Is the number of gods a whole number?

[Sanzbir]

Isn't that the case for nearly every discussion of God?

No, I enjoy theological discussions and usually just adapt the definition of "god" to whatever the original poster was intending for the sake of discussion and further learning and exploring people's ideas.

Learning what other people think interests me a whole lot more than just posting my beliefs over every single thread regardless of whether it is warranted or not.

Isn't that the case for nearly every discussion of God?
Including most discussions about religion and and religious morality, afterlife, worship and practically everything that religious people go on and on about?
That's the way it looks to me. What the religious people I know (mainly Abrahamic) are talking about is a fictional character that they have created based on ancient Scripture.

... But I see you clearly have different interests and priorities from myself.

Discussing Him is pointless.

And yet... here you are... discussing God.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Or "imaginary, or even worse complex.

I sort of like the idea of an irrational complex number of gods. For example i plus the square root of two gods.

Nice thread concept.

I like it!

 

[Sanzbir]

The fact that a negative amount can be mapped to some positive amount doesn't mean that the negative amount isn't negative.

It isn't negative though. There isn't such a thing as "negative atomic vibration" or "negative heat". I think rather your statement here should be reversed: "The fact that a positive amount can be mapped to some negative amount doesn't mean that the positive amount isn't positive."

Unfortunately it is Celsius, not Kelvin, that is the arbitrary negative mapping.

So if gods necessarily exist outside the conceptual, then negative numbers of gods necessarily cannot exist.

Is there something about "god" that implies it necessarily exists outside the conceptual?

So... you yourself claimed that I should use my definition of "god" rather than any you provide. And yet it seems you're trying to debate over the definition of a "god" and whether that thing exists outside the conceptual or not.

If we're using my definition for the sake of my posts, it is not something that exists merely within the conceptual.

And it would make this meta-discussion of yours pointlessness heaped on top of pointlessness.

If you think the thread is pointless, you're free to ignore it. Nobody's forcing you to read it or post in it.

Which would only really have been a relevant response if I had known the pointlessness of your OP before inquiring further. But I only learned of the pointless way you wanted to define God through this "meta-discussion". Such inquiry was a necessary step in realizing the pointlessness of the original post.

See a discussion on whether or not there could be fractional gods would interest me very much on a theoretical level working with some fixed definition of "god". But if every post is rendered as simply "this is how I define god", then I don't think this thread will get to any of the interesting theoreticals I was hoping for. I was merely expressing my disappointment at the promising premise going a rather mundane and trodden upon direction.

Bingo.

I'm especially interested to hear from people who say that "god" can't be defined, but have still somehow eliminated the possibility that there aren't fractional or negative gods.

Okay... I just really don't understand people and how they choose to post things. Why not make such intentions clear from the original post if you only wanted answers from that type of person??

But that goes the other way: if there's no meaningful difference between a fraction of a god and a whole god, then what we take as one god could just as easily be a tenth of a god, say. How do you tell the difference? How do you justify saying "this infinity is exactly one infinity and not a quarter of an infinity or fifteen infinities?"

So from this and your comments on the Celsius scale I'm getting the feeling that you don't know much about mathematics or sciences. I apologize if this is not the case, but I'll operate under the assumption you aren't acquainted with mathematics surrounding infinity going forward and try to carefully explain everything. I apologize again if I am mistaken in my assumptions about your knowledge of mathematics and thus overexplain things in the following:

You see, it's not that there is "no meaningful difference", it's that there is no difference at all.

Infinity is a really weird number and mathematics gets pretty weird and complex when involving it. ∞ divided by anything is still ∞.

So any and all fractions of ∞ are, when divided, equal to the original ∞. ∞/1 = ∞/2 = ∞/3 = ∞/4. Do you follow so far??

So when you say:

How do you justify saying "this infinity is exactly one infinity and not a quarter of an infinity or fifteen infinities?"

I can say it is exactly one infinity because "a quarter of infinity" is equal to exactly one infinity.

If you still don't really understand, I get it, because infinity is a tricky subject in mathematics. But if there was a "quarter of a god" as I define a god, as the definition you wish me to use, there'd still be, mathematically, "exactly one god" because of how infinity works.

In the rough analogous terms you used, "infinity is more like a pile".

I'd also like to note that I never did state there was "exactly one infinity". Nevertheless, I address your point here because I could very well claim such a thing due to the mathematics around infinity. Half of my god is equal to exactly one of my god, mathematically speaking.

Thus, when using my definition for a god, there is a whole number god, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like it!

I don't know if Murphy would be a "god" but there surely is a bit of irrationality to the various "Murphy's Laws".

My favorite one of course is "Muphry's Law".

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn't negative though. There isn't such a thing as "negative atomic vibration" or "negative heat". I think rather your statement here should be reversed: "The fact that a positive amount can be mapped to some negative amount doesn't mean that the positive amount isn't positive."

Unfortunately it is Celsius, not Kelvin, that is the arbitrary negative mapping.



So... you yourself claimed that I should use my definition of "god" rather than any you provide. And yet it seems you're trying to debate over the definition of a "god" and whether that thing exists outside the conceptual or not.

If we're using my definition for the sake of my posts, it is not something that exists merely within the conceptual.



Which would only really have been a relevant response if I had known the pointlessness of your OP before inquiring further. But I only learned of the pointless way you wanted to define God through this "meta-discussion". Such inquiry was a necessary step in realizing the pointlessness of the original post.

See a discussion on whether or not there could be fractional gods would interest me very much on a theoretical level working with some fixed definition of "god". But if every post is rendered as simply "this is how I define god", then I don't think this thread will get to any of the interesting theoreticals I was hoping for. I was merely expressing my disappointment at the promising premise going a rather mundane and trodden upon direction.



Okay... I just really don't understand people and how they choose to post things. Why not make such intentions clear from the original post if you only wanted answers from that type of person??



So from this and your comments on the Celsius scale I'm getting the feeling that you don't know much about mathematics or sciences. I apologize if this is not the case, but I'll operate under the assumption you aren't acquainted with mathematics surrounding infinity going forward and try to carefully explain everything. I apologize again if I am mistaken in my assumptions about your knowledge of mathematics and thus overexplain things in the following:

You see, it's not that there is "no meaningful difference", it's that there is no difference at all.

Infinity is a really weird number and mathematics gets pretty weird and complex when involving it. ∞ divided by anything is still ∞.

So any and all fractions of ∞ are, when divided, equal to the original ∞. ∞/1 = ∞/2 = ∞/3 = ∞/4. Do you follow so far??

So when you say:



I can say it is exactly one infinity because "a quarter of infinity" is equal to exactly one infinity.

If you still don't really understand, I get it, because infinity is a tricky subject in mathematics. But if there was a "quarter of a god" as I define a god, as the definition you wish me to use, there'd still be, mathematically, "exactly one god" because of how infinity works.

In the rough analogous terms you used, "infinity is more like a pile".

I'd also like to note that I never did state there was "exactly one infinity". Nevertheless, I address your point here because I could very well claim such a thing due to the mathematics around infinity. Half of my god is equal to exactly one of my god, mathematically speaking.

Thus, when using my definition for a god, there is a whole number god, no matter how you slice it.

One must be careful. Though you gave examples of infinities that are equal to each other some infinities are larger than others. We could play, my infinity is greater than your infinity forever.

 

[David T]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

Awesome thread. To place what we pretend logic to be "REAL" one must reframe your question correctly first!!! So we can frame this how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ! Now we have it correctly framed we can start the debate.

1. Believer- an infinite number is allowed since God has no constraints!

2. Non believer- zero emperical proof of no constraints since no proof has been shown just based on scientific observation belief in the above is superstition at best.

3. Agnostic- I am uncertain between 1.and 2. Until there is proof or non proof to either I will be smaaaaaart.


..... Somewhere else Standing in nature laughter laughing its *** off at the above absurdity at the above!!! You have got to be hahaha hahaha!!!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not sure if you understood that article. There are some "infinities" that have more members in their sets than others. For example, it can be shown that there are more real numbers than there are whole numbers. Here is a short article on the concept:

Cardinality - Wikipedia

 

[sealchan]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

Well if Kunti and Madri had five children together and those children's father were gods, then the children were half gods. So the Pandava were 2.5 gods!

Also since Mary and God had a baby that would make Jesus 0.5 gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It isn't negative though. There isn't such a thing as "negative atomic vibration" or "negative heat". I think rather your statement here ca

I wasn't talking about "negative heat;" I was talking about negative temperature. Not the same thing.

So... you yourself claimed that I should use my definition of "god" rather than any you provide. And yet it seems you're trying to debate over the definition of a "god" and whether that thing exists outside the conceptual or not.

I'm asking you a question, not debating.

If we're using my definition for the sake of my posts, it is not something that exists merely within the conceptual.

So "god," by the way you understand it, has attributes that make negative gods impossible or meaningless. Thank you.

Which would only really have been a relevant response if I had known the absurdity of your OP before inquiring further. But I only learned of the pointless way you wanted to define God through this "meta-discussion". Such inquiry was a necessary step in realizing the pointlessness of the original post.

And yet... here you are... discussing it.

Okay... I just really don't understand people and how they choose to post things. Why not make such intentions clear from the original post if you only wanted answers from that type of person??

I didn't say "only;" I said "especially." Maybe read more carefully.

So from this and your comments on the Celsius scale I'm getting the feeling that you don't know much about mathematics or sciences.

And your feeling is wrong.

I apologize if this is not the case, but I'll operate under the assumption you aren't acquainted with mathematics surrounding infinity going forward and try to carefully explain everything. I apologize again if I am mistaken in my assumptions about your knowledge of mathematics and thus overexplain things in the following:

Instead of assuming that, maybe take my posts to mean what I say and not what you assume I'm trying to say (e.g. assuming that I meant "negative heat" when I was talking about negative temperature).

You see, it's not that there is "no meaningful difference", it's that there is no difference at all.

"Meaningful difference" was your term. I used it in my reply so that you would understand that I was talking about the same thing you were.

Infinity is a really weird number and mathematics gets pretty weird and complex when involving it. ∞ divided by anything is still ∞.

Infinity is more of a concept than a number, actually, and what you say isn't actually true. Have you ever studied limits?

For instance, ∞^2 is infinite, so in that sense it's "equal to" infinity, but the limit of x^2/x as x approaches infinity is ∞, not 1.

So any and all fractions of ∞ are, when divided, equal to the original ∞. ∞/1 = ∞/2 = ∞/3 = ∞/4. Do you follow so far??

I follow you. You're wrong, but i follow you.

They're all infinite numbers; they don't actually equal each other. The limit of, say, (x)/(x/4) as x goes to infinity is 4, not 1 (as it would be if the numerator and denominator were actually equal to each other.

So when you say:



I can say it is exactly one infinity because "a quarter of infinity" is equal to exactly one infinity.

If you still don't really understand, I get it, because infinity is a tricky subject in mathematics. But if there was a "quarter of a god" as I define a god, as the definition you wish me to use, there'd still be, mathematically, "exactly one god" because of how infinity works.

I'd also like to note that I never did state there was "exactly one infinity". Nevertheless, I address your point here because I could very well claim such a thing due to the mathematics around infinity. Half of my god is equal to exactly one of my god, mathematically speaking.

Thus, when using my definition for a god, there is a whole number god, no matter how you slice it.

"Half of my god is equal to exactly one of my gods" implies that your god can be seen as a fractional god.

 

[Sanzbir]

And yet... here you are... discussing it.

Of course. It still has potential even if you're taking it in an incredibly pointless direction.

Instead of assuming that, maybe take my posts to mean what I say and not what you assume I'm trying to say (e.g. assuming that I meant "negative heat" when I was talking about negative temperature).

"Meaningful difference" was your term. I used it in my reply so that you would understand that I was talking about the same thing you were.

Infinity is more of a concept than a number, actually, and what you say isn't actually true. Have you ever studied limits?

For instance, ∞^2 is infinite, so in that sense it's "equal to" infinity, but the limit of x^2/x as x approaches infinity is ∞, not 1.

I follow you. You're wrong, but i follow you.

They're all infinite numbers; they don't actually equal each other. The limit of, say, (x)/(x/4) as x goes to infinity is 4, not 1 (as it would be if the numerator and denominator were actually equal to each other.

Perhaps I missed it, but could you point to where I defined "god" as a function that contained limits?

"Half of my god is equal to exactly one of my gods" implies that your god can be seen as a fractional god.

Yeah, but it also can be seen as a whole god, thus it answers your specific question of how I could say "this infinity is exactly one infinity" now doesn't it?? (And again, I never said that to begin with, so your question of "how I could say it" is somewhat irrelevent in the first place because you are putting words in my mouth. But never-the-less I could have stated it because it is clearly still a whole even if you can see it as fractional as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps I missed it, but could you point to where I defined "god" as a function that contained limits?

So you don't understand the relevance? Maybe I'm talking above your level of understanding.

When two numbers are equal, dividing one number by the other gives you one. When we divide infinite terms by each other, we often get answers other than 1, indicating that they aren't equal. That was my point: your claim was wrong.

Yeah, but it also can be seen as a whole god, thus it answers your specific question of how I could say "this infinity is exactly one infinity" now doesn't it?? (And again, I never said that to begin with, so your question of "how I could say it" is somewhat irrelevent in the first place because you are putting words in my mouth. But never-the-less I could have stated it because it is clearly still a whole even if you can see it as fractional as well.

But based on what you've said, the decision to see your god as "a whole" or as a fractional god (or multiple gods) is an arbitrary, subjective decision on your part.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

How about pi gods, or any other irrational number? But in all honesty, if there is a "number" of gods, I'd say it would have to be an imaginary number.

 

[Milton Platt]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

Not sure I understand this question. But the 4 glasses of wine probably doesn't help

 

[blü 2]

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

The number of gods is 0 + i.

 

[whirlingmerc]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

There is 1 God because He says so.
However within the unity of the Godhead there can be diversity and harmony of 3
Why? because He says so

 

[whirlingmerc]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

God is supernatural but 1 is a natural number
and there is only 1 God, God being infinite and 1 being a real positive prime number and finite
The effect of imaginary godz is negative
The number of imaginary godz are manifold because people are 'idol factories' but stilll not an imaginary number rather large and positive

A posited debate - The Super Baal

 

[soulsurvivor]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

Gods are not that different from humans - they are just relatively perfect (without flaws) and more powerful. Can you have negative humans or 10.75 humans?

 

[Straw Dog]

An offhand remark in another thread got me to thinking:

Can you - or anyone - demonstrate that there are a whole number of gods?

To refresh everyone's memory: the whole numbers are zero and all positive integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). Fractions, negative numbers, irrational number, complex numbers, etc., aren't whole numbers.

So... has anyone demonstrated that the number of gods isn't negative? Fractional? What is it about "god" that implies we can't have, say, -3 gods or 10.75 gods?

I don't know... Maybe god is like an imaginary number that could still work within equations for describing real phenomena that we perceive to experience. How can we rationalize the fact that imaginary and complex numbers exist? To be honest... I'm really ignorant on this subject & just smart enough to realize how dumb I am in mathematics, specifically. I do find mathematical vs theological conceptions of reality to be fascinating, though.

 

[Augustus]

So is that how "god" works? Is a demigod the same thing as half a god?

It can if you want it to. It's a matter of perspective.

Can you be half-French?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Gods are not that different from humans - they are just relatively perfect (without flaws) and more powerful. Can you have negative humans or 10.75 humans?

Of course we can't have negative or fractional human beings. If you understand gods to be "not that different from humans," fine. Your reply suggests that you've defined "god" for yourself at least enough to say that gods are countable objects, which means you've defined the term much more precisely than many other people have.