Proving that the observed Universe is not all

[Messenger]

Based on the concept of prove by contradictions which is commonly known in Algorithms
Analyzing all options then eliminating all impossible options, the remaining possible option is proved.         P(N1)=1-P(N2)-P(N3)-......

Definitions
E = Existence    (everything that really exist)
U = Observed Universe
G = Something outside/separate of the Universe  
f(t) = function of time (State), at a specific time t
C(A) = Creator/Initiator of A
Y [Fn]-> Z, means using Fact n, Y leads to Z

Facts
F1- There is nothing beyond logic, illogical is impossible (Falsidical Paradoxes or Liar Paradoxes do not exist).
F2- Every Action (verb) that started needs a doer
F3- CoE,  Energy in the universe is finite
F4- U(T) <> U(T+t) where t almost =0  for all T, t  Universe is not static, state of U at any time T, does not equal its state after a small time t.
   

The Proof (Proving a Creator)
E= U + G    (G >=0)
Existence = Universe + Possible G

We have only 2 options, if one of them is impossible the other is proved.
1-If    U(t) =0        [F1,F2] ->      G>0 And G=C(U)
If at any point of time t, U did not exist, (based on Logic, necessity of a Doer) something G existed and created U.

2-If    G=0    then   E=U     [F1, F4] ->    E=U(t) for every t  And U(t1) â,¬ U(t2)
If the universe is eternal a creator does not need to exist, Universe is all the Existence at any time.
Its states are random (Coincidences), state 1 does not relate to state 2 as a whole.
(Individual events based on natural laws are not random, but independent events are random if no God)
[F3, F4] ->  U(t)=N And N<Infinity
Based on Facts 3, 4  States of U are finite, But U is eternal, and how much big N is, it must be repeated, If no God, The Universe must be cyclic

E.g. a dice has 6 states, if it is thrown for 100 times, some of its state must repeat as 100>6 Same with two dices, Or throwing a dice two times, No. of possible 2 throws combinations is 36  As 100>36, some of the outcome combinations or sequence must repeat as well, and so on.
Now if we increase number of dices and sequence to a very big number, number of throws to infinity, it must go in cycles, i.e. not only some states will be repeated but the whole sequence (How much big is the sequence) must repeat.

Based on Option2, The exact sequence of states since 15 billion years till now must repeat
Not only that, it must have happened infinite times before, and will happen infinite times in the future as well.
Repeating the same long sequence again and again is not random or coincidence, it contradicts with the assumption itself, i.e. a Paradox

_____________________________________________________________________________
Also it can be proven to be impossible by going backwards in time
If U is eternal, and changing, why it is now in the current state?
It took 15B years from the Big Bang to reach the current state
It had many 15B years before (As it is Eternal),  It had enough time to reach any state in the past or future
N>T for every T
Either it had a start or it has reached the current state many times before (i.e. Cyclic)

Infinite number of real objects is just imaginary, it does not really exist
As the Universe changes, every moment, there is a new state, i.e. number of states increases

Go back in time, the number must decrease
the number of states must decrease to zero where the universe had a beginning

The only escape is to say that time itself is cyclic, then it needs a controller because it is not random
Option 2 is impossible -> Option 1 is proved,
_____________________________________________________________________________

A Creator of the Universe G must exist
G>0 and G=C(U)    or G Contains C(U)

[Kyuuketsuki]

Nope because you have not a shred of validatable evidence for said creator and all of your logical arguments are just plain bollox in the face of that.

Live with it, you're a failure!

Kyu

[Messenger]

Nope because you have not a shred of validatable evidence for said creator and all of your logical arguments are just plain bollox in the face of that.

Your only escape is to deny a doer for every event
Or be a failure (ups I mean Atheist)

[Kyuuketsuki]

Nope because you have not a shred of validatable evidence for said creator and all of your logical arguments are just plain bollox in the face of that.

Your only escape is to deny a doer for every event
Or be a failure (ups I mean Atheist)

And your only escape is to hide behind calculations that make no sense in the real world and to AVOID every half decent post that is posted in response to your crap.

You're a COWARD!!!!!

Kyu

[bowmore]

Based on Facts 3, 4  States of U are finite, But U is eternal, and how much big N is, it must be repeated, If no God, The Universe must be cyclic

This is where your proof starts to go wrong.
U is eternal is not given, either in the definitions or the "facts", in fact it contradicts F3.

Now if we increase number of dices and sequence to a very big number, number of throws to infinity, it must go in cycles, i.e. not only some states will be repeated but the whole sequence (How much big is the sequence) must repeat.

I'd like you to back this up with some mathematics.
In fact it is possible to think of a possible series of dice rolls that can never be cyclic.
Imagine a series of dice rolls where each roll is a 1, unless it is the n-th roll and n is a prime number. This series is never cyclic.

A Creator of the Universe G must exist
G>0 and G=C(U)

Even though your proof breaks down before you even arrive at this point, I'd like to nitpick : the correct conclusion would be

G contains C(U)

[Messenger]

U is eternal is not given, either in the definitions or the "facts", in fact it contradicts F3.

This is not a fact
This is a hypothesis, or an option

I'd like you to back this up with some mathematics.
In fact it is possible to think of a possible series of dice rolls that can never be cyclic.
Imagine a series of dice rolls where each roll is a 1, unless it is the n-th roll and n is a prime number. This series is never cyclic.

Please give me this series?

Even though your proof breaks down before you even arrive at this point, I'd like to nitpick : the correct conclusion would be
G contains C(U)

Thanks, this should be corrected

[curiosityandthecat]

Anyone else do this when reading the original post?

[bowmore]

U is eternal is not given, either in the definitions or the "facts", in fact it contradicts F3.

This is not a fact
This is a hypothesis, or an option

Well, you should state them in your argument as well.
And that still doesn't explain why you'd use it if it contradicts F3.

I'd like you to back this up with some mathematics.
In fact it is possible to think of a possible series of dice rolls that can never be cyclic.
Imagine a series of dice rolls where each roll is a 1, unless it is the n-th roll and n is a prime number. This series is never cyclic.

Please give me this series?

Ironically you quoted it. (this is further evidence you don't even bother to read and understand my posts)
I've now bolded it. Although I must admit I forgot to say the roll is 2 for every prime position in the series.

So to sum up the n-th roll of the series is a 1 if n is a composite and a 2 if n is a prime number.
(BTW if you can mathematically prove this series is cyclic, let me know, we're going to make heaps of money.)

I'll write the first few rolls :

1,2,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2, ...

[karadan]

Anyone else do this when reading the original post?

Haha, yes, me. Although i didn't have a cigarette in my mouth, it was a mug of coffee

[Ihateyoumike]

Anyone else do this when reading the original post?

Does it count if I did that while not reading the original post? I figured I'd just skip the OP and just go straight to everybody owning him. That's more fun, and makes me less likely to have to   .

[Squid]

Anyone else do this when reading the original post?

You can make a sculpture out of feces but no matter how good it looks doesn't change the fact that it's still sh**.

[DennisK]

I prefer visual slide-of-hand tricks.

[Tom62]

Nice to see God brought back to a simple mathematical equation. I'll type it into MS-Excel and see if He comes out.

[Whitney]

Messenger, are you AFadly?  You are probably going to get banned anyway (for ignoring my request to not start any more topics), but if you are not AFadly (and I can ask him at wwgha) you will be definately be banned for plagarism.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum ... 295.0;wap2

[curiosityandthecat]

if you are not AFadly (and I can ask him at wwgha) you will be definately be banned for plagarism.

Wow, talk about fail. I mean, that's like Zoidberg-level fail.