Problems with the Definition of God

[Chimp]

The problem with the God concept appears to be defining exactly what "God" or god, ...is.


Terms like greater than, more than, and transcendent, have unclear meanings with reference to actual existence. How is value defined for physical "objective" reality?

Some say that "absolute truth" does not exist.

Interesting...

The statement "God exists[is real] or God does not exist" would appear to be an absolute truth!

To say that God actually exists, i.e. God is real, means that God exists as a conception and in the observable universe. Hopefully it[the term 'actually exists'] is clear.

God actually exists or God does not actually exist is an absolute truth, therefore absolute truth does ...exist.

If absolute truth did not exist then God would both actually exist and not-exist,therefore God would actually exist. Absolute truth must exist, in order to invalidate the God concept?

Absolute truth is a perfect nonambiguous truth.

By definition, God is an absolute truth.

If absolute truth exists, God exists.

If absolute truth does not exist, God exists.

Therefore God exists.

[graymouser]

Where do you get this from? Here's the basics of the argument from the existence of absolute truth:

P1 There exists some X, such that X is an absolute truth.
P2 God is an absolute truth.
QED God exists.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the correct QED would be "God or some other absolute truth exists." This is entirely uninformative about the existence of God.

-Wayne

[The Evil One]

Oh no Chimp, more of your muddled ontological argumentation. You started out well, questioning the definition of God. It is correct that there is no single accepted definition of God. Indeed, it's entirely possible that every theist has their own.

"God" usually means "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being, creator of the universe" - at least, that's what most theists seem to believe in, and when I say I'm an atheist, that's the God I don't believe in.

If you are using another definition for "God", the whole argument changes.

So instead of fretting about the definition of God, why don't you give us YOURS? IE list the features that make God God, so far as you are concerned.

The statement "God exists[is real] or God does not exist" would appear to be an absolute truth!
Only in the sense that when you have two exhaustive options for the way things are, one of them must actually be the case.

This is a simple matter of logical systems - Logic is defined in such a way that "Z is true or not-Z is true" is always a true proposition. However, I'm not sure you can read a great deal into the actual nature of reality based on descriptions of the internal workings of the logic system.

By your standard, I could just as well say, The statement that "I am a vole" or "I am not a vole" would appear to be an absolute truth!

Correct, but not particularly enlightening.

God actually exists or God does not actually exist is an absolute truth, therefore absolute truth does ...exist.

If absolute truth did not exist then God would both actually exist and not-exist,therefore God would actually exist. Absolute truth must exist, in order to invalidate the God concept?

Absolute truth is a perfect nonambiguous truth.

Absolute truth exists in the sense that there are certain logical statements which have to be true (such as "Either Z or not-Z" or conversely "Not ( Z AND not-Z)". Speculating on what the world would be like if such statements did not have to be true does not tell us anything about whether God exists or not, or about whether we can discover that fact.

By definition, God is an absolute truth.

If absolute truth exists, God exists.

If absolute truth does not exist, God exists.

Therefore God exists.

All right, this is where you go wrong again, for the following reasons:

1) "By definition, God is an absolute truth" - by what definition? You can't say this until you've given a nice clear definition of God.... which you haven't.

2) You cannot validly deduce "If absolute truth exists, God exists" from "God is an absolute truth". Note: "God is an absolute truth" does not imply that "all absolute truths are God".

So, even assuming that God is an absolute truth, and even assuming that some absolute truth exists, there is no reason to suppose that the absolute truth which exists is the same one who is God.

3) "If absolute truth does not exist, God exists" -- you've pulled this proposition out of your arse, it is justified by nothing in your previous argumentation.

4) Based on flawed deduction, your conclusion goes up in smoke.

[Witt]

Chimp: The statement "God exists[is real] or God does not exist" would appear to be an absolute truth!

Why?

Chimp: To say that God actually exists, i.e. God is real, means that God exists as a conception and in the observable universe. Hopefully it[the term 'actually exists'] is clear.
God actually exists or God does not actually exist is an absolute truth, therefore absolute truth does ...exist.

You still have not said why you believe this. You are misusing the word 'therefore'.
Therefore, requires a chain of reasoning from assumption to conclusion.
You have not given any reasons for your assertions.

Chimp: By definition, God is an absolute truth.

??

"God is an absolute truth" is syntactic nonsense, it is not a well-formed-formula.
Expressions such as "I am the truth" etc., are not sensible because truth is a predicate of statements not of objects.

Even if "God is an absolute truth" had sense, that it is a definition does not affect its truth. Truths are not defined they are reasoned.

For example: The existent present king of France exists, is false, even though existence is a part of the definition.

Chimp:
If absolute truth exists, God exists.
If absolute truth does not exist, God exists.
Therefore God exists.

Again, why do you assume these premisses?

It is not enough to assert truths, we must be able to show why it is the case.

"How do you know it?" needs an answer, doesn't it?

[Chimp]

"God" usually means "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being, creator of the universe" - at least, that's what most theists seem to believe in, and when I say I'm an atheist, that's the God I don't believe in.

If you are using another definition for "God", the whole argument changes.

So instead of fretting about the definition of God, why don't you give us YOURS? IE list the features that make God God, so far as you are concerned.


Let X be the perfect nonambiguous "definition" of God. If X exists then the question of God's existence can be settled.

If a perfectly nonambiguous definition for God exists then the assertion "God exists" can be proven to be true G, or proven to be false, not-G.

Let God be defined as the "Absolute" i.e. God is every possible type of infinity, an exhaustive collection. [God] = [every possible type of numerical combination] means that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.


If it is possible that an infinite number of planets exist then does every possible planet exist? For example, is it possible for another planet to exist exactly like Earth that also has unicorns?

No it is not. A numerical analogy: Let E be the universe of even numbers; E contains infinitely many numbers, yet it does not contain every possible type of number. An exhaustive collection would probably need to be infinite, an infinite collection need not be exhaustive.

God is defined as every possible type type of infinity, the "Absolute", an exhaustive collection of every possible type of number. As you can see, this definition subsumes all definitions.

A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is to say, the programming of their brain. Any software structure can be coded up by some large set of numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction, independent of the physical universe. Therefore each individual's personality, along with all possible "personalities" exists as a mathematical abstraction, along with all possible continuations.

God[the Absolute] exists as a mathematical abstraction, independent of the physical universe.


If physical existence is a subset of mathematical existence, then physical existence is a subset of "God's" existence.

All that remains to be proved is that mathematical existence = physical existence.

The laws of physics are mathematical relations. The law of conservation of energy is "exact" as far as anyone can tell.

If a set of abstract mathematical relations exist that correspond exactly to physical laws[observable existence] then God exists, since physical existence is a subset of God's existence.

[JB01]

Let X be the perfect nonambiguous "definition" of God. If X exists then the question of God's existence can be settled.

If a perfectly nonambiguous definition for God exists then the assertion "God exists" can be proven to be true G, or proven to be false, not-G.


An unambiguous definition of the term "God" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving the truth of God's existence or non-existence deductively. It's true that we can't even talk about the subject meaningfully without such a definition, but once it is given, it is still more likely that the question becomes an empirical one, rather than one that can be settled by armchair reasoning. For example, I can define P as the eighth-largest planet orbiting the star in the Andromeda galaxy whose mass is closest to our own sun's. That's unambiguous, I think. Does P exist? We may never know, and we certainly aren't going to figure it out using nothing more than a few axioms and the tools of formal logic. We'd have to go look.

At any rate, in my judgement, the rest of your post fails to present the unambiguous definition of "God" that you promise. Various terms such as "Absolute", "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent", "all possible infinities", and "all possible combinations of numbers" are thrown around, without any clear notion of what some of them should be taken to mean, or why any of them should be regarded as equivalent to each other. (For example, sets of numbers are not generally regarded as being conscious, let alone omniscient). Please try again.

[Goliath]

Chimp,

Incorrect. Gods are supernatural entities, and not truths in and of themselves.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Goliath]

[God] = [every possible type of numerical combination]


You mean that your god can be realized as a subset of the power set of the complex numbers? It would then seem that such a god is not a supernatural creature, wouldn't it?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[breathilizer]

By definition, God is an absolute truth.

Umm, no.

Your argument basically states that "Theists say it's true, therefore it is true" which is utterly ridiculous

[Chimp]

At any rate, in my judgement, the rest of your post fails to present the unambiguous definition of "God" that you promise. Various terms such as "Absolute", "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent", "all possible infinities", and "all possible combinations of numbers" are thrown around, without any clear notion of what some of them should be taken to mean, or why any of them should be regarded as equivalent to each other. (For example, sets of numbers are not generally regarded as being conscious, let alone omniscient). Please try again.

I did not use the term "omnibenevolent". Also, I recall explaining how the brain/mind of an individual is analogous to their software, in that it can be encoded by some large set of numbers. The rest of the argument follows. You seem to be saying "I don't understand therefore the logic is incorrect" ...? The argument basically states that a subset of mathematical existence corresponds exactly to the physical universe.



You mean that your god can be realized as a subset of the power set of the complex numbers? It would then seem that such a god is not a supernatural creature, wouldn't it?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Complex numbers are of the form a + bi , where i is the square root of (-1)

[a+bi]*[a-bi] = a^2 + b^2

The absolute infinite also contains the set of complex numbers.



breathilizer wrote:

Umm, no.

Your argument basically states that "Theists say it's true, therefore it is true" which is utterly ridiculous


That is not what the argument states. It basically states that the physical universe is a subset of mathematical existence, where some mathematical structure is isomorphic to the physical universe, and that the ultimate nature of God is abstract. The abstract contains the concrete.

Your statement is tangental and irrelevant.

[Goliath]

Complex numbers are of the form a + bi , where i is the square root of (-1)

[a+bi]*[a-bi] = a^2 + b^2



Yes, I know this.


The absolute infinite also contains the set of complex numbers.


But you said that the "absolute infinite" is the set of all combinations of numbers. So, unless you're counting elements of rings of positive characteristic or other things that lay-people usually don't consider "numbers", then your god is contained in the power set of the complex numbers.

If this is not correct, then you must define EXACTLY what you mean by "absolute infinite". NO DIGGING UP IRRELEVANT LINKS! And please DO NOT give me an instant replay of the last time I trounced you, or, in other words, ONLY talk about things that are defined and whose definitions you understand.*




That is not what the argument states. It basically states that the physical universe is a subset of mathematical existence,



Nonsensical, as mathematical existence is not a set!



where some mathematical structure is isomorphic to the physical universe,



Please define exactly what you mean by an isomorphism of physical objects.

Sincerely,

Goliath

* - Exceptions to this would only be for undefined terms in mathematics (eg. point, line, set).

[JB01]

I did not use the term "omnibenevolent".

Sorry about that. You said "omnipresent". I still fail to see how a set of numbers can be omnipresent in any relevant sense.

Also, I recall explaining how the brain/mind of an individual is analogous to their software, in that it can be encoded by some large set of numbers. The rest of the argument follows. You seem to be saying "I don't understand therefore the logic is incorrect" ...? The argument basically states that a subset of mathematical existence corresponds exactly to the physical universe.

Actually, what I'm saying is that both your definition and your argument are still quite vague; they need refining if you want to pose a rigorous argument.

Software (including, theoretically, human mental software) can be encoded anyway you like, including as a series (not a set) of numbers or as one big number. However until you have a machine that can interpret these numbers as instructions, and then actually execute the instructions in sequence (including the processing of unpredictable input), you don't have a brain/mind or anything else conscious. What machine (in your analogy) is running the "God" code? Why define God as the set of all possible codes, when the Vast majority of them are gibberish? Since I agree with your assertion that an infinite set is not necessarily an exhaustive one, how can I be sure that the set of all numbers, considered as software, contains something that has the properties you ascribe to God?

And, incidentally, what do you mean by the phrase "mathematical existence"?

[Chimp]

Nonsensical, as mathematical existence is not a set!

Please define exactly what you mean by an isomorphism of physical objects.

Sincerely,

Goliath



An isomorphism is a correspondence that is one to one and onto.

The set of all possible mathematical relations is a set called mathematical existence. And the physical universe is the set of physical relations. The definitions are logically consistent.


The links are relevant to the discussion, so what is the problem?



JB01 wrote:

Software (including, theoretically, human mental software) can be encoded anyway you like, including as a series (not a set) of numbers or as one big number. However until you have a machine that can interpret these numbers as instructions, and then actually execute the instructions in sequence (including the processing of unpredictable input), you don't have a brain/mind or anything else conscious. What machine (in your analogy) is running the "God" code? Why define God as the set of all possible codes, when the Vast majority of them are gibberish? Since I agree with your assertion that an infinite set is not necessarily an exhaustive one, how can I be sure that the set of all numbers, considered as software, contains something that has the properties you ascribe to God?


I am attempting to formulate and summarize a general argument, not write a Phd thesis...

It appears to be more than just a coincidence that mathematics is extremely effective in predicting events in physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences



The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, published by physicist Eugene Wigner in 1960, argues that the capacity of mathematics to successfully predict events in physics cannot be a coincidence, but must reflect some larger or deeper or simpler truth in both.

[ex-xian]

An isomorphism is a correspondence that is one to one and onto.

The set of all possible mathematical relations is a set called mathematical existence. And the physical universe is the set of physical relations. The definitions are logically consistent.
But it seems to me (and I've not thought a great deal about this) that the set of all mathematical relations would have at least transfinite cardinality of the reals and the set of all physical relations would have either finite or aleph-null cardinality. So any correspondence couldn't be 1-1 and onto.

[The Evil One]

Let X be the perfect nonambiguous "definition" of God. If X exists then the question of God's existence can be settled. If a perfectly nonambiguous definition for God exists then the assertion "God exists" can be proven to be true G, or proven to be false, not-G.

Not necessarily, as JB01 has pointed out. A precise definition is necessary to know what it is we're talking about in the first place, but it doesn't mean we can solve the question.



Let God be defined as the "Absolute" i.e. God is every possible type of infinity, an exhaustive collection. [God] = [every possible type of numerical combination] means that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Oh dearie dearie me, Chimp, and this is AFTER you recognise the need for a precise definition?

God is The Absolute - Absolute is an adjective not a noun. God is an absolute what?

"God is every possible type of infinity, and exhasutive collection / [God] = [every possible type of numerical combination]"

-- so now you're defining God as some kind of mathematical set??? I thought God was a powerful supernatural being? Hell, I'm willing to accept the existence of a set of abstract mathematical entities, but there's a massive difference between a set of abstract mathematical entities and a supernatural being.

[God] = [every possible type of numerical combination] means that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

This is truly bizarre even by your standards. How can a mathematical set be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent? How can it be present anywhere, given that it's only an abstract concept? How can it be conscious of anything, let alone omniscient? How can it do anything at all, let alone be omnipotent?



God is defined as every possible type type of infinity, the "Absolute", an exhaustive collection of every possible type of number. As you can see, this definition subsumes all definitions.

No I don't see. This definition is extremely incoherent, but assuming that you really mean that "God" is defined as "an exhaustive collection of every possible type of number", then a) what's the big deal if all we're talking about is a really big set of numbers? and b) how on earth do you get the idea that "this definition subsumes all definitions"?


God[the Absolute] exists as a mathematical abstraction, independent of the physical universe.

This is true but only because you have defined "God" as "a really big set of numbers". This is a long way from the usual definition.


If physical existence is a subset of mathematical existence, then physical existence is a subset of "God's" existence.

Hold on there. What exactly do you mean by "If physical existence is a subset of mathematical existence"? What is mathematical existence? In what sense exactly can existence occur in subsets?

All that remains to be proved is that mathematical existence = physical existence.

Which you can't do until you've clearly defined your terms.


If a set of abstract mathematical relations exist that correspond exactly to physical laws[observable existence] then God exists, since physical existence is a subset of God's existence.

You apparently don't understand what maths is.

Maths is a symbolic language created by us to describe the relationships that pertain among entities, spaces and so on in the universe.

Therefore, of course the laws of physics can be described mathematically. That's what we invented maths for in the first place. You can't conclude anything from the fact that the laws of physics can be described mathematically, just like you can't conclude anything from the fact that chairs are good for sitting on.

And given that you've defined "God" as "a really big set of numbers", your argument to prove that "a really big set of numbers" exists is kinda unnecessary. I'm willing to grant you that a really big set of numbers can exist. What you need to show, and what you haven't shown, is how a really big set of numbers is capable of being an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural creator of the universe.

Unless you can do this, I call Equivocation.

[Goliath]

An isomorphism is a correspondence that is one to one and onto.

What do you mean by "correspondence"? Do you mean a function? In that case, you have correctly defined what a bijection is, but not an isomorphism.



The set of all possible mathematical relations



The set of all relations? I don't believe that that is a set (since there is no such thing as "the set of all sets").



The definitions are logically consistent.



No, you have yet to show that your definitions make any sense whatsoever.



I am attempting to formulate and summarize a general argument, not write a Phd thesis...



You are attempting to argue mathematically that a god exists. Therefore you are to define your terms coherently (or state which terms are undefined and then build an axiomatic system over said undefined terms).

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

This is truly bizarre even by your standards. How can a mathematical set be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent? How can it be present anywhere, given that it's only an abstract concept? How can it be conscious of anything, let alone omniscient? How can it do anything at all, let alone be omnipotent?




You appear to be putting extreme limitations on the definitions of the "set" concept. The word "ALL" includes both dynamic and static relations comprising the totality of all that exists.

To say that God is the "Absolute Infinite" is how mathematician Georg Cantor defined the greatest[largest possible] set: Sometimes I read where the Absolute infinite is pronounced simply "The Absolute".


http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Absolute-Infinite


The Absolute Infinite is Georg Cantor's concept of an "infinity" that transcended the transfinite numbers. Cantor equated the Absolute Infinite with God.




Yes, mathematics is a language allowing a description, and a description is a timeless platonic entity existing independently of the physical universe, as well as within the noggins of carbon based units. Yes, that is a whole debate within itself.



A precise definition is necessary to know what it is we're talking about in the first place, but it doesn't mean we can solve the question.


I disagree. Others here at EoG, have stated that the whole problem with the God concept is its definition, now you say that a precise definition does not remove the ambiguity?

Interesting...


No I don't see. This definition is extremely incoherent, but assuming that you really mean that "God" is defined as "an exhaustive collection of every possible type of number", then a) what's the big deal if all we're talking about is a really big set of numbers? and b) how on earth do you get the idea that "this definition subsumes all definitions"?


[1.] All descriptions can be encoded by numbers.

[2.] The physical universe has a description

[3.] The description is isomorphic to the physical universe.

Yes, [3.] is a whole debate in itself.



Goliath ask me for a precise definition of "isomorphism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphic


Formally, an isomorphism is a bijective map f such that both f and its inverse f -1 are homomorphisms, i.e. structure-preserving mappings.


If there exists an isomorphism between two structures, we call the two structures isomorphic. Isomorphic structures are "the same" at a certain level of abstraction; ignoring the specific identities of the elements in the underlying sets and the names of the underlying relations, the two structures are identical.





The physical universe is isomorphic to a description, and a description is a language, mathematics.

[Goliath]

[1.] All descriptions can be encoded by numbers.



Unproven assertion.



Goliath ask me for a precise definition of "isomorphism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphic



Okay, let me rephrase: What is the precise definition of "isomorphism" as you are using it in this argument? Are you talking about an isomorphism of abelian groups? An isomorphism of rings? of modules? of vector spaces? What are you talking about?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[The Evil One]

You appear to be putting extreme limitations on the definitions of the "set" concept.

Odd, when I see the word "set" I think that it refers to a "group" or a "category". If you are using the word "set" to mean something other than "group" or "category", then please say what that is.

The word "ALL" includes both dynamic and static relations comprising the totality of all that exists.

To say that God is the "Absolute Infinite" is how mathematician Georg Cantor defined the greatest[largest possible] set: Sometimes I read where the Absolute infinite is pronounced simply "The Absolute".

Are you saying that God is the set of everything that exists? I really don't follow you. Please, please, define God. In small, easy words. Because every time I think I have a handle on what you mean when you say "God", you turn out to mean something completely different. It's getting wearisome.


Others here at EoG, have stated that the whole problem with the God concept is its definition, now you say that a precise definition does not remove the ambiguity?

*sigh* one major problem with the God concept is the fact that it is defined ambiguous. To have any hope at all of demonstrating the existence of anything labelled "God", one needs to define "God" clearly. But having defined "God" clearly does not guarantee that one will be able to determine whether or not any entitiy meeting the definition exists.

As JB01 said earlier: For example, I can define P as the eighth-largest planet orbiting the star in the Andromeda galaxy whose mass is closest to our own sun's. That's unambiguous, I think. Does P exist? We may never know, and we certainly aren't going to figure it out using nothing more than a few axioms and the tools of formal logic.

Now your latest pseudo-syllogism:

[1.] All descriptions can be encoded by numbers.

[2.] The physical universe has a description

[3.] The description is isomorphic to the physical universe.

[1] is true in the trivial sense that descriptions are artefacts in human languages, and as human language is digital, it can be represented by numbers. [2] is true in the trivial sense that it is theoretically possible (though in practice impossible) for there to be a description in some human symbolism of the entire universe. As for [3]... well... what reason do you have (if any) for supposing it to be true?


The physical universe is isomorphic to a description, and a description is a language, mathematics.

Uh oh. A description is expressed in a language. That's a very long way from a description being the same thing as a language.

[Chimp]

Okay, let me rephrase: What is the precise definition of "isomorphism" as you are using it in this argument? Are you talking about an isomorphism of abelian groups? An isomorphism of rings? of modules? of vector spaces? What are you talking about?

Sincerely,

Goliath

In group theory, a group following the "commutative laws" is an abelian group.

A number system in which addition, subtraction, and multiplication are always defined and the associative and distributive laws are valid, is known as a "ring".

If division[except by zero] can be carried out, one speaks of a "field".

Certainly, the laws of physics incorporate these structures, and others.

Modules are defined as a combination of an Abelian group and a ring.

A vector space over a field F is a left F-module.

Someone made the comment to the effect, that software requires some sort of information processor/hardware system to read/write the information.

Mathematical relations and functions are like machines that have input and output. Time can also be represented as a dimension via Minkowski space, so the universe becomes a frozen 4 dimensional block. So it can be a static set, also.



Odd, when I see the word "set" I think that it refers to a "group" or a "category". If you are using the word "set" to mean something other than "group" or "category", then please say what that is.


A set is a collection of entities, i.e. the elements or members of the set. Words like class, family, collection, aggregate, are interchangeable with the word "set".


Are you saying that God is the set of everything that exists? I really don't follow you. Please, please, define God. In small, easy words. Because every time I think I have a handle on what you mean when you say "God", you turn out to mean something completely different. It's getting wearisome.


Definition: God is the totality of all that exists, the ultimate factor .

Define total: Complete or comprising the whole.

Define totality: entirety; complete amount.



*sigh* one major problem with the God concept is the fact that it is defined ambiguous. To have any hope at all of demonstrating the existence of anything labelled "God", one needs to define "God" clearly. But having defined "God" clearly does not guarantee that one will be able to determine whether or not any entitiy meeting the definition exists.

As JB01 said earlier:

For example, I can define P as the eighth-largest planet orbiting the star in the Andromeda galaxy whose mass is closest to our own sun's. That's unambiguous, I think. Does P exist? We may never know, and we certainly aren't going to figure it out using nothing more than a few axioms and the tools of formal logic.


God is defined as the totality of all that exists and also the ultimate factor of everything that exists, not a small subset of existence, e.g. a planet.

You are confusing the definition of an anthropomorphic personal God that answers prayer and avenges the chosen people, with the definition of the God of order, exemplified by the correspondence of mathematics and the universe.



Now your latest pseudo-syllogism:


[1.] All descriptions can be encoded by numbers.

[2.] The physical universe has a description

[3.] The description is isomorphic to the physical universe.


[1] is true in the trivial sense that descriptions are artefacts in human languages, and as human language is digital, it can be represented by numbers. [2] is true in the trivial sense that it is theoretically possible (though in practice impossible) for there to be a description in some human symbolism of the entire universe. As for [3]... well... what reason do you have (if any) for supposing it to be true?



Material reality is composed of discrete units, and is simultaneously a continuous spacetime manifold,[continuous in the sense of being causally connected].

The law of conservation of energy is exact as far as anyone can tell. A mathematical relation that forms an exact correspondence WITH objective reality?



Uh oh. A description is expressed in a language. That's a very long way from a description being the same thing as a language.


Use the ol' noggin Evil One, a description that is also the greatest possible relation or set, must be self describing, self referential.

[The Evil One]

A set is a collection of entities, i.e. the elements or members of the set. Words like class, family, collection, aggregate, are interchangeable with the word "set".

Well see, that's what I thought. But you have defined God as being a set, and then you go on to say that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. How can a set be any of these things?

Definition: God is the totality of all that exists, the ultimate factor .

Define total: Complete or comprising the whole.

Define totality: entirety; complete amount.

God is everything that exists? You mean that "God" is a word for a collection fo entities including the universe and all the stuff in it? But see, no one would deny that [everything that exists] exists! It obviously does, by definition!

What's questionable is going from the fact that [everything that exists] exists to the notion that [everything that exists] is somehow comparable to an omniscient omnipotent being.

(oh and by the way, you were nearly at a precise definition when you stuck in an unclear phrase like "the ultimate factor").

You are confusing the definition of an anthropomorphic personal God that answers prayer and avenges the chosen people, with the definition of the God of order, exemplified by the correspondence of mathematics and the universe.

No I'm not: I know that you're not referring to the more anthropomorphic kind of God, I'm just struggling to work out what exactly it is you're referring to because you can't seem to define it. What I mean to say is that whenever you get down to a precise definition it's somethign like "God is a set of numbers" or "God is everything that exists" - and yet you have also said that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

If when you say "God exists", you mean "everything that exists, exists" - then I have no argument with you.

If when you say "God exists", you mean "a really big set of numbers exists" - then I have no argument with you.

If when you say "God exists", you mean "order exists" - then I have no argument with you.

If when you say "God exists", you mean "a possible description of the universe exists" - then I have no argument with you.

If when you say "God exists", you mean "a correspondance between maths and the universe exists" - then I have no argument with you.

Where I have an argument with you is when you take the existence of any of these mundane, everyday things and ascribe some kind of mystical significance to it - which is exactly what you are doing when you a) use terms like "God" or "the ultimate factor" to describe it and b) assert that this thing is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent.



Material reality is composed of discrete units, and is simultaneously a continuous spacetime manifold,[continuous in the sense of being causally connected]. The law of conservation of energy is exact as far as anyone can tell. A mathematical relation that forms an exact correspondence WITH objective reality?

This does not appear to relate to anything I said.


Use the ol' noggin Evil One, a description that is also the greatest possible relation or set, must be self describing, self referential.

How can a description be a set? How can a set be a relation? How can a description be a relation?

Honestly Chimp, the more you try to explain your position, the more confused I get about what it is you're actually claiming.

As far as I can see you believe that there's some Great Abstract Mathematical Thingy out there that somehow contains a description of the entire universe, and that this GAMT is God.

But as to the particulars of what you're actually arguing.... I dunno. I'm stumped. Maybe it's me being stupid. But I don't think so.

[Goliath]

In group theory, a group following the "commutative laws" is an abelian group.

A number system in which addition, subtraction, and multiplication are always defined and the associative and distributive laws are valid, is known as a "ring".

If division[except by zero] can be carried out, one speaks of a "field".

Certainly, the laws of physics incorporate these structures, and others.

Modules are defined as a combination of an Abelian group and a ring.

A vector space over a field F is a left F-module.


I know this! (even though some of your definitions are technically incorrect...) This is the end of my ninth year in college, and I have spent most of those nine years studying mathematics. Unlike you, if I didn't know what something meant, I wouldn't act as though I did!

Furthermore, your "answer" does NOT answer the question that I asked! Read the question!



A set is a collection of entities, i.e. the elements or members of the set. Words like class, family, collection, aggregate, are interchangeable with the word "set".



Informally, yes (however, set is technically an undefined term in ZF set theory). However, you still have not coherently defined which set you're using for your god argument!




Definition: God is the totality of all that exists, the ultimate factor .



What do you mean by "totality"? What is "the ultimate factor"? Why can't you make any sense at all?



Define total: Complete or comprising the whole.



The whole of what?!



Define totality: entirety; complete amount.



Complete amount of what?!




God is defined as the totality of all that exists and also the ultimate factor of everything that exists, not a small subset of existence, e.g. a planet.



So your god is a planet, all of a sudden? Are you having a stroke?



Use the ol' noggin Evil One, a description that is also the greatest possible relation or set, must be self describing, self referential.

What do you mean by "greatest" in your quote above?

[Adrian Selby]

God is every possible type of infinity

How can God be infinitely good and infinitely evil?
Infinitely marshmallowy and infinitely steely?

How can there be boundary-less good and boundary-less evil with the same referent? Surely by having to have a referent we are delineating, or otherwise saying that something is such that there is something that the is, is not?

[Darth Dane]

How can God be infinitely good and infinitely evil?
Infinitely marshmallowy and infinitely steely?

How can there be boundary-less good and boundary-less evil with the same referent? Surely by having to have a referent we are delineating, or otherwise saying that something is such that there is something that the is, is not?


What... like ice, water, gas and ....?

[Chimp]

But you have defined God as being a set, and then you go on to say that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. How can a set be any of these things?

A set is a collection of entities and the identity of the set is defined by its members[entities]. The identity distributes over its elements. For example the set of natural numbers has a type of identity, "natural number". Sets are subsets of larger sets and the larger set has a distributive identity that distributes over its contents.

So the distributive identity forms a relation.

The set of all dogs has the identity of "dogness" and that set is contained by the set of mammals which has the identity of "mammalness".


Finally we reach the highest most inclusive set/container/relation, the "set of all that exists". The "G"[God] identity distributes over the whole shebang.

G[sum of all that exists]


G[a+b+c+...+n] = Ga + Gb + Gc +...+Gn

G[God] is the greatest common factor. Take any two "things" that exist and see what is different and factor out the common elements, and begin to
break the common factors down to the most basic ones. Take two pieces of matter, for example, apples and oranges, at a more basic level they are just forms of energy. Take energy and spacetime and discover that they are mutually dependent in a fundamental way, related by a common factor. Keep going until the most basic factor is derived/discovered, G.




God is everything that exists? You mean that "God" is a word for a collection fo entities including the universe and all the stuff in it? But see, no one would deny that [everything that exists] exists! It obviously does, by definition!

What's questionable is going from the fact that [everything that exists] exists to the notion that [everything that exists] is somehow comparable to an omniscient omnipotent being.

(oh and by the way, you were nearly at a precise definition when you stuck in an unclear phrase like "the ultimate factor").


From the "G" factor, all possible information about the universe can be derived. Every possible universe that follows from the "G" principle is equivalent to an infinite amount of information. Therefore God is omniscient.

From the first principle, the "G" factor, everything exists, since it is the greatest common factor. Without the most fundamental identity, nothing could exist. Therefore God is omnipotent.

The G factor distributes over the sum of all that exists. Therefore G is omnipresent.

Since there is only one greatest common factor. God is a monic entity.

A definition that agrees with monotheism? ;)




How can a description be a set? How can a set be a relation? How can a description be a relation?


See above.


So your god is a planet, all of a sudden? Are you having a stroke?


Is this a type of logical fallacy? Berate and belittle the other person until they concede?

You obviously misunderstand. God is more than the individual parts of existence. God is more than just a chunk of matter floating in space.


know this! (even though some of your definitions are technically incorrect...) This is the end of my ninth year in college, and I have spent most of those nine years studying mathematics. Unlike you, if I didn't know what something meant, I wouldn't act as though I did!


I respect the fact that you have attended college for several years. Please stick to the facts and stop making accusations. If my facts are wrong then it is a simple matter of giving a correct counter-example, with no need for slanderous invective.


How can God be infinitely good and infinitely evil?
Infinitely marshmallowy and infinitely steely?

How can there be boundary-less good and boundary-less evil with the same referent? Surely by having to have a referent we are delineating, or otherwise saying that something is such that there is something that the is, is not?


Obviously a difference from equilibrium exists, or else nothing could exist.

[The Evil One]

A set is a collection of entities and the identity of the set is defined by its members[entities]. [...]

This part of your post seems reasonable enough. You are basically saying that God is the set of everything - the set that captures everyhting there is.

You are referign to what I would call "the set of stuff" as "G" or "God". Fine. But you've not yet shown that this set is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.

From the "G" factor, all possible information about the universe can be derived. Every possible universe that follows from the "G" principle is equivalent to an infinite amount of information. Therefore God is omniscient.

OK, there's a problem here. Actually two problems.

1) G has been defined as the set of all stuff that exists, including matter, energy, time and space. So how exactly do you conclude from that the G factor contains any information at all? Much less all the information in the universe. In fact, it seems to me that since the set G is the set of stuff, the information in the G factor consists of just one word: "stuff".

2) "Omniscient" does not mean "contains all the information there is". If it did, then we could accurately say that the universe is omniscient. "Omniscient" is an adjective used of a mind and means "is aware of all the knowledge that there is". Even if your G factor does contain all the information there is, that doesn't make it conscious (and consciousness is prerequisite for omniniscience). And your the G factor is simply the unifying factor of all entities within the set of all the stuff that exists, so it is difficult to see how it could be conscious. Sets, and the factors that unify their members, are not conscious.

From the first principle, the "G" factor, everything exists, since it is the greatest common factor. Without the most fundamental identity, nothing could exist. Therefore God is omnipotent.

1) "Omnipotent" is an adjective applied to an agent meaning "capable of doing anything". So even if you are correct that your G factor is a prerequisite for everything that exists, it does not follow from that that it is an agent capable of doing anything. As already explained, it is a set, and sets are not usually agents at all, let alone agents capable of doing anything.

2) You are not correct that your G factor is a prerequisite for stuff to exist. It is the other way around: since you have defined "G" as the set of stuff that exists, G is contingent upon the existence of some stuff, not necessary for the existence of some stuff.

In other words, it is not the case that the existence of set G makes it possible for stuff to exist. Rather, it is the fact that some stuff exists that makes the set of G possible.

The G factor distributes over the sum of all that exists. Therefore G is omnipresent.

G is a set, Chimp. You have defined it as a set. Sets aren't omnipresent. Sets aren't present anywhere. They're abstractions. True, since you have defined "G" as the set of all stuff, including space, wherever one is, one is in a piece of space which is one of the members of the G set. But it is not self-evident that that is the same thing.

Since there is only one greatest common factor. God is a monic entity. A definition that agrees with monotheism?

You seem to be having great problems with the notion of "greatest common factor". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it, but I'm fairly sure it's not what a GCF is in maths.

In summary, Chimp, I am unconvinced by your attempts to show that the set of all stuff, which is how you have chosen to define God (or G or whatever), can be omniscient (or even aware at all), or omnipotent (or even an agent at all), or omnipresent (or even present anywhere at all).

[Chimp]

In summary, Chimp, I am unconvinced by your attempts to show that the set of all stuff, which is how you have chosen to define God (or G or whatever), can be omniscient (or even aware at all), or omnipotent (or even an agent at all), or omnipresent (or even present anywhere at all).

Thanks for the help Evil One.

At a more basic level of existence everything is the same. That is the G factor in a nutshell. A common attribute for everything. A logical necessity.

[Adrian Selby]

Hi Darth, could you elaborate on your response? I guess I was arguing about properties that were mutually exclusive, is it the case that the idea of mutual exclusivity of properties doesn't apply to God?

The universe is not entirely evil, therefore it cannot be infinitely evil. I'd like to know where I'm going wrong with respect to Chimp's position :)

Chimp, your response regarding equilibrium, how does that address the above?

(I'm an ignorant layman with regard to the maths in this thread btw)

[JB01]

At a more basic level of existence everything is the same. That is the G factor in a nutshell. A common attribute for everything. A logical necessity.

Are you trying to translate mysticism into mathematical language? That's just not going to work. Mysticism relies on vagueness and ambiguity. Mathematics requires rigorous precision.

What everything in this world, of all possible worlds, has in common at a "basic level" is that it is made of mass/energy and occupies spacetime. I don't think it has been demonstrated either that this is a logical necessity or that it implies the existence of an entity with godlike attributes.

[Kryten]

The problem with the God concept appears to be defining exactly what "God" or god, ...is.


Terms like greater than, more than, and transcendent, have unclear meanings with reference to actual existence. How is value defined for physical "objective" reality?

Some say that "absolute truth" does not exist.

Interesting...

The statement "God exists[is real] or God does not exist" would appear to be an absolute truth!

To say that God actually exists, i.e. God is real, means that God exists as a conception and in the observable universe. Hopefully it[the term 'actually exists'] is clear.

God actually exists or God does not actually exist is an absolute truth, therefore absolute truth does ...exist.

If absolute truth did not exist then God would both actually exist and not-exist,therefore God would actually exist. Absolute truth must exist, in order to invalidate the God concept?

Absolute truth is a perfect nonambiguous truth.

By definition, God is an absolute truth.

If absolute truth exists, God exists.

If absolute truth does not exist, God exists.

Therefore God exists.

I think this fails due to the argument being based entirely on assumptions.
I think one needs to remember that when one assumes, one makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

[Goliath]

A set is a collection of entities and the identity of the set is defined by its members[entities].


This is nonsensical. What is the identity of the following set?

{banana, camel, red}



The identity distributes over its elements.



This is nonsensical, as you have yet to define how to "add" elements of sets!



Finally we reach the highest most inclusive set/container/relation, the "set of all that exists".



The set of all WHAT that exists!?

This is your problem: you have no idea what you're talking about. You have yet to coherently define a single term that you're using!



G[sum of all that exists]



This is ridiculous!! HOW do you add camel and panel?



G[a+b+c+...+n] = Ga + Gb + Gc +...+Gn



This is nonsensical, as you have not defined what "+" means.



G[God] is the greatest common factor.



Greatest common factor OF WHAT?!



Take any two "things" that exist and see what is different and factor out the common elements,



Not everything is a set! This is nonsensical!



Is this a type of logical fallacy? Berate and belittle the other person until they concede?



If that is what I was doing, you might have something that resembles a point. However, I have done, and am doing, nothing more than attempting to figure out what you're talking about!



You obviously misunderstand.



Impossible, as I have yet to understand a single thing that you have said!



God is more than the individual parts of existence.



What are "individual parts of existence"?



Please stick to the facts and stop making accusations.



The only accusation that I've made--and one that you've agreed with--is that you have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about.



If my facts are wrong



This is vacuously true, as you have yet to present a single fact in support of your god argument.



Obviously a difference from equilibrium exists,



Equilibrium OF WHAT?!

Sincerely,

Goliath