Proving God Existence

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='465071' dateline='1371575601']
MS proves to no one but his own satisfaction that he has proved god.
When he is told that he has failed he says "look at my proof".
And repeat.
for FORTY THREE PAGES.

If it is like so, why don't you stop posting?
It is because you know it is true, but trying to convince yourself it isn't

I was here first.

[Muslim Scholar]

I read some posts. All what can be said was already said over and over again. (Of course because we are talking about 45 pages )

I think all the arguments for God's existence don't work well. Also, to be honest, all the arguments which I read in my life against his existence are not convincing. But atheism for me is just the lack of belief for the lack of evidence. It is not the "belief" in the non-existence of God for you have nothing to have a belief in. So, until further notice, the possibility of God is the same possibility of that we live in an advanced computer made by other conscious beings whatever the hell this means. (This mainly has been said in this topic)

Most of you are stereotypes repeating the same general statements
but no one was able to specify exactly where it fails, can you?

---

I've stood idly long enough. Time to proof the true god. You listening, MS?

I shall prove The Dude's existence.

Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. The Dude is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. The Dude is unique
3. The Dude has actions (p)
4. The Dude is outside time, Dude 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 Dude is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)
5. The Dude is outside and separate from the Universe
6. The Dude 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 Dude 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)

You actually confirmed my proof not refuted it!
I didn't prove the existence of a God called Allah or God or whatever

I proved the existence of something that started the universe and has some attributes
You can call him whatever you want

Proving Allah or God or Islam still to come.

[Dragonetti]

You fail to grasp his/her sarcasm! And nothing is proven at all, as this is all assertion made by you.

[Muslim Scholar]

You fail to grasp his/her sarcasm! And nothing is proven at all, as this is all assertion made by you.

You are too stupid to understand that I understood her sarcasm, yet used it to support my proof.

[Dragonetti]

Now proved to me that Mohammad is not a pedophile. Since, there is no proof there isnt!

[CleanShavenJesus]

Firstly, I'm a guy. I know I don't have a beard, but jeez.

Secondly, MS, I was doing that to show how ridiculous your first post sounded. For some reason, at the end of that post, you said "THEREFORE ISLAM IS THE TRUE RELIGION." ....what? Where do you get that from? You just suddenly claim Allah is real.

Sorry, The Dude is the one true god. Islam is false. Dudeism is true.

[bennyboy]

Okay, since you keep asking for specifics, let me point out the obvious. Your proof fails at the definition of mutually exclusive sets. When you do this, arriving at the conclusion that they are mutually exclusive defines (literally) the process of begging the question.

You are demanding that Set 1 be finite, and Set 2 be infinite. You then go on with a red herring/strawman about whether Set 1 is infinite (it can't be, because you've defined it not to be). You conclude that since Set 1 is finite, Set 2, which you've defined as infinite, cannot be correct.

However, if you reverse the order, switching the definitions of Set 1 and Set 2, you get:

Set 1: 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),….}

Set 2: All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by a finite number of seconds

And your "options" are:

1. S1 = ɸ (i.e. it is empty); false, since something infinite can't be empty, by definition
2. S1 has finite no. of elements; false, by definition
3. S1 is infinite and S2≠ɸ; false, by definition (you aren't allowing finite subsets of your infinite set)
4. S1≠ɸ & S2= ɸ; which is the only possibly option, or would be if it wasn't a violation of a simple understanding of what sets are.

Therefore, the universe is infinite, and since it has no starting point, it could not have been created by anything. Therefore, a creative God is false.

See? This is not an actual proof. It's just throwing incompatible premises together, and guiding the order of operations to choose which one I want to appear "true."

The reality is that there is ONE set for time: reality. You don't get to define an infinite set and say that it is empty because it is finite. If it is finite, it's not empty-- it's finite. Here is the proper number of sets:

S1 = all Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by seconds, where S1 must have at least three members (two to establish a timeframe, and one which is being measured).

This single, logically correct, set has nothing to say with whether God might/might not exist.

As an aside: if you have to work this hard to make something seem "true," you might want to consider the likely possibility that it is not.

[paulpablo]

I read some posts. All what can be said was already said over and over again. (Of course because we are talking about 45 pages )

I think all the arguments for God's existence don't work well. Also, to be honest, all the arguments which I read in my life against his existence are not convincing. But atheism for me is just the lack of belief for the lack of evidence. It is not the "belief" in the non-existence of God for you have nothing to have a belief in. So, until further notice, the possibility of God is the same possibility of that we live in an advanced computer made by other conscious beings whatever the hell this means. (This mainly has been said in this topic)

Most of you are stereotypes repeating the same general statements
but no one was able to specify exactly where it fails, can you?

---

I've stood idly long enough. Time to proof the true god. You listening, MS?

I shall prove The Dude's existence.

Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. The Dude is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. The Dude is unique
3. The Dude has actions (p)
4. The Dude is outside time, Dude 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 Dude is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)
5. The Dude is outside and separate from the Universe
6. The Dude 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 Dude 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)

You actually confirmed my proof not refuted it!
I didn't prove the existence of a God called Allah or God or whatever

I proved the existence of something that started the universe and has some attributes
You can call him whatever you want

Proving Allah or God or Islam still to come.

The refutation of proof is if we use axioms, nothing can be conscious or have actions outside of time, both actions and being conscious require time and processes.

[Muslim Scholar]

The refutation of proof is if we use axioms, nothing can be conscious or have actions outside of time, both actions and being conscious require time and processes.

I didn't mean that, I used the limited scope of time (related events)
so when I said outside time it means just a single event that is not related to any other.

[paulpablo]

The refutation of proof is if we use axioms, nothing can be conscious or have actions outside of time, both actions and being conscious require time and processes.

I didn't mean that, I used the limited scope of time (related events)
so when I said outside time it means just a single event that is not related to any other.

So when you said god is outside time you meant god is just a single event not related to any other?