Proving God Existence

[Little Rik]

[Muslim Scholar]

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."

I don't know what do you mean by timeless
but there is a first event even for God

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.

You are trying to understand the nature of God; Which is impossible
The summary is that some attributes of God can be proved by logic (his existence is one of them)

---

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?

there is a big difference between wrong and a figure of speech

God is the creator of the universe is very clear in Quran

by the way about the origin
there is 2 Islamic schools
1 God created the first "Water"
2 God didn't create it
there is no clear statement in Quran about that

Also my proof only proves the necessity for a doer for each action; creating something from nothing is not the same issue (it may or may not be valid)

---

Religious people do not understand, that they are making the claim. When making a claim for the existence and presents of a super being, you have to provide hard factual evidence of existence. We do not care about how you feel about the super being. We want real hardcore pornographic evidence of such existence. Why do I have to disprove something that has not been proven. The mythical books are not evidence.

I feel this! I claim I can move objects with my thoughts. I wrote it down in a green book, so it must be true! Now you must disprove this!

I gave the proof
You have to either refute it or accept it.

[paulpablo]

there is a big difference between wrong and a figure of speech

God is the creator of the universe is very clear in Quran

by the way about the origin
there is 2 Islamic schools
1 God created the first "Water"
2 God didn't create it
there is no clear statement in Quran about that

How do you decide when god is using a figure of speech or not?

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

You are trying to understand the nature of God my reasoning; Which is impossible

Fixed that for you.

The summary is that some attributes of God can be proved by logic (his existence is one of them)

I've already shown you why that is not the case. Even if the first two arguments were sound (which they most definitely are not), The only thing you can directly infer from that is that the universe had a cause. Everything else is bare assertion.

I gave the proof
You have to either refute it or accept it.

No you did not. You attempted to. It has been pointed out to you why your 'proofs' don't stand up to scrutiny

---

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.

Whether or not simultaneous causation is possible is irrelevant. There needs to be a time frame in which those events can occur. No time = no time frame = no event.

Going from state A to state B takes time. Without time there is no change of state. The is simply an unchanging, eternal moment.

[Dragonetti]

[Muslim Scholar]

You are trying to understand the nature of God my reasoning; Which is impossible

Fixed that for you.

The summary is that some attributes of God can be proved by logic (his existence is one of them)

I've already shown you why that is not the case. Even if the first two arguments were sound (which they most definitely are not), The only thing you can directly infer from that is that the universe had a cause. Everything else is bare assertion.

There is no much more, just some attributes for that cause

I gave the proof
You have to either refute it or accept it.

No you did not. You attempted to. It has been pointed out to you why your 'proofs' don't stand up to scrutiny

By What?

Whether or not simultaneous causation is possible is irrelevant. There needs to be a time frame in which those events can occur. No time = no time frame = no event.

What do you mean by time frame?
You are trying to play with the word time to evade the proof
Time (As my definition) would not exist as there is only one event.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I've already shown you why that is not the case. Even if the first two arguments were sound (which they most definitely are not), The only thing you can directly infer from that is that the universe had a cause. Everything else is bare assertion.

There is no much more, just some attributes for that cause

The attributes you assigned to that cause are not logically deduced from the reasoning you gave.

Whether or not simultaneous causation is possible is irrelevant. There needs to be a time frame in which those events can occur. No time = no time frame = no event.

What do you mean by time frame?
You are trying to play with the word time to evade the proof
Time (As my definition) would not exist as there is only one event.

This is the same point I made to you. Your response was to assert that god was not the only thing in existence prior to the creation of the universe and so time would have existed for god. You keep contradicting yourself.

[Little Rik]

Your total ignorance in this field make you spew crap.
Religious people put bombs around not those engaged in spirituality.
You find one single person engaged in intuitional science that put bombs around and i will make you rich.

You equate religious views as science? The stupidity of the logic is astounding.

You haven't got a clue about the difference between religion and spirituality and then you have the audacity to put both of them on the same stand.
How can you be so cretin?

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Your total ignorance in this field make you spew crap.
Religious people put bombs around not those engaged in spirituality.
You find one single person engaged in intuitional science that put bombs around and i will make you rich.

Is this good enough?

You believe that you are a mutation so how a non-intelligent mutation can lead to enlightenment?

Um, unless you reject the entire field of genetics then you believe the same. You just don't realise it.

[Dragonetti]

Sorry, I lump all mystical shit together.

To equal mystical crap with Science is abhorrent. Just because you want people accept Jesus/God/Mohammad/Gandhi/Buddha into their hearts is just plain bullshit. Accepting fake mystical shit does not make you a better person. The crap arose before Science, and has not provide any benefits after Science. We digress as a society and species with religion and spirituality. Feel good, but feel good for the right reasons!