Proving God Existence

[LastPoet]

Give us links, if you please.

[NoMoreFaith]

The problem with it all starts very early. "a consistent (as we assume) set of repeated events we use as a reference (e.g. clock ticks, radiation, moon cycle, etc."

I would imagine the whole thing runs into problems when you realise these "reference" points are relative and not consistent throughout the whole universe simultaneously.

I would also imagine that the OP would sooner reinterpret the argument to take things like this into account than to admit the conclusion is faulty.

[LastPoet]

I doubt the OP undertands what he posted... It doesn't have any sense, its like a last desperate ditch.

[pocaracas]

Part II
Then to prove the necessity for a creator
Assuming that Existence E=U+G where U is the universe and G is another object/deity (which can be 0 )
(E = Existence, U=Known Universe, G=something external to the universe)

Others have bugged you with other details, I'll bug you with this detail.
You're missing, at least, one term, there.
E = U + N + G
N = UNknown Universe (which, as far as we are aware, is much much more than the known universe).
As N is very large, G must be very, very small.

[Minimalist]

Assuming that Existence E=U+G

Now all you need is some actual evidence for the "g" (which you do not have.)

Seriously, you can write all the absurd horseshit you want but until you can demonstrate that your god is something more than a figment of your own imagination you are wasting our fucking time and yours. Apparently, yours is not very valuable.

[ManMachine]

Part I
Premises
I’ll only use Axioms about time & universe
1. The Universe is dynamic and each second will take a new state
so its states can be represented by a function of time U(t) ≠U(t+1)

2. Time is a conceptual frame of reference; i.e. a relation between two events;
• Event 1: a consistent (as we assume) set of repeated events we use as a reference (e.g. clock ticks, radiation, moon cycle, etc.)
• Event 2: an event that we are trying to measure in reference to event(s) 1 (e.g. a car trip, age, etc.)

3. Assuming that time is infinite t ɛ { -∞, -∞+1, ……, 0, 1, 2, 3, … ,∞-1,∞}

4. Defining two sets of the Universe states in the past

Set 1: All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by a finite number of seconds
Set 2: All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by an infinite number of seconds
S1= {U(1), U(2), ….}, S2={U(-∞), U(-∞+1), U(-∞+2),….}

Each set can have (Finite, Infinite or 0) number of members
So the options are:
1. S1 = ɸ (i.e. it is empty)
False, as it contradicts with the ability to measure (time/seconds)

2. S1 has infinite no. of elements
False, as it contradicts with the definition of Set 1; it has only Statuses separated by a finite number of seconds so it must have a finite No. of elements.

3. S1 is finite & S2≠ɸ
False: it means that Set 1 has a last point where next points are away by an infinite time/seconds, but as the next point is separated by an extra 1 second, that point does not exist

4. S1≠ɸ & S2= ɸ
which is the only true and possible option

The conclusion is that
The universe had a finite number of states and had a start or beginning, Time itself had a start as well.

(This part is a proof by perfect induction, analyzing all options and proving that they lead to the same conclusion)

____________________________________________________________


Part II
Then to prove the necessity for a creator
Assuming that Existence E=U+G where U is the universe and G is another object/deity (which can be 0 )
(E = Existence, U=Known Universe, G=something external to the universe)
According to Axiom 1; the universe states are dynamic not constant
As the universe is part of the existence (or all of it) then Existence is dynamic as well (i.e. can be represented by a function)
E(t)=U(t)+G

In addition as proved time itself had a start which means that that the universe state U(0) was not a function at all it was either nothing or a constant; taking Limit as t-->0 U=C or U= 0
As U(0) was constant then G must exist and be dynamic as well G≠0 Ʌ G=G(p)
The correct formula should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p); p is another parameter that changes the states of G
A complete Universe function must include another parameter to change from constant to dynamic at t=0 E(0,p)=C+G(p)
It should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p)
G must exist and did created/changed the universe at its beginning
We can call this parameter the actions of a creator (G)

(This part is a proof by contradiction, based on the definition of
static vs. dynamic (constant vs. variable))

____________________________________________________________ 
Part III
Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. G is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. G is unique
3. G has actions (p)
4. G is outside time, G must be one unit as if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other, but as time did not exist, then G is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)
5. G is outside and separate from the Universe
6. G has a will; as if he didn’t then creating/starting the universe must be initiated from an external source which contradicts with the (proved) non-existence of time.
7. As G is unique and not similar to matter in the universe, he doesn’t have an image (an image is a reflection of light from objects; objects are constructed from molecules and atoms)
Any religion that claims an image for God is a false religion by default

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is ISLAM

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

Like I have said to you in one of your previous posts, you cannot loose sight of these assumptions in your final conclusion, which you appear to have done. It's very poor reasoning.

At the end of all that effort all you have demonstrated is that the mechanism you used to reason your conclusion is flawed.


MM

[Muslim Scholar]

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

---

What do you mean with "dynamic"?

I'm not following the full scientific explanation of dynamic
I mean it is only changing, its state now is not the same as after 1 second

"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!

4. Defining two sets of the Universe states in the past

Wow, you know, the states of the universe in the past are calculated via massive laboretories as for example in Cern, and you have the temerity to assume that simply through calculating with false premises you can actualy achieve something!

Yes

Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. G is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. G is unique
3. G has actions (p)
4. G is outside time, G must be one unit as if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other, but as time did not exist, then G is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)
5. G is outside and separate from the Universe
6. G has a will; as if he didn’t then creating/starting the universe must be initiated from an external source which contradicts with the (proved) non-existence of time.
7. As G is unique and not similar to matter in the universe, he doesn’t have an image (an image is a reflection of light from objects; objects are constructed from molecules and atoms)
Any religion that claims an image for God is a false religion by default

Not a single one of these conclusions is the result of the "calculation". You or whomever the writer of this declaration of stupidity, simply pulled these attributes out of his or her own ass.

I agree this part (Part III) needs more discussion
it is not based on calculations but rather logical explanation
if you cannot figure it by yourself, then I think I should explain it more.
Point which one you don't agree with?

---

Assuming that Existence E=U+G

Now all you need is some actual evidence for the "g" (which you do not have.)

I already proved it

If you agree with Part I
then the universe either existed as a static object or did not exist at all
As static is the opposite to dynamic
something must change its state to be dynamic and to create time as well
This is God, if you don't agree with the name, just name it G

[Ryantology]

[Muslim Scholar]

The problem with it all starts very early. "a consistent (as we assume) set of repeated events we use as a reference (e.g. clock ticks, radiation, moon cycle, etc."

I would imagine the whole thing runs into problems when you realise these "reference" points are relative and not consistent throughout the whole universe simultaneously.

I would also imagine that the OP would sooner reinterpret the argument to take things like this into account than to admit the conclusion is faulty.

Actually it doesn't matter at all if it is really consistent or not

Time can be just a relation between two events
"I went home while eating a sandwich"
If there is more than one event happening, then time can exist

We can call it MyTime instead of time, in the context of the proof I can name anything as long it is not setting a false fact.

---

Give us links, if you please.

There is no links, I wrote this myself

I did not find in all Islamic texts anything that can prove God existence without referring to religious texts!

However I found few hints that led me to use proof by contradiction rather than direct proof of God.

If you are interested I can share them.

---

Others have bugged you with other details, I'll bug you with this detail.
You're missing, at least, one term, there.
E = U + N + G
N = UNknown Universe (which, as far as we are aware, is much much more than the known universe).
As N is very large, G must be very, very small.

I did not miss it!
I wrote "Known universe" on purpose
Anything else is G (including the possibility that G may equal N1+N2+...+G)

G must be a single unit (Singularity)
because if more than one object exist, time (as I defined it) must exist as well

Another point, as G is unique there no meaning of asking is it big or small or even compare its size to anything, it doesn't have a size at all
It is something beyond all what we know, so we cannot even question things like what its size? is it male or female? what color? etc.

[Whateverist]

I'll summarize it in very few words

1- If time is infinite, there must be a time in the past where infinite numbers of seconds passed which is not, so time & universe had a start.

I reject the assumption that there must be a time in the past where an infinite number of seconds had passed. Choose any interval of time you like. It can be subdivided an unlimited (hence infinite) number of times. You might just as well say imagine a whole (integer) number before which there have already been an infinite number of such numbers. Easy. Pick absolutely any one you like. Suppose you pick zero. You seem to think that because there is an infinite number yet to come that there cannot have already have been an infinite number leading up to zero. And that is not true.

It is incomprehensible to imagine a moment before which there was nothing and no way to mark time. Lets some god (imagine your own here) existed who is credited with having created the universe, space and time. Well then if your god itself existed before the beginning of time, then there was something before that first moment and that something certainly had the capacity to mark time if it so desired.

Before anything there was that which made possible everything we see today. You want to call that God, I prefer to call it a mystery.