Chimp

You are correct, I only have an intuitive sense of "greater than" with respect to an existing/possible, entity/being.

Curiosity demands that I examine all possiblities. My apologies for offending anyone, if I did.

Goliath

Your intuition is not proof, whence your argument fails.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Chimp

Correct, the argument fails.

Goliath

Thank you. This is the only straightforward non-jibberish statement that I've seen you make in this thread.

So why did you delay for so long? Why did you try to fool me? Why the dishonesty?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Chimp

Those are some rather hilarious statements Goliath. You obviously did not understand what I wrote, but I, in no way, am trying to "fool" ...you.

May you live long and prosper

I could also ask you why you are being a "monkey on my back"? with an almost "religious" zeal?

Will this thread also be banished?





Metaphorically speaking, of course...

Goliath

Of course not, because you adamantly refused to define your ordering. If you make a nonsensical statement.....then you make a nonsensical statement!

Then why the unnecessary regurgitation of mathematical terminology that you seem to know nothing about?

I actually take no small bit of offense at being called religious. And if requesting (again and again and again and again and again...) that you clarify what you're talking about is "being a monkey on your back", then pass me a banana!

Sincerely,

Goliath

Corona688

Actually no, according to my logic, god is meaningless because it means nothing other than whatever you want it to mean at any particular time. If it supports your argument, god is love; if it doesn't, god is force; and if that doesn't, then god is like a mustard seed. You may not agree with any of these definitions but they are no more or less valid than yours, because they have exactly the same amount of supporting evidence as yours in the real world: Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

It's not like a mathematical argument where the numbers we are dealing with have certain intrinsic properties; with god, we can't even decide what his intrinsic properties are! And if the ones you decide to give god end up not working there's nothing stopping you from ditching them and pulling new ones out of your ass! It's like constantly redefining the concept of 'number' as something nobody but you accepts in order to prove that there is a largest integer. God is not logical.

xorbie

Off to ~e~

xorbie
EoG Mod

Shake

OK, Chimp, let's break this down real simple like.

First, a lot of people here would reject outright your axiom #1. But for the sake of argument, let's give you your axiom and even #2, since it too, is an assumption. As Soralis pointed out, #3 is a contradiction, so using it anywhere else in the "argument" is meaningless. One of the early things they teach you in a class on logic is that contradictions can then be used to prove anything:

If <contradiction> then <anything>.

However, again from basic logic, if you have ((a-->b) /\ b), and try to make the conclusion 'b' TRUE, you cannot have 'a' FALSE.

Thanks to Soralis for exposing #3 for the contradiction it is. I quickly felt it was definitely wrong, but didn't work it out for myself (at least not symbolically).

Mike Rosoft

The Universal Set is the set of all that exists.

A set of all sets that exist can not exist in any self-consistent set theory. This is why:

One of the axioms of the set theory is that for every set X there exists a set Y which is composed of all elements of X for which f is true where f is any statement. (Note that in a set theory every element of a set is a set itself.) Suppose that a set U such that for every set x: x is an element of U. (By definition, U is an element of U.) Statement f is "x is not an element of x" (i.e., of itself). This means that a set U' exist which is composed of all sets that are not an element of themselves. Is U' an element of itself? If so, then by definition of U' it is not an element of itself, and if not, then it is an element of itself. Since both options lead to a contradiction, the set U can not exist.

(I could rewrite this proof in formal language, but there are not enough characters in the ASCII.)


Mike Rosoft