DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**hwood** · 06-29-2009, 01:35 PM

Dear sapr333,

Set theory in mathematics is controversial - because it touches the realm of non computational mathematics. Again it operates on the defined logic.

The paradoxes arose, from what I understand out of the underlying assumptions of the construct of the theory. I am not competent enough to say whether the way the existence of God is defined in the attachment is correct or wrong, based on the foundations of set theory.

However, as a layman it seems to me that the existence of God is proved from the existence of humans over the progression of time. This, I suppose assumes that all that exist and not exist belong to a super set G.

I don't see how the 'existence' of God is proved this way. Seems to me that the author only proves that a set can exist which consists everything in the universe, whether it is well defined or not.

Regards,
KRS

Shri.KRS, need some help...

Whats your outlook on this mathematical proof of existence of God... Couldnt understand it much,cos severe memory loss,and lost touch with Descates/Set theory..

The interesting thing is , it disproves Russel..
http://kuday-eng.bloggum.com/post/Ma...ce-Of-God.html

06-29-2009, 01:35 PM	#24
hwood Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 341 Senior Member	Dear sapr333, Set theory in mathematics is controversial - because it touches the realm of non computational mathematics. Again it operates on the defined logic. The paradoxes arose, from what I understand out of the underlying assumptions of the construct of the theory. I am not competent enough to say whether the way the existence of God is defined in the attachment is correct or wrong, based on the foundations of set theory. However, as a layman it seems to me that the existence of God is proved from the existence of humans over the progression of time. This, I suppose assumes that all that exist and not exist belong to a super set G. I don't see how the 'existence' of God is proved this way. Seems to me that the author only proves that a set can exist which consists everything in the universe, whether it is well defined or not. Regards, KRS Shri.KRS, need some help... Whats your outlook on this mathematical proof of existence of God... Couldnt understand it much,cos severe memory loss,and lost touch with Descates/Set theory.. The interesting thing is , it disproves Russel.. http://kuday-eng.bloggum.com/post/Ma...ce-Of-God.html
	Quote