Proving God Existence

[Muslim Scholar]

So Scholar, I find it interesting that you apply all of this "logic" to the universe in an effort to prove your god exists but fail to apply any logic at all to determining how that god exists in the first place.

So (in your own words) "let's assume" all of your "calculations" are correct and god exists. Where did he come from?

The question here has no meaning, God always existed (as proved)
You need to think only within the proof and don't distract yourself with issues outside it (it is called abstract thinking)

Because the proof is proving the existence of something (G) which is eternal and outside time before the universe
The question How cannot be answered because G is unique, there is no way for us to understand how he do things at all
it is even more than that, if we understand then he is not God.

If the universe was either static or did not exist, would not the same reasoning apply to your god?

No, because he is outside time (as proved)

You claim that time must exist for actions to take place. You then claim that god had to take action to change the state of the universe (or bring it into existence) to bring time into existence. However, by your own definition, there was no time for god to have taken action in.

Please use time as I defined within the context of the proof
We are not using the global known definition of time.

---

So your argument is essentially - while it may appear that I can split the time between 1 second and 2 seconds into infinite numerical values - but because I can get to 2 seconds, time must be made of finite "bits" and therefore not infinite.

By the same reasoning - you prove numbers are finite - because you can count up to 2. Even thou there appears to be infinite "bits" of number. 1.11, 1.123... etc - You can count to 2, therefore there must be finite bits between 1.00000001... and 1.999999999... therefore numbers are finite.

True, numbers are finite as well!
Actually anything is finite, infinity is just an approximation we made to represent something very big or unlimited

for example numbers, they exist just as a concept until you start writing them, then they really exist and connote be infinite

---

Using this logic that something which isn't constructed of similar matter wouldn't reflect light, then how do you explain something which is separate and unique from the universe speaking to individual people within the universe, making a virgin pregnant, causing floods, turning a stick into a snake, giving a man a horse which can fly up to where allah lives ?

We cannot explain what or How God do things!
Because we only can understand things that are similar to what we see in the universe
God is not similar to anything we see or observe that is why we cannot comprehend that.
Even our languages don't support that.

---

Well, here is the thing with me. I am convinced a higher power exists (not certain though but feel close to certain) but I don't believe it's worthy of worship and believe the opposite, that it's not. The reason being not that it's not ultimate in it's attributes, but that it didn't earn it's character and praise and that earned praise is greater then unearned praise.

I don't really know what the makes me. Sort of something in between a deist and an atheist I think.

That is another subject
I'll discuss this later in another thread

---

It feels like worshiping the Creator is part of my nature. I just don't know anymore.

Yes, this exactly what Islam says
God created an instinct in us to worship him, according to Islam everyone is born as a Muslim

[KichigaiNeko]

Sorry MS but all that you have said and I have read just makes islam™ no different to judaism™ an exactly the same as christianity ™

You are yet too prove that this yahweh/allah/jesus actually exists at all let alone always existed since the silly schmuck doesn't turn up until 2000BCE IF we are lucky.

You have also not explained the previous historical religions that also claim their gods have existed since the dawn of time.


You don't do marketing do you?

---

[Muslim Scholar]

Sorry MS but all that you have said and I have read just makes islam™ no different to judaism™ an exactly the same as christianity ™

Judaism? Yes but not Christianity

According to Islam most religions were true from God
(God sent 24,000 prophets 313 of them were messengers)
Jews worship the same God as Muslims; the word Allah in Arabic is very close to Elohim in Hebrew and Elaha in Aramic.

Christianity claims that God had a son, which is impossible (even for God himself) because it is a Paradox
The word "Son" means two things
1- The son came after the Father
2- Son is somehow similar to God (i.e. a God)

If Jesus came after God then he did not exist then existed, i.e. God created him, if he is a creature then he is not a God ---> Paradox (impossible)

The word son/sons was used in the old testament as a figure of speech; meaning somebody close to God, in this sens true believers are the sons of God

You have also not explained the previous historical religions that also claim their gods have existed since the dawn of time.

This will come later!
but to give you and idea
Any religion that has a clear paradox/contradiction must be false or at least has been changed.
Quran is not only perfect but giving facts to show it is from God.

[Something completely different]

"Let`s asume that time is infinite" well, we dont need to assume that, we know that time is not infinite and that it had a beginning and that it has it`s border at the limits of the expanding universe.

Thanks, it means that this part is already proved for you!

You say "Time is infinite"

I show you "time is not infinite"

You then say "Good that you agree with me"







WHAT THE FUCK!!!!

Do you have problems understanding what people write here?

[Muslim Scholar]

You say "Time is infinite"
I show you "time is not infinite"
You then say "Good that you agree with me"
Do you have problems understanding what people write here?

You need to differentiate between assumptions and conclusions

I assumed that time is infinite then proved otherwise.

[Something completely different]

You say "Time is infinite"
I show you "time is not infinite"
You then say "Good that you agree with me"
Do you have problems understanding what people write here?

You need to differentiate between assumptions and conclusions

I assumed that time is infinite then proved otherwise.

Yet you then came to the conclusion that I still agreed with you!?

Please, just out of my personal interest in the mind of delusional people and how their minds work.

Guide me through the thoughtprocess which, when your argument is busted by a counterargument, leads you to the conclusion that the person giving the counterargument still agrees with you.

I would be really interested in seeing how this somehow makes sence for you, because I am certain that even a child would understand this.

"Hey my name is Dave, I am 12 and I dont like Apples"
-
"Hey my name is Susan, I am 10 and I like Apples"


So I guess that kind of exchange would mean to you that Dave and Susan both have the same view of Apples?

But what to expect from a person who doesnt even understand what genders are.

[The Grand Nudger]

According to Islam most religions were true from God
(God sent 24,000 prophets 313 of them were messengers)
Jews worship the same God as Muslims; the word Allah in Arabic is very close to Elohim in Hebrew and Elaha in Aramic.

"According to islam", lol, if only your silly little story were an authority eh?

Christianity claims that God had a son, which is impossible (even for God himself) because it is a Paradox
The word "Son" means two things
1- The son came after the Father
2- Son is somehow similar to God (i.e. a God)

This would be true of a creature with some sort of biological heredity, and you perceive it this way because you are such a creature, but why the things that hold true for you would hold true for a god is a mystery.......

If Jesus came after God then he did not exist then existed, i.e. God created him, if he is a creature then he is not a God ---> Paradox (impossible)

You don't know what a paradox is, clearly, because this isn't a paradox, nor did you manage to argue for a god like this in any case. Ignoring that you failed to make a case for g (and further failed to make the case that g was a god, and further failed to make the case that god was your god), if we granted you g we still have (g) of g, and <g> of (g) of g to talk about - ad infinitum. You, personally, don't feel that a created thing could be a god (for reasons unknown) but others have no problem believing in such gods. To be fair, they're not scoring any more points than you on this count.

The word son/sons was used in the old testament as a figure of speech; meaning somebody close to God, in this sens true believers are the sons of God

As above, it doesn't really matter what the OT has to say, or how the narrative chose to leverage the word "son", as the OT is not an authority on any existent god, or the relationship between this non-god and it's sycophants.

This will come later!
but to give you and idea
Any religion that has a clear paradox/contradiction must be false or at least has been changed.
Quran is not only perfect but giving facts to show it is from God.

No, it won't. You'll have to first figure out what a paradox is before you can show one, and all you will have shown if you do dredge up any paradox or contradiction is that the text in question had poor editors, just like your own favorite ghost story. The quran is firstly, not perfect - no more than grimms fairy tales is "perfect", and secondly - gives no facts to show that it is from your non-existent god. Were you expecting to prove something by fiat?

[ManMachine]

I think it's worth pointing out you use the word 'assuming' a number of times in your logic formulas.

Assumptions as Axioms are not poor reasoning

An assumption that can be proved other ways doesn't affect the proof itself

For example assuming G, with the probability that it can be 0 or something
is not adding or taking anything from the proof

To refute the proof you need to show the one of the premises is false
or one step doesn't lead to the next

I actually tried to refute it myself, it is very difficult or impossible

---

Ok.

1. We cannot assume time is a 'relation between two events'. There is not always a causal or temporal relationship between certain quantum events.

2. We cannot assume time is infinite. Time is only our relative view of a phenomenon called (unhelpfully) spacetime. Time and space are two parts of the same thing that only appear to us as seperate. We simply do not know enough about the Universe to make this assumption.

You clearly have not analysed all options as you stated in your conclusion. Therefore your conclusion in the first part remains unproven.

For the second part, you have assumed that the universe cannot come into existance from nothing without the help of 'G'. This is also not true. There is enough reasonable theory to suggest the Universe did come from nothing. In fact, in the absence of 'G' this is the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at. To invoke 'G' to make it work is not necessary. U(0) can equal nothing and still give rise to a universe of matter independantly. This is all built on the Law of least Action. The Universe is essentially lazy.

You have incorrectly assumend 'nothing' is not a valid starting point when it can be argued that it is, this combined with the invalidity of part I means part II is invalid.

Part three needs not be considerd as Part II renders this section invalid.

Logic has not served you well at all. Perhaps you will now consider my point that assumptions must be used to measure the validity of our conclusions especially when they are as easily disproved as in the case of this exercise in the futility of formal logic.


MM

[Mystic]

I think most scientist and mathematicians would agree with you that the universe is not of infinite time.

There is also scientific evidence of why the universe can't be expanding and contracting over and over again from infinite time.

Scientists are basically agreeing based on knowledge, that the universe is not of infinite past.

However, the way some people perceive it, is that there is no time before time zero. And when you can get to time zero, the state was such that it was in motion (energized, ready to go).

It's just that it's meaningless to ask what is before time zero, because there is no time before time zero.

Therefore, most scientists, who propose a naturalistic start to the universe, don't state the universe is infinite.

Just thought I would let you know. There is little controversy over the universe being of finite time.

[EGross]

Let's see, this higher power, for some reason, out of the 100 million galaxies, to pick this one, and out of all of the plantets, to pick this one, and out of all of the species to pick humans, and out of all of the humans to choose the most backward of people to speak on His behalf.

And during his picking and choosing, he likes to make himself known. Parting the seas, turning rivers into blood, pillars of clouds and fire, shouting from the mountaintops to make the nations shudder, stopping the sun (?!) from moving so the Israelis can have a longer war day, and the list goes on. For the Christians he casts out demons, causes pigs to commit suicide (ok, they were possessed), and causes the dead to rise up from their graves and invade Jerusalem on passover night ("Why is tonight different from every other night...Holy Shit!"). And for Mohammed, he was nice enough to split the moon in half and put it back together to scare the enemies of Islam.

And after we evolve morally and intellectually, He says "Ok, I'm done with you guys" and decided to go to one of the other 100,000,000 galaxies. Maybe to the world of kitten people. This sudden "poof" should either tell us that God left, that God got really sullen and weird, or that, most likely, EVERY holy book is just literature, and is not reporting history as it really was, but just the imaginations of their authors.

If God would just go "Hey Guys, sorry, for the delay, but as it is written "And God Remembered", and I just did again!" then this whole debate would be moot. But the believer would say "God doesn't want to. he wants you to have free will", while ignoring that not so long ago (in Godly terms), he was Mister "Look At Me! Talk to Me! Tell me what you want and I'm there, dude!" In other words, the holy books, in order to tell a great story, has God in your face, but in the real world, guess what - crickets chirping. There isn't anyone home. Never was.