Jump to content
Science Forums

The Big And The Small


Recommended Posts

Brainteaser For Maths Wizards

 

This one's about set theory, and it's dedicated to that God delusion we know and love as Richard Dawkins.

 

 

The thing about debating atheism versus theism is this: there is only one atheism. If God does not exist, no other argument follows as to which God does not exist.

 

With theism, however, there is an argument that follows the simple premise that "God exists", which is "what is this God like"? The problem here is that there are no end of the possible conceptions of God.

 

In set theory then, atheism is a singularity, while theism is not quite but almost infinite. Now if this set is not quite but almost infinite, how do you unify the set, thereby removing the odd-man-out and restoring the perfection of infinity?

 

Here's the brainteaser, then: How do you go about unifying the set to turn the singularity (atheism) back into a religion?

 

Reward for correct solution: you get the mathematical proof for God's existence!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brainteaser For Maths Wizards

 

This one's about set theory, and it's dedicated to that God delusion we know and love as Richard Dawkins.

 

 

The thing about debating atheism versus theism is this: there is only one atheism. If God does not exist, no other argument follows as to which God does not exist.

 

With theism, however, there is an argument that follows the simple premise that "God exists", which is "what is this God like"? The problem here is that there are no end of the possible conceptions of God.

 

In set theory then, atheism is a singularity, while theism is not quite but almost infinite. Now if this set is not quite but almost infinite, how do you unify the set, thereby removing the odd-man-out and restoring the perfection of infinity?

 

Here's the brainteaser, then: How do you go about unifying the set to turn the singularity (atheism) back into a religion?

 

Reward for correct solution: you get the mathematical proof for God's existence!

 

First: I will commend the author for creating the topic, then Ill declare myself to be opposing in some ways. In particular about the existence of God(s). They are ideal objects like points at infinity... Absolutes are introduced (i think) to make a theory complete... They dont exist but (somehow) they still should be there...wherever That "There" is to be found :)

Last: The set of existing things is EXTENDED to a more troublesome second set containing also absolutes, as second order objects... etc ,IF i have the story right: Since the set of existing things itself seems to be a second order object.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First: I will commend the author for creating the topic, then Ill declare myself to be opposing in some ways. In particular about the existence of God(s). They are ideal objects like points at infinity... Absolutes are introduced (i think) to make a theory complete... They dont exist but (somehow) they still should be there...wherever That "There" is to be found :)

Last: The set of existing things is EXTENDED to a more troublesome second set containing also absolutes, as second order objects... etc ,IF i have the story right: Since the set of existing things itself seems to be a second order object.

 

Actually, atheism was a part of the infinite set of concepts of God all along, so nothing actually got extended.

 

What my proof actually does is resolve what seems to be an incongrous member of the infinite set of concepts of God by showing that the atheism-member never was incongruous at all - it was only perceived as being incongrous.. Remember on Sesame Street "One of these things is not like the other?" Well, actually, they're all the same. We just think one of them's different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, atheism was a part of the infinite set of concepts of God all along, so nothing actually got extended.

 

What my proof actually does is resolve what seems to be an incongrous member of the infinite set of concepts of God by showing that the atheism-member never was incongruous at all - it was only perceived as being incongrous.. Remember on Sesame Street "One of these things is not like the other?" Well, actually, they're all the same. We just think one of them's different.

 

 

Again, i ask for some evidence of what you are saying, i say atheism is not a religion any more than lack of air is air...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is quite an assertion, you will need to provide some evidence of that, lack of belief in a god or gods is not religion....

 

You're looking at this the wrong way round.

 

You think atheism is a lack of belief in God. Actually, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, atheists believe in not-God. All other believers believe in God. All believers are connected by what they believe about God. Belief in not-God is therefore a religion, just as belief in God is a religion.

 

Not-God is the singularity I mentioned. The infinite set of concepts of God includes the concept of not-god.

 

This may be a bit difficult to comprehend, because it uses some kind of weird logic not known to a lot of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at this the wrong way round.

 

You think atheism is a lack of belief in God. Actually, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, atheists believe in not-God. All other believers believe in God. All believers are connected by what they believe about God. Belief in not-God is therefore a religion, just as belief in God is a religion.

 

Not-God is the singularity I mentioned. The infinite set of concepts of God includes the concept of not-god.

 

This may be a bit difficult to comprehend, because it uses some kind of weird logic not known to a lot of people.

no love, atheism is the absence of belief :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at this the wrong way round.

 

You think atheism is a lack of belief in God. Actually, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, atheists believe in not-God. All other believers believe in God. All believers are connected by what they believe about God. Belief in not-God is therefore a religion, just as belief in God is a religion.

 

Not-God is the singularity I mentioned. The infinite set of concepts of God includes the concept of not-god.

 

This may be a bit difficult to comprehend, because it uses some kind of weird logic not known to a lot of people.

 

No, you do not know what atheism is, i suggest you look it up, I do not assert there is no god or gods, i simply do not see any evidence of such and therefore see no need to believe in them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "atheism" satisfactorily defined?

 

Let atheism consist in the belief that

we should only believe what there is evidence for,

then what evidence for atheism is there?

 

What do you call a stamp collector?

 

What do you call someone who does not collect stamps?

 

As for what evidence for atheism is there... why would I require evidence to not believe in something? I do not believe in unicorns, I do not believe in Thor, I do not believe the moon is made of green cheese, so why would you call the lack of belief a belief? The null hypothesis is not a belief, it is a lack of belief...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at this the wrong way round.

 

You think atheism is a lack of belief in God. Actually, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, atheists believe in not-God. All other believers believe in God. All believers are connected by what they believe about God. Belief in not-God is therefore a religion, just as belief in God is a religion.

 

Not-God is the singularity I mentioned. The infinite set of concepts of God includes the concept of not-god.

 

This may be a bit difficult to comprehend, because it uses some kind of weird logic not known to a lot of people.

 

I dont believe in "weird logics". Classical logic is ok with me:

Your idea is that if we believe there is no x, then there exist a not-x ...

I never saw the logical proof of that!

Beware of concepts, some are necessary,but others can kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you call a stamp collector?

 

What do you call someone who does not collect stamps?

 

As for what evidence for atheism is there... why would I require evidence to not believe in something? I do not believe in unicorns, I do not believe in Thor, I do not believe the moon is made of green cheese, so why would you call the lack of belief a belief? The null hypothesis is not a belief, it is a lack of belief...

I simply ask for evidence, is that so strange?

I call a stamp collector a "stamp collector",

but i dont call someone who does not collect stamps

a "not-stamps collector"...if thats what you are after...

i call him "someone who does not collect stamps".

 

Its not so that I dont believe that atheism is true,

i only notice I never saw a satisfying definition.

Thats why I ask for the evidence...

That evidence would make your definition convincing!

So WHY dont you want to show me YOUR evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply ask for evidence, is that so strange?

I call a stamp collector a "stamp collector",

but i dont call someone who does not collect stamps

a "not-stamps collector"...if thats what you are after...

i call him "someone who does not collect stamps".

 

Its not so that I dont believe that atheism is true,

i only notice I never saw a satisfying definition.

Thats why I ask for the evidence...

That evidence would make your definition convincing!

So WHY dont you want to show me YOUR evidence?

 

The only definition I have is the lack of belief in gods, I make no positive assertions about god or really even the lack of a god, I just don't see any reason to have a belief in something there is no evidence for... I cannot prove there are no gods... I have no positive evidence for gods or for the lack of gods... I simply do not believe there are gods... or unicorns, or leprechauns, or centaurs, or monsters in my closet, or imaginary friends... Do i have to show positive evidence they do not exist? If so then I cannot...

 

So everyone who does not collect stamps have to be non stamp collectors? What if they never heard of stamps or what if they heard of them but never saw one? Can you really define everyone by one aspect of their lives?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This may be a bit difficult to comprehend, because it uses some kind of wierd logic not known to a lot of people.
Indeed, it is an extremely wierd logic, if we could at all call it a logic. Your arguments are not reliant on consequentiality.

 

I do however agree with you about distinguishing atheism proper from being agnostic but please don't argue about this with people around here who refuse to understand definitions and don't know whether themselves are one or the other, it is a highly explosive topic and causes threads to get very quickly closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...