What is God?

[granpa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number

 

[ebia]

Aleph-null is actually aleph-zero (in German zero and null are the same word, but not in English, so calling it null is very misleading).

Since I can't write an aleph or subscribe a digit I'm writing it as pronounced - which at least where I did my degree was aleph null.

Aleph numbers are closely related to powers, for example 2 to the power of aleph-zero equals aleph-one: And in general . So increasing aleph numbers are very much like increasing powers.

2^aleph-0 = c, but whether c = aleph-1 depends on the set theory one is using and is undecidable.

The point remains that Georg Cantor, the founder of Set Theory, stipulated that the process of constructing symbols to describe larger and larger infinities is itself an infinite process, thus logically, the set of all things, Absolute Infinity, must be larger than any infinity that can be constructed with symbols.

Clear proof of a Creator who is much larger than the visible universe. It is a subject that really gets atheists very emotional and angry.

That's far to vague.

 

[GodsGirlToday61]

Buy the book, Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed. I've never read a more well-reasoned, inspiring, sound explanation. It is not an easy read--and anyone looking for an 'easy answer' is not, to my mind, a serious seeker, i.e. is not really looking to understand The Triune God (Father as Origin, Son as Word Made Flesh, Holy Spirit as Comforter: Three Persons with One Nature).

I read from this book regularly--need to today, actually, because I bring my 'mind' to loving God from my finite creaturely self (Love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength--not just one of these areas), so reading and reflecting upon then praying and rereading a solid book of theology has helped deepen my commitment to doing the best I can and 'being' the most I can as a member of Christ's body:

Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed

~ Carolyn

 

[SkyWriting]

What is God?

This is not a trick question, and is only my way of trying to get information.

I am a secular person wishing to appreciate how believers understand God. Honestly, I'm not looking for a debate or anything like that; and I'm not looking to be converted, either.

I would just really like to hear how believers answer this not-so-simple question.

Thanks.

Karl

Then the scientific answer is best.

We don't see material appearing out of nothing. Correct?
Yet science says that in the beginning was nothing. (Scripture agrees)
So, if something did come from nothing, then science says that
the source was not "natural". (Scriptures agrees)

And the God of the scriptures claims to not be natural.
So God is that thing that can create something from nothing.
Natural science can't do it.
God claims to have created life.
Natural Science can't do it.

 

[Fascinated With God]

2^aleph-0 = c, but whether c = aleph-1 depends on the set theory one is using and is undecidable.

So what is your point? Are you attempting to deny that aleph one is greater than aleph zero?

That's far to vague.

Naturally you would think so since you are doing everything you can think of to evade Cantor's definition of Absolute Infinity.

Both the predominately atheistic mathematicians and the clergy of Cantor's day agreed that you are completely wrong. The mathematicians of his day turned their backs on him and completely ignored him until long after his death simply because of his definition of Absolute Infinity. It so easily lends itself to belief in an unfathomably vast God that they couldn't stand it. The clergy of every stripe on the other hand gleefully extoled Cantor's theories from pulpits across Europe.

There is a reason why this idea drives atheists mad, and you aren't seeing it.

 

[ebia]

So what is your point? Are you attempting to deny that aleph one is greater than aleph zero?

No. That the relation between the two is more nuanced than you suggest.
Aleph-1 is greater than aleph-0 by definition. , but whether or not not it is c is undecidable.

Naturally you would think so since you are doing everything you can think of to evade Cantor's definition of Absolute Infinity.

I'm not trying to do anything except point out where half understood mathematics is being misused.

Pretty much the first thing one learns about transfinite cardinal numbers is NOT to treat them intuitively - the mathematics must be absolutely rigourous or its almost certainly wrong.

 

[chilehed]

What is God? ...I would just really like to hear how believers answer this not-so-simple question.

It's easier to understand what God is not. But you can't go wrong with St. Thomas Acquinas.

 

[GodsGirlToday61]

Frank Sheed, an evangelical Catholic did a purty good job, IMO, with the Triune God in the book, Theology for Beginners:

Not simple, nope, but God will reveal what He knows we need if we approach Him humbly and wait for his time-table Revelations.

~ Carolyn

 

[Fascinated With God]

No. That the relation between the two is more nuanced than you suggest.
Aleph-1 is greater than aleph-0 by definition. , but whether or not not it is c is undecidable.

I'm not trying to do anything except point out where half understood mathematics is being misused.

Pretty much the first thing one learns about transfinite cardinal numbers is NOT to treat them intuitively - the mathematics must be absolutely rigourous or its almost certainly wrong.

So once again, can you make a point that actually nullifies Cantor's notion of Absolute Infinity in any manner? If you acknowledge that increasing aleph numbers are larger then it sounds like you can't.

The way I describe it is the way Cantor described it with the only version of set theory that existed in his day. The fact that set theory is more nuanced today is not relevant to the subject unless that nuance in some way nullified Cantor's definition of Absolute Infinity. If increasing aleph numbers describe larger and larger infinities then an extremely elementary analog to Cantor's argument can be made just as easily in even the strangest of modern twists on set theory.

 

[ebia]

So once again, can you make a point that actually nullifies Cantor's notion of Absolute Infinity in any manner? If you acknowledge that increasing aleph numbers are larger then it sounds like you can't.

The way I describe it is the way Cantor described it with the only version of set theory that existed in his day. The fact that set theory is more nuanced today is not relevant to the subject unless that nuance in some way nullified Cantor's definition of Absolute Infinity. If increasing aleph numbers describe larger and larger infinities then an extremely elementary analog to Cantor's argument can be made just as easily in even the strangest of modern twists on set theory.

"Analogs" are not appropriate when one is dealing with something as counter-intuitive and need of very careful mathematical rigour as transfinite cardinals.

What is essential is serious, careful, mathematical rigour.

 

[Fascinated With God]

So you still can't address the principle topic, all you can do is evade the topic and split hairs over minutia. That is not rigor in logic, that is nothing more than polemics.

You are a classic case example of a dupe to the subtly atheistic undertones that still resonate in science that get these people so riled up. You are doing nothing put playing into the hands of the anti-scientific crowd by being such a dupe.

 

[Evexchange]

In the late Pr. S.M Lockeridge's words

"He's the king of Kings and Lord of Lords. He’s the centrepiece of civilization.He stands alone in Himself. He’s unparalleled. He’s unprecedented. He’s supreme. He’s pre-eminent. He’s the loftiest idea in literature. He’s the highest personality in philosophy
He’s the supreme problem in higher criticism. He’s the fundamental doctrine in true theology. He’s the cardinal necessity of spiritual religion

I wish I could describe Him to you. He’s indescribable. He’s indescribable. He’s incomprehensible. He’s invincible. He’s irresistible. You can’t get Him out of your mind. You can’t get Him off of your hands. You can’t outlive Him and you can’t live without Him......"

I could go on and on and on and on
HE'S INDESCRIBABLE

 

[ebia]

So you still can't address the principle topic, all you can do is evade the topic and split hairs over minutia. That is not rigor in logic, that is nothing more than polemics.

You are a classic case example of a dupe to the subtly atheistic undertones that still resonate in science that get these people so riled up. You are doing nothing put playing into the hands of the anti-scientific crowd by being such a dupe.

Meaningless rhetoric.

If you want to make an argument from mathematics your mathematics must be rigorous. What has been posted so far hasn't even been correct, let alone rigorous.

 

[Fascinated With God]

It is Cantor's argument as he made it. Why do you feel such an urge to attack Cantor's argument for the existence of God?

Do you really believe in God? If so, then why do you feel so compelled to try and discredit Cantor's argument for the existence of God?

This is not rhetoric, you are doing nothing but proving the Creationists right about the atheistic bias to science. Outside of biology atheism is no longer a majority view, but you wouldn't know that looking at your posts.

 

[ebia]

It is Cantor's argument as he made it.

what is where?
the posts ive adddressed have been snippets of dubiously understood stuff in (apparently) the posters' own words

if you really want to follow Cantor's argument through you need the mathematical background to be able to critically examine it - the stuff posted so far indicates that's not the case. then you'd have to rigorously work through the detailed argument.

Not just string together a few vague inaccurate sentences about transfinite numbers.

"I'm just following Cantor's argument" without that isn't an argument from mathematics, its an appeal to the (fallacy) of the argument from authority.

Why do you feel such an urge to attack Cantor's argument for the existence of God?

Do you really believe in God? If so, then why do you feel so compelled to try and discredit Cantor's argument for the existence of God?

The quality of any argument depends on the quality of the argument, not whether one agrees with the conclusion.
I believe in YHWH. That doesn't make every philosophic argument a good argument, and poor arguments should be addressed as such.

The other issue with most philosophic arguments in general is, of course, that they have nothing to say about what sort of "god" they are proving. They define "god" as an impersonal abstract and prove that; a "god" to suit, at best, a deist.

This is not rhetoric, you are doing nothing but proving the Creationists right about the atheistic bias to science. Outside of biology atheism is no longer a majority view,

are you sure about that? Biology is where the extreme is, certainly.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Your argument is nothing but pure polemics. In order to knock down Cantor's very simple definition of Absolute Infinity you would have to be able to demonstrate that there is in fact a largest infinity that can be constructed with symbols. Without that all you can do is cast oblique dispersion on Cantor. You would think that as a mathematician you would have some modicum of respect for Cantor's argument for the existence of God.

All you are doing is proving the Creationists argument that science is an atheistic ideology.

So if Cantor was so wrong, then what is the maximum infinity that can be constructed with symbols?

 

[ebia]

Your argument is nothing but pure polemics. In order to knock down Cantor's very simple definition of Absolute Infinity you would have to...[ /QUOTE]
Examine the whole argument.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I have and you have abjectly failed to demonstrate that there is a largest infinity, and thus you have failed to making any argument that meaningfully contradicts Cantor's definition of Absolute Infinity.

The only thing you have accomplished is playing into the hands of the anti-scientific crowd and convincing them that they are correct that science is an atheistic ideology.

 

[ebia]

I have and you have abjectly failed to demonstrate that there is a largest infinity, and thus you have failed to making any argument that meaningfully contradicts Cantor's definition of Absolute Infinity.

I haven't tried. What I have said is that if you want to present a mathematical argument you need to present a rigorous mathematical argument, not a few random inaccurate bits of maths and an appeal to authority.

The only thing you have accomplished is playing into the hands of the anti-scientific crowd and convincing them that they are correct that science is an atheistic ideology.

I've no idea what you think that means

 

[Fascinated With God]

I haven't tried. What I have said is that if you want to present a mathematical argument you need to present a rigorous mathematical argument, not a few random inaccurate bits of maths and an appeal to authority.

All you can do is evade the topic. You have yet to directly address the topic of Absolute Infinity. Your purely polemic arguments are nothing but condescending rhetoric. You appear to have no comprehension of Cantor's argument.

I'm done trying to have a meaningful conversation with you on this topic. You are just not capable of such a feat.

I've no idea what you think that means

That is because you lack common sense. Only a very confused person would play into your opponents negative stereotypes of you.