought forth has not managed to sway me. Try again, try better.

your premise has no firm ground to hold itself. You propose it, and I refuse/reject the proposition. How does that leave you and your premise?

My proof is simple yet very powerful
It depends on one fact
The Universe is changing
Then Axioms about time, which is nothing but utilizing part of the definition of time (Sequence of events)

And then you jump the gun and state that time had a beginning... How would you know that?

Those are the only two premises which are not refutable
The rest is just set theory and proof by contradictions

Too bad I just don't accept one of them, heh?...

I challenge to find a single flaw in it.

---

Most of you are trying to use a illogical methods to refute the proof
You need to work only inside the realm of the proof not outside it.
(Any scientific theories about time, universe is irrelevant because science is not definite, logic is)

Another point is to recognize that the creator is unique, so don't try to understand details about him; except by using logic
(Mechanism, cause, shape, space, time, etc.) don't apply for him and cannot be used to refute or assert anything.

God gave you what is needed to prove himself, so don't pretend again that you are Atheists or even Agnostics, you are repudiates

refutation: time is infinite. Physicists have, in the past, arbitrarily set t=0 at the big bang, just because we have no way of knowing about anything that happened before it.... but it can go to minus infinity.
Now, why would I be limited to after the big bang? Why would time not exist before the big bang? Physics does not provide an answer to "was there space-time before the big bang?" so you should not propose it as an assumption.
Knock yourself with these guys: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...e-big-bang