JohannGoodflag

The OP has made a very basice flaw on the mathematical level.

Removing what you have said from theology, and examining it from a purely mathematical perspective:

#3 and #4 assumes that there is a greatest possible entity. On the contrary, it is eminently possible for there to be an infinite hierarchy of "greatness" of entities.

A sloppy maths student could use the exact "reasoning" above to prove that a largest integer exists. Of course, there is no largest integer: no matter what integer you consider, there is always one more which is higher. The fact that the integer you have in mind is hypothetically 'God' does not confer a special status unto it.

Unless you can prove that a largest integer exists, Chimp, your argument is mathematically flawed. (Never mind the fact that your definitions may not be coherent.)

aychamo

It is kind of sad watching Chimp try to argue in favor of this.

breathilizer

You know what I think Chimp just did?

I think he just defined the word "is."

Chimp

Interesting... many replies to write here...

The argument starts out with an "axiom", basically the statement: " God, is an entity, greater than that which can be conceived". Axioms are starting points in a logical system, so the statements following the first axiom logically follow, from it.

If G[x] is true, the argument is true.

If G[x] or more simply if "G" exists, G's existence is necessary.

G[x] > x

G[x] is the totality of existence

x is an aspect of existence.

Read it again. You appear to misunderstand?

"Assume it is possible that G[x] does not exist". Exhuastive clarification is not required, ...and go back to logic 101? :banghead:



Interesting, yes, but "married bachelors" is a contradiction, along with the sly card up your sleeve called "incoherence". A self contradictory statement "G[x] = married bachelors" is equivalent to X = not-X . We can coherently see that "G[x] = married bachelors" IS a contradiction.

Certainly the axiom "God is greater than that which can be conceived" G[x] > x, is not self contradictory, nor incoherent. If it is incoherent to aspect of G[x], i.e. "x" it is not incoherent to G[x] ... G[x] by definition is coherent to itself

Your counterargument fails? again.

thanks...



Mathematical proofs are based on axioms. For example, AB = BA, is a type of circular definition.

"G[x] is greater than that which can be conceived" is a starting point i.e. an axiom.



By definition "God is that which nothing greater can be conceived" So any counterargument that utilizes "fairy tale" creatures, such as unicorns and the like, are explaining just a small aspect of reality and not the total existence called God, or G[x]. If a fairy tale creature, or a "ball of protoplasm" is explained to be greater than G[x], it becomes G[x] by default.

The Christian God is anthropomorphized by conventional religion, with many ad-hoc traits tacked onto it. Therefore the Christian God is probably not the greatest possible entity, or else, it becomes G[x] by default.



If the IPU is greater than that which can be conceived, then the IPU becomes "God", G[x], by default.


G[x] is the total existence, which is more than the sum of its parts. G[x] composes x.

If x is a relation. G[x] is a Relation of relations.



As explained above, G[x] composes x. So G is everything G[x] is G.


G[x] is total existence and total existence is self referential, via its universally distributed, consistent relations, or "laws".


Say that there are two sets of mutually inconsistent laws [A, B] with relational difference D[x]

If the two laws are contradictory, then difference D[x] distrubutes over [A,B], D[A,B]

But that means there is a distrubutive identity holding for both A and B. Ergo, the assumption that laws of nature are mutually inconsistent is false.

That means Total existence, "that which is greater than can be conceived" , G[x], is self referential, or self aware.



[1.] See above, concerning the consistency of universal laws.

[2.] G[x] > x means that G[x] composes x, much like a fractal is self similar, so the relations composed by G, are .


G[x] > x , = "God is that which nothing greater can be conceived".




I disagree...

G[x] is the composition of entities. G[x] is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
Demonstrate how the statement/axiom "G[x] is that which nothing greater can be conceived" is flawed please, or your counterargument also fails.
Since infinity is a concept that can be conceived, G[x] > infinity

G[x] > transfinite.

Chimp

Hey, I am bored and need to settle this question about God.

A "quasi-atheist" stuck in limbo is me. :banghead:

Perhaps we can make this an official debate?

Chimp

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

Yes, it is tricky eh?

Perhaps it can be put into logical symbolism?

x = "I exist"

G[x] = God composes existence = God exists

A--->B "if A then B"

N{G[x]} = "God necessarily exists".

[1.] x

[2.] G[x] > x

[3.] G[x]--->N{G[x]}

[4.] N{G[x]} or not-N{G[x]}

[5.] not-N{G[x]}--->N{not-N{G[x]}}

[6.] N{G[x]} or N{not-N{G[x]}

[7.] N{not-N{G[x]}} --->N{not-G[x]}

[8.] N{G[x]} or N{not-G[x]}

[9.] not-N{not-G[x]}

[10.] N{G[x]}

[11.] G[x]

graymouser

Chimp:

It's an ontological proof, and like all ontological proofs fails to realize the noneffect of the actual upon the hypothetical and the noneffect of the hypothetical upon the actual. It's just a lot of philosophical smoke and mirrors, no matter how you slice or dice it.

-Wayne

atechnie

So you're basically saying "God exists" > "I exist"??? What is that supposed to mean???

atechnie

JohannGoodflag

Mathematics has no concept of "conception". Therefore, I am forced to translate this as G[x] is a maximum element. However, as in the integers, it is possible for there to not be a maximum element.

If you wish to bring human cognition ("concepts") into your mathematical proof, please first derive a mathematical model of conception, i.e. human thought.

However, you still have yet to prove that it exists. All that you are proving is If G[x] exists and is a maximum element, then G[x] exists and is a maximum element. However, this is not sufficient to prove the proposition G[x] exists and is a maximum element.

I could use the same "logic" above to prove that 5 is the largest integer. All I have to do to execute such a "proof" is to be sufficiently enthusiastic about how "all powerful and totally awesome" the number 5 is.

dshimel

And ALL statements based on the axiom are true, ONLY if the axiom is true.

Your post can be restated like this:

If God exists and is the sum of all things, then God exists and is the sum of all things.

Duhhhh. You've constructed the ULTIMATE circular reasoning falacy.

This is just above "The Bible is true because it says so." circular reasoning falacy.


NOW, prove God exists without first assuming God exists.