pope fiction

Calling all mathematicians! I should get my calc 3 prof on this thread.

Silent Acorns

I have a major problem with any system of logic that says G is "that which is greater than can be conceived" and at the same time says G can be conceived.

Perhaps it would help if you could give me a link that summarizes this odd (to me at least) system of math/logic you are using. Somewhere I can get answers to questions like:

What, exactly, is a powerset?
How can "conception" be represented mathematically?
What does the symbol ">" mean?
If G[x] means "G composes existence", then what does G[G[x]] mean?
What, exactly, does it mean to "compose existence"?

Goliath

There is no such proof, because a set (in ZF Set Theory) is never equal to its own power set. In fact (in ZF Set Theory) there can never be an onto function from a set to its power set.

Now, if you wish to step outside the bounds of ZF Set Theory, then that's fine--however, good luck in trying to determine the elements of whatever set you're working with.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Afghan

I'm not convinced this is a problem - I suspect that things as loosely defined as 'entities' constitute a class rather than a set.

The statement I'm having a problem with at the moment is G[x] > x. I think what Chimp actually means is something along the lines of...

"There exists an entity, G, such that for any entity, x, G > x."

But this is exactly what you would expect a proof of God to prove. Proofs are very easy to prove if you assume your proposition.

Goliath

I had the same thought about 25 minutes ago, right in the middle of explaining what "one to one" meant.

What does ">" mean? What kind of ordering is it? These are the things that I want to know.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Corona688

You're not going to find what you're looking for this way... god is simply not a logical concept. If god is omnipotent, it means god is capable of being and/or doing anything he wants. Any question of 'is god x' or 'can god x' is always 'if he wants to be'. He can even possesses all properties at once, even contradictory ones, so you can't build any logic around him. It's the logical equivalent of a divide-by-zero; it doesn't mean anything.

That was the answer for me, anyway; the concept of god itself is meaningless, since it has no meaningful and/or testable properties.

Chimp

It is circular within the parameters of basic arithmetic. Thanks for the "nitpick", yes, it is not the best example of a circular definition.

Analytic propositions are necessary truths. So, when you ask yourself the question "why does
AB = BA for basic arithmetic?" What is your "non-circular answer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_proposition


Excellent points about the meaninglessness of certain "G" definitions, Corona688, ...yes, I come to discuss all of the logical possibilities/impossibilities of God's existence .


Can you refute God = Nature = Self Aware Entity ?


x is a relation.

G is a relation

G[x] > x, is the attempt to put the statement: Total existence "G", is greater than the sum of its parts. into a logical symbolism.

Goliath

Chimp,

My answer is that AB does not always equal BA!

Hardly necessary, as I have no idea what you mean by "=" in this case.


Ohhhhkay, so x is a subset of AxB (where "x" denotes the cartesian product) for some sets A and B. What are A and B?

Same question: a relation on which sets?

You have failed, since you have not defined what ">" means.

Sincerely,

Goliath

breathilizer

Wait... Chimp...

Does your argument boil down to

A>B
B__
A

???

Afghan

I think, in fact, the whole argument boils down to...

A
therefore A

In other words, Chimp is assuming that a greatest possible entity exists (whatever that means) to prove a greatest possible entity exists. The whole modality business is a diversion from the essential petitio principii argument.