Proving God existence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 09:57 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 09:02 AM)Muslim Wrote:  My next book will be "Corrections to the theory of relativity"

Congratulations in advance on your Nobel Prize. Refutation of general relativity will earn you nothing less.

On what testable predictions do you base your overturning of 90 years of physics? What anomalies in present data and models do you address?
I didn't say that I'll refute it, just small corrections

As the speed of light is constant, absolute time can be measured relative to the speed of light in vacuum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 01:30 PM)Muslim Wrote:  As the speed of light is constant, absolute time can be measured relative to the speed of light in vacuum

?
Why are we encouraging this guy?
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: Proving God existence
................
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 01:30 PM)Muslim Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 09:57 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Congratulations in advance on your Nobel Prize. Refutation of general relativity will earn you nothing less.

On what testable predictions do you base your overturning of 90 years of physics? What anomalies in present data and models do you address?
I didn't say that I'll refute it, just small corrections

As the speed of light is constant, absolute time can be measured relative to the speed of light in vacuum

That's... entirely the most ass-backwards understanding of relativity I've ever heard.

That there is no such thing as "absolute" time in fact follows inevitably from the fact that the speed of light is constant to all observers regardless of their relative motion.

Read a book.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
02-09-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: Proving God existence
It's rather telling how Muslim's ignoring the one post that breaks down HOW his math is wrong. Why argue substance when you can just snipe, troll, and flame?

(02-09-2014 10:47 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  More ad homenims... Drinking Beverage

Okay, Diddo. It's time for you mandatory weekly beating education.

An ad hominem is a personal attack against the person presenting an argument, usually in the form of an insult, aspersion against character, or in some way presenting that person as undesirable. It is usually rude and hostile. But it in no way undermines anything else that is being said.

Its role in a counterargument is neutral. It does not constitute a credible counterargument in and of itself, nor does it add any weight to a counterargument which it is packaged with. But it also does not subtract one iota from a counterargument that it is packaged with.

An ad-hominem FALLACY is something else entirely. It is the (false) assertion that an ad-hominem can serve as a counterargument in and of itself, or that it can add significantly to a counterargument with which it is packaged.

Compare and contrast the following three:

Quote:You're an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong.
Ad hominem fallacy.

Quote:You're an idiot.
Simple ad-hominem. There is no argument here, so there cannot be a fallacy.

Quote:You're an idiot. Also, your argument is wrong for reasons A, B, C, and D.
Counterargument, packaged with an ad-hominem but not undermined by it. The sentence "you're an idiot" doesn't make the counterargument any more correct or incorrect, than if the counterargument was delivered by itself.

So if you're complaining that we're making ad-hominems of ANY sort, you're just being whiny about us being rude and you aren't arguing anything of substance. If you're complaining that we're committing ad-hominem FALLACIES, then you're by and large wrong, as most of the responses have been straight ad-hominems with no counterargument, or counterarguments packaged with ad-hominems but not reliant upon them. I don't recall a single counterargument dependent upon an ad-hominem, but if there was one, it was in the vast minority. And finally, if you're claiming that our counterarguments fail BECAUSE they come packaged with ad-hominems, then that's the quibbling fallacy. An ad-hominem does not render an otherwise-true argument false.

Also, you're an idiot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Reltzik's post
02-09-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: Proving God existence
(01-09-2014 02:11 PM)Muslim Wrote:  Proving God existence is very simple

1- Space/Time cannot be infinite
Because if we assume it is, there will be a year in the past say N B.C.
where N-1 is infinity and N+1 is finite
Which means that N doesn't equal N, it leads to a logical paradox or contradiction
Actually this proves that nothing "real" can be of infinite number
It is not something new because science proved the big bang and the start of the universe

2- As the Universe had a beginning, a starter must initiated/created it
this is done by mapping the universe and existence into an equation that varies with time, then taking its limit at time =0
Or in simple words, the universe cannot start/change from nothing (or a static form) by nothing
Which leads to a creator who had a decision and power to create/start the universe (A deity)


3-The above mandates some attributes for this deity; which are:
Outside space/time
Single
One entity
Unique
Powerful
Creator
Planner (intelligent)
in-materialistic
Has no image or photo
No more attributes can be known or understood about him using logic alone
because he is outside/separate from the universe and not like anything we observe or know

You can also read a mathematical version of the proof at
Proving God existence

I suggest to move the discussion there, as it is already posted and discussed
and appreciate if you can read old answers (refutation trials) and select the best ones for discussion

(By the way it was presented to some experts and no flaw was found in it (part 1,2))

This is just an unusual representation of the Kalam argument.
1) The universe doesn't necessarily need a cause as it doesn't necessarily have to follow the laws "inside" of it. Fallacy of composition.
2) If a god created existence then he must not exist. Oops!
3) "From nothing, by nothing" is not necessary. A timeless, spaceless infinite regression of energy that then quantum mechanics can explain the start of space and time.
4) The Big Bang theory did not prove the beginning of the universe. It just explains the expansion of the universe during when we can explain it classically. That means only up to planck time. No further back.
5) single, one entity, powerful, and intelligent have not been justified by any argument. There is no reason why two entities couldn't have done it.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 10:40 PM
RE: Proving God existence
I already showed that your god can't exist, but please feel free to keep on believing. It won't change anything

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 11:12 PM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 01:54 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 01:30 PM)Muslim Wrote:  As the speed of light is constant, absolute time can be measured relative to the speed of light in vacuum

?
Why are we encouraging this guy?
Doc

Because fuck this pinata. Drinking Beverage

[Image: pluto_pinata.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-09-2014, 01:15 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(02-09-2014 11:12 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 01:54 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  ?
Why are we encouraging this guy?
Doc

Because fuck this pinata. Drinking Beverage

[Image: pluto_pinata.jpg]

I want a pinata for my birthday...but I am too old and no one will help me break it open...or have as much fun with it as I would.

oh the fond memories of being taught how to smash something open with a blunt object to get to the gooey tasty bits inside! I wonder why they were animal shaped?


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
03-09-2014, 06:24 AM
RE: Proving God existence
(03-09-2014 01:15 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 11:12 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because fuck this pinata. Drinking Beverage

[Image: pluto_pinata.jpg]

I want a pinata for my birthday...but I am too old and no one will help me break it open...or have as much fun with it as I would.

oh the fond memories of being taught how to smash something open with a blunt object to get to the gooey tasty bits inside! I wonder why they were animal shaped?

Could be that it's derived from animal sacrifice. It's animal sacrifice 'lite'. Shocking

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: