Is God the Creator of reality?

Originally posted by Coletti
Think of it as half of a proposition in logical form. Any proposition can be written in one of the forms: All A is B, No A is B, Some A is B, Some A is not B.

"An even Prime number greater than 2" is half the proposition. In this case it is the predicate or B side.

"Nothing" is the A or subject side.

(Nothing) is (an even prime number greater than 2)

Could you answer the previous question?

Your most recent post seems to assert that there is a thing, called 'nothing' which is an even prime greater than 2. In order to be an even prime greater than two, something must be a natural number divisible by 2, having no divisors other than istelf and 1, that is greater than 2. According to your post, since 'nothing' (some object/concept) is an even prime greater than 2, it satisfies those properties -- so what is the exact value of nothing?

Originally posted by royalchicken
Could you answer the previous question?

Your most recent post seems to assert that there is a thing, called 'nothing' which is an even prime greater than 2. In order to be an even prime greater than two, something must be a natural number divisible by 2, having no divisors other than istelf and 1, that is greater than 2. According to your post, s ...[text shortened]... en prime greater than 2, it satisfies those properties -- so what is the exact value of nothing?

Nothing is the null set, the empty set. It is the set of all contradictions.

Instead of saying "an even prime number greater than two" exists, let me say:

There exists "an even prime number greater than two."

Further, let us break down the phrase into it's logical parts.

A: (Y is a prime number)
B: (Y is greater then 2)
C: (Y is even number)

so

Y is (A & B & C)

Now let Y be anything (because it does not change the results).

Y is (A & B & C) is false

because (A & B & C) is a Contradiction.

(We know mathematically there is no number that can be both a prime, an even number, and greater than 2 at the same time.)

But Contradictions exist. We can think about contradictions, define them. So if contradiction exist, there must be an answer:

There is an X such that X = ( A & B & C ) is true

and X is (A & B & C) exists.

If Y = (A & B & C) is false

then ~Y = ( A & B & C ) is true

~Y = X = ( A & B & C )

Y = anything
so ~Y = nothing

(the contrary of anything is nothing)

So: [Nothing is ( A & B & C )] exists.

The problem with "exist" is that exist means "be" and "be" is a form of "is".

When you say X exists, you are saying the "X is". "X is" can mean anything or nothing. You can not get any certain true or false value out of "X is" unless you add a P (predicate).

X is P has a definite true/false value.

In the case of (A & B & C) exist, we can say (A & B & C) exists as the predicate of "nothing".

Originally posted by Coletti

There exists "an even prime number greater than two."

By this, do you mean that the phrase 'an even prime number greater than two' exists, or do you mean that there exists an object satisfying your properties A,B and C?

"Y is (A & B & C)" is false because (A & B & C) is a Contradiction.

Agreed.

There is an X such that X = ( A & B & C ) is true

Do you mean 'there is an X having the properties A, B and C'? If this is the case, recall that we can make universal claims about nonexistent things ('all elements of the empty set are Calvinists'😉 but not existential ones ('there exists a Calvinist who is an element of the empty set'😉. If you mean 'there is an X having the properties A,B and C' you are essentially saying 'there is an X which does not exist', which is a contradiction. I don't see why our ability to think about contradictions makes them 'true'.

Y = anything
so ~Y = nothing

This is spurious -- if it is the crux of your argument, you've simply argued from the colloquial meanings of 'anything' and 'nothing'. I agree that since Y satisfies contradictory properties, we can give it any additional properties we like, but it does not follow that whatever is not Y (ie does not satisfy A, B and C) is 'nothing'.

So: [Nothing is ( A & B & C )] exists.

Yes, but we weren't disputing whether that snetence exists, we were disputing your original claim to Cribs about there not existing nonexistent things.

When you say X exists, you are saying the "X is". "X is" can mean anything or nothing. You can not get any certain true or false value out of "X is" unless you add a P (predicate).

This is true but contradicts what you said before, since you said to Cribs that the statement 'anything exists' is true.

In the case of (A & B & C) exist, we can say (A & B & C) exists as the predicate of "nothing".

This again is something different. We were discussing the proposition 'there exists X such that X satisfies (A, B and C)', not whether the statement 'A, B and C' exists.

Clearly you meant something rather less formal in your original post to Cribs about everything existing and are now narrowing your claim, because examples have been provided which clearly contradict it.

Originally posted by royalchicken
[b]There exists "an even prime number greater than two."

By this, do you mean that the phrase 'an even prime number greater than two' exists, or do you mean that there exists an object satisfying your properties A,B and C?
...[text shortened]... cause examples have been provided which clearly contradict it.[/b][/b]

Would it help if I said everything exists instead of anything?

I think you missed the whole point of the thread - and that is "X exists" is meaningless because everything exists. It is the same as saying "X is" which is half a logical statement.

"Nothing" is "a an even prime number greater than two." is a true statement. That is why I said the "an even prime number greater then two" exists as the predicate of "nothing".

I'm not talking about the sentence, I'm taking about two concepts. Concepts exist. Even the concept of "nothing" exists. The question is how we define them, not if they exist.

...recall that we can make universal claims about nonexistent ...things but not existential ones

Herein lies the problem. The whole concept of existential import is the problem. Existential import is based on the false claim the NO universal claims have existential import, and ALL particular claims do have existential import. This piece of logical fiction is why people hold on to the idea of things existing or not existing. And it is the reason why the tradition square of opposition was abandoned. Truly, this refinement of logic was a restriction on valid inferences to make logical calculation easier. But it should be seen as a subset of logic based on "universal" assumptions that are not correct (not universal).

Things not existing is like saying "this sentence is a lie." It is a problem is one of logical contradictions. A number that is an even prime greater than two is a logical contradiction. Any claim to have a number that has all those properties would be impossible because it is a contradiction, not because the concepts are true or false.

I say all things (everything) exists because everything includes things that are known only by rational thought, such as love, freedom, and unicorns, and anything else that can be conceived of and reasoned about.

So everything does exit, but not everything exists as one defines them.

Originally posted by telerion
And . . .

Is God a subset of his own creation?

(God here is Yahweh)

Of course!

Ecclesiastes 11:5

As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things

Originally posted by telerion
And . . .

Is God a subset of his own creation?

(God here is Yahweh)

Well Yeah!

Isaiah 44:24
"This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Originally posted by telerion
And . . .

Is God a subset of his own creation?

(God here is Yahweh)

And my favorite.......

John 1:3


Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Originally posted by chinking58
And my favorite.......

John 1:3


Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Thank you for answering the first question three times. (Did I hear a cock crow? 🙂 )

How about the second question? Is God a subset of his own creation?

Or were those also your answers to the second question?

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Yahweh being the creator in the old testament.

Since nobody comment on it when I posted it in RBH's Noah thread. I'll use the same arguement.

genesis chapter 9:11 states

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth ...[text shortened]... ...................................

Plus if he doesn't exist then he can't create reality🙂

I think you just brought up an excellent point. If one were to attempt to hold the Bible as absolute truth literally as written, it would never hold as reliable. However, it should be obvious by the need for a conversation like this one that no one is willing to defend that standpoint. Hence, we have theology, philosophy, and divine revalation to fill in the gaps among the most important themes within the Bible. I don't think picking out contradictions with the literal translation of the Bible is sufficient to reject two major religions...

Originally posted by telerion
Thank you for answering the first question three times. (Did I hear a cock crow? 🙂 )

How about the second question? Is God a subset of his own creation?

Or were those also your answers to the second question?

First off, this is one hell of a question (no pun intended) for a science geek like myself to be attempting. In thinking about what little I know of set theory, it seems to me that your question is leading us toward the age-old Russell's paradox. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the main idea is that no set contains all subsets AND itself. Perhaps you were implying that "creation" is essentially reality and God must be within it in order to be real? If that is the case, then it appears as though you are setting up an ultimate set (reality). Please fill me in on where you were going with this question.

Originally posted by telerion
Thank you for answering the first question three times. (Did I hear a cock crow? 🙂 )

How about the second question? Is God a subset of his own creation?

Or were those also your answers to the second question?

Yeah, I stopped at three references. It seems God anticipated the question and is determined for people to know where all things came from.

The second question is just sophomoric. What is it for except to confuse things? It's like saying "Is the chef part of the meal?"

And I have a verse that seems to address this kind of question, from 2 Tim 2

23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Originally posted by chinking58
Yeah, I stopped at three references. It seems God anticipated the question and is determined for people to know where all things came from.

The second question is just sophomoric. What is it for except to confuse things? It's like saying "Is the chef part of the meal?"

And I have a verse that seems to address this kind of question, from 2 Tim ...[text shortened]... their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

I'm sorry you didn't get the second question. In my opinion, it deserves more honest reflection on your part. Do you know what the question is asking?

Originally posted by yousers
First off, this is one hell of a question (no pun intended) for a science geek like myself to be attempting. In thinking about what little I know of set theory, it seems to me that your question is leading us toward the age-old Russell's paradox. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the main idea is that no set contains all subsets AND itself. Perhaps ...[text shortened]... ing up an ultimate set (reality). Please fill me in on where you were going with this question.

First off, this is one hell of a question (no pun intended) for a science geek like myself to be attempting.

Thanks. It's something I got to thinking about while considering the idea of a creator of all reality. Probably should spend as much energy working on a dissertation topic 🙂 .

In thinking about what little I know of set theory, it seems to me that your question is leading us toward the age-old Russell's paradox. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the main idea is that no set contains all subsets AND itself.

I hadn't forseen it going toward Russell's Paradox, but I see what you're saying. My aside to dj2 or KJ or whoever asking if God (defined in the context of that particular discussion as the entire set) is also in the set.

Perhaps you were implying that "creation" is essentially reality and God must be within it in order to be real? If that is the case, then it appears as though you are setting up an ultimate set (reality). Please fill me in on where you were going with this question.

Yeah, I think that is right. Is it possible to construct this sort of set?

The word "creation" gets muddled because some people here speak of it as a proper noun, "Creation," the 6-day handiwork of Yahweh. I try to leave open the possibility of other real things existing that are not part of this particular Creation.

I think I'm trying to establish that reality is a more fundamental presupposition than God.

The ultimate task is to get a few particular people who prattle constantly about God being the creator of reality or about God being reality itself to think about their statements.

Originally posted by Coletti
Nothing is the null set, the empty set. It is the set of all contradictions.

Instead of saying "an even prime number greater than two" exists, let me say:

There exists "an even prime number greater than two."

Further, let us ...[text shortened]... , we can say (A & B & C) exists as the predicate of "nothing".

Nonsense. There's so much nonsense here, I don't know where to begin my criticism. In all seriousness, you really should enroll in a remedial course in critical thinking if this is the sort of thing at which you would like to become at least minimally competent and possibly someday proficient. As it is now, you're just babbling. It's really embarassing for everybody.

Originally posted by LemonJello
my first thought is to wonder what you mean specifically by 'reality'.

immediately, i see no reason why the existence of any god would need to be a necessary condition for reality, but i have only a vague notion in my head of what reality is, so i think we need to formulate a defintion of reality before we will get anywhere here...

do you have a definition in mind?

Reality is just point of view... as every one sees "reality" from a different perspective... none of us share the same "reality"... as some one gets "messed up" there point of view changes... so there "reality does... so does that mean the little penguin that walked out of my tellivision in to my living room and wanted to kill me was real... or the little green gremlins my friend cory is allways chasing...