RE: Proving God Existence
June 26, 2013 at 6:35 pm
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2013 at 6:38 pm by bennyboy.)
(June 26, 2013 at 8:49 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:Yes, I can. "This sentence is false." In the case of paradox, both answers are correct and false. In the case of light, "A thing cannot be both a particle and a wave." And yet it is. The universe tends to confound us by showing that answers we believe impossible are correct.
Any expression is either true of false
Can you prove otherwise?
In the issue of the existence of God, there are two possibilities: that there is an infinite regress (for every made thing, there is a system which made it, for ever and ever), which makes us ask "What caused this system of infinite regress to exist?" OR that there is a Prime Cause like your God. But the SAME question still exists: "Why is it that such a God exists?"
So in either perspective, any solution to the problem: "Why is it that the universe exists?" arrives at an unanswerable question.
I don't think the God idea is necessarily wrong; infinite regress seems equally impossible, as does something "coming from nothing." All the answers we can think of lead only to Epic Fail on a logical level. But unfortunately for you, that includes the idea of God.
Quote:Yes this was just typo, I mean the empty set.The typo was obvious. The important point is this: there is only one set of time, whose nature you are investigating. Forcing conclusions by saying ". . . by definition" isn't acceptable in a logical progression. In essence, you have said "Hmmmm. . . let's find the nature of time. Time is finite in nature-- so obviously infinite time is false- - so time is finite in nature." Trying to force sets to be boolean, when they are referencing the same entity (collection of all possible times) is just a steaming mess right from step one.