Proving God Existence

[Mystic]

It is very obvious, Mutually exclusive events/adjectives cannot exist simultaneously, a static object will remain static forever till something change it.

That is what we thought we know of things before. It seems right now the current state of the universe is energy. Either it can be in a form of mass or energy, but it's not static. When it's mass, there is attraction and potential energy.

In this sense, the universe at time zero (whether God created it then or not), could be such that it was ready to change at the first moment after time zero.

I think this argument would go well with ancient observation of the universe, but goes against what we know now?

Tell me your thoughts.

[Muslim Scholar]

You don't understand the concept of mapping, these are Axioms
I can define any term I want then use it in my proof

Turnabout is fair play. If you think you can define things however you want, then so can we. This gets us nowhere; how about you just go with what things actually mean and build from there, rather than insisting that everyone agree with you before they begin arguing?

Defining symbols is not facts, it is just mapping the possibilities into math to apply logic on it.

No, you can't. That would be patently ridiculous. As would deciding that G should actually be pronounced like L, and demanding that everyone use this new pronunciation. Do you see?

G, L there is no difference
I think that you need to read a bit about mathematical and statistical models.

---

You are still using 'time' to describe your proof. Your statement above is fallacious.

If you like we can remove the word time
Just think about events (something changed)
the number of events must be finite......

While I accept you may find the Physics behind this hard to comprehend it is theoretically possible and more importantly the theory fits with current M-Theory.

It is not about Physics it is about logic
If something did not exist or was static
Then it cannot change by itself
Something else (external) must change it

If somebody is not using logic he is hallucinating

---

I'm not sure I understand, is there some problem with being both a creature and a god? Why?

As I said, the word Son can mean only 2 things for us

after the Father
Like the father (Not a creature is a very main issue here)

The word God can mean few things as well
One of those is not being a creature

If we are to use the bible terms, then it is a paradox as it is trying to convince us with something contradictional
Or it is using a wrong term to describe Jesus

There is no other options.

I challenge you to define both the terms Son & God with no contradictions.

---

It is very obvious, Mutually exclusive events/adjectives cannot exist simultaneously, a static object will remain static forever till something change it.

That is what we thought we know of things before. It seems right now the current state of the universe is energy. Either it can be in a form of mass or energy, but it's not static. When it's mass, there is attraction and potential energy.

In this sense, the universe at time zero (whether God created it then or not), could be such that it was ready to change at the first moment after time zero.

This is impossible!
The universe is either changing all the time or static
It cannot be static then start to change by itself

(hawkings talked about that and said, what will make the Universe start? how it will decide by it self to start?)

The involvement of an external action is a must.

Even according to your words, the Universe is ready to change (means static) then when G created Time it started to change
All interpretations lead to the same conclusion.

[Mystic]

What I mean by ready to change, is that it will change at the first moment after time zero...it's in a state that will change. It's as if it's already in motion except that you can't be at motion at time zero.

[Muslim Scholar]

What I mean by ready to change, is that it will change at the first moment after time zero...it's in a state that will change. It's as if it's already in motion except that you can't be at motion at time zero.

It is not my words
Actually most scientists are avoiding God by saying such misleading words
The universe is either is a static or continuous changing condition

Only by an external factor it can change from static to another state

The current states of the universe is either done by a single change by an external force, or .......... it is changing all the time by that external force.

I'm currently thinking about a proof that the Universe cannot be in continuous changing mode by itself.

[Mystic]

Well why can't it be continuous changing condition, only that you can't measure before time zero. So at time zero, it's as if it's changing, and as soon as it get's past time zero there is change?

---

Say God created the universe. At time zero, he is the "external" force. The universe then it is in motion (time is created). How can you tell the difference between an external force pushing the universe and it being internal property of the universe that caused the change?

[pocaracas]

What I mean by ready to change, is that it will change at the first moment after time zero...it's in a state that will change. It's as if it's already in motion except that you can't be at motion at time zero.

It is not my words
Actually most scientists are avoiding God by saying such misleading words
The universe is either is a static or continuous changing condition

Only by an external factor it can change from static to another state

The current states of the universe is either done by a single change by an external force, or .......... it is changing all the time by that external force.

I'm currently thinking about a proof that the Universe cannot be in continuous changing mode by itself.

muslim scholar, if you paid attention to class, you'd know that empty space (whatever existed before the Big Bang) is anything but static.
Nobel Lecture by Frank Wilczek(35 minutes)

[ManMachine]

You are still using 'time' to describe your proof. Your statement above is fallacious.

If you like we can remove the word time
Just think about events (something changed)
the number of events must be finite......

I refer back to my original point. We simply do not know enough about the Universe to make that statement.

You cannot ignore simple facts just because it does not fit your 'logic'.

While I accept you may find the Physics behind this hard to comprehend it is theoretically possible and more importantly the theory fits with current M-Theory.

It is not about Physics it is about logic
If something did not exist or was static
Then it cannot change by itself
Something else (external) must change it

If somebody is not using logic he is hallucinating.

Your 'logic' has its foundations in your understanding of the world. You believe that 'if something did not exist or was static then it cannot change by itself'. Your foundation is open to challenge and therefore so is the logic you build onto it.

I can see nothing I am going to say is going to break the circular thoughts you are locked in to, so you go off and believe whatever nonsense you want, I know when I'm flogging a dead horse.



MM

[Muslim Scholar]

Well why can't it be continuous changing condition, only that you can't measure before time zero. So at time zero, it's as if it's changing, and as soon as it get's past time zero there is change?

---

Say God created the universe. At time zero, he is the "external" force. The universe then it is in motion (time is created). How can you tell the difference between an external force pushing the universe and it being internal property of the universe that caused the change?

It is impossible (Logically) that the universe be static then by itself start to change.

---

It is not my words
Actually most scientists are avoiding God by saying such misleading words
The universe is either is a static or continuous changing condition

Only by an external factor it can change from static to another state

The current states of the universe is either done by a single change by an external force, or .......... it is changing all the time by that external force.

I'm currently thinking about a proof that the Universe cannot be in continuous changing mode by itself.

muslim scholar, if you paid attention to class, you'd know that empty space (whatever existed before the Big Bang) is anything but static.
Nobel Lecture by Frank Wilczek(35 minutes)

The answer is very simple, just include that empty space (or whatever) in U
then U(including empty space) had a start as well
An external force must start this empty space to change.

---

If you like we can remove the word time
Just think about events (something changed)
the number of events must be finite......

I refer back to my original point. We simply do not know enough about the Universe to make that statement.

You cannot ignore simple facts just because it does not fit your 'logic'.

No, we know!
We defined the terms static and dynamic they must be mutually exclusive, it doesn't matter if we know about the Universe or not
It cannot be static then dynamic by itself.

Your 'logic' has its foundations in your understanding of the world. You believe that 'if something did not exist or was static then it cannot change by itself'. Your foundation is open to challenge and therefore so is the logic you build onto it.

The premises of the proof is simply (our definition) of opposites, that is why it cannot be refuted.

If you choose to say, I don't believe in that, then it is your turn to bring a proof!

It is impossible; because in any word you will write, you will use that concept, Any language word itself is just an application of that premises.

[pocaracas]

muslim scholar, if you paid attention to class, you'd know that empty space (whatever existed before the Big Bang) is anything but static.
Nobel Lecture by Frank Wilczek(35 minutes)

The answer is very simple, just include that empty space (or whatever) in U
then U(including empty space) had a start as well
An external force must start this empty space to change.

Talk about moving goalposts!!
Empty space had a start? What was there before there was nothing?

[klatu]

When considering any 'Poof of God' all 'argument' fails. It is no more than the highest pretensions of reason, a corruption of language at the hands of philosophy and theology, who have no validating proof to offer. But if such literal proof doesn't exist from any of the three theistic traditions, there is now one circulating on the web that could be a turning point in history.

A new 'Christian' interpretation and teaching, expressed as a single moral law, radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called the first Resurrection. And intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

So anyone seeking confirmation of that ultimate potential now has somewhere new to search and discover for themselves. So who has the courage to crack open history? As a newbie I cannot post links, so just google 'The Final Freedoms' and you'll find any number of download links.