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

[Link]

I started thinking about this. A soul is a proof for God, but Atheists don't believe in that. Necessary trait would be a proof for God, but to an atheist, it still exists just in imagination. This is why it's best used as a proof for oneness of God as opposed to him existing. You talk about it to people who already believe in God and prove there can't be more than one even though in theory it does prove him, it won't convince an Atheist.

It's also good to let a believer know how he knows there is only one God or how sees he does exist and can't be in imagination, but it won't convince an atheist.

To that I apologize for all my ontological argument threads. I think seeing argument is stronger in this respect, as well, I believe there is "raiser of ranks" argument in Quran and I will talk about this. We believe in ranks and I will discuss the two ways to measure this (worldly eyes or spiritual eyes).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

What is a "number in terms of existence amount?" What is "existence amount?" What does that mean? You can't be saying that a number must necessarily include "all of existence" in itself, are you? How big does a number need to get to include some bit of "existence?" How much "existence" does the number "1" include or contain? 2? 3? As we approach infinity in our imaginations, does it make more sense to say that this large number includes "existence" within it? What size number do we need to get to before my left pinky is included, do you think? Does that notion make any sense whatsoever? I am asking honestly.

 

[blü 2]

1. Can there be more then one necessary being?

Yes, energy and matter.

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

There have been a variety of definitions over the centuries, and no surprise if there are others in future. That's because there are no absolute statements and we go on learning.

3. How do we know it exists?

Reality is made of matter and energy. We know this because our senses and our reasoned enquiries inform us.

 

[sayak83]

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.

This does not make an iota of sense.
What has an infinite set to do with God.
I do not know if an infinity with largest possible cardinality exists (@Polymath257 ? ), but even if it does it's still a set, an abstractly existing entity and not a God.
How does a set create an universe or be a being.
Just nonsense... or poor English maybe?

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

L'Hopital's Rule mathematically takes the ratio of infinities to get a finite value.

Sine waves oscillate indefinitely. Yet, the final value theorem (which is based on Laplace Transforms) shows an un-intuitive final value for it. Ditto, the cosine wave....a different value.

There is no evidence that God is absolutely (ultimately) infinite. That is, larger than other infinite things.

I wonder why God doesn't answer prayers. Could it be that he is too far away?

 

[Polymath257]

L'Hopital's Rule mathematically takes the ratio of infinities to get a finite value.

Sometimes. Not all the time.

Sine waves oscillate indefinitely. Yet, the final value theorem (which is based on Laplace Transforms) shows an un-intuitive final value for it. Ditto, the cosine wave....a different value.

Um, no. The FVT doesn't apply in either case.This type of thing happens a lot in modified versions of limits. You can also look into Tauberian theorems.

There is no evidence that God is absolutely (ultimately) infinite. That is, larger than other infinite things.

I wonder why God doesn't answer prayers. Could it be that he is too far away?

Or simply non-existent.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes, energy and matter.
There have been a variety of definitions over the centuries, and no surprise if there are others in future. That's because there are no absolute statements and we go on learning.
Reality is made of matter and energy. We know this because our senses and our reasoned enquiries inform us.

No. 2727: Spooky Action at a Distance

‘Spooky action’ builds a wormhole between ‘entangled’ particles

Then how do we explain spooky action (from entangled quantum states)?

 

[Polymath257]

No. 2727: Spooky Action at a Distance

‘Spooky action’ builds a wormhole between ‘entangled’ particles

Then how do we explain spooky action (from entangled quantum states)?

The problem is not taking quantum mechanics seriously. In QM, it is possible to not have some properties be definite: it is possible to have an indefinite spin, for example. What happens in the 'spooky action at a distance' situations is that *both* particles have indefinite properties but those properties are correlated. They are correlated because they were formed in such a way that they are entangled.

This is one of the fundamental aspects of QM, but it is NOT something that makes sense classically. That is OK since we should explain the *old* viewpoint in terms of the new rather than the other way around.

The very fact that we have a *physical* theory (namely QM) that deals with these situations is enough to say that nothing non-physical is going on. Remember, QM *is* the explanation.

Your articles are stuck in the *old*, outdated, classical view. That is the basic mistake.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not know if an infinity with largest possible cardinality exists (@Polymath257 ? ), but even if it does it's still a set, an abstractly existing entity and not a God.

If X is any set, the collection of all subsets of X has a higher cardinality than X does.

So there is no largest cardinality. This was known to Cantor.

 

[blü 2]

No. 2727: Spooky Action at a Distance

‘Spooky action’ builds a wormhole between ‘entangled’ particles

Then how do we explain spooky action (from entangled quantum states)?

It was discovered by science and not religion. And the answer will be found by science, if for no other reason than that religion isn't even looking.

Or to put that another way, if you want to know about reality, ask those who use reasoned enquiry to examine reality.

We don't find God in reality. The only way in which gods are known to exist is as concepts / things imagined, that have no real counterpart.