Agnosticism

[Bunga]

Being agnostic, I always try to keep an open mind about god. A few days ago, I came across a new (for me) interpretation of Russel's Paradox that more or less proved the existance of God.

Not just that, but actually proved the existance of the Biblical God (not just some supreme force, the actual god described in the bible).

In short, it says that:

a) Given a number series that extends infinitly
b) Given a finite number of sets
c) Infinity is the largest most comprehensive "amount" possible

There must be for every one of the finite sets, another set which is similar but also includes one more real number [ a) + b) ]. This means that we for any given number of sets, have an infinate number of similar sets.

If anything can be added to a set if sets it is not infinite [ c) ]. Therefore, given the infinite number of sets in [ a) + b) ], the "Biblical God" must be included in it.

...
Now I find myself knowing that our number series extends infinitly. I know that we have at least a finite number of sets in the world around me (the set of all chairs, the set of all people...). I also believe in c).

But the conclusion... offends me is the wrong term, but I cannot make myself agree with it.
Can someone help me refute this?

[queball]

Firstly, numbers don't exist, only representations of them. The Christian God already exists plenty of times in the representated world, books etc, but is unlikely to exist in the real world. The argument "the universe is infinite so everything that can exist must" doesn't hold water - for example "a device that killed you a year ago" doesn't exist, hopefully.

Originally posted by queball
Firstly, numbers don't exist, only representations of them. The Christian God already exists plenty of times in the representated world, books etc, but is unlikely to exist in the real world. The argument "the universe is infinite so everything that can exist must" doesn't hold water - for example "a device that killed you a year ago" doesn't exist, hopefully.

The amount possibilities in an infinite universe is infinate. The existence of god is is a possibility and one of those possibilities can be that God exists

Or something

[Bunga]

Certainly this either assumes, or provdes evidence for the exsistance of, an infinite number of parallels (for lack of a better word), where different resolutions of probability wavefunctions took place, where these things which I can see don't exist, exist.

There the things like "device which killed me a year ago" exist. But entities like "god" must really span this manifold in order to be god anyway...

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga
Certainly this either assumes, or provdes evidence for the exsistance of, an infinite number of parallels (for lack of a better word), where different resolutions of probability wavefunctions took place, where these things which I can see don't exist, exist.

There the things like "device which killed me a year ago" exist. But entities like "god" must really span this manifold in order to be god anyway...

- There are things that cannot exist at all. A four-sided shape with exactly three sides cannot exist, by definition.
- When we talk about whether the Christian God exists or not we mean if he exists or not in the real world. If he exists in another Sliders-esque "dimension" is unimportant; he might as well exist only in a story described in a book.
- Even if this universe was infinitely big, I believe there are properties of this reality ("laws of physics") that put limits on what exist. Something can only exist if it can exist physically, so saying that something exists in reality means that it "obeys" these rules. If you believe that any entity you can describe is possible, and that there are an infinite number of such entities, then surely a Christian God does exist. But omnipotence is pretty hard to get right; I could understand "first-order" omnipotence where you can do any action that does not refer to yourself, but that's about it. Otherwise you get the create-a-doughnut-so-big-you-can't-eat-it problem.

[Nusselt]

without switching my brain above idle, cant you use the same argument to say that a biblical god doesnt exist (i.e. in an infinte set)

[Bunga]

On the Sliders analogy, the "god" wouldn't just exist in that "dimension". Then he wouldn't be "god"... "he" would have to span the entire stretch of Everything, unless he does that he's not omnipotent.

But you are basically arguing that premise c) is limited to what the laws of physics allow, and that omnipotency is not included there? ... that would rule out the "biblical god". But... it doesn't work for all variations of "god" though, since the laws of physics are a function of time since the creation of the universe: they were different 10^-47 seconds after the Big Bang than what they are now, and will arguably be different both during the heat death or the Big Crunch. If any god did initiate this universe, he would have to have done so before the current laws of physics became applicable; and would have had freedom of action without worrying about Laws of Conservations and entropy.

[queball]

Originally posted by queball
If you believe that any entity you can describe is possible, and that there are an infinite number of such entities, then surely a Christian God does exist.

Woops. This is wrong. It should say "If you believe that any entity you can describe is possible, and that all such entities exist, then surely a Christian God does"

[Nusselt]

so without overloading my dangerously over heated brain, you're bascially saying that in an infinte set, anything is possible, so a god is possible.

Then is there an infinte set??? (ie is an infinte set only a concept)

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga
On the Sliders analogy, the "god" wouldn't just exist in that "dimension". Then he wouldn't be "god"... "he" would have to span the entire stretch of Everything, unless he does that he's not omnipotent.

But you are basically arguing that premise c) is limited to what the laws of physics allow, and that omnipotency is not included there? ... that would rule out the "biblical god". But... it doesn't work for all variations of "god" though, since the laws of physics are a function of time since the creation of the universe: they were different 10^-47 seconds after the Big Bang than what they are now, and will arguably be different both during the heat death or the Big Crunch. If any god did initiate this universe, he would have to have done so before the current laws of physics became applicable; and would have had freedom of action without worrying about Laws of Conservations and entropy.

Argh, that's not quite what I meant by the laws of physics. I mean we exist as part of the universe, and not as some entity with described powers living on top of the universe. I have no idea what the actual machanisms are.

And I'm not arguing against (c), I'm arguing that a God can exist in a description. For example you can convert the text in the Bible into a long number, and that number can be represented, and the same representation can be used to represent God, but that doesn't mean God exists.

[Nusselt]

so god exists in Pi, fat lot of fcking good it does him, the cnut.

[queball]

Your argument tried to prove God is real by saying he must exist in the union of the set of real things and the set of numbers, and he is not a number, so he must be real. The counterargument is that the set of things that exist has limits. You could equally say God must exist in the union of the set of odd numbers and the set of even numbers, and God is not an even number, so he must be an odd number.
Something like that.

[Mong]

Originally posted by queball
Woops. This is wrong. It should say "If you believe that any entity you can describe is possible, and that all such entities exist, then surely a Christian God does"

In that case even Apophis and Thor exist.

Just because something is *possible* it doesn't mean that in our universe, it has/will happen.

Somebody mentioned a "Kill You Last Year Device". It's *possible* (maybe) but I doubt such an exist currently exists!

And we DO NOT have an infiite number of possibilties. We have a HUGE number of possibilities governed by the laws of the universe.

Finally, I'd like to remind people that for eons, scientists and philosophers have used their skills to "prove" the existence of their chosen beliefs. It's interesting you mention Russell. He would never have wanted his Paradox to be used to prove/disprove a religious belief.

M.

[Mong]

Originally posted by queball
For example you can convert the text in the Bible into a long number, and that number can be represented, and the same representation can be used to represent God, but that doesn't mean God exists.

I just converted "I have millions of pounds of gold buried under my house which is just waiting for me to discover it".

Nice

M.

[Kumnaa]

God dosent exist, its as simple as that. People should stop making ridiculous statements that they claim proves God exists.

[Gayle29uk]

Using the same logic, Yahweh, Indra, Taaroa et al must exist and are all 'The Boss' so to speak. It kinda falls down then.

[edit]Goddamn it Mong, you were quicker than me on that one [/edit]

[Bunga]

I'm fairly certain Galileo would never have wanted people to fly to the moon either, but humans are humans and constantly build on and refine what people in the past have done.

And we might well have an infinite number of possibilities. So long as either time or space is continuous rather than discrete, any given uranium aton could decay at an infinite number of different times.
Or all the air molecules around my body could suddenly push me one foot to the left. Or half a foot.

And I have less of a problem with Apothis or Thor existing that any normal god, since they are not omnipotent, merely very powerful. I don't believe in the argument, but I cannot find any counter-argument which I cannot easily refute or find a paradox in. But in the end, it all depends on the starting premises. If spacetime is discrete, if there are various physical laws we don't understand yet, then the entire agument is kinda pointless. But I want to find a counter-argument that holds water without extensive study in the universe; a simple thought experiment that can disprove it, if you will.

[Nusselt]

well ok if the laws are continous throughout the universe, and are 'incoded' or whatever into a series of numbers, it doesnt mean that you can apply the logic backwards. ie take an infinte series and apply it back 'into' the universe to say a god exists.

[Bunga]

We can certainly assume that the laws are constant throughout the universe in space; but definatly not in time.

In Planck time after the Big Bang, one could find magnetic monopoles. Good luck with that nowadays.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Bunga
We can certainly assume that the laws are constant throughout the universe in space.

Proof please

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Bunga
We can certainly assume that the laws are constant throughout the universe in space; but definatly not in time.

In Planck time after the Big Bang, one could find magnetic monopoles. Good luck with that nowadays.

ok ok fine in planck time after the universe god existed, then the cnut got trapped in Pi and e, and he wont be able to get out unless the universe collapses, or someone manages to create a singularity without a black hole. If i know what im onabout which i probably dont.

[CjC]

I've always thought that the question is wrong.

Not "Does God Exist?" but "Can God Exist?"

If you can prove the second Q then you could then say "If God can exist did he exist?" and from there "Does God exist now?"

Dont ask me how you can prove that God can exist.

As for the numbers thing - I can only say one thing, the minute you start putting human concepts into a philosophical question (ie numbers) you then define limitations to the question - which means you are only thinking within limitations of being human. If God was human - this might work. We are under the assumption he isnt. [edit - ok that last bit confuses me too ]

[Bunga]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
Proof please

Originally posted by Bunga
assume

But if you want better proof... try here

Since the background radiation is the same no matter which direction we look (with changes due to time factored in), the laws governing the decay of it must be the same.

"god(s)" does not excist.
its just something desperate sad people made up to feel less alone in this world,and to give their phatetic lives meaning, but guess what: when you die, you body decompose, bugs etc eat it. then your spouse will move on,shag other people, your name will slip from everyones mind,and in the end : YOU NEVER EXCISTED!.

hhahahahaha

[Chantalaz]

hmm
you might want to look more into medieval philosophy
they give similair proofs of the existence of god

but mind you, the 'biblical god' is a interpretation of today, in medieval times it was a different god, the interpretation of god differs from time to time.

Religion in medieval ages was very rational and it was focused on how us humans could go back to god.

Also, it strikes me that people havent noticed why they dotn agree with eachother.

you all base your reasoning on different assumptions.

for one time and space are constant and always teh same
others still need proof of it.


i admit not reading the entire thread, cause most thinsg aren't well enough explained, and as i said before your assumptions differ.

Id advice you all to read more philosophical books, read through kant for space and time. Hilary Putman is good too, thomas nagel,
and when you come upon god and religion read a summary of medieval philosophy.

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga
But I want to find a counter-argument that holds water without extensive study in the universe; a simple thought experiment that can disprove it, if you will.

I believe that very page you linked actually has the most straightforward way to disprove it. Just because a set can be represented does not mean it is a valid set logically: "The set of all sets that don't contain themself." isn't a valid set. Now, even if you take the logical contradicitions out of a definition of a Christian God, there is no reason to think he is a valid member of the set of things that are real.

"If anything can be added to a set if sets it is not infinite [ c) ]. Therefore, given the infinite number of sets in [ a) + b) ], the "Biblical God" must be included in it." is fallous, a type error if you like. As I said before, if you assume that all possible entities that can be described can or do* exist in the real world, then you have already got your answer.

* Things which exists do exist, things which don't exist can't exist, so I get these terms mixed up a bit.

Kumnaa: this paradox inspired type theory, on which modern computer science is based, IIRC.
Also, Mong's gods > Gayle's gods.

[Bunga]

Thats the point: I am looking for an argument that holds no matter what assumptions one makes: discrete or continuous spacetime, physical continuity with respect to physical laws, wether parallel universes exist or not.

All of my arguments are based on these assumption, and so are everyone elses. The actual paradox transcends that, which is the problem.

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga
Thats the point: I am looking for an argument that holds no matter what assumptions one makes: discrete or continuous spacetime, physical continuity with respect to physical laws, wether parallel universes exist or not.

All of my arguments are based on these assumption, and so are everyone elses. The actual paradox transcends that, which is the problem.

No.
You are assuming that God can exist, and using this to prove that God exists.

[Chantalaz]

God is known at the ultimate Good from where we receive knowledge that enables us to distinguish good or better from evil or bad.
God can also be seen as the Mover, is our universe is constantly moving or expanding whatever...then what caused it? Clearly that what moved everything else, was unmoved to begin with
(other wise we end up in total regressions and say it was movement all teh way down..known as one of the 3 ways of de Fries).

people also believe in god because we are limited and mortal.
still we think about things that aren't limited. What gives us the idea's we cant achieve by our own nature.
there must be something that is almighty that gives us that idea
(augustinus)

Leibniz (one of my fav) proves that god in his ultimate goodness and omnipotence created the best possible world for us.


( i study philosophy before ppl say i should shut the **** up, i'm just too damn lazy to educate ppl. and reading philsophy is different from working with philosopical text and see flaws in it. Ask Discorporation how annoying I can be)

[Bunga]

queball: true.

But even if we remove the invalid sets from the equation, we still have an infinite number of sets.

Note that the original finite sets are all sets of things which do exist. So does the infinite number sequence; it exists. From there, we have an infintite number of sets which do exist; all of which I could point to you given time.

But are you saying that everything doesn't follow from infinity?

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga
queball: true.

But even if we remove the invalid sets from the equation, we still have an infinite number of sets.

Note that the original finite sets are all sets of things which do exist. So does the infinite number sequence; it exists. From there, we have an infintite number of sets which do exist; all of which I could point to you given time.

But are you saying that everything doesn't follow from infinity?

Yes. Your infinite number series doesn't make my even numbers odd, or my circles square.

I'm saying the simple counterargument is to say we don't know whether God can exist or not, since it is equivalent to whether God does exist or not. Note this is completely different from whether God is provable or not.

(1) I am a good philosopher, so I won't assume God can't exist.
(2) Therefore, God can exist.
(3) If God didn't exist, he couldn't exist. This contradicts (2), so God must exist.

Also, your original argument depends on the Axiom of Choice, which is unprovable.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Bunga
<snip>

The fact that the inverse square law appears to be consistent (Boynton and Partridge provided the best evidence according to Prof Wilson's lecture (yes I actually read it)) doesn't mean our entire physics is validated. Making too much pie from too little pumpkin is a vice scientists should leave to the theologists

[Bunga]

Very true. There is a very large probability that most of our physics is incomplete, even wrong. It is possible that the laws of physics are different in Andromeda tha´n here in the Milky Way.

But the fact that Andromeda has stars with the same spectral lines, gas clouds the same size, similar angula momentum, and exerts gravitational pull on us is evidence that they are the same. Simple ythat we receieve light from there means that it is similar: that it is suffieciently similar for "light" to havemeaning there. But I cannot prove that the laws of physics are identical there and here. I can prove they are similar, probably identical.

queball:

3) and 2) don't contradict each other. 3) is limited to "if god doesn't exist". Therefore it cannot affect 2) "god can exist".

Thats like saying "on thursday its thursday, but that isn't true on wednsdays"

Axioms don't have to be provable: thats why they are axioms... we have to assume that they are true to even have this argument. Its like arguing maths without Euclids Axioms.

[Chantalaz]

what logic is that??

read Forbes, introduction into modern logic pages 30 till 120

and construct a better example of reasoning

1) A-> ~~B (you dont get a dubble negation in the first line)
2) B
3)~C-> ~B
4)contradiction
5)D

you mix up can and must exist, whcih are 2 diff things
you skip so many many premisses
you formulate thinsg in such a way, it gets rather complex

you trick ppl!

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga
Very true. There is a very large probability that most of our physics is incomplete, even wrong. It is possible that the laws of physics are different in Andromeda tha´n here in the Milky Way.

But the fact that Andromeda has stars with the same spectral lines, gas clouds the same size, similar angula momentum, and exerts gravitational pull on us is evidence that they are the same. Simple ythat we receieve light from there means that it is similar: that it is suffieciently similar for "light" to havemeaning there. But I cannot prove that the laws of physics are identical there and here. I can prove they are similar, probably identical.

g=-Gm1m2/r^2 right? So which dark matter theory are you into?

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga

queball:

3) and 2) don't contradict each other. 3) is limited to "if god doesn't exist". Therefore it cannot affect 2) "god can exist".

Thats like saying "on thursday its thursday, but that isn't true on wednsdays"

No, the fallacy is step 2.
God doesn't exist implies God can't exist
God can exist, therefore God does exist.
In propositional logic:
P is "God doesn't exist", Q is "God can't exist"
P -> Q
~Q => ~P, m.t.

[Chantalaz]

Bunga, you are right

to us its seems like the laws here and there are the same. Simply because we constructed the laws, and we see thinsg following those laws. But since we cant escape our way of thinking we cant compare it to other laws and points of view

If we had gods point of view (omnipotent and all knowing etc etc etc) we could decide whether we are close to knowing the Thruth ( and thus whether Andromeda follows the same rules or not) or not.

[Bunga]

But you have already said that "God can exist, therefore God does exist" is faulty, unless we agree on the validity of the original statement. Thats circular reasoning.

Originally posted by Bunga
But you have already said that "God can exist, therefore God does exist" is faulty, unless we agree on the validity of the original statement. Thats circular reasoning.

The possibility of God existing is present. therefore we cannot deny the existence of God

[Event_Horizon]

Originally posted by Bunga
Very true. There is a very large probability that most of our physics is incomplete, even wrong. It is possible that the laws of physics are different in Andromeda tha´n here in the Milky Way.

But the fact that Andromeda has stars with the same spectral lines, gas clouds the same size, similar angula momentum, and exerts gravitational pull on us is evidence that they are the same. Simple ythat we receieve light from there means that it is similar: that it is suffieciently similar for "light" to havemeaning there. But I cannot prove that the laws of physics are identical there and here. I can prove they are similar, probably identical.

queball:

3) and 2) don't contradict each other. 3) is limited to "if god doesn't exist". Therefore it cannot affect 2) "god can exist".

Thats like saying "on thursday its thursday, but that isn't true on wednsdays"

Axioms don't have to be provable: thats why they are axioms... we have to assume that they are true to even have this argument. Its like arguing maths without Euclids Axioms.

Ahh but what if there were galaxies that might only be as big as a molecule to us but instead to other organisms was HUGE. If this galaxy didnt obey one of our senses; taste, touch, smell, hear, or sight than we wouldn't know if it exists or not. There could be things all over this earth that dont fall into one of our five senses and therefore we are oblivous to them.

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga

Axioms don't have to be provable: thats why they are axioms... we have to assume that they are true to even have this argument. Its like arguing maths without Euclids Axioms.

If you are interested in this sort of stuff, you should read up on the Axiom of Choice on mathworld or something. It's not anything like Euclid's, and assuming it leads to a few strange results.

[Bunga]

Alright, but in this argument we have sort of taken from granted that "exists" implies "can affect the physical world in some direct way", like I can lift a chair.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Bunga
But I cannot prove that the laws of physics are identical there and here. I can prove they are similar, probably identical.

Think smaller, think black holes, think dark matter, now demonstrate to me one iota of evidence that the normal laws of physics apply to them. If they are exceptions then it follows logically that there are other exceptions and out 'laws' are merely guidelines at best

[Chantalaz]

Originally posted by Bunga
But you have already said that "God can exist, therefore God does exist" is faulty, unless we agree on the validity of the original statement. Thats circular reasoning.

god can exist, therefore god does exist
depends on what your vision of god, if make the assumption she is omnipotent.
then if there is a possibility, it will be fulfilled

and if sometihng is possible, it doesn't say it is brought into creations.

we can imagine a brain in a vat saying: i'm a brain in a vat, but that doesn't mean he has any idea what a brain in a vat is.
cause a brain in a vat has no real contact with a world outside it, and thus doesn't share our notion of brains, and vats.

so we can have an idea of infinite numbers, and possibility, but its hard to prove were right cause we dont have a gods point of view.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by Bunga
On the Sliders analogy, the "god" wouldn't just exist in that "dimension". Then he wouldn't be "god"... "he" would have to span the entire stretch of Everything, unless he does that he's not omnipotent.

No. Unless he does that he's not omnipresent.

[Bunga]

Originally posted by queball
If you are interested in this sort of stuff, you should read up on the Axiom of Choice on mathworld or something. It's not anything like Euclid's, and assuming it leads to a few strange results.

"The Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated about a century ago, and it was controversial for a few of decades after that; it may be considered the last great controversy of mathematics. It is now a basic assumption used in many parts of mathematics. In fact, assuming AC is equivalent to assuming any of these principles (and many others): "

And I don't see how the Axiom of Choice (this is the first time I've heard of it actually it seems interesting...) could not be proved. It seems a simple case of reductio ad absurdum, are you sure its unproven?

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga
But you have already said that "God can exist, therefore God does exist" is faulty, unless we agree on the validity of the original statement. Thats circular reasoning.

Where did I say that?
To assume that God can exist, and therefore that it is impossible to prove logically he cannot, is faulty. Not my modus tollens.

[meglamaniac]

Logic is a dangerous thing, especially when you're dealing with True/False questions.
The problem with trying to prove existance of God by logic is that the 'evidence' is a series of unknowns. We don't know if the universe is infinite or not, we don't know if God exists or not, etc etc - and the hitch comes from the fact that it is logically possible to prove ANYTHING by implication if you don't know the starting facts. The statement " -> True" is valid. The statement " -> False" is also valid.

Yes numbers are infinate, because they are an abstract concept thought up by us - you can make things what you want them to be.
Whether infinity is a 'natural' state or just the ramblings of mathematicians is pretty much unprovable.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally posted by meglamaniac
Logic is a dangerous thing, especially when you're dealing with True/False questions.
The problem with trying to prove existance of God by logic is that the 'evidence' is a series of unknowns. We don't know if the universe is infinite or not, we don't know if God exists or not, etc etc - and the hitch comes from the fact that it is logically possible to prove ANYTHING by implication if you don't know the starting facts. The statement " -> True" is valid. The statement " -> False" is also valid.

Yes numbers are infinate, because they are an abstract concept thought up by us - you can make things what you want them to be.
Whether infinity is a 'natural' state or just the ramblings of mathematicians is pretty much unprovable.

Agreed.

[queball]

Originally posted by Bunga

And I don't see how the Axiom of Choice (this is the first time I've heard of it actually it seems interesting...) could not be proved. It seems a simple case of reductio ad absurdum, are you sure its unproven?

I believe it is proven that it cannot be proven (is distinct) from the rest of set theory, and that it doesn't contradict with non-constructivist maths.

megla: you just repeated my very first reply