God (Allah) existence - The full proof

[afadly]

God --> Does Not Exist --> Random Universe --> WE DON'T KNOW

Can you think a little bit

In my proof Part I, God is a creator (Just that)
If the Universe has no creator it must be random, We know (by logic)

You are going back and forth and mixing statements
You must must must go into the proof sequentially, then try to find a flaw in the sequence

[HAL]

Can you think a little bit

Can you?

In my proof Part I, God is a creator (Just that)
If the Universe has no creator it must be random, We know (by logic)

You, without the proper evidence, prematurely ended the random path with a Big Red X.

Neither you, nor anyone, has the information to make that prediction, therefore your whole proof is donkey-doo-doo

[Anfauglir]

Actually, it doesn't matter what we say. 
Afadly has written what he feels is a proof that Allah exists. 

If he accepts that any part of his proof is flawed, then he will have to accept that Allah does NOT exist.

Afadly will never accept Allah does not exist.

Therefore, Afadly will never be able to accept there is anything wrong with his proof.

This is false
Because if my proof has flaws, it does not mean that Allah does not exist
You must bring a proof that he does not exist for that

And - once again - a theist demands we prove a negative.

The situation is now
Allah exists and it is proved, till somebody found a flaw in my proof, then Allah will be possible to exist

Nope - saying something doesn't make it so.  The situation is that umpteen people have pointed out errors in your "proof" that you refuse to accept.  You can claim you've proved whatever the heck you like - it doesn't make it so.

[MrFriday]

You have no standing to task me with proving anything. If you stop using long discredited first cause arguments to prove your imaginary God, I'll consider honoring your request. But your request had better be a lot more respectful than that. Do you understand me, churl? Now, begone!

I'm not feeding you the proof
It is a choice if you don't accept it, Hell is the destination

You haven't offered any proof so there's nothing to feed anyone. Labeling something a proof doesn't make it one. But the fact that you ignore every valid objection proves something. It proves you are a deluded and obstinate. By the way, your empty threats are meaningless. You are delusional. Now you think Allah is going to punish people for failing to believe a liar like you.
Is it something new?

Sura 115 - Believe all Liars and Fools  

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Thus unto thee doth Allah, the Mighty, the Wise, now reveal!
It is for all to believe the liar and the fool no matter what pathetic drivel they are trying to pass off as truth.
But whoso take it on himself to use his brain and challenge the fool — Allah will punish them with everlasting torment in Hell.
etc.

Here are the facts, aFatheadly. The universe does not require a creator. There is no evidence that a deity exists. Hell is a fable. Allah is a figment of a demented child molester's imagination. Now go crawl back under your rock, please.

[mumbles]

Sura 115 - Believe all Liars and Fools  

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Thus unto thee doth Allah, the Mighty, the Wise, now reveal!
It is for all to believe the liar and the fool no matter what pathetic drivel they are trying to pass off as truth.
But whoso take it on himself to use his brain and challenge the fool — Allah will punish them with everlasting torment in Hell.
etc.

How can that possibly be interpreted other than, "Kill smart people!"?

[afadly]

Nope - saying something doesn't make it so.  The situation is that umpteen people have pointed out errors in your "proof" that you refuse to accept.  You can claim you've proved whatever the heck you like - it doesn't make it so.

Prove me wrong, if you can?

[afadly]

You, without the proper evidence, prematurely ended the random path with a Big Red X.

I did not end it, it ended by itself
We assumed A then A leaded to B and B leaded to not A, so A is false

If you still choose to believe in A (No Creator), You and all your Atheist friends are believing an illusion

This is trivial in Logic if you know any?

[Dragnet]

You, without the proper evidence, prematurely ended the random path with a Big Red X.

I did not end it, it ended by itself
We assumed A then A leaded to B and B leaded to not A, so A is false

If you still choose to believe in A (No Creator), You and all your Atheist friends are believing an illusion

This is trivial in Logic if you know any?

Waste of time and energy.

[Peter B]

The Proof- Part I (Proving a Creator)
E= U + X    (X ≥φ)
Existence = Universe + Possible X

(emphasis mine)

Ok, after some consideration of the possible benefit of a reply, i'll take on your proof right at it's starting point above. I know, that exactly this point has been discussed with you in another thread, and you never actually saw the relevance, so let me try again:

In the "Comments" part of the proof you cite and link Stephen W. Hawking on the beginning of the universe. You state then the following:

Logic + Science prove
•   Universe had a start
•   Universe was created from nothing
•   Time had a beginning

And then conclude:

A Creator of the Universe and Time exists

In accordance with your proof. Now think, that you left out at least one essential part of the proposed properties of the Universe as proposed for example by Stephen W. Hawking. This essential part is, that the Universe has no boundaries. To quote Hawking on this (see e.g. The Future of Quantum Cosmology; Hawking,S.W.; Structure Formation in the Universe; 1999; Link to PDF):

Thus, it's [note: metric given by integrating Lagrangian] contribution to the path integral is well defined. By contrast, the action of a non compact, or singular, metric involves a surface term at infinity, or at the singularity. One can add an arbitrary quantity to this surface term. It therefore it seems more natural to adopt what Jim Hartle and I called, 'no boundary proposal'. The quantum state of the universe is defined by a Euclidean path integral over compact metrics. In other words, the boundary condition of the universe, is that it has no boundary.

(emphasis mine)

This means you would have to expand your conclusion in following way:

Logic + Science prove
•   Universe had a start
•   Universe was created from nothing [<- i don't agree with that, too. I will specify this in a future post if necessary]
•   Universe has no boundary
•   Time had a beginning

Thus a potential creator can not exist outside of the Universe.

This destroys your very first step into the proof: E=U (X is impossible outside of U)

You have to show, that the 'no boundary proposal' of Hartle and Hawking is invalid, before you can proceed with the proof.

[HAL]

I did not end it, it ended by itself

Bull**** - you put the red X on the diagram for no valid reason. You and your proof fail.

[afadly]

Thus a potential creator can not exist outside of the Universe.
This destroys your very first step into the proof: E=U (X is impossible outside of U)
You have to show, that the 'no boundary proposal' of Hartle and Hawking is invalid, before you can proceed with the proof.

Good try

1- Stephen just proposed that the Universe has no boundaries
He or anyone can not prove that, the only clue for that is that the Universe is expanding and did not stop

2- It is supporting my proof not against it, as if the Universe is expanding freely, it means that there is outside

3- All this is irrelevant to the proof, as if the Universe started at a point of time, X created it and X is outside

It does not matter at all if the Universe will expand to an end or will expand forever

The only good point here, is that I should use the word God is separate from the Universe, instead of Outside the Universe

cappicco?

[Peter B]

Good try

Not so fast. Lets take a look at what you state here:

1- Stephen just proposed that the Universe has no boundaries
He or anyone can not prove that, the only clue for that is that the Universe is expanding and did not stop

That is not the only proposition of the 'no boundary proposal'. Had you read into the link, you would have seen, that Hawking also argues for the necessity of the 'no boundary condition' for the existence of intelligent life, as we know it. You see that the consequences go further than just the explanation of an unrestricted expansion of the Universe (see bottom of page 3 and top of page 4 of the linked PDF 'The Future of Quantum Cosmology').

2- It is supporting my proof not against it, as if the Universe is expanding freely, it means that there is outside

I do not talk about the (spacial)expansion here, still i have to say, that your assertion is imprecise, as there is no outside, just a beyond the expansion diameter. That is a difference, as i will explain below.

3- All this is irrelevant to the proof, as if the Universe started at a point of time, X created it and X is outside

This is the interesting part. I propose that it does very well matter. If you accept, that the Universe has no boundaries (for the logical reasons see the linked paper pages 1ff), it becomes logical that everything that is able to interact with the universe becomes automatically part of it. If i now would accept the necessary existence of a creator, that a) is uncaused, b) exists eternally and most importantly c) has logic as a key property (note: i do not accept this, as i doubt the very first step of the proof), i would assume it to be a logical necessity that this creator becomes part of the Universe as soon as he creates it. This is, because creation is a form of interaction, and everything that interacts with our universe has to be defined as part of it according to the 'no boundary proposal'.

I know that you won't accept this. You stated some time ago, that the interaction of God with this Universe is like someone knocking at the door. We can't see that someone is there, but we know that there must be someone. I say, that in the face of the 'non boundary proposal' this analogy fails. The someone has to be in the house already to knock at the door of our realm*. That means, without being part of the Universe the interaction with it (note: from the act of creation onward) is not possible. You exclude the option that God is "inside" or "part" of the universe yourself. So it follows, that a creator - at least in the form as you describe it - is impossible. While a natural cause of the Universe is likely, because the force and laws that created the Universe can without any cut backs be assumed to be part of the Universe.

So you better refute the 'no boundary proposal' in some better way, than you tried above, or your proof logically fails in the first step.

cappicco?

Back at you!
 

* To make the whole thing even worse: In the second part of your proof, you (try to)show that the creator is equal to Allah. We know from the Qur'an that Allah is supposed to interact in a very distinct way with the Universe, e.g. by sending angels or listening to prayers. No matter how you turn it, this interaction would make Allah part of our Universe without any doubt.


Edit: I forgot the explanation between "outside the Universe" and "outside the expansion diameter". Here it is: If something could exist on the outside of the Universe, it would not be possible to know of it's existence. We can - on the other hand - learn about the existence of something beyond the supposed expansion diameter of our Universe (in every dimension, i have to add). As soon as we learn about that, the diameter becomes expanded instantaneously and the embraces the existence of the newly learned. In other words: There are no things on the outside, just things that we don't count to the Universe yet, because we don't know of their existence. Think about that for a bit before you refute it, please.

[Anfauglir]

Nope - saying something doesn't make it so.  The situation is that umpteen people have pointed out errors in your "proof" that you refuse to accept.  You can claim you've proved whatever the heck you like - it doesn't make it so.

Prove me wrong, if you can?

Several of us, as I said, have raised objections to your "proof" that you refuse to accept.  There seems little point in continuing when you are so vested in your proof you dismiss any objections.

[afadly]

Nope - saying something doesn't make it so.  The situation is that umpteen people have pointed out errors in your "proof" that you refuse to accept.  You can claim you've proved whatever the heck you like - it doesn't make it so.

Prove me wrong, if you can?

Several of us, as I said, have raised objections to your "proof" that you refuse to accept.  There seems little point in continuing when you are so vested in your proof you dismiss any objections.

Till now, I don't recognize any real objection

Except
1- Paradox may exist, which is Nothing
2- Cyclic universe can exist, which is a fallacy from its roots
3- Peter's, I'm still studying it

If you know which arguments are valid, I'll create a list of them

[HAL]

Till now, I don't recognize any real objection

Open your eyes man - I object to your diagram. OK, I'll have to re-draw it for you then...

[HAL]

Chew on this Affy - I'm going to post this on every page of this stupid debate until you realize your proof is dog crap.

[afadly]

So you better refute the 'no boundary proposal' in some better way, than you tried above, or your proof logically fails in the first step.

I'll study this Issue!
But anyway Stephen was talking Physics, No boundaries, no outside, for objects
God is different, physics should not apply

* To make the whole thing even worse: In the second part of your proof, you (try to)show that the creator is equal to Allah. We know from the Qur'an that Allah is supposed to interact in a very distinct way with the Universe, e.g. by sending angels or listening to prayers. No matter how you turn it, this interaction would make Allah part of our Universe without any doubt.

This is circular logic as you assume that E=U then build on that the result that if God exists he will be part of U

Edit: I forgot the explanation between "outside the Universe" and "outside the expansion diameter". Here it is: If something could exist on the outside of the Universe, it would not be possible to know of it's existence. We can - on the other hand - learn about the existence of something beyond the supposed expansion diameter of our Universe (in every dimension, i have to add). As soon as we learn about that, the diameter becomes expanded instantaneously and the embraces the existence of the newly learned. In other words: There are no things on the outside, just things that we don't count to the Universe yet, because we don't know of their existence. Think about that for a bit before you refute it, please.

If the Universe is defined by "All what we know" your statement will be true

But the Universe is defined by matter that we know
That is why they created a science called Metaphysics

[jakeatkisson]

I don't know jack about quantum mechanics, but what I do know is this-

Afadly, you demonstrate exactly nothing except a manner of self-justified arrogance.    If you're so very right, and your arithmetic is so very correct, why the flaming skystar are you crowing about it on a diddly little discussion forum somewhere in the thorax of the intarwebs?   Why, if you're so direly certain of your correctness, are you not sending transcripts of your miracle-proof to every theologian, mathemetician, physicist and media agency around the planet?

My guess?   You're provenly dismissive of anything that disagrees with you, and that, monsieur, is the hallmark of a plain-as-plaid wannabe elitist.

I can't comment on the math so much, apart from what I've looked up online anyway, but your candor would get you sternly rebutted right back into your seat if you were in any one of my degree courses.    Just a commentative thought for you to roll around your empirical noggin', afadly.

[afadly]

Open your eyes man - I object to your diagram. OK, I'll have to re-draw it for you then...

Dear
Your objection has no Value

If we assumed that the Universe is Random it leads logically that it is Cyclic
Cyclic is not Random
That makes the assumption false

I think you should ask another honest Atheist about that

*Maybe it is better to make another thread, where all of you make an alliance to select best refutation for the proof
Then post only those refutations to me, so I don't waist my time arguing very weak refutations

[afadly]

I don't know jack about quantum mechanics, but what I do know is this-

Afadly, you demonstrate exactly nothing except a manner of self-justified arrogance.    If you're so very right, and your arithmetic is so very correct, why the flaming skystar are you crowing about it on a diddly little discussion forum somewhere in the thorax of the intarwebs?   Why, if you're so direly certain of your correctness, are you not sending transcripts of your miracle-proof to every theologian, mathemetician, physicist and media agency around the planet?

My guess?   You're provenly dismissive of anything that disagrees with you, and that, monsieur, is the hallmark of a plain-as-plaid wannabe elitist.

I can't comment on the math so much, apart from what I've looked up online anyway, but your candor would get you sternly rebutted right back into your seat if you were in any one of my degree courses.    Just a commentative thought for you to roll around your empirical noggin', afadly.

I'll post it everywhere

But I wanted to check if it is 100% correct (At least from my point of view)
Till now all arguments are nothing Except for:
1- God's self attributes can not be changed, which I understand it, but need to write it better
2- Universe Boundaries one, which I'll need to study it

[HAL]

[b]If we assumed that the Universe is Random it leads logically that it is Cyclic

Bull**** Afadley - the universe could be a one time event - you simply do not know that and are making wild speculations to support your desired result.

Here is the corrected diagram again.

[azizhp]

I've long been aware of this forum and I will freely admit that my purpose in posting here is not to get involved in debating people about the existence of god. My motives will hopefully be clear after this post.

afadly, I am muslim as well, and in the spirit of brotherhood let me explain a few things to you. I apologize to other readers if I am somewhat redundant with other posts in the thread.

First, drop the pretense at mathematics. Your mathematical notation is meaningless and essentially serves one purpose, to obfuscate the argument rather than support it. In fact your argument basically boils down to two assumptions, that the universe is finite and that the universe is unique at all times of its existence, neither of which is a "fact" (and both of which are irrelevant anyway, see below). I will simply refer you to Mar Chu-Carroll at Good Math, Bad Math blog (your argument being the latter, I am afraid) who systematically dismantles the nonsensical edifice of symbols you've constructed here.

Second, you verge on blasphemy. How dare you reduce the sublime to an equation? Why should Allah be bound by your statements? Allah's existence is independent of your minor axioms or facts or whatever they are. God is greater. Praise Allah, do not attempt to constrain Allah.

Third, why do you even try to prove that which you should accept on faith? Your comment about faith being a MLM is also rather blasphemous. You are rewarded for your deeds. Rather than parasitically attempt to earn favor in Allah's eyes by converting others to Islam, focus on your own faith and strengthen it. Do you pray salaat? Do you fast in Ramadan al Kareem? What zakat did you do this year? Have you gone for Hajj? do you attend prayers at the masjid? I don't know who your shaykh is, but I am certain that whoever he is, he would not be pleased at your actions.

In fact, faith is faith. Leave proof to the scientific realm where it belongs. I have some humble knowledge of science and I assure you there is no reason to fear it. Embrace all knowledge - including science - as part of the creation of Allah itself, and on the question of faith, Have it. Don't try to explain it. You either have it or you don't. And others will come to Islam on their own, or not, as is their destiny.

Let me close with some words of wisdom about faith, ironically from a very famous atheist.

"I refuse to prove I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

To the others in the thread, I invite you to read a debunking I wrote for the supposed Kalam Cosmological Argument, another attempt to prove God which also violated my religious sensibilities (and common sense and logic). Also, God doesn't heal amputees for the same reason I don't stand guard over my daughter on her kindergarten playground.

[azizhp]

We know from the Qur'an that Allah is supposed to interact in a very distinct way with the Universe, e.g. by sending angels or listening to prayers. No matter how you turn it, this interaction would make Allah part of our Universe without any doubt.

look, I think the critiques of afadly from quoting Hawking, etc for a soundbite rae right on target. Its clear he hasnt read the book, and is just looking for a soundbite from an Authority. That's obviously dishonest, so why try to do the same thing with respect to the Qur'an? His argument doesnt refer to the qur'an nd neither should your rebuttal. Unless its really just teh argumentation you're after, in which case you two are made for each other.

[afadly]

the universe could be a one time event - you simply do not know that and are making wild speculations to support your desired result.

No it can not
And this is the last time I answer this argument
A finite set of objects must repeat its sequences within an infinite number of trials

*You can post your rubbish more and more, I'll be happy to increase the number of replies to my post

[HAL]

the universe could be a one time event - you simply do not know that and are making wild speculations to support your desired result.

No it can not

Not Accepted.

You simply will ignore everything that disagrees with your final presumption.

[HAL]

I've long been aware of this forum and I will freely admit that my purpose in posting here is not to get involved in debating people about the existence of god. My motives will hopefully be clear after this post.

afadly, I am muslim as well, and in the spirit of brotherhood let me explain a few things to you. I apologize to other readers if I am somewhat redundant with other posts in the thread. 

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your post.

[Peter B]

We know from the Qur'an that Allah is supposed to interact in a very distinct way with the Universe, e.g. by sending angels or listening to prayers. No matter how you turn it, this interaction would make Allah part of our Universe without any doubt.

look, I think the critiques of afadly from quoting Hawking, etc for a soundbite rae right on target. Its clear he hasnt read the book, and is just looking for a soundbite from an Authority. That's obviously dishonest, so why try to do the same thing with respect to the Qur'an? His argument doesnt refer to the qur'an nd neither should your rebuttal. Unless its really just teh argumentation you're after, in which case you two are made for each other.

Critique understood and accepted, azizhp. Thanks.

Perhaps let me make an attempt in explaining why i brought the Qur'an into my argument: It's very existence would be evidential for an interaction between the deity and this Universe, if the existence of that deity is accepted. This is an important point of my argument. As i see it, nothing can interact with this Universe without necessarily becoming part of it (following the logic of a 'no boundaries proposal'). I don't need any sound bites from the book, just the existence of the book itself as reference to my argument here. I hope you can see where i am coming from, even if you can not accept this approach as right. The specific references i used were due to earlier conversations and discussions with afadly. It wasn't meant as dishonesty, just as an illustration. Sorry if i chose the wrong approach here.

Welcome to the forum, and +1 for making much sense.

[Dragnet]

I've long been aware of this forum and I will freely admit that my purpose in posting here is not to get involved in debating people about the existence of god. My motives will hopefully be clear after this post.

afadly, I am muslim as well, and in the spirit of brotherhood let me explain a few things to you. I apologize to other readers if I am somewhat redundant with other posts in the thread. 

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your post.

Ditto that;
Awesome stuff dude, thanks.

[Happy Evolute]

Hi afadly,

A finite set of objects must repeat its sequences within an infinite number of trials

I'm not going to wade through this entire thread because the OP doesn't make much sense to begin with.  If the state of the finite set of objects is determined entirely randomly then the nth state does not depend in any way on any of the states before or after it, and must surely repeat given a sufficiently large number of trials.

OTOH if the nth state of a finite set of objects depend on the sequence of states that preceded it then there is no reason to suppose that, even if the state recurred, there would ever be a repeated sequence.

See, for example, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html

Regards,

HE

[afadly]

Universe without boundaries

+1 for making me think more than one minute to reply

A Universe without boundaries, is the same as E=U

It is considered as a possibility in the beginning of the proof, it is not a new argument

It is refuted in the proof by logic as if U did not exist at any point, Using Cause an Effect X must exist
as of the proof

The result is:
A Universe without boundaries is an illogical option, To accept it, you must deny cause and effect

There is no need to consider it scientifically at all, It is false

Stephen Hawking does not like God, that is why he is dying to find a scientific assumption that denies God

*I don't claim that my IQ is better than Stephen, but Allah Guidance is beyond any human work