Proving God Existence

[bennyboy]

Because infinite events is impossible

I think if you insist on a cognitive (especially anthropomorphic) God, you're hooped. Thinking is an action, and God is timeless, therefore He cannot think. Creation is an action, and God is timeless, therefore He cannot create. "Possible" means "non-zero of event "E" at time "t."

If you make God the emobodiment of necessary facts (like numbers etc.), then you might have a case. You can't find numbers anywhere in the universe, and yet they represent relationships which are obviously true. The same goes for formulas, shapes, etc. You never have a perfect circle in the universe-- and yet all those crude slightly-off circles obviously represent an underlying truth.

But when you start talking about God talking through burning bushes, etc. that's not what you are representing.

[Rational AKD]

Thinking is an action, and God is timeless, therefore He cannot think. Creation is an action, and God is timeless, therefore He cannot create. "Possible" means "non-zero of event "E" at time "t."

what you seem to neglect is that causation doesn't necessitate an interval of time between cause and effect. there can exist simultaneous causations.
concerning God's "thought" it would certainly be much different from ours. unlike with us, his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient. so there would be no thoughts popping in and out of his head, so to speak, it's all necessarily there. as for creation, this can likewise be an asymmetric causal relation.
the point is, if simultaneous causation is possible, there should be nothing wrong with the concept of God causing the universe. since you are the one raising the objection, it is your burden to prove simultaneous causation is impossible or that it can't exist without time.

[Chas]

what you seem to neglect is that causation doesn't necessitate an interval of time between cause and effect. there can exist simultaneous causations.
concerning God's "thought" it would certainly be much different from ours. unlike with us, his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient. so there would be no thoughts popping in and out of his head, so to speak, it's all necessarily there. as for creation, this can likewise be an asymmetric causal relation.
the point is, if simultaneous causation is possible, there should be nothing wrong with the concept of God causing the universe. since you are the one raising the objection, it is your burden to prove simultaneous causation is impossible or that it can't exist without time.

And it is your burden to prove " his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient.".

Empty assertions - provide evidence or they will be dismissed.

[Rational AKD]

And it is your burden to prove " his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient.".

Empty assertions - provide evidence or they will be dismissed.

that would be the case if I was the one with the claim. i'm not here making a claim, rather i'm answering an objection which only necessitates possibility not proof. it is bennyboy who made the objection and his burden to substantiate it.

[paulpablo]

Quran is not a book of science to explain to the world How god is doing things, it is using simple words for the common person to understand

So when the quran says god is the originator and creator of the universe the quran is being wrong on purpose because people would have been too common to understand the quran if it actually told people what is correct?

So when you read the quran and see something illogical instead of thinking "this book is illogical" you automatically move to making assumptions that god is using idiomatic expressions or just saying things which are incorrect on purpose because common people wouldn't understand it otherwise.

[bennyboy]

And it is your burden to prove " his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient.".

Empty assertions - provide evidence or they will be dismissed.

that would be the case if I was the one with the claim. i'm not here making a claim, rather i'm answering an objection which only necessitates possibility not proof. it is bennyboy who made the objection and his burden to substantiate it.

What's the title of this thread?

[Chas]

And it is your burden to prove " his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient.".

Empty assertions - provide evidence or they will be dismissed.

that would be the case if I was the one with the claim. i'm not here making a claim, rather i'm answering an objection which only necessitates possibility not proof. it is bennyboy who made the objection and his burden to substantiate it.

I quoted you making a claim. Do you not know what a claim means?

[Lemonvariable72]

that would be the case if I was the one with the claim. i'm not here making a claim, rather i'm answering an objection which only necessitates possibility not proof. it is bennyboy who made the objection and his burden to substantiate it.

Ahh but you see the op is trying to prove a Muslim god and rational the Christian god. Such is a failure of most arguments to the divine.

[downbeatplumb]

Please forgive the thinly veiled rascim

What they don't reallise was that was a man evading police surveiliance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24799675

[Rational AKD]

What's the title of this thread?

do you honestly think you can come here and say "God is impossible" and expect me to prove God exists or it's impossible? I don't think so. you made the claim it's impossible for God to think and cause the universe without time, it is you who has to show that's correct. burden of proof is a 2 way street, you can't claim God is impossible and expect that claim not to be challenged.

I quoted you making a claim. Do you not know what a claim means?

so you're going to challenge me on whether bennyboy said that? please, there are some things that you can evidently see that are true.

Ahh but you see the op is trying to prove a Muslim god and rational the Christian god. Such is a failure of most arguments to the divine.

but if you would pay attention, bennyboy made a contrary claim that God is impossible. burden of proof isn't a one way street, bennyboy must substantiate his contrary claim; especially since it is an extreme contrary claim.