Philosophy Now Forum

wtf wrote: The answer is that order is not an inherent part of the definition of a set. So the set {a,b,c} has no order on it at all.

If we declare that a set A has no order and that its the same set regardlss of order we get into the infinite regress i was talking about.What does the underlind word mean if not an equivalence realtion relating set A with set A.

It means set A itself (not its constituence) has to be a part of an orderd pair namely (A,A)

But you say...the sets containing (A,A) are the same set we go further on down the infinite regress....

Moyo wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:How is the above an ontological proof of 'God'?

Since the axiom of identity is invalid no thing aor statement is meaningful .therfore the statement.

"There is no God"

is meaningless and so cannot be true (or have any property)

Presumably by this logic the statement 'There is a 'God' ' is also meaningless and so cannot be true(or have any property)?

Hint

Dont use the word same in your explanations..it just places more order ....good luck

Arising_uk wrote:

Moyo wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:How is the above an ontological proof of 'God'?

Since the axiom of identity is invalid no thing aor statement is meaningful .therfore the statement.

"There is no God"

is meaningless and so cannot be true (or have any property)

Presumably by this logic the statement 'There is a 'God' is also meaningless and so cannot be true(or have any property)?

Am i dealing with 2yr olds?

The statement;

"'There is a 'God' is also meaningless and so cannot be true(or have any property)?"

Is meaningless so it cannot be true.

Moyo wrote:...

Am i dealing with 2yr olds?

No but we appear to be.

statement;

"'There is a 'God' is also meaningless and so cannot be true(or have any property)?"

Is meaningless so it cannot be true.

Is this meaningless so untrue? But great! So in essence you cannot prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of this 'God', so Agnosticism it is then and no more talk about any 'God' or 'God's'. Hooray!! I applaud you.

Arising_uk wrote:you cannot prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of this 'God'

meaningles...

Arising_uk wrote:so Agnosticism it is then

It cannot then be Agnosticism since agnosticism is meaningless.

I PUT MY FINGER ON you AND WATCH you SQUIRM

Moyo wrote:meaningles...

Well this certainly is.

It cannot then be Agnosticism since agnosticism is meaningless.

Sorry I can't understand you? Are you saying something meaningful?

Arising_uk wrote:

Moyo wrote:meaningles...

Well this certainly is.

It cannot then be Agnosticism since agnosticism is meaningless.

Sorry I can't understand you? Are you saying something meaningful?

you ARE ONLY PROVING MY POINT

Moyo wrote:

Moyo wrote:...THIS IS A PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD...

What is? As everything you say is meaningless?

Moyo wrote:you ARE ONLY PROVING MY POINT

Did someone say something?

Arising_uk wrote:

Moyo wrote:you ARE ONLY PROVING MY POINT

Did someone say something?

#2_yr_olds

The fact that "cognito ergo ergo sum" means there is meaning. The fact that the axiom of identity is violated and not at the same time makes it irrational to qustion the existance of god. Existence is a miracle.

Moyo wrote: If we declare that a set A has no order and that its the same set regardlss of order we get into the infinite regress i was talking about.

You don't accept the Axiom of Extensionality, which says that two sets are the same if and only if they have exactly the same elements? If you deny Extensionality, then you are rejecting modern set theory. You are free to invent your own set theory, but you are not saying anything meaningful about standard mathematics; since Extensionality is a basic principle of standard set theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality

There is no infinite regress implied by Extensionality.

Moyo wrote: What does the underlind word mean if not an equivalence realtion relating set A with set A.

It means set A itself (not its constituence) has to be a part of an orderd pair namely (A,A)

There's a bit of notational confusion here. A is the set, 'a' is one of its elements. So given the set A, we form the collection {(a,a) : a is an element of A}. That collection, which is a subset of A X A, is the equality relation.

Moyo wrote: But you say...the sets containing (A,A) are the same set we go further on down the infinite regress....

You say there is an infinite regress but I don't see one.

Ah! Now that you've reinstated meaning for yourself I can hear you.

Moyo wrote:#2_yr_olds

Is this some juvenile jargon?

The fact that "cognito ergo ergo sum" means there is meaning. ...

Does it? Well "cognito ergo ergo sum" is a meaningless statement upon a philosophy forum. You might wish to read a guy called Descartes as so far you have reintroduced meaning upon a falsehood.

The fact that the axiom of identity is violated and not at the same time makes it irrational to qustion the existance of god. ...

Still not sure you have proved that the philosophically logical statement that A is A can be violated but you've probably raised an issue about how 'is' is not correctly interpreted by '=' but if what you say is true then you've also proved that it is irrational to raise the existence of 'god'. Good for you, about time we stopped yakking on about 'It'.

Existence is a miracle.

Which one? Yours, the universe, the platypus. But I have no doubt it is all quite amazing.
See this,

Moyo wrote:Since the axiom of identity is invalid no thing aor statement is meaningful. ...

and this?

The fact that "cognito ergo ergo sum" means there is meaning. ...

This is known as a logical contradiction in Philosophy.

How will you resolve it?

wtf wrote:...

There's a bit of notational confusion here. A is the set, 'a' is one of its elements. So given the set A, we form the collection {(a,a) : a is an element of A}. That collection, which is a subset of A X A, is the equality relation. ...

I'm interested in this wtf, how can there be a CP of a single element set {a}? And if there is why is it not {a} or {a,Ø} or even {Ø}?