(May 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm)paulpablo Wrote: The problems with what you're saying in my opinion areThis is very easy to prove!
1 Let's say you have proved this place exists where g is, outside of the laws of time since there is no time there and is not material. But then you decide to impose laws of time and material things onto this place by saying the entity that exists here must be unique because if there was something else there like it then time would exist, not only is this a law of time I haven't heard of it doesn't make sense because why could you not have two entities existing outside of time and the material world, which law of physics or time or logic is this breaking?
Two entities existing without time and outside of the material world seems logical enough to me if you can believe that one entity can exist outside of time and the material world.
Just focus inside the proof context
A first event must exist, so only one entity must exist to start this event.
Quote:2If you accepted the definition of "Image" as light reflected from an object, then God is not an object
You also need to explain why if god cannot reflect light you would not assume god can't get a virgin pregnant or manipulate other material things.
You logically think god cannot reflect light because he is not material, light is not manipulated or effected by non material things.
If you want to define a new definition of Image, then it may apply to God.
Quote:ovaries are not impregnated by non material things, non material things cannot communicate with a man and tell him to build a boat.Where did you get this assertion?
The proof is a bit confusing because it is proving by contradiction, so it is proving the impossibility of the opposites, which is not usual for human understandings
It is also proving the impossibility of know how for god?
remember proving not explaining, by asking how you are contradicting yourself by following the proof itself.
In other words, you need to refute the uniqueness of God first then ask how he don things.