A Proof For Gods Existence By M.O.M

[yppop]

That means that if i take even one away, it will become “finite”. But that would mean that an infinite number is a finite number away; which illogical.

Perhaps it is you that is confused. I am merely going by what logic is telling me.

MOM,

You should familiarize yourself with the work of Georg Cantor before making such embarrassing statements as the one above. You may be a person of high intelligence, but you certainly come across as knowing nothing about the mathematical concept of infinity. Nothing is more logical than mathematics and your statement is neither magical nor logical.

James S,
Why don’t you give MOM a lesson in transfinite algebra, you know the axiom:

Aleph(0) -1 = Aleph(0)

Incidentally James, you haven’t heard from me because I was contemplating one of your spinning waves (in the transverse direction no less) and I fell out of bed. Your thesis is too dangerous for my simple mind. I’ll wait for the book.
Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

Incidentally James, you haven’t heard from me because I was contemplating one of your spinning waves (in the transverse direction no less) and I fell out of bed. Your thesis is too dangerous for my simple mind. I’ll wait for the book.
Yppop

Haha… :whacky::tiphat:

 

[James_S_Saint]

Incidentally James, you haven’t heard from me because I was contemplating one of your spinning waves (in the transverse direction no less) and I fell out of bed. Your thesis is too dangerous for my simple mind. I’ll wait for the book.
Yppop

Btw, in that post, I think that I forgot to mention that you must also tumble sideways (all 3 dimensions) so as to create 3D inertia. So maybe you should line your bed with pillows.

A superconducting ring actually creates higher inertia in the plane of its ring. Some scientist group in Australia actually produced a gravity producing machine doing such, but despite their mathematical brilliance, they don’t realize it. They are currently looking for the flaw in their understanding of gravitons to explain why they have 17 times too much gravity wave. They will wake up to it when they get over their fetish for quantum statistics and make believe entities.

When they gain partial understanding of what they believe to be important, their imaginations go wild. That is how God created Eve. He took an understanding (bone) from close to the heart and gave it its own independent life. That is why it is associated with the female; wishful thinking; “a little understanding driven by desire”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

MOM,

You should familiarize yourself with the work of Georg Cantor before making such embarrassing statements as the one above. You may be a person of high intelligence, but you certainly come across as knowing nothing about the mathematical concept of infinity. Nothing is more logical than mathematics and your statement is neither magical nor logical.

Why don’t you get an education in simple quantitive addition and logic, and apply it to the proper context; i.e. objective events in relation to metaphysical truth? Context is very important.

 

[yppop]

Why don’t you get an education in simple quantitive addition and logic, and apply it to the proper context; i.e. objective events in relation to metaphysical truth? Context is very important.

MOM,
What is an education in simple quantitive addition and logic? (I believe you MEAN quantitative, however I forgive, in the interest of context, spelling mistakes). How did you acquire such an education? And while you’re at it why don’t you explain how I could apply such an education to the “proper context” which you equate to something you called “objective events in relation to metaphysical truth”.

If “context is very important” why did you avoid the context of my post, namely my objection to your statement that one could subtract something such as a number from infinity to make it finite? I suspect that your intent is to divert attention from your fundamental mathematical error with a post that has no apparent context other than its value as an intellectual smoke screen.

If you didn’t already know, here is a bit of information: Cantor was a religious man that developed a logical argument for the existence of multiple levels of infinity that he designated as transfinite numbers; he believed that beyond the transfinite numbers there was an ‘Absolute Infinity’ that he associated with God. So when you’re talking infinities and you reduce the infinite to the finite by simple subtraction you may very well be saying that God can be reduced to the finite. One should be careful with one’s contexts because you may inadvertently be reducing a metaphysical truth to nothing more than an objective event.

Whoa! Did I just give a lesson in simple quantitative addition and Logic?

Smile MOM I will be going away again to deal with James S’s spinning waves now that I know they are also tumbling.

P.S: Merry Christmas MOM, you too James S, and Greylorn (if you’re still alive), and Detales (I found a famous scientist that is also a poet – William Herschel) and to all you other posters that I occasionally bump into here in cyberspace.
Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

Have a good Christmas, yppop.

 

[sidbrown]

I agree that we cannot talk about physical changes or causes before t=0. We certainly cannot talk of a time before t=0. But we can talk about that which is “ontologically first” in respect of existence, without reference to change/time. When i say before, i do not mean a time before time. I mean that which is existentially necessary in order for there to be such a thing as time; that which is before existentially speaking. In other words i am speaking of *before *in a purely hierarchical sense and not in the same sense of time. An immaterial entity has no particular spatial or time location; the first cause permeates everything but is not itself caused or changing. The first cause has to transcend space and time in order to account for change and the potentiality of new realities. It is either that, or the world came out of nothing.

Again, it depends what you mean by “before”, and i explained what i meant. Change does not equal the beginning of existence. But yes, a timeless necessary “un-caused cause” is required for the potentiality or possibility of “events” in which new qualities unravel.

I explained this to you already. Your insistence that i meant a time before time, contradicts my explanation. There was no change before t=0, but there has to be a foundational reality from which t=0 can meaningfully count as the beginning of time. The beginning of time cannot logically be the beginning of existence/reality, since out of nothing comes nothing. Thus existence has to transcend time. Just like there has to be a planet before we can meaningfully speak of a south and north pole. It did not begin from nothing. To say that it is meaningless to speak of a time before time, does not solve the the problem of change or existence; since change is still beginning to exist at t=0, and thus it is contingent on something.

I did answer it. You chose not to respond to it. Time has always existed in respect of Gods act, and this is because Gods act is eternal/timeless and perfect. However, time began to “exist”.

I am not sure about the assumption concerning t=0. It seems like you might be assuming what you want to prove, that there was in fact a time when t=0, or a time of creation.
By assuming that there was a time when the world was created, you are then assuming that the world was in fact created, which is what you wanted to prove in the first place. For example why would it be inconceivable that time extends backwards and forwards in infinite directions on both sides, similar to the numbers on the real line? Further, according to the speculation in vogue today among physicists, there is talk of a multiverse, and many dimensions, not just one universe with three or four dimensions.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I am not sure about the assumption concerning t=0. It seems like you might be assuming what you want to prove, that there was in fact a time when t=0, or a time of creation.
By assuming that there was a time when the world was created, you are then assuming that the world was in fact created, which is what you wanted to prove in the first place. For example why would it be inconceivable that time extends backwards and forwards in infinite directions on both sides, similar to the numbers on the real line? Further, according to the speculation in vogue today among physicists, there is talk of a multiverse, and many dimensions, not just one universe with three or four dimensions.

I am not going to speculate on your honesty, but to be fair, if you read the post that you have quoted in light of the very first posts of this thread, you should find that i am not trying to prove that the world is finite. What the original argument attempts to prove is that there has to be a necessary being both transcendent of and existentially immanent to the existence of physical reality.

The qeustion of what caused t=0 was an issue brought up by “Now-Agnostic”. It was he who claimed that the validity of my argument assumed the “infinity” of the universe, and began making wild claims that nothing is the cause of change accept for change itself since we cannot logical speak of a change before change because there was never a change were there was no change. From which he concludes that time has always existed from t=0 and thus required no explanation because there can be no explanation before t=0, simply because he cannot imagine one. I explained that Gods nature does not require a “before” in the sense of time. But he felt compelled to disagree because he assumes the logical validity of a metaphysical brute fact. He felt that on this basis alone it was reasonable enough to conclude that change is therefore as logically necessary as the existence of being, and so there was no need to speculate about an unmoved-mover and this is because change necessarily exists at t=0.

In my own special way, i refuted his argument, drawing again on the fact that potentiality and possibility, metaphysically speaking, cannot come out of nothing and that therefore the possibility of change requires an absolute unchanging un-caused timeless and necessary reality to exist before there can ever possibly be such a thing as time, because being has to be the logical foundation of any potential reality. I also made it clear that such a being, given the fact that it is the ultimate cause of all time, would have to be existence by nature rather than by participation. He then claimed that i cannot use the word before because this implies time. I explained to now agnostic that i was using the word before in a different and yet perfectly valid sense. Not surprisingly, the debate then turned into an argument about the meaning of words. To which he complained that i cannot change the meaning of words or use them in a different context, even though i explained to him several times that i was using the word in a strictly ontological hierarchical sense. He accuses me of being sloppy, and then makes the obvious guess that when i was talking about before in a purely metaphysical sense rather than in the sense of time. Yet, even after this, he ultimately concludes that time is a brute fact.

I understand that it would have been hard-work for you to read the posts from the beginning and with greater scrutiny then you have aloud in your current post, and so i am not going to scold you.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[TenBobNote]

An interesting article I found on the make up of atoms, how it is relevant to Our Creator and us being here.

" The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants

Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won’t happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There’s an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.

Electromagnetism

There won’t be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.

If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.

Strong Nuclear Force

We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.

If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there’s no life chemistry. It’s impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.

On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it’s impossible to make life if all we’ve got is Hydrogen.

How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It’s so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.

Mass of the Proton and Neutron

We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That’s why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.

If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.

If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn’t be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible. "

Continue here. ( this part is towards the bottom)
Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe"]Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

 

[MindOverMatter]

MOM,
What is an education in simple quantitative addition and logic? (I believe you MEAN quantitative, however I forgive, in the interest of context, spelling mistakes). How did you acquire such an education? And while you’re at it why don’t you explain how I could apply such an education to the “proper context” which you equate to something you called “objective events in relation to metaphysical truth”.

This would require me to educate you in something you should already know given the confidence of your attitude. Read a book in metaphysics. Read Maritain.

If “context is very important” why did you avoid the context of my post, namely my objection to your statement that one could subtract something such as a number from infinity to make it finite? I suspect that your intent is to divert attention from your fundamental mathematical error with a post that has no apparent context other than its value as an intellectual smoke screen.

You gave no argument. You just gave a statement and failed to show how it applied logically to objective reality in respect of metaphysical truth. Apart from that i have no problem with mathematical infinities. The problem i have is the context in which you and various others attempt to apply them to ontological reality.

If you didn’t already know, here is a bit of information: Cantor was a religious man that developed a logical argument for the existence of multiple levels of infinity that he designated as transfinite numbers; he believed that beyond the transfinite numbers there was an ‘Absolute Infinity’ that he associated with God. So when you’re talking infinities and you reduce the infinite to the finite by simple subtraction you may very well be saying that God can be reduced to the finite. One should be careful with one’s contexts because you may inadvertently be reducing a metaphysical truth to nothing more than an objective event.

I do not know much about cantor i must admit, but even with my limited knowledge i can easily see the error of making God synonymous to numbers. You can’t take anything away from God because he is not a group of numbers or a metaphysical amount. That has never been the definition of what God is. Now, perhaps certain abstract mathematical systems indirectly imply the existence of a supreme infinite metaphysical reality that transcends the meaning and limitations of all logically definable numbers, but that still doesn’t mean that we can jump from the abstract to objective reality and say that there is an infinite number of events. Claiming that there is an infinite number of something is fundamentally different from claiming that there is a being that is completely immaterial an thus has no particular spatial location. I have shown you quite explicitly why it is metaphysically impossible for there be such a thing as an actually infinite number of something. If you cannot disprove my argument, then i suggest you save face by remaining silent on the matter, instead of pretending that you have an inkling of what i am intellectually capable of.

Whoa! Did I just give a lesson in simple quantitative addition and Logic?

No. You gave me an education in how little you probably understand about Cantor.

Smile MOM I will be going away again to deal with James S’s spinning waves now that I know they are also tumbling.

P.S: Merry Christmas MOM, you too James S, and Greylorn (if you’re still alive), and Detales (I found a famous scientist that is also a poet – William Herschel) and to all you other posters that I occasionally bump into here in cyberspace.
Yppop

Happy Christmas, and Happy new year.

 

[chessmane4e5]

“3”]. If an an actual infinite number is infinite because of the amount of numbers it contains then this means that an objective actual infinite is “contingent” on each individual number that it contains. That means that if i take even one away, it will become “finite”. But that would mean that an infinite number is a finite number away; which illogical.

Perhaps it is you that is confused. I am merely going by what logic is telling me.

To which Yppop replied

MOM,

You should familiarize yourself with the work of Georg Cantor before making such embarrassing statements as the one above. You may be a person of high intelligence, but you certainly come across as knowing nothing about the mathematical concept of infinity. Nothing is more logical than mathematics and your statement is neither magical nor logical.

James S,
Why don’t you give MOM a lesson in transfinite algebra, you know the axiom:

Aleph(0) -1 = Aleph(0)

Incidentally James, you haven’t heard from me because I was contemplating one of your spinning waves (in the transverse direction no less) and I fell out of bed. Your thesis is too dangerous for my simple mind. I’ll wait for the book.
Yppop

Call me crazy, but are you both saying the same thing.

MOM said that IF YOU COULD perform Infinity - 1 and the result was a finite number, that would be illogical. Therefore what MOM is saying is that Infinity - 1 = Infinity.

Yppop aren’t you basically saying the same thing.

Maybe I am wrong, my head is spinning from reading through this thread

And might I ask a question or two? From what I read, I think everyone is saying time is finite. Why? Seems to me it would be infinite. In math terms, Time started at T=0 but then started increasing. For what reason should it stop? I suppose that what ever started time, has the power to stop it too? I know “change” has been a big topic. Am I correct in saying that change defines time?

Wow, I feel dumb

 

[sidbrown]

To which Yppop replied

Call me crazy, but are you both saying the same thing.

MOM said that IF YOU COULD perform Infinity - 1 and the result was a finite number, that would be illogical. Therefore what MOM is saying is that Infinity - 1 = Infinity.

Yppop aren’t you basically saying the same thing.

Maybe I am wrong, my head is spinning from reading through this thread

And might I ask a question or two? From what I read, I think everyone is saying time is finite. Why? Seems to me it would be infinite. In math terms, Time started at T=0 but then started increasing. For what reason should it stop? I suppose that what ever started time, has the power to stop it too? I know “change” has been a big topic. Am I correct in saying that change defines time?

Wow, I feel dumb

There are a couple of problems. First of all, no one knows when t=0. It is estimated that the age of the universe is about 14 billion years, assuming the big bang, but it is not clear if there was something before the big bang, or if the big bang could have been the big crunch or the big collapse of another universe which had come before, and so on, ad infinitum in the past.
Further the statement:
…
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindOverMatter
“3”]. If an an actual infinite number is infinite because of the amount of numbers it contains then this means that an objective actual infinite is “contingent” on each individual number that it contains. That means that if i take even one away, it will become “finite”. But that would mean that an infinite number is a finite number away; which illogical.

…
is not really true, since you can take away an infinite number and still be left with an infinite number. For example, take the integers …, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …
You can take away all of the odd integers (an infinite number) and you can take away all of the negative integers, and still you will be left with an infinite number of integers.

 

[chessmane4e5]

LOL on the infinite reply. But mom is saying that infinity minus 1 = a finite number is ILLOGICAL. Which is what you just said, although you even took it a step further to prove that Infinity - Infinity can still be Infinity. But what MOM said is true. MOM is saying that Infinity - 1 = Infinity. He said it by showing that IF it equaled a finite number, that would be Illogical.

I was a math major, so I know all the different proofs on why the real numbers (there are infinitely many) and the integers (there are also infinitely many) are actually different sizes. Or that the integers …-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, … and the whole numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, … are actually the same size.

 

[chessmane4e5]

But for time. I know time had to start somewhere, but what if time goes forward to infinity?

Or if parallel universes exist, wouldn’t that also be infinite time?

 

[sidbrown]

LOL on the infinite reply. But mom is saying that infinity minus 1 = a finite number is ILLOGICAL. Which is what you just said, although you even took it a step further to prove that Infinity - Infinity can still be Infinity. But what MOM said is true. MOM is saying that Infinity - 1 = Infinity. He said it by showing that IF it equaled a finite number, that would be Illogical.

I was a math major, so I know all the different proofs on why the real numbers (there are infinitely many) and the integers (there are also infinitely many) are actually different sizes. Or that the integers …-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, … and the whole numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, … are actually the same size.

OK. So we agree on this. I was wrong and misread the excerpt somehow.

 

[sidbrown]

But for time. I know time had to start somewhere, but what if time goes forward to infinity?

Or if parallel universes exist, wouldn’t that also be infinite time?

But why is it not assuming a Creator if you assume that time had a beginning? How do you know that it could not have gone back ad infinitum and that there were a series of big bangs and big crunches?

 

[MindOverMatter]

…
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindOverMatter
“3”]. If an an actual infinite number is infinite because of the amount of numbers it contains then this means that an objective actual infinite is “contingent” on each individual number that it contains. That means that if i take even one away, it will become “finite”. But that would mean that an infinite number is a finite number away; which illogical.

…
is not really true, since you can take away an infinite number and still be left with an infinite number. For example, take the integers …, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …
You can take away all of the odd integers (an infinite number) and you can take away all of the negative integers, and still you will be left with an infinite number of integers.

Eh? What has integers got to do with objective reality in terms of one event succeeding another? For example where is minus one in objective reality? There is no such thing.:nope: In terms of real events (ontological numbers) -1 is a purely abstract notion.

Something so simple should not have escaped your notice.

Secondly, you are assuming an infinite number with out accepting the fact that this supposed infinite is necessarily the sum of each individual part and is contingent upon each individual part, since it is the individual parts that define an actually infinite number. As soon as you say the word infinite “number”, you are admitting this very fact. Either that or you must admit that a true objective actual infinite cannot be logically defined by numbers or parts. Once you accept this fact, you will realize that an actual infinite is not metaphysically possible, since if you take one away, it becomes finite, and that would mean that a finite amount is a finite number away from an infinite amount; which is illogical. And neither can you make up and infinite by adding numbers, and thus it is not rational to conclude that an objective infinite can be made up of parts. However, an actual infinite is not to be confused with a potential infinite, which is metaphysically valid.

 

[James_S_Saint]

But for time. I know time had to start somewhere,

No. Time did not have a start. The “First Cause” was not referring to the first event in time, but the first cause in logic, the “Logos”, the “first truth” before any other truth could be accepted as true.

God is the first axiom of thought and the initial creator of all physical reality.

 

[sidbrown]

Eh? What has integers got to do with objective reality in terms of one event succeeding another? For example where is minus one in objective reality? There is no such thing.:nope: In terms of real events (ontological numbers) -1 is a purely abstract notion.

No. We only have to study mathematics beyond the third grade level to understand what is being said here. .
Let me give you just two examples.
If the present time is t=0 measured in years, then 100 years ago could be signified by -100.Example, 2: If your credit statement shows -$200, it means that you owe $200, +$200 would mean that your account shows a balance of $200 credit.
Actually the first example is something we use all the time. The present year is 2009. This does not mean that the world started in t=0. The term BC is similar to the use of a negative number according to which we count back from t=0, the birth of Christ. So 2500 BC in mathematical terms understood by a computer would be denoted by -2500.

 

[sidbrown]

Secondly, you are assuming an infinite number with out accepting the fact that this supposed infinite is necessarily the sum of each individual part and is contingent upon each individual part, since it is the individual parts that define an actually infinite number. As soon as you say the word infinite “number”, you are admitting this very fact. Either that or you must admit that a true objective actual infinite cannot be logically defined by numbers or parts. Once you accept this fact, you will realize that an actual infinite is not metaphysically possible, since if you take one away, it becomes finite, and that would mean that a finite amount is a finite number away from an infinite amount; which is illogical. And neither can you make up and infinite by adding numbers, and thus it is not rational to conclude that an objective infinite can be made up of parts. However, an actual infinite is not to be confused with a potential infinite, which is metaphysically valid.

There are an infinite number of integers, but each integer is a finite number.