FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
Does Math prove God's Existence and Nature?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:14 am    Post subject: Does Math prove God's Existence and Nature?  Reply with quote

The text below was in another thread, but it seemed to have application here as well. Mathematically, if relativity exists, then the absolute exists. One should argue therefore that there is a spiritual counterpart. If finity exists, an Absolute Creator of it also exists. Inanimacy does not create animacy, but animacy creates animacy and inanimacy.

No set can contain itself, but can only be contained within a larger set than itself, or a set which is of the same size as itself: this is the first rule of math, and really of genetics as well (the offspring can be no greater than the parents, even if "parents" is many generations back).

So if infinite regression or progression, an infinite STASIS must likewise exist. If -1, then 0. If 0, then +1. It becomes, mathematically speaking, a HUPOSTASIS, "hupo" meaning "under", and "stasis" meaning "standing", so you get the understanding of one thing standing under another thing: union of opposites, with the result that a full spectrum is 'held together' by the larger stasis.

This means that the infinite progression or regression can keep on going, as the stasis IS a stasis, 'holding' it. Kinda like your body is moving inside, all those ribosomes and other activity, yet your outer body looks the same (pretend for the sake of this example that your outer body didn't age).

Logically, this would have to mean that the infinite progression and regression are 'under' the Stasis of ALL AT ONCE. Again, this all-at-onceness would have to be Living, Conscious, else where does our own livingness and consciousness come from?

Notice that science doesn't have to touch "God" issues to evaluate all this, and cannot, since a STASIS of infinity would be wholly undetectable by any physical instruments. The ultimate existence would have to be immaterial and absolute, personal and alive. Science would never be able to detect that. However, again from the oppositeness we can measure materially, its opposite of infinite static Live Immateriality, is 'reflected' so to speak.

Notice you didn't need even one holy book to figure all that out. Very Happy

So: if "God" and if "Satan", could they be wholly independent beings? I'd argue the math says yes, because each 'dot' within a whole is itself independent. But the pre-existing thing would be Truth, the whole SET, which of course would include bad truth (a subset).

Again, mathematically, Truth cannot hang together as a whole set, if incomplete or self-contradicting. And if the ultimate set must be Living and Conscious (again, because animacy must beget inanimacy, it can't be the other way around), then "Truth" would have to be an attribute of "God".

So if Truth and personhood exist, then God exists as the largest set which cannot be contained, and is the Ultimate Container of all.

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:05 am    Post subject: Re: Does Math prove God's Existence and Nature? Reply with quote

brainout wrote:
The text below was in another thread, but it seemed to have application here as well. Mathematically, if relativity exists, then the absolute exists.


Why? Things can merely be relative to each other rather than any absolute existing. In fact, that's what relativity actually sometimes points to.

2. something having, or standing in, some relation to something else.
3. something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to absolute).


brainout wrote:

One should argue therefore that there is a spiritual counterpart. If finity exists, an Absolute Creator of it also exists.


That's not "absolutely" true (pun intended). Laughing

brainout wrote:

Inanimacy does not create animacy, but animacy creates animacy and inanimacy.

No set can contain itself, but can only be contained within a larger set than itself, or a set which is of the same size as itself:


What you really meant to say is that for something to be considered a member of a set, then it must be contained within a larger set. But that's not really true either. A set can have one element. So something can be a set and it's lone element as well.


brainout wrote:

this is the first rule of math, and really of genetics as well (the offspring can be no greater than the parents, even if "parents" is many generations back).


Maybe you may be using the wrong word when you say "greater". In object oriented computer programming, you have what are called parent classes and child classes. A child class inherits all of the features and capabilities of the parent class, but also has additional features added to it. You have a parent class called "car" which consists of doors, an engine, and wheels. Then, you take the parent class and create a child class that inherits the parent class and adds additional features such as color.

brainout wrote:

So if infinite regression or progression, an infinite STASIS must likewise exist.


I understand where you get infinite regression from, but where do you get infinite progression from? While there may be a demand that all physical things have a cause (infinite regression of cause), but there is nothing that demands that physical things continue on infinitely. Only a none caused entity would have the demand of continuing on infinitely. Remember, everlasting is a concept that is easy for the conceptualizing mind to understand, but no beginning is impossible to understand.


brainout wrote:

If -1, then 0. If 0, then +1.


Yes, if -1. But how did you arbitrarily insert -1? And remember, -1 merely comes from subtraction. There is no such thing as a negative value, it is only used to reduce positive values. There is only 0 or 1 in actuality. Existence or non existence.

brainout wrote:

It becomes, mathematically speaking, a HUPOSTASIS, "hupo" meaning "under", and "stasis" meaning "standing", so you get the understanding of one thing standing under another thing: union of opposites, with the result that a full spectrum is 'held together' by the larger stasis.

This means that the infinite progression or regression can keep on going, as the stasis IS a stasis, 'holding' it. Kinda like your body is moving inside, all those ribosomes and other activity, yet your outer body looks the same (pretend for the sake of this example that your outer body didn't age).


Aside from aging, the body is always changing. It is always renewing itself. It is always in flux. Sure we call it the body, but it is never one concrete, frozen thing, we just give it a frozen name of "the body". We give a name to Niagara Falls, but that is constantly and seamlessly in flux. And if you capture a moment of it, then it is no longer Niagara Falls but is instead a frozen snapshot of it. You can't take some water from Niagara falls and put it into a bucket and claim you have given someone a piece of Niagara Falls. Once it stops moving, it is no longer Niagara Falls.

brainout wrote:

Logically, this would have to mean that the infinite progression and regression are 'under' the Stasis of ALL AT ONCE. Again, this all-at-onceness would have to be Living, Conscious, else where does our own livingness and consciousness come from?

Notice that science doesn't have to touch "God" issues to evaluate all this, and cannot, since a STASIS of infinity would be wholly undetectable by any physical instruments. The ultimate existence would have to be immaterial and absolute, personal and alive. Science would never be able to detect that. However, again from the oppositeness we can measure materially, its opposite of infinite static Live Immateriality, is 'reflected' so to speak.

Notice you didn't need even one holy book to figure all that out. Very Happy

So: if "God" and if "Satan", could they be wholly independent beings? I'd argue the math says yes, because each 'dot' within a whole is itself independent. But the pre-existing thing would be Truth, the whole SET, which of course would include bad truth (a subset).


The dot only becomes independent when we designate a point. But in truth, a line is seamless. And these dots are only designated for measurement. They are our arbitrary creation. Time itself is completely seamless. We only cut it up into units so that we can have helpful measurements, but in realty those units don't actually exist. There is no such thing as nanoseconds. Consider a fake rolex which ticks one second at a time. That is fragmented time. Then, consider a real rolex which moves in a smooth seamless motion. That is REAL time. And then, after all, time itself doesn't really even exist. Time is a concept we invent that is created by motion. We use time to measure motion. Physicists would obviously argue with me, but they can never answer the following question. If nothing moved in the universe, and I mean nothing, not even bacteria that causes decay or even our brain cells responsible for perceiving time, then could there be time? I say no. Time kicks in the moment there is motion. You can call it "change" if you would like, but change also cannot happen without motion.

brainout wrote:

Again, mathematically, Truth cannot hang together as a whole set, if incomplete or self-contradicting. And if the ultimate set must be Living and Conscious (again, because animacy must beget inanimacy, it can't be the other way around), then "Truth" would have to be an attribute of "God".


By animacy, do you merely mean movement or do you mean something more? Because if you merely mean movement, then everything is animated. Even a rock isn't 100% static and reacts with the surrounding air to a tiny degree.

brainout wrote:

So if Truth and personhood exist, then God exists as the largest set which cannot be contained, and is the Ultimate Container of all.


God cannot be a created entity, and, at the same time, be the creator of all things. That's simply logic.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Always_Faithful
New Member
New Member


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 11



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must say that, though they still don't stand up to scrutiny, the arguments shown are the most intellegent ones there are out there for God. These are the only ones I don't cringe when I read, the usual "logic" used to prove God is infandous.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Always_Faithful wrote:
I must say that, though they still don't stand up to scrutiny, the arguments shown are the most intellegent ones there are out there for God. These are the only ones I don't cringe when I read, the usual "logic" used to prove God is infandous.


So what exactly is wrong with my angle that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Please be specific. Nobody ever is when I say these things, they just kind of brush it off as "can't be", but they never go into detail as to why. Believe it or not, I actually love when my theories are challenged. That doesn't mean I'll agree with the challenge, but if I do, then that's growth, which is something that anybody of any philosophy should desire.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Always_Faithful
New Member
New Member


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 11



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
So what exactly is wrong with my angle that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Please be specific. Nobody ever is when I say these things, they just kind of brush it off as "can't be", but they never go into detail as to why. Believe it or not, I actually love when my theories are challenged. That doesn't mean I'll agree with the challenge, but if I do, then that's growth, which is something that anybody of any philosophy should desire.


You're angle? I'm on your side!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Always_Faithful wrote:
Mutley wrote:
So what exactly is wrong with my angle that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Please be specific. Nobody ever is when I say these things, they just kind of brush it off as "can't be", but they never go into detail as to why. Believe it or not, I actually love when my theories are challenged. That doesn't mean I'll agree with the challenge, but if I do, then that's growth, which is something that anybody of any philosophy should desire.


You're angle? I'm on your side!


Oh, I thought you meant all posts. As far as sides go, I try not to look at it that way. It's all a discussion and everybody wins.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok:  INFINITY must be a hupostasis in order for it to keep on existing.  A perpetual existence is inherent in the term "infinity", a property of infiniteness.  Greek "hupo" means "under", and "stasis" means "standing"; so something lesser standing under something greater makes for our understanding of infinity, heh. Idea

Hence the hupostais of INFINITY must be
a) static, but also
b) constantly increasing.


So that's a hupostasis, with a) subsuming b).  So the a) is the largest attribute set.  Notice that means a) must be of the exact OPPOSITE nature, to b).  The b) set is beyond finiteness yet of it, in that there is a beginning, an increasing (the endings all being characteristic of each item within the set, rather than being characteristic of the set itself).  However, for the a) to 'hold' b), the a) would have to be of a nature which never expands nor contracts.  Some might say, another 'dimension' of beingness, existence, nature.  Whatever you call it, the expansion characteristic of b) is opposite the nature of a).

That means a) is wholly immaterial, of infinite quality, with quantity not even an issue.  Permeating all finiteness, for lack of a better verb.

Hence for the stability of Infinity to exist, it must be paradoxical in nature:  something constantly increasing, which is always less than the STASIS which 'holds' that constantly-increasing set.

The next attribute which MUST be present in the a) stasis, is personhood.  It cannot be impersonal, for we are persons.  As persons, we are attributively SUBSETS of some whole, which likewise has to be Personal.  All the begotten must have a begetter, else genetics is a lie, and so is all math, lol.

So you have a) a Personal Stasis containing all the finitenesses, which we only call "infinity" because the progression/regression never ceases.  In reality, this progression/regression is just the FUNCTION of finity, which due to it being 'inside' (as it were) the Personal Stasis, it can indeed KEEP going on.

So notice:  a) doesn't need b) to exist, but b) needs a) to exist.  Math itself is a great example of this, for all the math formulas still exist, even if there is no data on which the formulas would operate.  Principle is immaterial in nature, invisible, yet still true.  The existence of any data, or the empirical observation of the operation of the 'formulas' for such principles would not but partly reflect the larger unseen whole, since the data itself is but partial and partly perceived.

So a) doesn't 'need' b).  Hence if we call "a)" by the name "God", then if b) exists, it's not to feed a)'s existence, ego, etc. in any way.  Math doesn't need you to approve it.  Go against the laws of math and you harm yourself, things, others.  If I drink Drano I'll probably die or get very sick, but the Drano isn't at fault, my not listening to its warning is the fault.  {"Drano" is a powdered lye mixture sold in the United States to unclog household plumbing.  If you ate or drank it, the lye would burn you and you would likely die.}

Now, obviously "God" would be a good name for this Personal Stasis a) set.  What God, whose god, etc. would have to be worked out from there.  Obviously this "God" would have to make sense, given that a Personal Stasis which remains, would require Infinite Integrity.

Going further, this same Personal Stasis must possess certain Personal Characteristics, to hang together and also hold all finity which is constantly at odds with itself.  A starting list of salient Characteristics would be:  
  • Sovereignty
  • Omnipotence
  • Omnipresence
  • Omniscience
  • Veracity/Truth (being truthful, as well as being the holder of all truth)
  • Justice
  • Love
  • Righteousness
  • Eternal Life (qualitatively infinite, not merely everlasting and without beginning)
 If you take away any of those characteristics, the stasis falls apart.  Notice that Sovereignty would always mean the ABILITY and even right, to change.   But being Omniscient and Omnipotent, this Person would never WANT to change. (Calvinists are forever boxing God into some prison of His Own Attributes, and thereby demonstrate they regard Him as less than Sovereign, how ironic.)

Again, all this is before you even talk about any faith or holy book.  Of course, religion is completely sterile, since religion is really about people PUTTING things in the name of God in order to control other people, like Satan did in Genesis 3.

But here, we're just looking at the logic of whether God exists and how you can know that, totally apart from faith matters.  It's AFTER you realize that even math demonstrates there must be a God, that you begin the second leg of the journey, finding out 'who' God(s) might be.

But mathematically there must BE "God".  Math is the only science which can handle the unseen.  All other sciences are dependent on finite materiality for their testing and conclusions.  That's why I adopted the mathematical approach here. Idea

A few extra things are immediately apparent.  The "Number of Persons" who could qualify as "God" is unrestricted.  Because, the fundamental thing about the a) set, is its qualitative Infinity.  So there is no requirement that "God" be One Person, and in fact you can quickly see that God must be AT LEAST Three, for "Justice" to operate.

  • If only One Person, then Justice can't be produced, since the first Person to whom Justice would be owed, would be that Person, else Integrity is broken.  For if Sovereign, then Free.  If Free, then Truth would be free to be good or bad.  So not One Person, else there is no a) at all.  Next,
  • If only Two Persons, then freedom to disagree is compromised, since if both disagree, there is no resolution of harmony, so then neither of the Two are actually free.  Hence,
  • at least Three Co-Infinite Persons must have a) Attributes, in which case free disagreement can be mediated and resolved.  
  • More importantly, only if Three can a b) set even exist, for if b) will exist it must be free also, which would mean that it must be free to be bad, too.  Forever.  Freedom isn't freedom the second it is truncated.  
  • So notice:  whatever a) is, there must be at least Three Persons, each of a) quality.  That's not polytheism, because these Three must be Equal, or Justice is structurally dependent, rather than independent.  If structurally dependent, freedom is compromised, thus truth is compromised, for truth cannot be truth if not free.
 Freedom to act or not act is a USAGE of Sovereignty.  Freedom to refrain is a USAGE of Sovereignty.  So one can use his free will to do something bad, but if he instead refrains, he's still just as free;  whereas, doing something harmful would restrict future freedom, since truth must be free to have free consequences.  Thus often you'll hear people say "God cannot sin."  That is not true.  Instead, "God WILL NOT sin", due to what He knows and likes, wants, etc.  You wouldn't drink Drano, given what you know about it.  So that's the analogy.

Finally, you know for sure that "Perfection" is a dynamic within a Stasis, with a Sovereign Will ruling and holding the many conflicting finitenesses together.  Full-spectrum existence would require this.  For if Free, then free to be bad and have ongoing bad consequences;  but, EACH 'dot' of bad must be RESOLVED, else there is no justice.  So bad must be simultaneously allowed to be what it is, yet its very existence must, FROM OUTSIDE ITSELF, be resolved.  This, an a) set of attributes can continuously create. Thus the bad is free to go on being bad, yet every 'dot' of it will have an 'answer' BEYOND its own nature which makes so much good come from it, that the bad thing CAN be allowed to exist at all, and indeed go on living until it self-destructs or whatever it becomes.  That means the Person(s) in the a) set are constantly acting on the b) set, and that is a stasis as well (the continuity of acting on).  A constant willingness, a constant resolution.

This concept of Perfection is not what we humans think:  we think it's only perfect if it is nice.  Not so.  It's only perfect if it comes full circle and the RESOLUTION of the existences produces Just Results.  Infinitely.

Thus from math alone and the logic which naturally flows from it, you can discern not only that God exists, but must be comprised of at least Three Persons who all have a) quality Attributes.

From there, who these Gods are, well.. that's a topic for another thread.  Pity we all don't think these things out and instead just beat each other up, over one sect's ideas versus another.  I shudder to think of all the blood that's been spilled over one group being offended at another group's definition of "God".  Surely God was not in any of that, only ego.


_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Always_Faithful wrote:
I must say that, though they still don't stand up to scrutiny, the arguments shown are the most intellegent ones there are out there for God. These are the only ones I don't cringe when I read, the usual "logic" used to prove God is infandous.


No one asked you to elaborate on your text which I bolded; so I will.  I tried to explain the initial topic content more in my last post, so maybe you'll want to use it for your reply?  Sorry I couldn't be here much during December.  I'll also be gone most of the week until the end of the year.  I do a lot of tax-related work at this time of year, sorry.  Here in America we need to spend spend spend so we can get our deductions off taxes in by December 31.

I really enjoy reading what you write, so am looking forward to your reply.  Be as blunt as you like, if that's okay with you.

Thanks in advance!


_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page 1 of 1
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum