Proving God Existence

[paulpablo]

Only one entity can exist outside time.

What entity is it that can exist outside of time and why is it not possible for more than one to exist?

[Muslim Scholar]

You seem to have a pretty special idea of what it means for something to exist. Normally, to exist is to be locatable in both time and place (for things), or to be experienced as a thought by an individual (this experience also being mediated by time, for without time, there can be no flow of thought). In either case, you have the framework which time provides, and which allows for things to happen-- like new stuff getting made.

You should discuss the proof in its context only
I'm not using the common definition of "Time", I'm only using a sub of its definition which is Events and related events
So when I said, god is outside time, it means His (first action) was/cannot be related to any other event.

---

I didn't apply algebra at all, it is only logic!

Your logic is circular. You started with S1 is finite and S2 is infinite to conclude that S1 is indeed finite, therefore S2 can't be infinite.

I didn't assume that, however if events are infinite S1 & S2 must exist

It is a paradox, i.e. impossible to exist in reality

Wrong definition: A paradox is an apparent contradiction.

I mean "disjoint" or "Logical Paradox"

Infinity itself is a conceptual term and nothing can be of infinite time time in the future or history or have an infinite number of real elements.

This is a blatant assertion with no evidence supporting it.

Just apply the proof on anything assumed to be infinite
Or bring a real existence of an infinite members.

---

Get real. The burden of proof lies on the shoulder of the one who made the blatant assertion.

So if I say "unicorns don't exist", the burden of proof would be on me to prove that they don't exist? You are really are an ignorant little fucker aren't you? Now are you going to show us an example of non-theoretical infinite or are you going to carry on acting like the ignorant schmuck you are?

Proofs are meant to prove the existence/validity of something.
Non-existent is impossible to be proved, except by perfect induction where "all" is a finite accessible to be searched
or by contradiction like I did.

For example prove the non-existence of a man in a house by search every room.
Can you prove that Fairy tails don't exist at all? Impossible

The burden of proof is on the party claiming the existence
Like me proving the existence of God

So, you are the one to prove the existence of a real infinite things!
However you don't need that as I already proved the impossibility of that, You either refute my proof or bring a proof of your own showing that it is possible.

[bennyboy]

You should discuss the proof in its context only
I'm not using the common definition of "Time", I'm only using a sub of its definition which is Events and related events
So when I said, god is outside time, it means His (first action) was/cannot be related to any other event.

If you want to say something exists, then it must be locatable in some dimension or framework. However, anything so locatable must be a CHILD to the framework which contains it. Forget time, even your special variant of it. If God preceeds all frameworks, of all types, then in what sense does He exist? Will you say "God is the one special entity which can exist independent of any framework?" If so, I read this statement as "God is the one special entity which can exist without existing." I can proceed with a bunch of condradictory terms to complement his non-existence existence:
-He is the light which is so bright it cannot be seen.
-He is the alpha which is also the omega (thanks Bible).
-He is the manifestation of all that which cannot be manifested.

etc. etc.

But the problem is this: playing with words in this way doesn't do anything but stimulate pot sales.

[LostLocke]

There's your first mistake right there....

What is the mistake?
This is just an axiom i.e. it could be correct of false
it is like saying your salary =S
where S is a number, Axioms cannot be wrong!

The mistake is that everything we know right now indicates that time is not infinite. It had a beginning.

[paulpablo]

You still haven't said what entity exists outside of time and why only one can exist.

[KichigaiNeko]

And what of the multiverse theory? Just where does your deity fit into that?

[little_monkey]

Your logic is circular. You started with S1 is finite and S2 is infinite to conclude that S1 is indeed finite, therefore S2 can't be infinite.

I didn't assume that, however if events are infinite S1 & S2 must exist

Yes, you have defined S1 and S2 as such. Here's a refresher:

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),….}

So that's an assumption. Your conclusion S1 is finite, S2 cannot exist is just circular.

Just apply the proof on anything assumed to be infinite
Or bring a real existence of an infinite members.

In that case, according to your "logic", if God is infinite then he's not real

[Muslim Scholar]

S1= {U(1), U(2), ….}, S2={U(-∞), U(-∞+1), U(-∞+2),….}

So that's an assumption. Your conclusion S1 is finite, S2 cannot exist is just circular.

It is not circular it is a derivative of the premises
It is obvious that S1 will be finite, however it is not my conclusion as the conclusion is about S2 not S1

In that case, according to your "logic", if God is infinite then he's not real

Yes, but what do you mean by infinite here?

---

And what of the multiverse theory? Just where does your deity fit into that?

I took that in consideration when I wrote Existence=E

The proof is valid for any (finite) number of universes.

---

You still haven't said what entity exists outside of time and why only one can exist.

The term "Time" used in the proof is not the general definition that we use

It goes like this:
Events had a start (proved)
The start event must need a doer (G)
G started the first event and he is not an event of others

We measure time by relating events, related events had a start, so the first event cannot be related to others (as there is none), G must be not related to other events (at or before the first event)

If there are more than one G, then events of one can be related to the other
For example G2 will think when G1 did U, which contradicts with the conclusion, so G must be one.

It is a bit philosophical!

[little_monkey]

S1= {U(1), U(2), ….}, S2={U(-∞), U(-∞+1), U(-∞+2),….}

So that's an assumption. Your conclusion S1 is finite, S2 cannot exist is just circular.

It is not circular it is a derivative of the premises
It is obvious that S1 will be finite, however it is not my conclusion as the conclusion is about S2 not S1

Let's take a refresher look at your derivation:

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

Your premise: S1 is finite.

Your derivation: S1 is not empty, S1 is not infinite.

Your conclusion: therefore S1 is finite.

You can't get more circular than that.

In that case, according to your "logic", if God is infinite then he's not real

Yes, but what do you mean by infinite here?

Isn't it that God is eternal (existed an infinite time in the past, will exist an infinite time in the future)? Isn't he infinitely powerful? Infinitely knowledgeable? Infinitely beneficent?

[paulpablo]

If there are more than one G, then events of one can be related to the other
For example G2 will think when G1 did U, which contradicts with the conclusion, so G must be one.

You don't know what G2 is so how can you know G2 will think when G1 does U.