Proving God Existence

[Severan]

I can't believe this page is still going...

[little_monkey]

This insanity has been going on for thousands of years.

[bennyboy]

I can't believe this page is still going...

Why not? You're the one who just resurrected it after a month of death. The last page was JUNE 27.

[NoraBrimstone]

I can't believe this page is still going...

It wasn't still going.

[Dragonetti]

I need to stop reading this! He/she/it is probably not returning to the forum.

[David Sims]

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.

Why can't the contrary be made true by abandoning the insistence on one-second intervals and then allowing the ticks to come at an arbitrarily high rate? In that case the number of elements can be made to approach infinity as the interval between ticks approaches zero.

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

Your conclusion that S1 cannot be finite depends on a definition of time that is independent of thermodynamics. It's generally agreed among physicists that the most meaningful definition of time, and the definition that gives to time its future-pointing arrow, is the thermodynamic definition. The rate at which the ticks of that sort of time come depends on the rate at which changes in the universe's themodynamic state occur. As the universe ages, that rate will lessen until it reaches zero, when the universe is in a state of heat death. If you were to continue measuring time by seconds of invariant length, then there would come a last point, beyond which the next thermodynamic event would be an eternity away.

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

More properly, G is everything in existence which is not in the universe. G need not be singular. G may be plural. G may be infinite.

The correct formula should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p); p is another parameter that changes the states of G

That's almost right. Time, t, measures rates of change within our universe, and there will be other metrics for changes in parts of existence apart from our universe. However, there need not be only one such other metric. There is no reason for the part of existence apart from our universe to be singular. To suppose that to be the case is to impose on our universe the status of a special category, and that is a status that it might easily not possess.

Rather,
E(t,p[i=1..∞]) = U(t) + Σ(i=1,∞) Gᵢ(pᵢ)
where each pᵢ is a parameter that changes the states of Gᵢ.

What I mean to say is that the dichotomy between "our universe" and "elsewhere" is probably not correct. Rather, it would more parsimonious to suppose that our universe is one of many, all of which may have formed in the same manner (by the same mechanism) without necessarily having arrived at the same internal nature. There would, in that case, be nowhere special for a god to be. And if a godless mechanism for the genesis of universes can be found, then there won't be any REASON for a god to be.

I refer, here, to my discussion "On Humans, Universes, Gods, and Existence" at
http://atheistforums.org/thread-20525.html

[CleanShavenJesus]

No! Stop! This thread brings back nightmares!

[Jackalope]

No! Stop! This thread brings back nightmares!

Oh, you would have loved the "Aren't you atheists taking a big risk" thread.

Sadly, that thread of epic fail was lost when we got rid of the Gauntlet.

[bennyboy]

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.

Why can't the contrary be made true by abandoning the insistence on one-second intervals and then allowing the ticks to come at an arbitrarily high rate? In that case the number of elements can be made to approach infinity as the interval between ticks approaches zero.

I don't think you can approach either zero or infinity in the way that you are talking about. However, you make a good point-- at the very least, DEFINING time in finite terms begs the question. "Time is finite, therefore. . . omg it appears that time is finite!"

[gall]

No! Stop! This thread brings back nightmares!

Are there mods on this forum. Is there an archive? Why would you let the posts just hang about on a forum like this. I read the last few pages and this is going no place should be retired and restarted if anything.