Proving God existence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 01:08 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 01:04 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Almost everything you comment on lately you fail to grasp every single damn bit of content.
Thank you, you are a very good example of a "Blind Atheist"
You are typical to Christians
Whatever is said, they just say, Jesus is God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 01:30 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 12:52 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 12:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  that is all you are capable of.
It is your choice, Paradise or Hell
Pretending that you don't care, wouldn't change anything

What. A. Pussy.

You are so scarred of the bullshit your parents tricked you into believing, that you have to attempt to trick others into believing it to; otherwise the delusion risks being broken by contact with reality.

Base assertions won't change anything you ignoramus.

[Image: sorry-feeling-such-pussy-get-well-ecard-someecards.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 02:34 AM
RE: Proving God existence
Another theist who dances around direct questions.

Its dishonest, disgusting and pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 05:33 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 12:33 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 12:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  you're not even wrong.
You are like a dog barking in the dessert Tongue

If so, why bother to read the thread then Dodgy

but as you know that this will destroy your religion, you cannot leave it Weeping
I challenge you to ignore it Gasp

Ummmmm, whose religion? Consider

Are you under the mistaken impression you're on a religious forum?

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-09-2014, 05:52 AM
RE: Proving God existence
I already addressed your "proof"[1], but I'll repeat myself.

(28-08-2014 07:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  That's his proof?

Well, then.
I.1. This may match reality, depending on what you are looking at. Note that a single quantum bit does not necessarily have this property - the state U(t) may equal U(t+1).
I.2. This axiom plays pretty loose and free given that in relativity events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous for another reference frame, and time itself bends.
I.4. Set 1 contains all statuses. Set 2 is the null set. Compare to the set of integers. The subset of Integers that are a finite distance away from 0 is equal to the set of Integers. The subset of integers that are an infinite distance away from 0 is the null set. The set of Integers extends infinitely in both the positive and negative direction but each integer in the set is a finite distance from zero (edited this sentence, thanks Chas). If you think I am wrong you can prove it to me: Show me an Integer whose absolute value is infinite.
I conclusion: That is not necessarily true, and if it is true it seems likely to be equally true for a god. You might claim that a god is never-changing and therefore escapes your reasoning so far, however if it responds to stimuli it is changing. You would have to present a coherent model for how an unchanging god could operate and interact with the world performing creation and miracles and the like to avoid special pleading, and regardless your proof of I is incorrect.
II. So here having attempted to prove that the universe has a temporal edge you claim to prove the necessity for a creator. However the proof itself merely assumes a creator and proves that if one exists it must be dynamic, and therefore if your proof to date were correct the creator would fall under I. p becomes the temporal context for god. This appears to be a flat out case of special pleading now. Going back to the steps in this section though, we have: You say that U(0) can be constant, but under I U(1) does not equal U(0). Your proof seems clear that assuming U(0) exists at all no external hand is needed to move it to U(1). The question is - is anything needed to bring about U(0)? Your proof does not address that question.
III. So having failed to prove the universe is finite, and assumed without proof the existence of a god, you now move onto your third failed proof. This "proof" consists of nothing but bare assertion.

So well done grasping at straws, specially pleading, and then insisting that your god is the true god. Again I bring you Sagan:




Here's how this problem space really looks:
* The universe may have existed for an infinite time in some form before reaching its current form. Arguably under a theistic model the creator god can in some sense the original form of the universe where the moment of creation can be described as G -> G' + U(0). But there is no reason to assume a god is present. It could be a mindless multiverse that resulted in the U(0) state of our universe: M -> M' + U(0). Likewise the universe itself may have no U(0) in any necessary sense, ie U(n) may extend backwards infinitely. We don't have good data to base a choice between these options on.
* The universe may have a temporal edge with no temporal cause for U(0) because time itself begins with that state.
We just don't know which of these is correct.

Now, will you reconsider your baseless belief or will you "play the idiot game"[2]? Will you pretend that you are totally stupid and don't understand or accept anything, to preserve belief?

[1] http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid635167
[2] http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid629948

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 06:17 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 12:29 AM)Muslim Wrote:  You didn't even bother to read the detailed proof (on the other forum)
Infinite Bangs is impossible

Your proof is crap. I did read it. Roger Penrose and many other leading cosmologists disagree. How is it YOU think you know better than the leading cosmologists in the world. Obviously if someone did have a "proof" they would get a Nobel in Physics. I haven't heard you're up for one. To be a "proof" you premises must be accepted by your audience. That's only the first of your many errors.

(02-09-2014 12:29 AM)Muslim Wrote:  To avoid arguments about time, I used only time as a relation between two events, if single events (singularity) are happening, there is no time
You need to discuss things only within the realm of the proof

That's your problem. Nice try. Fail again. YOU emply concepts that NEED time, then say it didn't exist. That's meaningless. You said your god is a planner and creator. Those are ACTIONS. Actions REQUIRE time. YOU cannot have your cake and eat it too. An "event" however short, is STILL a temporal concept. Events REQUIRE time to unfold, *single* or not.

Time "appears" to have stopped from the perspective of a distant observer of a singularity. AT the singularity, that's not what is observed. You need to go back and learn some basic Physics, dude.

Still waiting for the list of your "experts".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: Proving God existence
You can create these concepts to make your god true but it's still nothing more than a concept of the mind until you can demonstrate it. Isn't that why TAG totally fails? I'm pretty sure there are a couple false premises in there but there is also the fact it is just a concept.

When Einstein created the theory of general relativity it was a concept he proved with math. The scientific community was all in a buzz because the concept was spot on correct. But they waited until the eclipse came to actually prove (Demonstrate) that the theory of general relativity was correct.

Our great members of this forum already disputed the premises of your argument but please also remember you need to demonstrate your concept is actually true in reality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like CONVERSIONTUBE's post
02-09-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 06:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your proof is crap. I did read it. Roger Penrose and many other leading cosmologists disagree. How is it YOU think you know better than the leading cosmologists in the world.
Absolutely
Caltech had 260 professors, 27 out of them had Nobel prizes
Stephen Hawking was a visiting professor at my time


Quote: Obviously if someone did have a "proof" they would get a Nobel in Physics. I haven't heard you're up for one.
I don't think that "people" who give it are honest.

Quote: You said your god is a planner and creator. Those are ACTIONS. Actions REQUIRE time. YOU cannot have your cake and eat it too. An "event" however short, is STILL a temporal concept. Events REQUIRE time to unfold, *single* or not.
Here you are confused, you are trying to use the universal definition of time,
While "in my proof" I did use another (sub) definition of time (you can call it Zime not time)
Which is a relation between two events (You cannot even deny that Time does also mean that)
So if there is only one event, there is no "Zime"

Quote:Time "appears" to have stopped from the perspective of a distant observer of a singularity. AT the singularity, that's not what is observed. You need to go back and learn some basic Physics, dude.
The proof is taking the global view not a relative view from any point, nice try Wink

Quote:Still waiting for the list of your "experts".
Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:43 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 08:37 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
Quote: Obviously if someone did have a "proof" they would get a Nobel in Physics. I haven't heard you're up for one.
I don't think that "people" who give it are honest.

Quote:Still waiting for the list of your "experts".
Tongue

So your not honest since your giving us "proof"? So we shouldn't believe you? and of course still no experts because your talking out of your ass. Go crawl back into your hole.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 08:28 AM)CONVERSIONTUBE Wrote:  You can create these concepts to make your god true but it's still nothing more than a concept of the mind until you can demonstrate it. Isn't that why TAG totally fails? I'm pretty sure there are a couple false premises in there but there is also the fact it is just a concept.
It cannot fail!
The only premises that I used is the dynamic Universe
By the way Aristotle proposed the unmoved mover as an argument for God existence, but he couldn't prove it; Which I did Yes

Quote:When Einstein created the theory of general relativity it was a concept he proved with math. The scientific community was all in a buzz because the concept was spot on correct. But they waited until the eclipse came to actually prove (Demonstrate) that the theory of general relativity was correct.
Actually I believe that Einstein made a big mistake in assuming that the 4th dimension is time, It is not!
Assuming that, opened the door for wrong ideas like time travel and that crap
The 4th dimension is something related to distance not time (in full)

Quote:Our great members of this forum already disputed the premises of your argument but please also remember you need to demonstrate your concept is actually true in reality.
Nothing can be more realistic than this proof, I don't only think that this proof is irrefutable, I think it is more valid than any other scientific theory in the world

I'll give you a small challenge, give any other theory or proof that you think it is stronger than this proof?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: