A question to theists . . . . . . .

[Straybow]

Bo1, I already gave the counter-examples of infinities that are both identified and defined. You can look up the definitions for yourself.

Infinity - unboundedness.

inclusion - (set theory), the binary relation of one set being a subset of another.

What is not a subset of unboundedness?

Again, I've already given examples. Integers are infinite, yet do not include all reals. The unboundedness of integers is only one characteristic. The defining characteristic excludes an infinity of reals. Unbounded, yet exclusive.

Could you give the measure of singularity?

Yes. A singularity is, by definition, "undefined." Don't complain to me, I didn't invent the mathematical terminology. Whatever; it is not infinite.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by BeBro
I say a really omnipotent being would be above logic. Otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent.

So, either God is above logic, or God isn't really omnipotent. Unfortunately, you can't even formulate that assertion without logic, and therefore you've subjected this hypothetical God to the logic to which He is presumed unbound...

[Flip McWho]

Let's see: "God is all encompasing" vs "it's not my assertion." So you assert that God is all encompassing, then claim you don't... maybe a grammer problem, or something?

No you misunderstand, it was a proposition I was attempting to defend but it was not an assertion I held. Then again I think I misunderstood the intent of your use of the word assertion.

Not true at all. Scientology is demonstrably false. The "e-meter" is a meaningless gimmick at best, or outright fraudulent at worst.

You ignored my use of the phrase within themselves. Given the particular assumptions about reality that scientology makes then scientology makes sense. Just like christianity, which is based on a particular set of assumptions, one being the resurrection of Christ for example, given the particular set of assumptions Christianity then makes sense.

The only difference between scientology and christianity is that Christianity is much more plausible than scientology.

Except that historically the Christian religion has been a mix 'n' match of OT and NT, which doesn't work too well. Most criticisms of Christianity come down to the same mixture.

That's true, I don't disagree with that. I'd even hazard to think that thats an important division between the various branches of Christianity, how they reconcile the OT with the NT.

[Flip McWho]

So, either God is above logic, or God isn't really omnipotent. Unfortunately, you can't even formulate that assertion without logic, and therefore you've subjected this hypothetical God to the logic to which He is presumed unbound...

If God is untouched by logic then how can we come to know God?

[Jon Miller]

By experience. By studying His Word.

JM

[Flip McWho]

Can you clarify experience for me please?

[Jon Miller]

(Note that I am not maintaining that God is untouched by logic.. not sure on that myself.. just saying that there are others ways to know God)

Experience through prayer, meditation, worship, etc.

Religious feelings, thoughts, states of mind, etc.

Jon Miller

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Straybow
So, either God is above logic, or God isn't really omnipotent. Unfortunately, you can't even formulate that assertion without logic, and therefore you've subjected this hypothetical God to the logic to which He is presumed unbound...

Not at all, and certainly not in the case it would really be an omnipotent being. That I use logic to make a certain point has nothing to do with his characteristics. Not my reasoning about him makes him omnipotent or not omnipotent.

[Flip McWho]

(Note that I am not maintaining that God is untouched by logic.. not sure on that myself.. just saying that there are others ways to know God)

Experience through prayer, meditation, worship, etc.

Religious feelings, thoughts, states of mind, etc.

Thanks.

Would I be right in saying that aren't the ways somebody is supposed to worship, prayer and/or meditate to know God dictated by the religion and so guided towards knowing this particular God described already through the Scriptures?
So kinda not coming to know God but reinforcing a particular image of God already constructed.

[Jon Miller]

Err, I Think that it might be truly experiental in nature. That you can't understand it without being there, as it were.

And of course it is dependent on the god you follow.. otherwise you are getting to know a different god (perhaps).

Also, I have found that it is something that can be forgotten/put out of your mind.

This is the only way I can understand people quiting being religious (if once they truly were).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I think that the obvious result of looking at everything from a logical frame of mind.. is to follow agnosticism.

To beleive in a god, and in particular to follow God, takes more.

JM

[beingofone]

Flip McWho:

Are you not also making an assumption that consciousness is energy, afterall it cannot be empricially proven.

I am indeed; it is just a stepping stone.

In other words; it is used to demonstrate the idea that if consciousness has its source in the brain, it is inherent energy. Since energy is eternal in its essence (thermodynamics, E=MC2) therefore; consciousness is eternal in essence.

Once this stepping stone has been reached - consciousness becomes Spirit or the ineffible because it transcends energy by manipulating it. It has will/intent with design/purpose and therefore; God is reality.

Logic requires absolute honesty. The reason why most cannot 'know' God is they are not ethical enough to take logic to its ultimate conclusion. If you take logic all the way you end up where Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus were.

Jesus demonstrated absolute mastery of consciousness.

I think the key to the Kingdom is forgiveness, that is what Jesus was a master of.


Straybow:

Bo1, I already gave the counter-examples of infinities that are both identified and defined. You can look up the definitions for yourself.

So I take it you cannot define the infinite then?

Again, I've already given examples. Integers are infinite, yet do not include all reals. The unboundedness of integers is only one characteristic. The defining characteristic excludes an infinity of reals. Unbounded, yet exclusive.

So; because there are infinite integers beyond measurement it is what again? A concept, right?

Let me see if I understand you; because we can imagine an infinite amount of integers, it excludes reality from being infinite?

How does that make sense?

BO1: Could you give the measure of singularity?

Straybow: Yes. A singularity is, by definition, "undefined." Don't complain to me, I didn't invent the mathematical terminology. Whatever; it is not infinite.

I notice you skipped right over the question of zero.

Singularity

As far as that goes, zero and singularity are the same thing - the undefined.

I could find math sources that say a singularity is infinite.

So I have no clue what you are talking about at all.

Mathematical singularity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability. See singularity theory for general discussion of the geometric theory, which only covers some aspects.

For example, the function

f(x)=\frac{1}{x}

on the real line has a singularity at x = 0, where it seems to "explode" to 屰 and is not defined. The function g(x) = |x| (see absolute value) also has a singularity at x = 0, since it isn't differentiable there. Similarly, the graph defined by y2 = x also has a singularity at (0,0), this time because it has a "corner" (vertical tangent) at that point.

Jon Miller - I appreciate you very much

[Bill3000]

In other words; it is used to demonstrate the idea that if consciousness has its source in the brain, it is inherent energy. Since energy is eternal in its essence (thermodynamics, E=MC2) therefore; consciousness is eternal in essence.

That does not follow. Mass is a form of energy, yet it is not eternal - it is not conserved in the simplest of collisions, relativistically. Same with electrical energy, other various potentials, as well as kinetic energy and the like. If conciousness was a form of energy, then it could be transformed into other energies, and therefore is not eternal, especially if you consider the second law of thermodynamics. Energy as a whole may be eternal, as it is a quantity that must be conserved because of the symmetry of the laws of nature, but not individual forms of energy.

As far as that goes, zero and singularity are the same thing - the undefined.

Incorrect. Zero is quite well defined in set theory.

In set theory, the number zero is the cardinality of the empty set: if one does not have any apples, then one has zero apples. In fact, in certain axiomatic developments of mathematics from set theory, zero is defined to be the empty set. When this is done, the empty set is the Von Neumann cardinal assignment for a set with no elements, which is the empty set. The cardinality function, applied to the empty set, returns the empty set as a value, thereby assigning it zero elements.

[beingofone]

Bill3000:

That does not follow. Mass is a form of energy, yet it is not eternal - it is not conserved in the simplest of collisions, relativistically.

If you strike a match, what does it become? If you say it is no longer relative to a match; I agree.

What does it eventually return to?

Was something destroyed by the striking if the match?

Collision reshapes matter and its energy equivalent, including atomic.

Same with electrical energy, other various potentials, as well as kinetic energy and the like.

Electricity meets resistance - it then performs the intended work or function through transformation, it is not annhialated.

Same with kinetic - just because it sets in motion cause and effect (or is in the continuum of) does not mean it is vacuum.

Our identification of the essential energy changes, not the essence itself.

If conciousness was a form of energy, then it could be transformed into other energies, and therefore is not eternal, especially if you consider the second law of thermodynamics.

If it transforms into another form of energy, it therefore; manipulates the field of energy with will/intent with design/purpose.

It is then the territory and not just a map.

So if it is not energy then? It impacts energy and manipulates the field.

It is then the territory and not just a map.

I am glad we agree; it does indeed transcend energy and therefore; will/intent with design/purpose to manipulate the field of energy.

Ergo; hello God.

Energy as a whole may be eternal, as it is a quantity that must be conserved because of the symmetry of the laws of nature, but not individual forms of energy.

Individual forms of energy are parts of the whole. Any part is not the whole, it is contained in the totality.

To apply great emphasis on a limitation and to believe that limitation cannot be transcended; that is to not realize the very act of setting a limit implies it has already been transcended.

You cannot have a limit without it being transcended, that is not logically possible.

Because a drop of water does not think and does not feel - its limited state of identification is not a limitation for it.

If a drop of water is acted on by heat it transcends itself into steam, it does not limit itself to only what it cannot be.

Incorrect. Zero is quite well defined in set theory.

In set theory, the number zero is the cardinality of the empty set:

How many empty sets are there?

There is a set such that no set is a member of it.

We can use the axiom of extensionality to show that there is only one such set. Since it is unique we can name it. It is called the empty set

-- Wiki

So if there is only one 'empty set' - how many of them are there?

In mathematics and more specifically set theory, the empty set is the unique set which contains no elements. In axiomatic set theory it is postulated to exist by the axiom of empty set and all finite sets are constructed from it.

This infinite set of necessity is in union with the empty set, it does not contain an empty set.

[Straybow]

In axiomatic set theory it is postulated to exist by the axiom of empty set and all finite sets are constructed from it.

Hmmm, Wikipedia... This is a lousy explanation. The last "it" is too ambiguous. Are all finite sets are constructed from "the axiom of the empty set" or from "the empty set" in this description? The difference is significant. The first means that a set either contains something or it doesn't. I'm not sure what to make of the second.

This infinite set of necessity is in union with the empty set, it does not contain an empty set.

If there were any way to make sense of that statement I can't find it.

So if there is only one 'empty set' - how many of them are there?

Oh, wait a minute, now I've made sense of your statement. Garbage in, garbage out. There is, by definition, only one empty set.

Suggestion for you, Bo1: leave the math out, you're only twisting yourself in knots.