Proving God Existence

[Ryantology]

I'm tired of you citing this over and over again as if it was worth half a fuck.

Part I
The conclusion is that
The universe had a finite number of states and had a start or beginning, Time itself had a start as well.

This makes the unfounded assumption that the universe's beginning, as we understand it, is the true beginning and not the result of a collapsed universe or some other process. It also makes the assumption that one universe is all which exists. Before the Planck era of our universe, we know virtually nothing and make only educated guesses. With all the work you put into this, I'll call Part I an educated guess, though it is a woefully sloppy scholar who thinks one can determine the origins and nature of the universe with such simple and assumption-loaded numerology. But, the most damning indictment of this part, that which renders the other two parts irrelevant all by itself, is that you betray both your ignorance and your agenda to produce a pre-determined outcome when you suggest that you have analyzed all options. You have chosen, arbitrarily, one interpretation of the results you have invented and determined that it leads to the god you were raised to worship. This is already a disgraceful exercise.

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 is an intellectually empty set of equations once you assume that G must exist. You do not demonstrate the fact as you state it, you merely state that it must necessarily be true, though the only reason it must be true is because your agenda will not be satisfied without it. You do not explain or justify this conclusion, you merely state it as if it was axiomatic. You must first physically demonstrate the reality of your god before you can enter G into this equation. You have basically invented, out of whole cloth, your own equation. Any idiot who graduated Algebra can do it, and skew it to whatever means they desire by riddling it with unverifiable assertions as you have done. So far, this is a complete waste of your time for typing it and mine for reading it. Will Part III save it?
 

Part III
Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. G is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. G is unique
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)
5. G is outside and separate from the Universe
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.
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

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is ISLAM

Sadly, not. This is where our 'scholar', demonstrating why he does not deserve the handle he has given himself, has decided to shed all illusions of honest logic and invents both a god and his attributes and calls it the god of Islam. Not only is it a deliberately dishonest coda to a fatally-flawed poor excuse for a logical argument, it can be entirely obviated with the greatest of ease. All I have to do is invent a God which has all the same attributes, maybe whip up a quick Holy Book in its name, and that God is immediately and in no manner whatsoever less plausible than Allah (or any other deity humans have worshiped). As I have decided that I am God and the creator of all things, by using precisely the same method (without the need for meaningless and arbitrary numerology, even) as Muslim Scholar, I have decisively rendered his final conclusion false, and I have done so with more brevity and elegance. Of course, since I am God, the creator of all things, all I have to do is say it is false, and it is false. Is that not how it works? Muslim Scholar has saved me the trouble by making it false all by himself, for which I will reward him in the afterlife if he rids himself of his false pretender god and worships the one, true Ryantology.