First Order Predicate Logic vs The Judeo-Christian creator

[pack3tg0st]

But your failing to account for god.

If god is in the set {exists}, than he did not 'create' the set {exists}

If he can move from {no/exist} into {exists} than the creator did indeed come from nothing, and has an origin...

You're also forgetting that the creator created {exists} from {no/exist}

The paradox isn't related to 'god'.

It relates to a creator as described in the judeo-christian faith.

[tavarish]

I think an issue here is that create needs to be defined clearly.

Either create means bring into existence with no prior elements (building without materials or literally bringing into existence that which does not exist), or manipulate already existing elements into a new arrangement, creating new entities (building with pre-existing materials, bringing into existence new entities from material that already exists)

[Tiberius]

But your failing to account for god.

If god is in the set {exists}, than he did not 'create' the set {exists}

If he can move from {no/exist} into {exists} than the creator did indeed come from nothing, and has an origin...

You're also forgetting that the creator created {exists} from {no/exist}

The paradox isn't related to 'god'.

It relates to a creator as described in the judeo-christian faith.

Ok, but then your entire example fails because it isn't an accurate representation of reality. The sets {exists} and {no/exists} don't actually exist physically, only as concepts to help us understand the nature of existence.

No, God didn't create the set {exists} because no such set exists as a "thing". It is simply a mathematical description of everything that exists.

I suggest you actually read up on the faith before you make wild assertions about it, since anyone with even a basic understanding of Christianity would know that the God of Christianity is said to be eternal (i.e. has always existed) and has never been a member of the set {no/exists}, and that it was the first thing in existence, so was the first member of the set {exists}.

No, the God didn't create the set {exists}, but that is because the set {exists} is an abstract model that only appears in your attempted mathematical model. There is no such thing in reality. The Christian God was the first thing to exist, never "not-existed", and created everything that does exist.

[pack3tg0st]

lol You're not following first order predicate logic.

yes, the sets {exists} and {no/exist} are groups, and not physical 'containers'...

BUT, everything in {exists} has one thing in common: existence...

So, if god didn't create existence, than he's kind of out of a job.

Remember that even if there is nothing (i.e. a void), the presence of 'nothing' is in itself significant in that there MUST be dimensions for this void to exist. Therefore, even a void is included in the set {exists}.

for a 'god' to be eternal, and to have no beginning or end, there must be a 'void' or SOMEPLACE for this diety to exist.

The only way around this is to say that the creator is outside of existence... which puts the architect of the cosmos in the {no/exists} set.

[Tiberius]

I'm following perfectly. You just don't seem to be following my rebuttal, which is that you are assuming that existence is something that can be created, when I'm arguing that it is merely an attribute of things.

For instance, take random object X, and assume it doesn't exist. This causes a contradiction, since if X doesn't exist, how can we talk about it? It must have some form of existence for us to even call it object X, and so we say it exists as a concept.

Let's take an example again, this time using your set {no/exist}. Does the set {no/exist} exist? Well, if it doesn't, then your model falls apart, since every object must either be in the set {exists} or {no/exist}, yet {no/exist} doesn't exist. Then we can say that everything exists (which I've argued before), meaning that existence is an attribute rather than something created. Conversely, if {no/exist} does exist, then it is in the set {exist} (by your model), and so everything within the set {no/exist} does in fact exist (again, by your model).

As for your "void" argument, it has nothing to do with the model. I would argue that voids do not need dimensions (since they are "nothing" and do not have space) but there isn't any point since it doesn't have any bearing on the argument.

Another point about the creation of "existence" is that it is self-contradictory. If existence does not exist (yet), then neither do the methods by which one creates existence (since these methods cannot exist without existence). Thus if existence does not exist, it cannot possibly exist, for there is no way of bringing it into existence. Or, if you want it in a standard form:

1) Assume existence does not exist but can be created (brought into existence).
2) If existence does not exist, then the methods used to create existence do not exist either, since if they existed, existence would already exist.
3) If there are no methods that exist to create existence, existence cannot be created.
4) If existence cannot be created, it contradicts (1).
5) Therefore, either existence does not exist and can never exist, or existence itself does not need to be created.
6) Since existence exists, by (5) it does not need to be created.