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

[Polymath257]

WRONG

Please talk to a mathematician before posting such nonsense.

Actually, he was correct about this.

There *are* many 'levels of infinity' in the sense that there are infinitely many different cardinalities (actually, even more than that, but that is beside the point).

Also, there *are* infinitely many more real numbers than integers. The cardinal that represents the number of real numbers is larger than that representing the number of integers.

if you want more details, I can give them.

Of course, this doesn't make the argument in the OP correct.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

One thing Cantor didn't realize is that the 'naive' set theory he presented was self-contradictory. it was corrected later by Zormelo and Fraekl, but in ZF set theory, there is no 'highest cardinality'.

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.

Huh?

The rest of your post makes no sense and shows a lack of understanding of the set theory you claim to be arguing from.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

More detail, please. nobody said anything about the size of a necessary being.

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.

Which wouldn't prevent more than one definition, even if true.

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.

Huh?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Why? Why *must* there be a basis? What what if 'greatness' isn't coherent?

 

[JoshuaTree]

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

My infinity is bigger than your infinity.

 

[Suave]

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.

"But those in whose hearts is and deviation follow that which is co-similar therein, seeking discord and seeking to misinterpret the same whereas none know-eth the interpretation thereof a save Allah. And the firmly grounded in knowledge say: we believe therein, the whole is from our Lord." - Surah 3:7

Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.

Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle. Based on this signal of intelligence left in our genetic code, I suspect our genetic coding was created by a greater intelligence beyond the limited scope of us humans on Earth.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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 have my own two classes of numbers.

 

[AlexanderG]

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.

This is actually called circular reasoning, or begging the question. This is why the ontological argument fails to differentiate between true conclusions and false conclusions.

 

[blü 2]

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.

There are no examples of infinity in reality. And all numbers, one, two, three, pi, e, and so on, exist only as concepts ─ that's why you never trip over an uninstantiated two or pi in the wild. As for geometry, there are no examples of real points, lines or planes, and no examples of real solids with zero duration ─ all real things exist in spacetime.

So to speak of infinity is to speak of a particular set of mathematical concepts with no real counterpart.

And the idea that God is a concept with no real counterpart works very well to explain religions and the variety of gods.

 

[rational experiences]

To measure. You have to exist first to think to impose a measure.

To measure you use depth width height.

How big is space?

Not a measure. Pretty basic.

If you said what comes to earth is projected by speed. You would say it came by speed.

If it is a projectile then a fuel had to project it.

Gases burning as light therefore projects objects to move. A measure of one of the forces.

 

[Revoltingest]

My infinity is bigger than your infinity.

I can imagine some pretty bid'ns.
Aleph 4, for example.
It's ******* huge!

 

[Tiberius]

WRONG

Please talk to a mathematician before posting such nonsense.

Not sure I follow.

I mean, there are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2, and likewise between 2 and 3. So there are always going to be more real numbers than there are integers.

 

[viole]

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

Nope. You can have an infinity of things packed into limited space, without having more than one thing in the same space, or any intersection between two of those. And, to make things worse for your case, each of those things could have size greater than zero. Ergo, the pigeon principle does not entail that infinity covers everything there is.

Of course, that simple observation renders the rest of your argument moot.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tiberius]

Nope. You can have an infinity of things packed into limited space, without having more than one thing in the same space, or any intersection between two of those. And, to make things worse for your case, each of those things could have size greater than zero. Ergo, the pigeon principle does not entail that infinity covers everything there is.

Of course, that simple observation renders the rest of your argument moot.

Ciao

- viole

Are you talking about the Banach Tarski paradox? Banach–Tarski paradox - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

If we think of the highest number in terms of existence amount...

There is no highest number and 'existence amount' means what, exactly?

This being if we can recall this size, would prove he exists.

You've been talking about abstract concepts up until now. Now you're talking about a being. What being? Nothing you've said up until this point has been about anything but abstractions.

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

Now you're talking about god all of a sudden.

This proves he exists.

Clearly not.

 

[viole]

Are you talking about the Banach Tarski paradox? Banach–Tarski paradox - Wikipedia

Don't need to get that far, since it also relies on a controversial axiom.

A simple geometric progression would do.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

I mean, there are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2, and likewise between 2 and 3. So there are always going to be more real numbers than there are integers.

There are also an infinite number of rational numbers (fractions) between 1 and 2, but the number of rational numbers is the same as the number of integers. The test is if we can put the sets into a one-to-one relationship with each other. We can do this with the rational numbers and integers by stepping through the rationals like this:

No such mapping exists for real numbers, as Cantor showed.

 

[Altfish]

Not sure I follow.

I mean, there are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2, and likewise between 2 and 3. So there are always going to be more real numbers than there are integers.

That cannot be proved.
Because both sets of numbers go on indefinitely

 

[ratiocinator]

That cannot be proved.
Because both sets of numbers go on indefinitely

It is actually possible to prove that real numbers are not 'countably' infinite (natural numbers, integers, and rational numbers are 'countably' infinite) by showing that there is no one-to-one mapping from the one set to another. It's a proof by contradiction, you assume that you've made such a map and then prove that there is a real number that isn't included.

Here is the proof: Cantor's Diagonal Argument

 

[Polymath257]

Not sure I follow.

I mean, there are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2, and likewise between 2 and 3. So there are always going to be more real numbers than there are integers.

That in itself is not enough to show a larger cardinality. For example, the set of *rational numbers* (fractions) has the same cardinality as the set of integers even though there are infinitely many rationals between every two integers.

Cardinality is a very coarse judge of size.