RE: Proving God Existence
June 12, 2013 at 7:10 am
(This post was last modified: June 12, 2013 at 7:22 am by Muslim Scholar.)
(June 11, 2013 at 10:12 am)paulpablo Wrote: So tell me the difference between you saying an entity with no processes or time to have a process can have a thought process and decide to create the universe and a christian saying there is one god but he has a son who is also a god. Both make no sense whatsoever but for some reason you label yours a mystery while the other must be wrong because it is a paradox, but why?The answer is very simple
You are very near sighted! (A typical way of how women think)
When we look (just) to your statement, yes there is no difference they are just claims, Islam is like Christianity or any other religion.
You need to build (scientifically) your thoughts
In a proof each step leads to the next
Step N is nothing without considering step N-1 as a solid fact
You can evaluate the proof in a different method as well, from bottom up instead of top down
Think about the conclusion; is it logical given that the previous step is true, then go back.
Even if you don't agree with the conclusion; is it consistent or not?
(June 11, 2013 at 6:54 am)Maelstrom Wrote:I don't think there is much differences(June 11, 2013 at 6:42 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: It is like saying if traffic law is real, Policemen would not have to waste their time in attempting of making drivers follow it.
There are always going to be those who disobey the law, which has no bearing on God. Besides, I am confused by what you mean by if, considering that traffic law is real. The same cannot be stated of God.
Many people don't agree with traffic law, also many people don't agree with the concept of God
That is why it is necessary to explain (and proof) the existence of God for people how don't know/agree.
(June 11, 2013 at 2:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Your proof has too many assumptions and givens, which you've custom-designed to arrive at your desired conclusions. This is what is meant by "begging the question."Mapping real event is not assumptions it is called Axiom
Axiom are by default true, there is no need to proof them as they are just assigning symbols to things
Quote:You talk about comparing moments of time t0, t1, etc. and how they must be discrete and measurable, that they are relative concepts, etc. This accords well with our understanding of deliberate creation: there's an idea about something, then the idea is executed, and then a thing exists which once did not exist. It is precisely time which links the intent, the execution, and the result.Yes
whey I said in the proof "Time didn't exist" I didn't mean the universal definition of time, I meant just the sequence and relation of events.
Quote:Nobody needs to go into your "proof," because your method for solving it is to invoke the concept of "mystery." But the point of the proof isn't really to explain the universe-- it is to solve the MYSTERY of the existence of the universe. Moving the mystery to another agent does nothing to solve the problem, and so no proof has really been furnished.I didn't use the concept of mystery, I proved it
You need to read more about proof by contradiction
If there are two options A & B
You can prove B by proving the impossibility of A, even if you cannot explain or know B.
(June 11, 2013 at 6:47 am)pocaracas Wrote: When will you get it through that thick skull that your initial assumptions, your initial assertions, your base for the whole proof is not valid!?!!?You are very angry because I killed your "No" God!
If the base is invalid, the whole building collapses.
Your proof, proves nothing, because it starts off wrong.
You have no way of knowing there was a first event, hence everything that follows is wrong, however logically valid the reasoning may be.
My initial assumptions cannot be refuted because they are very simple and straightforward
The universe exists
The universe is dynamic
Mutually exclusive terms are "Mutually exclusive"
Here is another challenge for you
Can you bring 3 other facts in the whole world that are more solid than mine.