Set theory and God's own number proving he exists.

[Link]

In set theory there are many levels of infinity. There is for example infinitely more real numbers then there are integers.

A lot of people think of infinity as one number, but this is not true, there is levels of infinity.

The one who produced set theory was attacked by theologians for polytheistic implications, but he argued, instead that God is an absolute infinity, highest number.

If we think of the highest number in terms of existence amount, it's such that it has to include all existence in it and possible existence in it.

This being if we can recall this size, would prove he exists. You can apply pigeon hole principle, you have infinite amount of universes, yet it's size out larges all of them, and hence, they cannot be without him.

That his existence contains all, shows, existence all comes from him and is dependent on him and is found in him solidified in a unity of absolute bigness.

Look up pigeon hole principle, God's vastness is such that no possible world escapes him including ours. This proves he exists.

All other type of existence by definition are possible beings, and possibly not existing, and so the predicate thing shows yes you can't just say a book is red, and it really exists, but that's all it applies to, only to possible things that can exist but don't have to.

If God is so big that his existence cannot but exist, then the predicate stuff is a red herring. Yes, if God existed in imagination, predicate stuff would work, but if his vastness and size proves he exists not in imagination but is witnessed through eyes of the soul by all beings, then it doesn't hold ground to refute this proof of his existence.

It's awe inspiring, causes you to shiver almost, but mathematically God has to exist and proves he does by virtue of being the necessary being.

And yes it's another one of those ontological argument threads by Link, seems this guy loves this argument too much.

 

[Altfish]

In set theory there are many levels of infinity. There is for example infinitely more real numbers then there are integers.

WRONG

Please talk to a mathematician before posting such nonsense.

 

[AlexanderG]

"I can imagine something that necessarily exists by definition, based on how I define it in my imagination. Therefore that thing exists."

Sorry, this is never going to work. No matter how you rephrase it using pseudo-math, or hide its fallacies with semantics, the ontological argument won't be convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

In set theory there are many levels of infinity. There is for example infinitely more real numbers then there are integers.

A lot of people think of infinity as one number, but this is not true, there is levels of infinity.

The one who produced set theory was attacked by theologians for polytheistic implications, but he argued, instead that God is an absolute infinity, highest number.

If we think of the highest number in terms of existence amount, it's such that it has to include all existence in it and possible existence in it.

This being if we can recall this size, would prove he exists. You can apply pigeon hole principle, you have infinite amount of universes, yet it's size out larges all of them, and hence, they cannot be without him.

That his existence contains all, shows, existence all comes from him and is dependent on him and is found in him solidified in a unity of absolute bigness.

Look up pigeon hole principle, God's vastness is such that no possible world escapes him including ours. This proves he exists.

All other type of existence by definition are possible beings, and possibly not existing, and so the predicate thing shows yes you can't just say a book is red, and it really exists, but that's all it applies to, only to possible things that can exist but don't have to.

If God is so big that his existence cannot but exist, then the predicate stuff is a red herring. Yes, if God existed in imagination, predicate stuff would work, but if his vastness and size proves he exists not in imagination but is witnessed through eyes of the soul by all beings, then it doesn't hold ground to refute this proof of his existence.

It's awe inspiring, causes you to shiver almost, but mathematically God has to exist and proves he does by virtue of being the necessary being.

And yes it's another one of those ontological argument threads by Link, seems this guy loves this argument too much.

I think you just proved there are an infinite number of gods.
And it's a very high level of infinity.

 

[AlexanderG]

1. It is possible that a maximally otyugh stone exists.
2. The otyugh property is defined as necessarily existing, mindless, and with the power to immediately destroy gods that exist in the same world.
3. A maximally otyugh stone must necessarily exist, immediately destroys any god no matter how powerful, and is mindless.
4. If it is possible that a maximally otyugh stone exists, then it exists in some possible world.
5. If it exists in some possible world, then it must exist in all possible worlds since this is entailed by its maximal necessary existence.
6. Therefore, a maximally otyugh stone exists in the real world.
7. Therefore, no gods exist.

The ontological argument grants equal support to mutually contradictory arguments. It's simply useless.

 

[sun rise]

Trying to prove God exists by such means is to me the equivalent of trying to see with one's ears.

 

[Earthtank]

In set theory there are many levels of infinity. There is for example infinitely more real numbers then there are integers.

A lot of people think of infinity as one number, but this is not true, there is levels of infinity.

The one who produced set theory was attacked by theologians for polytheistic implications, but he argued, instead that God is an absolute infinity, highest number.

If we think of the highest number in terms of existence amount, it's such that it has to include all existence in it and possible existence in it.

This being if we can recall this size, would prove he exists. You can apply pigeon hole principle, you have infinite amount of universes, yet it's size out larges all of them, and hence, they cannot be without him.

That his existence contains all, shows, existence all comes from him and is dependent on him and is found in him solidified in a unity of absolute bigness.

Look up pigeon hole principle, God's vastness is such that no possible world escapes him including ours. This proves he exists.

All other type of existence by definition are possible beings, and possibly not existing, and so the predicate thing shows yes you can't just say a book is red, and it really exists, but that's all it applies to, only to possible things that can exist but don't have to.

If God is so big that his existence cannot but exist, then the predicate stuff is a red herring. Yes, if God existed in imagination, predicate stuff would work, but if his vastness and size proves he exists not in imagination but is witnessed through eyes of the soul by all beings, then it doesn't hold ground to refute this proof of his existence.

It's awe inspiring, causes you to shiver almost, but mathematically God has to exist and proves he does by virtue of being the necessary being.

And yes it's another one of those ontological argument threads by Link, seems this guy loves this argument too much.

 

[Link]

I think you just proved there are an infinite number of gods.
And it's a very high level of infinity.

It actually proves the Oneness of God which why I'm saying ontological argument and proof for oneness of God is the same.

 

[Link]

WRONG

Please talk to a mathematician before posting such nonsense.

I've talked to mathematicians after all I learned set theory in computer science in a math course to do with computer science, because, programs won't work without set theory. Your computer won't work right now without set theory.

 

[Link]

"I can imagine something that necessarily exists by definition, based on how I define it in my imagination. Therefore that thing exists."

Sorry, this is never going to work. No matter how you rephrase it using pseudo-math, or hide its fallacies with semantics, the ontological argument won't be convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe.

Yet there is nothing incoherent about a necessary being and by definition it would be God.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

In set theory there are many levels of infinity. There is for example infinitely more real numbers then there are integers.

A lot of people think of infinity as one number, but this is not true, there is levels of infinity.

The one who produced set theory was attacked by theologians for polytheistic implications, but he argued, instead that God is an absolute infinity, highest number.

If we think of the highest number in terms of existence amount, it's such that it has to include all existence in it and possible existence in it.

This being if we can recall this size, would prove he exists. You can apply pigeon hole principle, you have infinite amount of universes, yet it's size out larges all of them, and hence, they cannot be without him.

That his existence contains all, shows, existence all comes from him and is dependent on him and is found in him solidified in a unity of absolute bigness.

Look up pigeon hole principle, God's vastness is such that no possible world escapes him including ours. This proves he exists.

All other type of existence by definition are possible beings, and possibly not existing, and so the predicate thing shows yes you can't just say a book is red, and it really exists, but that's all it applies to, only to possible things that can exist but don't have to.

If God is so big that his existence cannot but exist, then the predicate stuff is a red herring. Yes, if God existed in imagination, predicate stuff would work, but if his vastness and size proves he exists not in imagination but is witnessed through eyes of the soul by all beings, then it doesn't hold ground to refute this proof of his existence.

It's awe inspiring, causes you to shiver almost, but mathematically God has to exist and proves he does by virtue of being the necessary being.

And yes it's another one of those ontological argument threads by Link, seems this guy loves this argument too much.

you have written many articles proving God exists

is it really possible to prove such a thing, in a materialistic world?

 

[AlexanderG]

Yet there is nothing incoherent about a necessary being and by definition it would be God.

There is equally nothing incoherent about a necessary otyugh stone (which I defined above) that immediately destroys any gods that exist or attempt to exist. Which was my point, again.

 

[Link]

you have written many articles proving God exists

is it really possible to prove such a thing, in a materialistic world?

I think you are right...

 

[Link]

There is equally nothing incoherent about a necessary stone that immediately destroyed any gods that existed or attempted to exist, and by definition it would be the otyugh stone I described above.

There is plenty incoherent about your definition and necessary being by definition (because it has to contain all possible existences/universes/possible worlds), can only being the absolute existence in terms of bigness. Therefore, it's convenient and also awe causing, that necessary being implies it's God and God implies it's the necessary being. It's a tautology.

 

[Link]

These are questions.

1. Can there be more then one necessary being?

Answer, no because, of size/amount, there can't be two or three or more.

2. Can there be more then one definition that meets the necessary being?

Answer, no because it's eternal and is absolute existence which again can only be one.

3. How do we know it exists?

Answer, it exists and so you can see it existing, but as far as this arguments goes, it's even more then that, it's that we see it cannot but exist, that is impossible that it doesn't exist in any possible world. And you know this through pigeon hole principle when it comes to our world.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I think you are right...

i am only questioning, not stating a fact

i would love to see a way to prove God

 

[Link]

i am only questioning, not stating a fact

i would love to see a way to prove God

Another way to go about it, is if greatness is coherent, then all levels of greatness is coherent. All greatness to be coherent must have a basis. The only basis possible for all greatness is God himself. The highest level of greatness is also synonymous with being the necessary being.

Another way to go about it is the other way. There is nothing incoherent about a necessary being. A necessary being would include all existence, life, and all properties of life/existence to the absolute amount. This can only be God.

So you can start from greatness and get to Necessary being. Or you can say no reason to say necessary being is incoherent, what is possibly necessarily, is necessarily. And see that only God can be the necessary being or a necessary being. Nothing else can be.

Necessary being implies God implies greatness having truth
Or:
Greatness having truth implies God implies he is a necessary being.

 

[Link]

Why I say you can go from necessary, is because, there is nothing incoherent about it, and what is possibly necessarily is necessarily.

 

[Revoltingest]

It actually proves the Oneness of God which why I'm saying ontological argument and proof for oneness of God is the same.

It must've been too sophisticated for me.
I saw claims made, but nothing proven.

Example....
"God's vastness is such that no possible
world escapes him including ours."
This is just an unverifiable premise.

 

[Polymath257]

I've talked to mathematicians after all I learned set theory in computer science in a math course to do with computer science, because, programs won't work without set theory. Your computer won't work right now without set theory.

You clearly didn't learn very much about set theory. I'm guessing an introductory course that mentioned a bit about cardinalities?

There is more to this than you have any idea about. Might I suggest you go to the Wikipedia page for 'large cardinals'? You might learn something.