Proving God existence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(18-09-2014 01:51 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 10:28 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Yeah. It's a good thing radioactive decay doesn't occur.....
Radioactive decay is a continuous process

No, it's not. It is discrete decay of individual atomic nuclei at unpredictable times.

It is only predictable statistically.

Quote:it will not change from static to dynamic!
and if it did then it will need an external event (doer) to do that

This doesn't follow.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-09-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: Proving God existence
.... still waiting for him to attempt to salvage the math that was a lynchpin of his "proof"...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 11:10 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(18-09-2014 11:07 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... still waiting for him to attempt to salvage the math that was a lynchpin of his "proof"...

That was math? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-09-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(18-09-2014 11:07 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... still waiting for him to attempt to salvage the math that was a lynchpin of his "proof"...

Yes I quite enjoyed that post. Maths isn't my strong point unfortunately so it's always a pleasure to have these things explained by an expert.

It's quite pertinent how Muslim has completely ignored your post yet continues to talk about how much of a genius he is. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

Anyway, this is the link just to remind Muslim of what he wants forgotten.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid637859
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Proving God existence
(01-09-2014 02:39 PM)Muslim Wrote:  It is impossible to be a natural cause
simply because static is opposite to dynamic (contradiction or logical paradox)
For anything it is either; Static or Dynamic
Nothing can be static then decide by his own to start to change, it can only be changed from outside
Static is not the opposite of dynamic. Static is a subset of dynamic.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 02:39 PM
RE: Proving God existence
(18-09-2014 01:51 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 10:28 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Yeah. It's a good thing radioactive decay doesn't occur.....
Radioactive decay is a continuous process it will not change from static to dynamic!
and if it did then it will need an external event (doer) to do that
[Image: 2319.jpeg]

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:12 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(18-09-2014 06:47 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:It is not something new because science proved the big bang and the start of the universe

observable known universe*

We don't know what was before the big bang or if there is anything beyond what we can see.
Light takes time to get from A to B, we don't know what is beyond the observable universe.
You didn't get it
No, we know
We know what Logic mandates
and logic mandates all the conclusions in my proof

Now really try to refute it, instead of just asserting
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:14 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(18-09-2014 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 01:51 AM)Muslim Wrote:  Radioactive decay is a continuous process

No, it's not. It is discrete decay of individual atomic nuclei at unpredictable times.
it seems that you missed "all" of your science lessons Big Grin

Decay will only start after the formation of the radioactive matter


This formation definitely needs a doer
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:19 AM
RE: Proving God existence
Well, I'm convinced, let me get my makeup so I can smear lipstick on your Mohammad wand!

“You see… sometimes life gives you lemons. And when that happens… you need to find some spell that makes lemons explode, because lemons are terrible. I only ate them once and I can say with certainty they are the worst fruit. If life gave me lemons, I would view it as nothing short of a declaration of war."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:36 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 05:49 AM by Muslim.)
RE: Proving God existence
(01-09-2014 03:06 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
Quote:3. Assuming that time is infinite t ɛ { -∞, -∞+1, ……, 0, 1, 2, 3, … ,∞-1,∞}

It looks like you're using the extended integers -- that is, positive and negative infinity as well as all the integers. That's fine, though I have to wonder why you wouldn't use the reals or rationals, since "half a second" should probably be an option.
It doesn't matter, the unit of time used is just an Axiom; I can use anything

Quote:For something to have infinite value, we merely need to show that there is no upper limit (bound) to its value. That is to say, for every number that might be proposed as a bound, we have to show that it is not in fact an upper bound and that the value is higher than that. So for example, let's say we're arguing about whether the integers are infinite. I'm arguing that they are, and you're arguing that they're not. This argument is won when either you demonstrate an upper bound, or I demonstrate that no such upper bound can exist. Here's what that conversation might look like.
This is a total crap; and circular logic, you proved that infinite numbers exist by assuming that infinite numbers exist!
I'm not arguing that integers are infinite or finite, I'm proving that the Universe states are finite

Can you answer simple (yes/no) is there is a state in past time U(n) where n is finite and N+1 is infinite
(Multiply by -1 if you wish)

Quote:At THAT point, I've proven that the integers are infinite, because I've proven that an upper bound on their number cannot exist.
Wrong
Integers are just a concept, not real they don't exist
The moment that you try (or even think) to make a real mapping of integers, they become finite

How many numbers exist on the Number line?
None!
Till you start writing them
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: