Sign in or 
Location: The Project
Discussion: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 8 posts
db_ |
|
Powerpeace |
1. RE: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Sep 14 2008, 12:59 PM EDT
You are applying mathematics to a proof of God. I think the basic challenge is to define God. If you feel, as I do, that their is a unifying force that holds the Universe together; you may elect to call that God. Ancient people decided to make God in their own image. Many names, sometimes many gods. If God is actually pure energy, that energy could be expressed in any manner and in defiance of time. I am a Rosicrucian so I have an open mind and I do not accept or reject people based on their personal beliefs.
1
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
shushila |
2. RE: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Sep 14 2008, 8:19 PM EDT
"Empirically.... a set of all sets of all sets of a setdb, remember, GOD means an object of worship. For me, my Father Jehovah is my GOD and his Son Jesus Christ who died for my sins , went to hell and rose from the dead so I dont have to go to hell. So I am serving a living GOD. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
mgermine |
3. RE: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Sep 15 2008, 4:23 PM EDT
"Empirically.... a set of all sets of all sets of a setThis seems to be an effort to define God in abstract mathematical terms. I'm pretty good with abstract math, but this has me buffudled. If we say God is a set of all sets, we can say for convenience that this set is (a,b,c); (d,e,f). then the set of all sets of all sets is a(1,2,3), b(3,4,5), c(4,5,6); d..., and the set is 1,2,3,4,5,6...12. Do I have this right? Does this make sense? 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
db_ |
4. RE: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Sep 16 2008, 8:54 PM EDT
"This seems to be an effort to define God in abstract mathematical terms. I'm pretty good with abstract math, but this has me buffudled. If we say God is a set of all sets, we can say for convenience that this set is (a,b,c); (d,e,f). then the set of all sets of all sets is a(1,2,3), b(3,4,5), c(4,5,6); d..., and the set is 1,2,3,4,5,6...12. Do I have this right? Does this make sense? "Close. !! Let's take the number 1 that single 2 dimensional form of a straight line connecting two one dimensional points in space we will call DOTS for fun. Our language evolves so fast... I'm trying to make this easy to comprehend like DOTcom versus .com --- Okay we have the numeral one 1, I, uno , un....etc. at it signifies in our consciousness a singular unified monolithic state of very great and very small. One can multiplied with ANY number and it actually becomes 1 with that number..... does that makes sense...it becomes ONE.... meaning a non dualistic value of the value of that number that One was multiplied to..... does that number know that it has one multiplied with it??? absolutely not..... can you look at a number and find out if one was ever multiplied to it? Or can we tell if 1 was ever multiplied by 1? Divided? how about added or subtracted? Whoa... a little different now..... we are saying you can multiply by one and get the same number, but if you add one.... the number actually increases in value.....hm okay.... let's talk Unity, Universe. anything "UNI" if we multiply a Universe with another Universe what to we get? If add one universe to another universe what do we get? Let's take it a little further.... If we take this 2 dimensional line representing a one and grab another 2 dimensional line in it's image and likeness and combine them to form a set of all sets of all sets of a set what would be value, the symbol, and the meaning? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
DewiMorgan |
5. RE: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Sep 18 2008, 4:23 PM EDT
Set theory's not really the best way to define a deity, since any set has a larger set, and a non-overlapping set.If G is a set, then !G is everything else. No set can contain the sum of all sets, since G cannot include !G. So terms like "the set of all sets" are meaningless, unless you say what the sets are *of*. It's legitimate, for example, to define God as a "set G for which the set !G is empty". But that's no more remarkable than saying the set of apples A is the set of apples within the barrel, for which !A is empty. You have to say what it's a set of. So, what about defining God G as the set of all sets of things that exist, physically or otherwise, for which !G is empty? That works. But I prefer "God is everything that is", even though I think it's nonsense. It's a pleasantly self referential phrase, meaning "God is defined as the sum of everything that can be defined", or "G=sum(All Variables)". Again, it's contradictory, since all variables may include variables defined to be the logical negation of eachother, and contradictory things can be defined: can God be defined as the presence of unicorns, and their absence, too? I feel that defining God to be "anything", even if you wrap it in mathy, truthy terms, tells you nothing about God: it just creates a new synonym for "everything". 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
db_ |
6. RE: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Sep 18 2008, 11:29 PM EDT
The value and symbol, I was referring to would be - I I - a.k.a Eleven, which aligns the one in it's image and likeness with one without the need of mathematics at all !
Do you find this valuable?
|
God. |
7. RE: GOD IS GOD AS GOD IS GOD
Nov 26 2008, 3:52 PM EST
"Empirically.... a set of all sets of all sets of a setI lve when this thread was started Apr 30 2008, 4:44 AM EDT tis is 04/30/2008 4:44 am... the next post talks about maths well if I add up the individual digts 4+3+0+2+0+0+8+4+4+4= 27 may seem mundane my Children it is not ..... me is me as me is me. Do you find this valuable? |
