Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

Nat,

 

You'll get no anger from me, nor have you had any. 

Perhaps you meant that there's a lot of anger coming out of you?  I hope not.  But if that's so, please understand that I did try and warn you about this yesterday afternoon, in message # 95.  It's a very difficult thing for someone to have their deeply held beliefs challenged - not just by those who disagree but also by a clear-cut body of evidence.

 

However, you've written some things (in the 'A Jew's Take on Jesus...' thread) that I very much agree with and I hope that you'll find it within yourself to put them into practice now, when you read the rest of my post.   "For the record, I am far from certain, as I am skeptical and agnostic by nature.  It takes a great deal of effort for me to be a believer, and I don't do it easily or delusionally.  In the end though, I am not completely certain, but it is what I believe."  Yesterday, in response to Florduh's comment about finding God under a rock, you wrote...  "And if you think he is not under any rock, you won't find him.  Self fulfillment can go both ways.  The only way is to be humble and open to the truth, whatever it is."  Nat, if you are skeptical and agnostic by nature and if you are humble and open to the truth - whatever it is, will you please read this carefully and give it a fair hearing?  Thanks.

 

Bhaya's first premise, "Nothing creates itself, since the act of creating neccesitates it's existence"  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chovot_HaLevavot ) is based on what scientists call the Classical concept of cause and effect.  We see this happening all around us, every day and it's what we're familiar with.  An effect always follows it's cause and never precedes it, right?  Our experience tells us that time never reverses itself, but always runs from the past, thru the present and on into the future.  Well, that's always been the understanding, but it's not the full story. 

 

What Bahya or anyone else before him couldn't have known is we've discovered about Quantum physics in the last 100 years or so.  The Uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) describes how it's impossible for us to simultaneously know the position and momentum of ultra-small, sub-atomic particles .  This uncertainty also refers, not just to their physical position in space but also their location in... time.  We cannot say exactly when these little critters exist but can only come up with a range of probable locations - where and when they might be, in space and in time.

 

So far, so good?

Now, since the where and when of a given particle cannot be precisely known, this means that the rigid rules of Classical cause-and-effect can't be applied to it with 100% certainty.  It could exist now or it could exist after now or it could exist before now.  The particle isn't tied to our expectations and it can do things that we don't expect.  For instance, we might expect that it needs something before it, something else... to bring it into existence.  That is, something (a cause) brings it (the effect) into being.  However, the particle isn't obliged to do that because it's not rigidly tied to our fixed understanding of past, present and future. Because the particle's past, present and future aren't fixed, it's entirely possible for it's future to come before it's past, in the reverse of our expectations and in contradiction to the 'usual' rules of cause-and-effect.  So a particle (the effect) can be it's own cause - by existing before itself.  It is self-created, relying on nothing to precede it.

 

Gobbledegook?  Nonsense?  Irrationality?

It sounds like it, I'll agree... but there's iron-clad scientific evidence and proof of this Nat, as I'll now show you.

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

It's not necessary to understand the equations and the science behind all of this.  Instead, please scroll down to the section, 'Manifestations' where you'll see a list of real-world 13 effects brought about by virtual particles.  This one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect ...states something very pertinent to our discussion.  The Casimir effect can be measured by placing two uncharged metal plates in a vacuum chamber and positioning them just a few micrometers apart.  "In a Classical description [involving strict cause-and-effect] , the lack of an external field [of energy] also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them."  However, a net force is measured between the plates - the virtual particles making their presence felt in this way.

 

So, Classical philosophy and science cannot explain something which has been independently observed and detected.  But Quantum physics can.   Therefore, the Classical methods of understanding reality have to be dropped in favor of a new way of seeing things... otherwise one is obliged to deny and reject the evidence of our own eyes.

 

Nat, here is another quantum phenomena that defies our Classical ideas of cause-and-effect.

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

"Quantum tunnelling refers to the quantum mechancial phenomenon where a particle tunnels thru a barrier that it classically could not surmount."  Please note that by factoring quantum tunnelling into their equations, scientists are able to explain how and why radioactive decay, the spontaneous mutation of DNA and the cold emission of electrons all take place.  Also, there are several applications of quantum tunnelling in computer technology - so they are what enables you to read these words right now. 

 

However, perhaps the most surprising point about quantum tunnelling is that without it thermonuclear fusion wouldn't be possible in the cores of every star in the sky.  This includes our Sun.  So, life on Earth wouldn't be possible without the ability of quantum-sized nuclear particles to behave in ways that freely and openly contradict Classical physics.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0612d.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/M51_Hubble_Remix.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Heart_of_M13_Hercules_Globular_Cluster.jpg

None of these stars would be shining unless these quantum effects were real and true.

 

Ok Nat, if you are as you say, skeptical and agnostic by nature and if you are indeed humble and open to the truth, please ask yourself this question.

 

Are you open to the idea that cause-and-effect doesn't always apply, everywhere and at all times?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Quantum affects are quite amazing. As I was hearing part of Dawkin's speach, I heard him say something to the extent that Quantum affects can make something from nothing, with no Deity.

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

I just love this.

 

He says there was nothing, but there was not nothing. There were quantum principals, no?

 

You guessed it. Dawkin's God is called Quantum. All bow now to Quantum.

 

Not sure why this is so hard to get across.

 

We started with something infinite with unknowable principals. Call it Quantum call it God, call it what you want. I tried to stay away from the Semantics.

 

People also don't realize how hard a concept zero is. Empty space is not zero. It has space. Zero is impossible to grasp.

 

And yet, it is so mathematically simple and pure, even if we can't understand it

 

infinity times 0 = all things. I have shown this many times and the math is perfect.

 

BTW ain sof - "without end" is more connected to infinity than to nothing. I know some people say ayin sof which correlates with nothingness, but the more conventional kabbalistic understanding of God relates to the unknowable infinity, which is the idea I have been trying to get across. Zero and nothing are also a big factor, because infinity used that to make matter.

 

I think people should be able to tell by now that I am not some simplistic bible thumper. These are well though out ideas. 

[Ravenstar]

No.... they are not. Even I can see that.. and that's saying something.

 

Sorry, I'm getting annoyed here. Your assertion neither accords with mathematics, quantum physics or even really good philosophy. We have a resident physicist, a very good amateur cosmologist, and a philosopher here... and they do not agree and have proposed exactly why, with citations.

 

You DO not understand the principles the other posters have so generously offered, or you would be able to see where you are wrong. Or at least be humble enough to admit that you just don't get it. Time to get the ego out of the way.

 

Repetition and sophistry doesn't a good argument make. (Yoda might have said this,  lol)

[Guest nat]

No.... they are not. Even I can see that.. and that's saying something.

 

Sorry, I'm getting annoyed here. Your assertion neither accords with mathematics, quantum physics or even really good philosophy. We have a resident physicist, a very good amateur cosmologist, and a philosopher here... and they do not agree and have proposed exactly why, with citations.

 

You DO not understand the principles the other posters have so generously offered, or you would be able to see where you are wrong. Or at least be humble enough to admit that you just don't get it. Time to get the ego out of the way.

 

Repetition and sophistry doesn't a good argument make. (Yoda might have said this,  lol)

Not good philosophy?

This is classic Jewish and kabalistic philosophy, and it is not good enough for you?

Only the God Quantum is good enough for you?

I have yet to see anything that I have said disproven. You can say it was, but let me see you do so directly on any point and without a pagelong explanation.

I am ready to go point to point on anything I have said here, all in very short direct responses. Let's see who is up to the challenge.

[Guest nat]

To keep the challenge simple, here are my points

 

1. infinity is the first infinite and unknowable non material un-divisable source.

2. infinity's affect on zero (nothing) brings about all things.

3. infinity and zero are opposites

4. all numbers/infinity=0, all numbers/0=infinity, infinity *0= all numbers

 

I am up to any challenge. Name your point. 

Let me say however, that I am not the ultimate source of knowledge and I don't know everything. If you claim to disprove me with things that are way above my head, I will say that I don't know. The challenge is to be simple and yet prove your point. I can show very simple logic/math for any point above.

[Ouroboros]

The infinite set of whole numbers doesn't create whole numbers, it only contains them. The infinite set can only exist if the finite items/elements exist. It's the finites creating the infinite by being infinite in existence. Finite and infinite go together, and never do the part. Or put it this way, the finite transcends into the transfinite and infinite.

[Guest nat]

The infinite set of whole numbers doesn't create whole numbers, it only contains them. The infinite set can only exist if the finite items/elements exist. It's the finites creating the infinite by being infinite in existence. Finite and infinite go together, and never do the part. Or put it this way, the finite transcends into the transfinite and infinite.

Completely wrong. If the finite creates the infinite, what is the finite last number? Any finite set can derive from the infinite set, but the infinite itself is way beyond, boundless, and not dividable. Moreover, the infinite set of numbers is not completely infinite, in as much as it contains finite numbers within it. The completely infinite is the completely boundless endless unknowable ever-reaching beyond the beyond. It contains nothing finite within it. Anything finite cannot be the first cause because the past has an infinite start and finite is not infinite. We must start with the infinite. Infinity times 0 can equal anything. That is where all finite things came from.

[RankStranger]

Lemme boil down this proof to its most basic claims... cutting out the hand-waving and math allegories:

 

 

Anything & everything.

See there? I just wrote down "anything & everything"!

"anything & everything" = God.

Therefore god exists.

 

Did I miss anything?

[boftx]

The infinite set of whole numbers doesn't create whole numbers, it only contains them. The infinite set can only exist if the finite items/elements exist. It's the finites creating the infinite by being infinite in existence. Finite and infinite go together, and never do the part. Or put it this way, the finite transcends into the transfinite and infinite.

 

And with that we reach a concept that I find reasonable, if not necessarily the case. I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove "God" as creator, especially if there are any anthropomorphic predicates attached to "God." On the other hand, If one were to approach God as creation without predicates of any kind it might become interesting.

 

I think everyone will grant that 1 + 1 = 2 and that the circumference of a circle divided by the diameter is Pi. More so, I think everyone will grant that those statements must be "true" no matter where one is in the Universe. (It is difficult to even imagine that those statements could not be "true" anywhere in the Multiverse if that concept is indeed the case now.)

 

My question is this: can the underlying principle (or possible "force") that gives "truth" to those statements be said to have existence? That is, do fundamental mathematical relationships exist in a way beyond what we understand as existence? I would not fault someone who wished to equate God to that principle or force that underlies our understanding of that which exists.

[bornagainathiest]

Well thanks, Nat!

 

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the one question I put to you about cause and effect in my last post.

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the three questions I put to you yesterday about evidence you could accept.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my other post to you yesterday, the one about Chaotic Inflation theory matching the observed data.

 

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite bona fide evidence of where classical cause-and-effect breaks down.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to list the technologies that use this break down of cause-and-effect to function.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite and outline the accepted, mainline explanation of Infinity, a la Cantor.

 

Thanks for appreciating my efforts to engage you in a tolerant and respectful manner.

Thanks for being skeptical and agnostic by nature and also humble and open to the truth.

Thanks for living up to those very words you wrote about yourself and for giving me a fair hearing.

 

Your unswerving certainty (when you should be skeptical), your mockery of me (when you should be humble) and your refusal to accept evidence (when you should be open to the truth) all go to tell me that further dialog with you is pointless. 

 

You are not skeptical by nature, but dogmatic.

You are not humble, but combative.

You are not open to the the evidence, but closed-minded.

 

This doesn't make me angry with you Nat... only very sad. 

 

Goodbye,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ravenstar]

Not good philosophy?  No.. it's not.. it's mental masturbation and word games. S. O. P. H. I. S. T. R. Y ... look it up.

 

This is classic Jewish and kabalistic philosophy, and it is not good enough for you? Why would I care what 'authority' it comes from? If an idea is stupid, it's stupid. I don't give a flying fuck if it was Kant, Aristotle, Sartre, Hawking's, Hitchen's or bleedin' Ghandi...the damn Pope, or any Rabbi, I have no reason to 'respect' anything unless it has merit, and can stand on it's own without appeals to authority. And this was a nasty passive-aggressive comment. Don't attempt to SHAME me, I don't take that crap anymore.

 

 

Only the God Quantum is good enough for you?  quantum mechanics is not a god... it's a description of how subatomic particles behave. how is that in any way, shape or form 'god'?  I don't have a god... and I highly doubt anything like a god exists, except maybe in the most abstract deist or panendeist sense. And this was another nasty passive-aggressive comment.

 

The Bible.. yes, the OT too, is full of crap, and I've shown that many times on here... it's been shredded so completely it's not even funny - especially in an historical sense. It's a big fat pack of lies, political manoevres, and revisionism and outright adoption of pagan ideas. Since that is our only source of any knowledge of 'god' it's safe to say any argument in favor of it's supposition is superstitious and primitive bullshit... and people can twist until the wind stops blowing, doesn't change the fact that the ONLY proof for a god, that I am aware of, is FEELINGS, cognitive distortion, delusion and wishful thinking.

 

I have yet to see anything that I have said disproven. You can say it was, but let me see you do so directly on any point and without a pagelong explanation. Umm.. YOU do not tell ME how to explain myself... control freak much? so.. umm.. no.

I do not have the mathematical background to debate this, which I have admitted to. I understand the gist of the argument.. Bhim is the physicist, and I do believe you have to have a pretty good grounding in higher math to be a physicist. BAA has proven time and time again to have a VERY deep grasp of cosmology, and he is willing to share where he gets his facts from, botx has one of the finest minds I've seen and he is a trained philosopher. I respect all three of them and they have never led me astray. I'll take their word for it.. and even attempt to comprehend their objections.. with respect, by reading their rebuttals and sources.

 

I am ready to go point to point on anything I have said here, all in very short direct responses. Let's see who is up to the challenge... the background for the rejection of your assertion has already been provided. 100$ you didn't read any of it.

[Ouroboros]

Completely wrong. If the finite creates the infinite, what is the finite last number?

There isn't one. There doesn't have to be one for the finites to create the infinite. The infinite set of numbers is exactly that. An infinite set OF finite numbers. It can't stand on its own. An infinite set of whole numbers can't exist without whole numbers existing. One brings the other about.

 

Any finite set can derive from the infinite set,

And? There can't be any finite sets in the infinite set if the infinite set creates finite sets. Neither is "creating" one or the other. They co-exist and are co-dependent for each others existence.

 

but the infinite itself is way beyond, boundless, and not dividable.

Which means that finite numbers can't be "divided" out from that boundless infinite set. Infinite is not a value and values can't come out of non-values.

 

Moreover, the infinite set of numbers is not completely infinite, in as much as it contains finite numbers within it. The completely infinite is the completely boundless endless unknowable ever-reaching beyond the beyond. It contains nothing finite within it. Anything finite cannot be the first cause because the past has an infinite start and finite is not infinite. We must start with the infinite. Infinity times 0 can equal anything. That is where all finite things came from.

There's an infinite set of irrational numbers between 1 and 2. Which came first? The infinite set of irrational numbers between 1 and 2, or the numbers 1 and 2? The answer is neither. The don't come into existence one before the other. The finite and infinite co-exists, one can't exist without the other. Simple.

[Ravenstar]

This needs to move to the Den, IMHO. 

[Ouroboros]

I think everyone will grant that 1 + 1 = 2 and that the circumference of a circle divided by the diameter is Pi.

Also pi is an infinite set of digits. It's one fundamental irrational number, just like e or sqrt(2). What "created" what? The circle created pi? Pi created the circle? The infinite created the sequence of pi? It's just all ludicrous exercises in nonsense.

 

My question is this: can the underlying principle (or possible "force") that gives "truth" to those statements be said to have existence? That is, do fundamental mathematical relationships exist in a way beyond what we understand as existence? I would not fault someone who wished to equate God to that principle or force that underlies our understanding of that which exists.

True. I can go with that too.

 

I see God as the whole of all things, infinite and finite, all together as one.

[Ravenstar]

I can go with that ^^^

 

but then, does it not become again a placeholder for that which we do not yet comprehend, or are you stating it as the "all that is"... the fundamental foundation for reality?

 

correct me if I'm off.

[miekko]

 

 

So Jews play the same kind of word-games that Christians love so much? Good to know.

I am not sure it's a word-game in nat's case. Bear with me for a moment. Let us compare and contrast the God-concepts of Judaism and Christianity first.

 

Christianity in most of its forms has a trinity consisting of three persons - the father, the son and the spirit. The exact relation between the son and Jesus differs between early schisms in Christianity and I bet  you can find some variation in modern schisms as well. It seems some of the protestant movements don't really have much of an attempt at having a coherent theology on this, even. It does force the christians to impose some kind of structure on God, and the idea of a man being in this trinity as well makes the christian God a pretty complex affair, necessarily even having corporeal features.

 

Judaism, on the other hand, tends to a kind of minimalism in its concept of God - see, e.g. the kabbalistic notion of ein sof, "without end", which essentially is a formless void. That formless void is God. Meanwhile, opposing the medieval kabbalists were a group who usually are called 'rationalists', foremost among whom was Maimonides, who also taught a very reduced and featureless God-concept, where you should not say God had any properties, because God is unfathomable.

 

This analogy may skate a bit onto what Nat would consider thin ice, but consider multiplication by one. If we multiply some number x by one, we obtain x. (Or if we add zero to x, we obtain x). No one doubts this is what happens. Now, multiplying reality (represented as a matrix of numbers) by one, we obtain reality. (If we multiplied it by two, we would obtain a different universe, as would we if we added some numbers here or there.) For some Jews, it'd seem the belief in God is not much different from believing that if you multiply a number by 1, you obtain the same number - the idea of God is so abstract and  

 

If the God you believe in basically just is a cosmic algebraic one, arguments like those of nat's kind of make sense - altho' the God one would believe in in those cases is fairly different from what one'd expect having heard Christians speak of God. I suspect arguments like these have evolved like this:

 

- originally, they were not arguments for god's existence, they were explanations as to what someone believes about God, metaphors explaining rather abstract concepts of God, and trying to get other believers to leave behind naive concepts like 'a bearded man on a cloud' (although I don't believe that notion to have been very common at the time this phrasing came about. Consider it a placeholder for any anthropomorphic god-concept, or otherwise physical or mentally human-like concept)

 

- people who had been taught similar abstract beliefs using different metaphors, after a time, had heard these ideas thrown about maybe even a bit carelessly, and no longer realized these metaphors were metaphors made in order to convey such beliefs - they already held the belief, after all. Rather, they understood them as arguments in favor of their belief.

 

- later on, people with *different beliefs* heard these and figured they sounded profound and impressive, and started using them to argue for concepts of God that the metaphor from the very onset was made in order to contradict. That's where you get evangelicals and pentecostals with very anthropomorphic views quoting the exact same thing even though it doesn't support their belief in a heavenly Jesus sitting next to his father's throne.

Meaningless word-games backed by tradition are still meaningless word-games.

 

Deciding something is meaningless before even looking what it's saying is a sure sign of closed-mindedness.

[Ouroboros]

I can go with that ^^^

 

but then, does it not become again a placeholder for that which we do not yet comprehend, or are you stating it as the "all that is"... the fundamental foundation for reality?

 

correct me if I'm off.

In a way, perhaps. I see it as encapsulating everything we do understand too. The world is more complex and contains more than we can ever know, but it also contains things we do know. God becomes the word that describes all that we know and all that we yet don't.

 

Put it this way, the universe/world/nature/reality is greater than us, we were brought to existence by it, it has existed in some sense/shape/form probably from eternal past and will exist forever (in some shape or form), it contains all knowledge that ever can be, all life, consciousness, and so on. And in that view, it is more impressive and amazing that we are as individuals, even though we are amazing as well, so it's possible to look at a sunset and be amazed and stand in awe and reverence for our existence as such. Living life is to practice the natural religion. Taking, moving, doing, acting, listening, are all different ways of worshipping and praying. Learning and experiencing is the way improve and excel in faith. We are where we're supposed to be. No need to strive for another faith when this life is the faith we need. (Something like that)

[Guest nat]

Lemme boil down this proof to its most basic claims... cutting out the hand-waving and math allegories:

 

 

Anything & everything.

See there? I just wrote down "anything & everything"!

"anything & everything" = God.

Therefore god exists.

 

Did I miss anything?

I guess you were not up to the challenge.

I did not mention God in any of the 4 points I set forth, and you did not challenge me on any of them.

[boftx]

There is another aspect of what Ouroboros said above that resonates with me. In effect, he is saying that the finite creates the infinite. I find a strong parallel between that and Man creating "God" in Man's image.

[Guest nat]

Well thanks, Nat!

 

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the one question I put to you about cause and effect in my last post.

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the three questions I put to you yesterday about evidence you could accept.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my other post to you yesterday, the one about Chaotic Inflation theory matching the observed data.

 

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite bona fide evidence of where classical cause-and-effect breaks down.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to list the technologies that use this break down of cause-and-effect to function.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite and outline the accepted, mainline explanation of Infinity, a la Cantor.

 

Thanks for appreciating my efforts to engage you in a tolerant and respectful manner.

Thanks for being skeptical and agnostic by nature and also humble and open to the truth.

Thanks for living up to those very words you wrote about yourself and for giving me a fair hearing.

 

Your unswerving certainty (when you should be skeptical), your mockery of me (when you should be humble) and your refusal to accept evidence (when you should be open to the truth) all go to tell me that further dialog with you is pointless. 

 

You are not skeptical by nature, but dogmatic.

You are not humble, but combative.

You are not open to the the evidence, but closed-minded.

 

This doesn't make me angry with you Nat... only very sad. 

 

Goodbye,

 

BAA.

I never mocked you. If I was ever mocking it was not with you in mind. I try to answer your points, but maybe I didn't get to all of them. I will look back and see if there is anything I can coment on.

[Guest nat]

 

The infinite set of whole numbers doesn't create whole numbers, it only contains them. The infinite set can only exist if the finite items/elements exist. It's the finites creating the infinite by being infinite in existence. Finite and infinite go together, and never do the part. Or put it this way, the finite transcends into the transfinite and infinite.

 

 If one were to approach God as creation without predicates of any kind it might become interesting.

 

 I would not fault someone who wished to equate God to that principle or force that underlies our understanding of that which exists.

 

I think your starting to see my point.

[Guest nat]

 

Completely wrong. If the finite creates the infinite, what is the finite last number?

There isn't one. There doesn't have to be one for the finites to create the infinite. The infinite set of numbers is exactly that. An infinite set OF finite numbers. It can't stand on its own. An infinite set of whole numbers can't exist without whole numbers existing. One brings the other about.

 

Any finite set can derive from the infinite set,

And? There can't be any finite sets in the infinite set if the infinite set creates finite sets. Neither is "creating" one or the other. They co-exist and are co-dependent for each others existence.

 

but the infinite itself is way beyond, boundless, and not dividable.

Which means that finite numbers can't be "divided" out from that boundless infinite set. Infinite is not a value and values can't come out of non-values.

 

Moreover, the infinite set of numbers is not completely infinite, in as much as it contains finite numbers within it. The completely infinite is the completely boundless endless unknowable ever-reaching beyond the beyond. It contains nothing finite within it. Anything finite cannot be the first cause because the past has an infinite start and finite is not infinite. We must start with the infinite. Infinity times 0 can equal anything. That is where all finite things came from.

There's an infinite set of irrational numbers between 1 and 2. Which came first? The infinite set of irrational numbers between 1 and 2, or the numbers 1 and 2? The answer is neither. The don't come into existence one before the other. The finite and infinite co-exists, one can't exist without the other. Simple.

 

A finite thing has finite definitions. If there is no last number it is infinite. The finite and infinite can be inter-related but they are not the same. When you focus on a finite derivative of what is infinite, then it is no longer infinite. The infinite must come first because it goes beyond anything finite.

[boftx]

 

I think your starting to see my point.

 

 

I saw it in the OP. My primary objection, like others here, is to the claim it is a mathematical proof. It is, in my opinion (and apparently many of the others here,) an analogy at best that might be useful in helping those who believe have a frame of reference to what "God" is like.

 

I would suspect that a very large number of people easily come to that analogy at an early point in their belief, it is fairly obvious to anyone who has a rudimentary exposure to algebra. But once one has been exposed to higher level of mathematics it can be seen as only an analogy given how infinity is used mainly when dealing with limits (which is ironic.)

[Guest nat]

I am starting to see some agreement now on something eternal which is whatever the forces are that brought about this world.

That is why I joked that Quantum is Dawkin's God.

In Judaism, it is the eternal unending infinite source. 

Some will say its this or that or God or not God, but that is immaterial, because we don't know what it is, so why try to describe it.

Maybe we can all drink coffee now.

 

The big debate will be whether it has consciousness or not. I believe it does, but in any case it is unknowable so what do I know.

 

As I said, it makes no demands on people. The demands of the bible God don't come from the unending source, but from a somewhat finite manifestations of the unending source, and that is a whole different story.  

[moloko5]

"God" is whatever you want to define it as for whatever situation you are dealing with.  That is why it's a completely useless word in addition to being a nonsensical concept.

[Guest nat]

 

 

I think your starting to see my point.

 

 

I saw it in the OP. My primary objection, like others here, is to the claim it is a mathematical proof. It is, in my opinion (and apparently many of the others here,) an analogy at best that might be useful in helping those who believe have a frame of reference to what "God" is like.

 

I would suspect that a very large number of people easily come to that analogy at an early point in their belief, it is fairly obvious to anyone who has a rudimentary exposure to algebra. But once one has been exposed to higher level of mathematics it can be seen as only an analogy given how infinity is used mainly when dealing with limits (which is ironic.)

 

If you take issue with my mathematical proof to God, I clearly backed away from that at the start. The mathematical and logical proofs revolve only around the ideas of infinity and its affects. One can choose to apply those concepts to God, or Quantum, or God Quantum, each to his preference.