1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Mathematical Proof of God

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Ostronomos, Feb 23, 2021.

  1. Ostronomos

    Ostronomos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    305
    Ratings:
    +61
    Religion:
    None
    A linear map is a mapping between vector spaces or sets V over a field F. Given two vector spaces V and W, a linear map is a map

    T : V -> W

    that is compatible with scalar addition and multiplication

    T(u + v) = T(u) + T(v), T(av) = aT(v)

    for vectors u, v in V and scalar a in F.

    Reality is a bijective linear map with God and is therefore isomorphic to God.

    R <-> G

    where the set or vector space of reality is both its subset and its powerset.

    When quantified R ⊆ R(S) is represented as ∀x(x ∈ R →x ∈ R(S))

    Therefore since reality is the subset and powerset of itself and God is reality then God is the subset and powerset of reality.
     
  2. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    32,674
    Ratings:
    +13,426
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Then using mathematics you should be able to determine where God lives.
     
  3. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    11,240
    Ratings:
    +10,293
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    So now, not content with quantum woo, we are being treated to mathematical woo as well.

    The claim that "reality is isomorphic to God" is of course assuming the thing that is supposedly being proved, rendering the whole exercise meaningless.

    Strewth.:rolleyes:
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Dave Watchman

    Dave Watchman Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    512
    Ratings:
    +155
    Religion:
    Waldensian
    Exactly.

    He's cloaked New Jerusalem inside the moon all this time.


    [​IMG]

    NewJerusalemintheMoon

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,708
    Ratings:
    +2,283
    Religion:
    Something else
    Eh?
     
  6. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    693
    Ratings:
    +227
    Religion:
    Deist
    Another "philosopher" that neither understands Math or God.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    11,240
    Ratings:
    +10,293
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    @Polymath257 would be able to explain what the terms mean, I'm sure.

    But in this context..........:shrug:
     
  8. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    12,891
    Ratings:
    +6,352
    Religion:
    atheist
    OK. You convinced me.
     
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,089
    Ratings:
    +22,139
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    What field are you using for your scalars? And what is the additive structure for God? You also seem to be confused: is reality the bijective map? or it is another vector space that is isomorphic to God? If the latter, what is the additive structure of reality? And what, precisely, is the linear map?

    Yes, that is the usual definition of set containment. Not particularly relevant for vector spaces, though.

    So you actually just proved that God does NOT exist. You see, it can be proved that NO set is a power set of itself. And if God has that property, you have just conclusively proved there is no God.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,089
    Ratings:
    +22,139
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Linear maps are functions *between* vector spaces. So to make the claim that reality *is* a bijective linear map with God and is also isomorphic to God is already highly suspicious.

    The nonsense with the power set, though, is what definitively shows the self-contradiction.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,341
    Ratings:
    +175
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Yet a bio conscious body owning life span average only as old as they are owns death makes the claims.

    What theist human sciences never discluded self.

    When they don't live as an expressed sub set.

    God is not detailing a subset if you claim God owned it in presence.

    God O circle owner is stone mass.
    Heavens what you live within mass gas spirit.

    You are only ever just a human who can think.

    The lesser body closest form an ape.

    If you travel back in time by removal of presence to exist as a subset. First you would become that ape.

    Then in the same shift the ape would become a body form never expressed before.

    What you quantify is a sub set held in bracketing applied to all origin forms not any sub set.

    Reason light is constant.
    Time does not exist as day counting is human inferred.

    A truth teller says time is not relative as light gases burning is a constant.

    Numbers counting hence does not exist.

    No day in other words used just a light constant.
     
  12. Ostronomos

    Ostronomos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    305
    Ratings:
    +61
    Religion:
    None
    Reality is the bijective map that is isomorphic to God.

    Paradoxes are not always self-contradictory. Reality is a paradox because it contains reality while being contained by reality (hence subset and powerset). This is undeniable.

    I have successfully proven that reality is more than the sum of its material parts.
     
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,089
    Ratings:
    +22,139
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And that makes no sense. Bijective maps are not isomorphic: they are isomorphisms. There is a big difference.


    Which shows that using set theory is inappropriate here. There is no *set* that is its own power set.

    No, all you have done is said a few nonsense phrases and claimed to have a proof. But, it is clear you don't understand the math you are using.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    12,891
    Ratings:
    +6,352
    Religion:
    atheist
    OK. You convinced me.
     
  15. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,341
    Ratings:
    +175
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Males lying. Science.

    Science contradicted God's presence.

    God said science O earth.

    All products power from earth.

    Sun one time only reacted in its body attacked reacted earth.

    Memory in science two reactive O bodies God. Not the same God. Two reactions itself. Big bang cold sun body. Blasting converting earth mass.

    Consciousness by light.

    Mind thought about memory history sun as big bang.

    Consciousness nowhere else.

    First lie.

    Then their claim in thinking being informed I react. Yet thinking is thought past tense. The reaction removed presence.

    God O earth went nowhere did not react. O God remained not changed. Theme the reacted mass reacted body not considered as God.

    String theist today using information as it has to exist first to claim informed said he will change God but not change God. React but not actually react. Just channel.

    Described in medical healer science review self possessed by science falsifying information by his status I want. I know is informed by information. Want coerced his self is informed.

    Theist then lies.

    Said I will not change God. Time shift removing mass by nuclear is not God.

    Exactly how he thinks about God earth science given information.
     
  16. Ostronomos

    Ostronomos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    305
    Ratings:
    +61
    Religion:
    None
    You are once again sadly mistaken. Reality is the set of all sets and thus poses a paradox. The only way out of this paradox or tautological truth is to assume two senses of containment: descriptive and topological. Please, get with it.



    You are correct in one sense. But I do understand enough set theory to apply it to my reality-theoretic extension of logic.
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,089
    Ratings:
    +22,139
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    This only shows you don't understand either set theory or topology. There is no 'set of all sets'. There is a *class* of all sets, but it is not a set. And topology has nothing to do with this issue.


    Not exactly earth-shattering, I have to say.
     
  18. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    10,975
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    Polymath257 already covered basically everything of import here, but I would not just for the sake of completeness that one speaks of a vector space V or "a set V over a field F" (preferably, something more akin to "a triple consisting of a set V together with two operations * and + defined over a field F satisfying the following axioms..."). A vector space is by definition defined over a field. It is also a little redundant to first take as given a vector space (i.e., a set equipped with all of that additional structure required of vector spaces) and then define linear maps as you do. A central feature of vector spaces and of their structure is that maps between them are linear.
    Finally, the entirety of the references to vector spaces is completely unnecessary, as the only connection between them and your reference to God in your "proof" is in terms of elementary/naive set theory, where you introduce a contradiction which, if in entered into an actual proof, would only be of use to prove the contrary via a reductio-type proof or proof-by-contradiction. Here, it's just nonsense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    10,975
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    Oh, c'mon! What's next?? I suppose you also think there's no set A such that A contains all sets which don't contain themselves!
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...