Proving God Existence

[Doubting Thomas]

So, the universe couldn't have just come from nothing, or couldn't have always existed because that's preposterous, but it makes sense that God, who always existed, created the universe from nothing.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

If god exists outside of time, then there is no time at which it could have created the universe.

[Muslim Scholar]

If god exists outside of time, then there is no time at which it could have created the universe.

You are confused by the time definition in Physics and the one that I used in my proof

I defined time as the relation between two events
When God created the universe there were no other events so there is no relation/time
that is why they call it Singularity

---

So, the universe couldn't have just come from nothing, or couldn't have always existed because that's preposterous, but it makes sense that God, who always existed, created the universe from nothing.

My proof took a sequence of logic mandatory steps from a very simple fact to the conclusion

Refuting a proof doesn't go like this, you need either to show that my premises is false or a step doesn't lead to the next.

---

You say it is contradicting to logic to have something come from nothing.

Yes, I even proved that not just said it.

But your alternative is MUCH more illogical on so many levels.

The conclusion came out from logic so it cannot be illogical (you don't make any sense here)

If you consider that something coming from nothing is illogical because no one has ever seen something come from nothing or made a solid scientific theory about something coming from nothing then this is the same situation for the alternative you're proposing.

I did not say that!

No one has ever seen and no one has ever made a solid scientific theory relating to the following things-

1) Beings which exist outside of time, because no one has ever observed what happens outside of time and certainly no scientific theory has been proposed that states a being would exist outside of time.

2) Beings which exist outside of the physical universe.

3) Decisions and thought processes being made outside of time, since it takes time for thought processes to be made.

4) Decisions and thought processes being made with no physical brain making them.

5) If time is a relation between two events and god is just one singular event this would make him having a complex brain impossible since brains are made from several parts.

6) There's still no explanation from you as to how a being outside of time and space causes floods on earth and turns sticks into snakes.


By the way I'm not saying the universe did come from nothing I'm saying I don't know what happened.

Remember that my proof is not based on science! it is based on Logic so it doesn't matter what science says at all
Science is subjected to be false or just correct in some situation or environment; Logic is always true

That is why the proof is irrefutable

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I defined time as the relation between two events
When God created the universe there were no other events so there is no relation/time that is why they call it Singularity

But that is precisely my point. Using your definition of time, god would have to exist in timeless state; an unchanging, perpetual "now". To quote Red Dwarf:

" So although you exist, you no longer exist in time, and for you time itself does not exist. You see, although you're still a mass, you are no longer an event in space-time, you are a non-event mass with a quantum probability of zero."

Refuting a proof doesn't go like this, you need either to show that my premises is false or a step doesn't lead to the next.

Well ok, equating 'G' with a creator, let alone god, is an assertion, not a logical step. The 'first cause' need not be an entity and even if it were, it need not be conscious. The cause could just as easily be an inherent property.

You say it is contradicting to logic to have something come from nothing.

Yes, I even proved that not just said it.

Unfortunely, you can get something from nothing. It happens everywhere, all the time. Unlike your "logical proofs", this has been proven to be true

[bennyboy]

Yes, I even proved that not just said it.

Unfortunely, you can get something from nothing. It happens everywhere, all the time. Unlike your "logical proofs", this has been proven to be true

I don't want to be interpreted as supporting Muslim Scholar's position, because I don't. But philosophically, I don't think this particular statement can be true. In the universe, when particles appear out of "nothing," there is something: the universe, space-time, reality, whatever you want to call it.

That's a lot of somethings to say a particle has appeared out of nothing. Or to put it another way, it's an equivocation to talk about the nothingness of space, and the absolute philosophical nothingness in which space and time do not "exist" (quotes because exist usually MEANS to be located in space and time)

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Good point, well made.

It does beg the question "given the uncertainty principle, can absolute nothing exist"?

[Ryantology]

Well ok, equating 'G' with a creator, let alone god, is an assertion, not a logical step.

This is why the entire proof is garbage, but believe me, you're not the first one to point out one of the several immediately fatal flaws in what he so grievously mislabels as "proof".

[paulpablo]

No one has ever seen and no one has ever made a solid scientific theory relating to the following things-

1) Beings which exist outside of time, because no one has ever observed what happens outside of time and certainly no scientific theory has been proposed that states a being would exist outside of time.

2) Beings which exist outside of the physical universe.

3) Decisions and thought processes being made outside of time, since it takes time for thought processes to be made.

4) Decisions and thought processes being made with no physical brain making them.

5) If time is a relation between two events and god is just one singular event this would make him having a complex brain impossible since brains are made from several parts.

6) There's still no explanation from you as to how a being outside of time and space causes floods on earth and turns sticks into snakes.


By the way I'm not saying the universe did come from nothing I'm saying I don't know what happened.

Remember that my proof is not based on science! it is based on Logic so it doesn't matter what science says at all
Science is subjected to be false or just correct in some situation or environment; Logic is always true

That is why the proof is irrefutable

ok so explain to me with logic----
*why CAN'T something come from nothing.
*how CAN there be a being which thinks without a brain.
*how CAN there be a being which exists outside of physical existence.
*how CAN there be a being which makes decisions outside of time.
*how CAN there be a being which made a decision to make the universe outside of time then made time and the universe and decicided to step into the thing it created to turn sticks into snakes and create floods?

I actually think you don't have a clue about how any of these things can happen and you can't explain them with LOGIC or SCIENCE
what you ARE doing is saying "Don't know how it happened so therefore GOD"

[Muslim Scholar]

*why CAN'T something come from nothing.

Because the only premises of the proof is the "Disjoint", i.e. Mutually exclusive attributes cannot happen together (by definition)
For example if you define the word "Square" as a shape with 4 equal lines connected by 90 degree angels
then a square with non-equal sides cannot exist (Even God cannot create that)

*how CAN there be a being which thinks without a brain.

This is science or observations; we observe things in the universe; other things can exist which violates our observations there is no problem with that.

*how CAN there be a being which exists outside of physical existence.

I said outside the Universe not Existence
I don't know what do you mean by physical existence!

*how CAN there be a being which makes decisions outside of time.

I meant time as defined by the proof, not the common understanding of time

*how CAN there be a being which made a decision to make the universe outside of time then made time and the universe and decicided to step into the thing it created to turn sticks into snakes and create floods?

I don't know, nor anybody can know
Logic dictates that it exist and also dictates that it is beyond our knowldge

I actually think you don't have a clue about how any of these things can happen and you can't explain them with LOGIC or SCIENCE
what you ARE doing is saying "Don't know how it happened so therefore GOD"

I didn't even say God, I proved by logic attributes for a creator, to name it God or not this a matter of choice.

---

I defined time as the relation between two events
When God created the universe there were no other events so there is no relation/time that is why they call it Singularity

But that is precisely my point. Using your definition of time, god would have to exist in timeless state; an unchanging, perpetual "now". To quote Red Dwarf:

Yes, God existed in a timeless state
The proof can be used on God, a first event for God existed as well

" So although you exist, you no longer exist in time, and for you time itself does not exist. You see, although you're still a mass, you are no longer an event in space-time, you are a non-event mass with a quantum probability of zero."

I don't get your point here!

Refuting a proof doesn't go like this, you need either to show that my premises is false or a step doesn't lead to the next.

Well ok, equating 'G' with a creator, let alone god, is an assertion, not a logical step. The 'first cause' need not be an entity and even if it were, it need not be conscious. The cause could just as easily be an inherent property.

I agree this proof doesn't prove God, but it proves the existence of X or G as a creator and proves some mandatory attributes for that X;
proving God himself is another issue.

Yes, I even proved that not just said it.

Unfortunely, you can get something from nothing. It happens everywhere, all the time. Unlike your "logical proofs", this has been proven to be true

Sorry but logic is much stronger than science!
You need to disprove that by Logic
or show by no doubt that something can come from nothing.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

The proof can be used on God, a first event for God existed as well

Really? It's not very often you see a theist say that!!!
If the creator/god had a first cause, what was it? And what caused it? We have the problem of infinite regress.

" So although you exist, you no longer exist in time, and for you time itself does not exist. You see, although you're still a mass, you are no longer an event in space-time, you are a non-event mass with a quantum probability of zero."

I don't get your point here!

Essentially, it just means what I stated prior to that quote. It means that in a timeless state, there is no time in which you can act. It is impossible to change from state A to state B as there is no time in which that change can happen. In a timeless state, you are frozen in a static instant, unable to perform thought or deed.

I agree this proof doesn't prove God, but it proves the existence of X or G as a creator and proves some mandatory attributes for that X;
proving God himself is another issue.

But the only attribute you listed in part III that is proven by this is the first: G is the creator/instigator of the universe. All other attributes are conjecture and cannot be logically deduced from the previous arguments alone.

Unfortunely, you can get something from nothing. It happens everywhere, all the time. Unlike your "logical proofs", this has been proven to be true

Sorry but logic is much stronger than science!
You need to disprove that by Logic
or show by no doubt that something can come from nothing.

With logic? Ok.
You have already stated that the creator/instigator must also have had a first cause. Well what caused the cause? As I said, it leads you to infinite regress. Since your arguments have already stated that is impossible to exist in perpetuity, there cannot always have been a "something". By your own arguments, at some point in the distant past, there must have been a moment in which there truly was absolute nothing.