Does/Can Logic prove/disprove God?

[bowmore]

Logic is different than time
Logic is our definition of words or how to explain things

Exactly, and no matter what names and definitions we come up with, they don't change reality.

if everything is static, time does and can not exist or be observed at all

So not everything is static.

So we can conclude that time does not change any thing, i.e. f(t1) = f(t2) if no parameter (other than time) change
This parameter we call it "A cause"[/b]

I've never said that time is the cause.
Change occurs, we measure this with time, therefore it is possible that f(t1) <> f(t2).
You only assume that the change needs a cause. It doesn't follow from observing time or change in itself.

[Messenger]

Exactly, and no matter what names and definitions we come up with, they don't change reality.
So not everything is static.

Agreed

I've never said that time is the cause.
Change occurs, we measure this with time, therefore it is possible that f(t1) <> f(t2).
You only assume that the change needs a cause. It doesn't follow from observing time or change in itself.

Your definition of function violates this, a function does not change by itself, it needs an effective parameter in it to do the change
And as you only put t, I assumed that you mean time does the change, do you mean that nothing did the change in your called function  

[bowmore]

I've never said that time is the cause.
Change occurs, we measure this with time, therefore it is possible that f(t1) <> f(t2).
You only assume that the change needs a cause. It doesn't follow from observing time or change in itself.

Your definition of function violates this, a function does not change by itself, it needs an effective parameter in it to do the change

Functions are not dynamic, they are static sets. If you "change" the parameter, all you're doing is looking at another element of the set.

Look at this function : g()={(1, false),(2,false),(3,true)}. It's a set.
I can describe this set by means of a variable.

g(x) = "x = 3" and x is in {1,2,3}

Changing the value of x does not change the function.

And as you only put t, I assumed that you mean time does the change, do you mean that nothing did the change in your called function  

That is because you insist that change needs a cause. All I'm saying is that you provide no proof for this assertion.

[Messenger]

Functions are not dynamic, they are static sets. If you "change" the parameter, all you're doing is looking at another element of the set.

Look at this function : g()={(1, false),(2,false),(3,true)}. It's a set.
I can describe this set by means of a variable.
g(x) = "x = 3" and x is in {1,2,3}

Changing the value of x does not change the function.

sorry you are mistaken, you must map your discussion to reality not mathematics
Bring a real function example
Mathematics is just approximation/formalization to reality

That is because you insist that change needs a cause. All I'm saying is that you provide no proof for this assertion.

You even violated your own rules, when you selected a certain value for x, you did change (which x we are looking to)

[bowmore]

sorry you are mistaken, you must map your discussion to reality not mathematics
Bring a real function example
Mathematics is just approximation/formalization to reality

Logic is a part of mathematics. if we throw out maths, your argument self destructs.

After all it isn't I, who started with mathematical abstractions. You brought functions up.

That is because you insist that change needs a cause. All I'm saying is that you provide no proof for this assertion.

You even violated your own rules, when you selected a certain value for x, you did change (which x we are looking to)

Changing what moment in time we look at doesn't change reality, which is the mistake I've been trying to point out to you.
If I say
"The sun is in the zenith at 11:59 am"
and then
"The sun is in the zenith at 12:00 pm"
and conclude that the first is false and the second is true, have I changed reality? No. I've just looked at different parts of reality.
I can gather a lot of these observations in a set :
e.g. {(11:58 am, false),(11:59 am, false),(12:00 pm, true),(12:01 pm, false),...}
I can then conclude this set has the properties of a function, and describe it with the help of a variable.
At no point have I changed reality.

I really can't put it any clearer than this.

[Messenger]

Logic is a part of mathematics. if we throw out maths, your argument self destructs.
After all it isn't I, who started with mathematical abstractions. You brought functions up.

We can only use mathematics in discussing reality
Hypothetical mathematics does not apply in reality (they are just approximations)

Changing what moment in time we look at doesn't change reality, which is the mistake I've been trying to point out to you.
If I say
"The sun is in the zenith at 11:59 am"
and then
"The sun is in the zenith at 12:00 pm"
and conclude that the first is false and the second is true, have I changed reality? No. I've just looked at different parts of reality.
I can gather a lot of these observations in a set :
e.g. {(11:58 am, false),(11:59 am, false),(12:00 pm, true),(12:01 pm, false),...}
I can then conclude this set has the properties of a function, and describe it with the help of a variable.
At no point have I changed reality.

Go back to the subject, we are discussing existence which is a real function
This real function must have a parameter to change it
Your example reflects real changes in reality with a real cause, so what is your point?

You could not bring a real function (or even mathematical one) that can change from nothing

[bowmore]

We can only use mathematics in discussing reality
Hypothetical mathematics does not apply in reality (they are just approximations)

There is no such thing as 'hypothetical' mathematics. You're grasping at straws.

Go back to the subject, we are discussing existence which is a real function

How is it any more real than the example I gave? They both make statements about reality. Both can be formulated with time as a parameter.
I feel you're just deliberately wasting my time. Instead of solving the problem with your argument you have me reformulate it over and over again. It's time you step up to the challenge and provide the proof I've asked, or admit you cannot prove "Nothing comes from nothing" as a fact.

This real function must have a parameter to change it

Nope.

Your example reflects real changes in reality with a real cause, so what is your point?

What cause?

You could not bring a real function (or even mathematical one) that can change from nothing

Once again : functions do not change, reality does.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Frustrating, isn't it bowmore?

[bowmore]

Frustrating, isn't it bowmore?

What do you mean  :banna:

[Messenger]

There is no such thing as 'hypothetical' mathematics. You're grasping at straws.

Can you bring me a real -Number line -X, Y axis -Infinity?

How is it any more real than the example I gave? They both make statements about reality. Both can be formulated with time as a parameter.
I feel you're just deliberately wasting my time. Instead of solving the problem with your argument you have me reformulate it over and over again. It's time you step up to the challenge and provide the proof I've asked, or admit you cannot prove "Nothing comes from nothing" as a fact.

I already did
You agree that time does not affect a function (real or mathematical)
and you follow the function definition which needs a parameter to change value, if the function is real it will need a real parameter to change its value
This is called a proof, to refute it you have only 2 options 1-bring an example that violates it 2-Prove that the proof itself is illogical or does not map reality

functions do not change, reality does.

It makes no difference, you just explained it in a way to look like that

[bowmore]

There is no such thing as 'hypothetical' mathematics. You're grasping at straws.

Can you bring me a real -Number line -X, Y axis -Infinity?

You make the mistake in assuming that I assert the opposite of your claim. I don't. I don't have to prove the opposite of your claim to invalidate your argument.

How is it any more real than the example I gave? They both make statements about reality. Both can be formulated with time as a parameter.
I feel you're just deliberately wasting my time. Instead of solving the problem with your argument you have me reformulate it over and over again. It's time you step up to the challenge and provide the proof I've asked, or admit you cannot prove "Nothing comes from nothing" as a fact.

I already did
You agree that time does not affect a function (real or mathematical)
and you follow the function definition which needs a parameter to change value, if the function is real it will need a real parameter to change its value

I disagree with the notion that a function prescribes what reality is. It describes what reality is.
I have shown you how any function can be expressed without a parameter at all. (This really is basic calculus)
The values of the function are the result of observing reality, and reality is not the outcome of a function being fed a certain parameter.

This is called a proof, to refute it you have only 2 options 1-bring an example that violates it 2-Prove that the proof itself is illogical or does not map reality

The proof is illogical because it uses unstated premises.
Either state them as premises, or prove them to be necessarily true.

[Messenger]

I disagree with the notion that a function prescribes what reality is. It describes what reality is.
I have shown you how any function can be expressed without a parameter at all. (This really is basic calculus)
The values of the function are the result of observing reality, and reality is not the outcome of a function being fed a certain parameter.

1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

[bowmore]

1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

Do you now admit we know things that have no cause?

How did you arrive at that probability? Do you have any source for it?

2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

A change in status.

[Messenger]

1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

Do you now admit we know things that have no cause?
How did you arrive at that probability? Do you have any source for it?

I'm just talking from your point of view, Every thing you/and me know has a cause!
If you don't accept that, give an example?

2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

A change in status.

Very good
As we agree on X<> not X (it is almost the only thing that we agree on)
1-f(t1)=Status1 <> f(t2)=Status 2
as no object can have 2 statuses at the same time, and as
2- Time does not change anything
Status1(t1)=Status1(t2)

Which means that the status of any object can not change by itself, it needs a doer,i.e. a cause to do the change

Inside our Universe we observe Causality, outside the universe we are not sure if it works or not, but we are sure that every event had a cause (as the prove is based on logic)

This is how our brain, science, logic works, we search for a doer for any event then try to study it to make benefits or replicate the event

[bowmore]

1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

Do you now admit we know things that have no cause?
How did you arrive at that probability? Do you have any source for it?

I'm just talking from your point of view, Every thing you/and me know has a cause!
If you don't accept that, give an example?

Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

A change in status.

Very good
As we agree on X<> not X (it is almost the only thing that we agree on)
1-f(t1)=Status1 <> f(t2)=Status 2
as no object can have 2 statuses at the same time, and as
2- Time does not change anything
Status1(t1)=Status1(t2)

You just repeat your non sequitur in 2. You presuppose change needs a cause in order to prove it.
An event means :

Status(t1) <> Status(t2)

Somehow you think that the function's parameter is responsible for the change. It isn't.

Which means that the status of any object can not change by itself, it needs a doer,i.e. a cause to do the change

Still you arrive at this conclusion through an invalid argument. What's more it is contrary to current observations.

Inside our Universe we observe Causality,

Nope we don't.

outside the universe we are not sure if it works or not,

We're not even sure there is such a thing as 'outside our universe'

but we are sure that every event had a cause (as the prove is based on logic)

Nope, it is based on your assumption every event needs a cause as I've shown you over and over again.

You cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.