Goliath

You haven't answered my questions, so I'll state them one last time. Please, pay attention:

1. What set are you using for your argument? The link that you provided looked at set theory with a (countable) increasing chain of universes. This does not answer this question.

2. On the set that you're using (cf. 1), what ordering are you putting on the set?

And, what the hell, let's tack a third one on:

3. Why is it that you seem to refuse to want to answer questions 1 and 2?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Chimp

[1.] The Universal Set is the set of all that exists:

[<-[->[<-[U]->]<-]->]

Let U be the set of all individuals of cardinal 2^aleph_n.

2^aleph_n , 2^aleph_n-1 , 2^aleph_n-2 ... etc, ...2^aleph_0

The largest possible set is still undefined... at this time.

Goliath

The set of all WHAT that exists?

You see, you really haven't coherently defined ANYTHING. What are the elements of your set?

Individual what?! What are you talking about?!

Yes, it has been proven that there is no "set of all sets" (that's what categories are for, amongst other things).

Sincerely,

Goliath
(who really is going to bed now)

Chimp

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.pdf

aychamo

Yes, it is an exponential relationship. As the number of times god is redefined is increased, the absurdity of the theists argument is squared.

Goliath

This link does not answer my question. Again: WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF YOUR SUPPOSED SET!?


Oh, and from your link:

This seems absurd at best. Do Dedekind domains--for example--physically exist?

Sincerely,

Goliath

xorbie

I'm going to leave this here in EoG assuming some sort of argument can be made for God. Otherwise I'm closing it.

xorbie
EoG Mod

dshimel

Chimp,
If I understand your argument, you want to assume that God exists and is the sum of all things, then you want to use that assumption to prove that God exists and is the sum of all things.

You think you can somehow redefine "assumption" as "axiom" to give it more "umph". You compare the assumption to the axiom that A times B is equal to B times A.

The difference is, that the Axiom AB = BA would never be used to prove AB=BA. It would be used to prove that ABC=CBA, or some other such statement. If AB=BA is true, than ABC = CBA.

You can use an assumption to prove other things, but those other things are no more "true" than the assumption. You can't use an assumption to prove the assumption.


So, back to your original post. If God exists and is the sum of all things, then God exists and is the sum fo all things. Great. You've convinced me that IF God exists and is the sum of all things, then God exists and is the sum of all things.

Now, if you ever want to try to prove God exists, then you'll need to do so without first assuming it.

Chimp

The ontological argument basically says that "God" is the greatest possible being that can be conceived, in fact, God is that which is greater than that which can be conceived

God exists in the imagination

A God that actually exists is greater than a God existing only in the imagination

God is greater than that which can be conceived by the imagination

Therefore God exists

One could try to produce a counter argument saying that an invisible pink unicorn, the "IPU" is the greatest possible thing that can exist.

But the argument becomes an argument for the existence of God by default since if the IPU is the greatest possible thing that can exist, greater than that which can be conceived, the IPU becomes a definition for God with another name. IPU = God

If my interpretation is correct, the argument fails due to the inability to define "greatest possible" or "most perfect".

Goliath

What does this mean?

Your argument will never succeed as long as you refuse to answer that question.

Sincerely,

Goliath