Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mathematical proof regarding god's existence.

KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.
KingDavid8
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 11:14:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined.

Well-defined by who? People? If so, then nothing existed before people, right?

This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner

So if I invent a fictional animal and define it well, it suddenly exists in real life?

Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

u"ni"corn: a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

Chances are, there is life on other planets, but we just don't know what type. Since we haven't observed these life forms, we can't define them. Does that prove that these life forms cannot possibly exist?

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place,

So before we had formal languages, nothing existed. Right?

hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

It just means that our understanding of God is limited by the system. If God exists, then God exists whether we understand God or not.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

Something being limited by words doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Something can exist without our being able to fully comprehend it. Inability to comprehend is often due to the limitations of those doing the comprehending.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 11:28:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 11:14:44 AM, KingDavid8 wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined.

Well-defined by who? People? If so, then nothing existed before people, right?

Well-defined means by some formal language. Mathematics and similar concepts exist without dependancy on human interaction, meaning that things were defined before we came by, and hence existed.
This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner

So if I invent a fictional animal and define it well, it suddenly exists in real life?

It doesn't have to exist in this universe, but it still does exist in some other form (i.e. your imagination).
Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

u"ni"corn: a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.
I will repeat what I said: "It doesn't have to exist in this universe, but it still does exist in some other form (i.e. your imagination)."

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

Chances are, there is life on other planets, but we just don't know what type. Since we haven't observed these life forms, we can't define them. Does that prove that these life forms cannot possibly exist?

We don't have to define it in order for it to be defiend, as I have said above.
3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place,

So before we had formal languages, nothing existed. Right?

As I've said above, formal languages (such as set-theory) are not dependant on the existence of humans.
hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

It just means that our understanding of God is limited by the system. If God exists, then God exists whether we understand God or not.

No, it means that what you tried to call "god" until now is no longer god.
4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

Something being limited by words doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Something can exist without our being able to fully comprehend it. Inability to comprehend is often due to the limitations of those doing the comprehending.

If anything, something being limited (in a well-ordered way, and not necessarily by words (btw, English is not a formal language)) means it MUST exist by the very definition of existence. Also, I spoke nothing of comprehension, which is irrelevant to the subject.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:15:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
An abstraction of reality is not reality itself, eh? Or, The map is not the territory. A picture of a burger is not a burger. Hoy!

God is fundamentally beyond abstraction.

This is even implied when God is defined as "The Ultimate Reality", as the definition itself points to something greater than the defining.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:23:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Bell's Theorem though.

I not only think Bell's Theorem is beautiful, but it is also probably the closest thing in physics to expressing God.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:40:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

I call BS. ^^^

Who says it must be in a "formal language"?

Why does it even require a definition?

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:49:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 12:15:20 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
An abstraction of reality is not reality itself, eh? Or, The map is not the territory. A picture of a burger is not a burger. Hoy!

God is fundamentally beyond abstraction.

This is even implied when God is defined as "The Ultimate Reality", as the definition itself points to something greater than the defining.

Well, if he isn't defined, then he doesn't exist at all, as shown in step one.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:53:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 12:40:31 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

I call BS. ^^^

Who says it must be in a "formal language"?

I had explained this in the proof itself; in order for a definition to be well-ordered and objective, it has to be in some sort or form of formal language, i.e. mathematical language, otherwise it isn't an objective definition.
Why does it even require a definition?

It needs to be defined in order to exist, by the definition shown to be true above.
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:06:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:53:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:40:31 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

I call BS. ^^^

Who says it must be in a "formal language"?

I had explained this in the proof itself; in order for a definition to be well-ordered and objective, it has to be in some sort or form of formal language, i.e. mathematical language, otherwise it isn't an objective definition.
Why does it even require a definition?

It needs to be defined in order to exist, by the definition shown to be true above.

Why?
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:28:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 2:06:30 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:53:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:40:31 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

I call BS. ^^^

Who says it must be in a "formal language"?

I had explained this in the proof itself; in order for a definition to be well-ordered and objective, it has to be in some sort or form of formal language, i.e. mathematical language, otherwise it isn't an objective definition.
Why does it even require a definition?

It needs to be defined in order to exist, by the definition shown to be true above.

Why?

In order for something to be objective, it has to be predicated upon in some way; and we can see this fact manifest in pretty much everything, starting with the simplest mathematical concepts, and ending (well, not really ending) with complex formal languages, such as FOOT (http://snappizz.com...).
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:58:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 2:28:00 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 2:06:30 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:53:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:40:31 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

I call BS. ^^^

Who says it must be in a "formal language"?

I had explained this in the proof itself; in order for a definition to be well-ordered and objective, it has to be in some sort or form of formal language, i.e. mathematical language, otherwise it isn't an objective definition.
Why does it even require a definition?

It needs to be defined in order to exist, by the definition shown to be true above.

Why?

In order for something to be objective, it has to be predicated upon in some way; and we can see this fact manifest in pretty much everything, starting with the simplest mathematical concepts, and ending (well, not really ending) with complex formal languages, such as FOOT (http://snappizz.com...).

But my god isn't material.

Not objective.

Immaterial.

And "pretty much anything".

That assumes there are exceptions.
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 3:30:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 2:58:35 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 2:28:00 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 2:06:30 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:53:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:40:31 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

I call BS. ^^^

Who says it must be in a "formal language"?

I had explained this in the proof itself; in order for a definition to be well-ordered and objective, it has to be in some sort or form of formal language, i.e. mathematical language, otherwise it isn't an objective definition.
Why does it even require a definition?

It needs to be defined in order to exist, by the definition shown to be true above.

Why?

In order for something to be objective, it has to be predicated upon in some way; and we can see this fact manifest in pretty much everything, starting with the simplest mathematical concepts, and ending (well, not really ending) with complex formal languages, such as FOOT (http://snappizz.com...).

But my god isn't material.

Not objective.

Immaterial.

And "pretty much anything".

That assumes there are exceptions.

First, when I said "pretty much everything" what I meant was "everything", because that's just the way I talk.

Also, if your god is not objective, then he cannot actually objectively exist.

And I've never said that this god had to be material (i.e. numbers are immaterial yet still exist).
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:03:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:49:43 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:15:20 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
An abstraction of reality is not reality itself, eh? Or, The map is not the territory. A picture of a burger is not a burger. Hoy!

God is fundamentally beyond abstraction.

This is even implied when God is defined as "The Ultimate Reality", as the definition itself points to something greater than the defining.

Well, if he isn't defined, then he doesn't exist at all, as shown in step one.

God is defined in theology, and in the dictionary as being "The Ultimate Reality"
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 6:08:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 5:03:14 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:49:43 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:15:20 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
An abstraction of reality is not reality itself, eh? Or, The map is not the territory. A picture of a burger is not a burger. Hoy!

God is fundamentally beyond abstraction.

This is even implied when God is defined as "The Ultimate Reality", as the definition itself points to something greater than the defining.

Well, if he isn't defined, then he doesn't exist at all, as shown in step one.

God is defined in theology, and in the dictionary as being "The Ultimate Reality"

But that is not a well-ordered definition, because has internal contradictions; i.e. god being the "biggest fish" when I showed that it is impossible for something that is well-defined to have no predicator (not the usual meaning of predicator, btw).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 6:33:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

Semantics are logical (or they should be, at least).
But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.

This isn't a well-ordered definition.
(Keep in mind that English is not a formal language used to express definitions, but rather a natural language used to communicate.)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 6:55:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 6:33:42 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

Semantics are logical (or they should be, at least).
But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.

This isn't a well-ordered definition.
(Keep in mind that English is not a formal language used to express definitions, but rather a natural language used to communicate.)

Sure. Why don't you give us an example of a well odered definition for

The number 1

Donald trump

Poodle
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:01:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 6:55:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:33:42 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

Semantics are logical (or they should be, at least).
But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.

This isn't a well-ordered definition.
(Keep in mind that English is not a formal language used to express definitions, but rather a natural language used to communicate.)

Sure. Why don't you give us an example of a well odered definition for

The number 1

1 = {0} = {{}}, using set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald trump

No idea; but keep in mind that it is still defined even if I don't define it (as long as it is actually defined).
Poodle
Same thing.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:04:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 7:01:45 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:55:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:33:42 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

Semantics are logical (or they should be, at least).
But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.

This isn't a well-ordered definition.
(Keep in mind that English is not a formal language used to express definitions, but rather a natural language used to communicate.)

Sure. Why don't you give us an example of a well odered definition for

The number 1

1 = {0} = {{}}, using set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald trump

No idea; but keep in mind that it is still defined even if I don't define it (as long as it is actually defined).
Poodle
Same thing.

God is defined even I can't define God.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:07:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 7:04:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:01:45 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:55:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:33:42 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

Semantics are logical (or they should be, at least).
But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.

This isn't a well-ordered definition.
(Keep in mind that English is not a formal language used to express definitions, but rather a natural language used to communicate.)

Sure. Why don't you give us an example of a well odered definition for

The number 1

1 = {0} = {{}}, using set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald trump

No idea; but keep in mind that it is still defined even if I don't define it (as long as it is actually defined).
Poodle
Same thing.

God is defined even I can't define God.

But he can't be defined as the "biggest fish", whatever he is defined as, which is what I've proven in this topic in the first place. It doesn't matter that you can't define him.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:25:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 7:07:10 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:04:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:01:45 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:55:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:33:42 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

Semantics are logical (or they should be, at least).
But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.

This isn't a well-ordered definition.
(Keep in mind that English is not a formal language used to express definitions, but rather a natural language used to communicate.)

Sure. Why don't you give us an example of a well odered definition for

The number 1

1 = {0} = {{}}, using set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald trump

No idea; but keep in mind that it is still defined even if I don't define it (as long as it is actually defined).
Poodle
Same thing.

God is defined even I can't define God.

But he can't be defined as the "biggest fish", whatever he is defined as, which is what I've proven in this topic in the first place. It doesn't matter that you can't define him.

So God exists.

And I won't define God as the 'biggest' fish I define God as the 'only' fish. God is unique.
While I can't define God we can presume God is an inmeasurable set with no amount of intersections or unions of subsets to adequately describe God. God is the the unique creator. The very entity that makes sets. Without distinguishing features no set could be made. Esentially everything would be homogenous and atemporal and my inclination is null (dare I say void and without form)

So I define God as that being that ascribes lines and creates from a null set all delineations that make defining one set from another possible.

Gods existence is axiomatic, because your definition and use of formal language can not account for the difference in substantive difference between terms and labels.

I'll try to illustrate. If there is no difference between terms A and B then A equals B. If the is no differation amoung terms in the whole formal system then all definitions are equal. The system is meaningless to describe anything. Becuase all things mean the same thing.

Because that which does the delineations if it starts with itself, say making two thing that can do delineations by regression we must come back to one unique entity that makes delineations.

That's the best I can define formally what exists that I can not define formally enough for your semantic sophistry will reject.

Hinestly it doesn't matter what get's said your going to say this argument is sound and presriptive of reality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:44:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Oh and I forgot to add God accomplishes this delineation from an ambigous null set through the axiom of choice. Further infering God of personal agency.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:48:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 7:25:20 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:07:10 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:04:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:01:45 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:55:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:33:42 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:17:32 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Many a time I have debating theists, when the argument let them to demand: "Prove that there is no god!", and until lately, the only (yet decent) answer I could give them is that the burden of proof lays on the maker of the claim. Now however, I have a proof that not only disproves the specific gods followed by the religions around the world; yet also "highest beings" in their entirety. The proof goes like this:

1) First, I must define what "existence" is when regarding to a concept or object which (or whom) exists beyond this universe. The only definition that works in all cases, and is as inclusive and objectively verifiable as possible, is as follows: A concept exist if and only if it is well-defined. This can be shown to be true in all cases, as every concept we know to exist is defined, and every concept that is well-defined can be shown to exist in some way or manner (i.e. the number seven exists, yet the number "topler", which I defined right now as being somewhere between six and eight (which is clearly ill-defiend), does not; for example, it is impossible to have topler apples). Moreover, there was never a concept shown to exist that is not defined, or a concept that is defined, yet does not exist in some way or form.

2) With that out of the way, we must conclude that in order for a god to exist, he/she/it must be defined.

3) Any definition must be in a formal language, otherwise it isn't well-ordered, rending it useless at being a definition in the first place, hence god's definition must be in a formal language; and in order to prevent russell's paradox (paradoxical situations are ill-defined, and hence do not exist by the definition shown to be true above), god cannot tamper with or predicate the language in any way, meaning that god is now infinitely limited by this system.

4) Because god is limited by the system, he is no longer "god" (i.e. a highest being).

5) Repeating 1)-4) on every existing concept shows that there can be no "biggest fish"; and hence no god.

This is semantics not logic,

Semantics are logical (or they should be, at least).
But riddle me this,

God is defined as The enity that establishes the consistency of formal systems that are in accordance with reality.

This isn't a well-ordered definition.
(Keep in mind that English is not a formal language used to express definitions, but rather a natural language used to communicate.)

Sure. Why don't you give us an example of a well odered definition for

The number 1

1 = {0} = {{}}, using set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald trump

No idea; but keep in mind that it is still defined even if I don't define it (as long as it is actually defined).
Poodle
Same thing.

God is defined even I can't define God.

But he can't be defined as the "biggest fish", whatever he is defined as, which is what I've proven in this topic in the first place. It doesn't matter that you can't define him.

So God exists.

No, some predicating concept exists, i.e. set theory (if you want to call that "god", then go ahead, it's still set theory).
And I won't define God as the 'biggest' fish I define God as the 'only' fish. God is unique.
While I can't define God we can presume God is an inmeasurable set with no amount of intersections or unions of subsets to adequately describe God. God is the the unique creator. The very entity that makes sets. Without distinguishing features no set could be made. Esentially everything would be homogenous and atemporal and my inclination is null (dare I say void and without form)

The thing you're effectively trying to do is define god as the absolute infinity. The problem with this is that absolute infinity is undefined (Heck; I'd know, I'm a googologist). Also, how do you define god as the "only fish" if you've used "other fishes" in your definition of god?
What you need to understand is that mathematics and logic are both timeless, meaning they cannot be created and cannot create. They have certain relations with other concepts, but keep in mind that it is still atemporal (which isn't a bad thing, btw).
So I define God as that being that ascribes lines and creates from a null set all delineations that make defining one set from another possible.

Effectively your trying here to insert some sort of "personality" into mathematics. Even if that would work, you'd still have some sort of higher being (keep in mind that "being" doesn't mean "sentient being") predicating the way this god of yours (the one you've just defined) works.
Gods existence is axiomatic, because your definition and use of formal language can not account for the difference in substantive difference between terms and labels.

No, that's what set theory is for.
I'll try to illustrate. If there is no difference between terms A and B then A equals B. If the is no differation amoung terms in the whole formal system then all definitions are equal. The system is meaningless to describe anything. Becuase all things mean the same thing.

As I've said above, set theory does that (https://en.wikipedia.org...(set_theory)).
Because that which does the delineations if it starts with itself, say making two thing that can do delineations by regression we must come back to one unique entity that makes delineations.

No entity needs to "do" the delineations, because doing things implies time, and time is just a constuct within THIS universe, not others such as the universe of sets or the universe of numbers, etc.
That's the best I can define formally what exists that I can not define formally enough for your semantic sophistry will reject.

Sophistry? You call this a sophistry? Keep in mind that I haven't used ill-defined terms, circular reasoning, or any sort of other fallacious argument throughout this entire topic. The only reason I reject some definitions is because they are objectively ill-ordered, and the definitions you've brought here are mixed, so I don't straightout reject them all.
Hinestly it doesn't matter what get's said your going to say this argument is sound and presriptive of reality.

Define reality.

Your argument here tries to pose god as the predicator of set theory, but keep in mind that it still means that god has some type of predicator.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 11:37:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 12:23:08 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Bell's Theorem though.

I not only think Bell's Theorem is beautiful, but it is also probably the closest thing in physics to expressing God.

Quality Comedy.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:35:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 6:08:49 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:03:14 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:49:43 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:15:20 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
An abstraction of reality is not reality itself, eh? Or, The map is not the territory. A picture of a burger is not a burger. Hoy!

God is fundamentally beyond abstraction.

This is even implied when God is defined as "The Ultimate Reality", as the definition itself points to something greater than the defining.

Well, if he isn't defined, then he doesn't exist at all, as shown in step one.

God is defined in theology, and in the dictionary as being "The Ultimate Reality"

But that is not a well-ordered definition, because has internal contradictions; i.e. god being the "biggest fish" when I showed that it is impossible for something that is well-defined to have no predicator (not the usual meaning of predicator, btw).

The name that can be named is not the eternal name, so it is written.

How do you express what is fundamentally beyond abstraction using abstraction? How do you express the uncreated through language, which is created?

It's not a refutation of what is actually being spoken of. It sounds to me as if you might be mistaking the map for the territory when it comes to God.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:39:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 11:37:15 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:23:08 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Bell's Theorem though.

I not only think Bell's Theorem is beautiful, but it is also probably the closest thing in physics to expressing God.

Quality Comedy.

If you feel this is the case, why don't you be edifying and explain your opinion?

For all I know, you are just outright dismissing what I'm saying based on prejudice. This takes about as much mental effort as blindly accepting something as being true.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 9:28:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 2:35:58 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:08:49 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:03:14 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:49:43 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:15:20 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
An abstraction of reality is not reality itself, eh? Or, The map is not the territory. A picture of a burger is not a burger. Hoy!

God is fundamentally beyond abstraction.

This is even implied when God is defined as "The Ultimate Reality", as the definition itself points to something greater than the defining.

Well, if he isn't defined, then he doesn't exist at all, as shown in step one.

God is defined in theology, and in the dictionary as being "The Ultimate Reality"

But that is not a well-ordered definition, because has internal contradictions; i.e. god being the "biggest fish" when I showed that it is impossible for something that is well-defined to have no predicator (not the usual meaning of predicator, btw).

The name that can be named is not the eternal name, so it is written.

Then the eternal name does not exist.
How do you express what is fundamentally beyond abstraction using abstraction? How do you express the uncreated through language, which is created?

There exists nothing fundamentally beyond abstraction. Formal language is not created, natural language is.
It's not a refutation of what is actually being spoken of. It sounds to me as if you might be mistaking the map for the territory when it comes to God.

No; what I refuted is a highest being, which is what theists call "god"; and if he is not the highest, he is as limited to his predicator as we are to him, meaning his is clearly not what you've defined as "god".
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:07:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 9:28:22 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
No; what I refuted is a highest being, which is what theists call "god"; and if he is not the highest, he is as limited to his predicator as we are to him, meaning his is clearly not what you've defined as "god".

The position I am representing is the theological position. I in fact, soundly refuted your refutation. If you don't accept what I'm saying, you might as well be arguing with small children about the stock market when you don't really understand the stock market yourself.

No, you bring up a very good point, I'm just tell you that you are mistaken about the concept of God, and if you have the proper understanding of the concept, you'll realize that it answers your point pretty soundly.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:15:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 2:07:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 5/4/2016 9:28:22 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
No; what I refuted is a highest being, which is what theists call "god"; and if he is not the highest, he is as limited to his predicator as we are to him, meaning his is clearly not what you've defined as "god".

The position I am representing is the theological position. I in fact, soundly refuted your refutation. If you don't accept what I'm saying, you might as well be arguing with small children about the stock market when you don't really understand the stock market yourself.

No, you bring up a very good point, I'm just tell you that you are mistaken about the concept of God, and if you have the proper understanding of the concept, you'll realize that it answers your point pretty soundly.

Well, I guess we're simply arguing in two different fields, then. You are bringing the theological/conceptualistic position; whilst I am bringing the mathematical/existential/philosophical position. From the idealistic/conceptualistic perspective, god exists; but idealism and conceptualism are not even closely related to reality, existence, or anything we REALLY need to be asking ourselves.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:20:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
God is "The Ultimate Reality".

What you are debating is a straw man.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,