RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 4:15 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 4:21 pm by Kernel Sohcahtoa.)
The following post is made out of a spirit of curiosity and is not intended to be insulting or condescending.
With that said, in mathematics, there are the concepts of countable infinity and uncountable infinity. In a nutshell, a set is countable if its cardinality (the number of elements in a set) is equal to the cardinality of the set of natural numbers (the infinite set of positive integers). Naturally, a set that is not countable is called an uncountable set. Hence, there is a 1-1 correspondence between the elements of any two countable sets (e.g., there is a 1-1 correspondence between the elements of the set of natural numbers and the set of rationals, despite the fact that the natural numbers are a subset of the infinite set of rationals). However, no such correspondence exists between a countable set and an uncountable set (e.g., there exists no 1-1 correspondence between the countable set of natural numbers and the uncountable set of real numbers).
Now, in referencing the above, assuming that a deity exists and that it has limitations yet it can be conceived of in terms of infinity, then is it more accurate to think of it in terms of countable infinity? Why can't it be that this deity is the equivalent of a countable set contained within an uncountable set? Or for that matter, and with all due respect, why can't this deity be the equivalent of a countable set contained within another countable set (both of which are contained within an uncountable set)? Perhaps the actual meaning of reality could be part of an uncountable infinite that transcends humanity's present thought patterns (e.g., god concepts, philosophy, theories, etc.)?
With that said, in mathematics, there are the concepts of countable infinity and uncountable infinity. In a nutshell, a set is countable if its cardinality (the number of elements in a set) is equal to the cardinality of the set of natural numbers (the infinite set of positive integers). Naturally, a set that is not countable is called an uncountable set. Hence, there is a 1-1 correspondence between the elements of any two countable sets (e.g., there is a 1-1 correspondence between the elements of the set of natural numbers and the set of rationals, despite the fact that the natural numbers are a subset of the infinite set of rationals). However, no such correspondence exists between a countable set and an uncountable set (e.g., there exists no 1-1 correspondence between the countable set of natural numbers and the uncountable set of real numbers).
Now, in referencing the above, assuming that a deity exists and that it has limitations yet it can be conceived of in terms of infinity, then is it more accurate to think of it in terms of countable infinity? Why can't it be that this deity is the equivalent of a countable set contained within an uncountable set? Or for that matter, and with all due respect, why can't this deity be the equivalent of a countable set contained within another countable set (both of which are contained within an uncountable set)? Perhaps the actual meaning of reality could be part of an uncountable infinite that transcends humanity's present thought patterns (e.g., god concepts, philosophy, theories, etc.)?
