First Order Predicate Logic vs The Judeo-Christian creator

[pack3tg0st]

The paradox created by assuming the existence of the judeo-christian creator/god.

This will be a Deductive First Order Predicate Logic demonstration of paradox.

First a few terms:

{exist} will represent the finite set of anything that exists. We may also represent this set with the numeral 1.

{no/exist} will represent an infinite set of possibilities that don't exist. This set can be represented with a numeral 0, as {0} or as {/}, all meaning 'null'.

These two sets are in binary opposition to each other. It is literally impossible to have a concept outside of these two sets

Now, the paradox exists when we assume the judeo-christian premise that god created existence.

Somehow we have to solve logically how god + {0} = {exist}

If god is outside of {exist}, than he is a member of the null set: {0}. Assuming this, we can rewrite the formula {0} + {0} = {exist}. Or to simplify, 0 + 0 = 1.

If god is a member of {exist}, than we have another problem.

For god to be a member of the set {exist}, we have to assume that the set existed prior to our 'god'.

{no/exist} + god = {exist}... meaning, for a supreme being to create something, he must himself exist. Thus, existence already exists, and doesn't need to be created.

Essentially, if god exists within the cosmos, than the cosmos must have existed prior to 'god'. Which would be rather troublesome, as god would be out of a job.. (why create something that already exists)

We're now down to two statements for the beginnings of existence.

{no/exist} (existence) + {no/exist} (matter} = {exist}

0 + 0 = 1

OR

{exist}(Cosmos) + {no/exist}creator = {exist}

1 + 0 = 1.

which is essentially stating, using Occam's Razor, that {exist} = {exist}... eliminating the need for a creator.
Assuming the judeo christian god created everything, We got ourselves a paradox...

However, by assuming the universe didn't need a creator... we eliminate the paradox, and have the logical axiom of {exist} = {exist}

[Rhizomorph13]

This must have been what was on Homer's paper when he had the crayon removed from his nose. I like it! A mathematical proof that god doesn't exist. isn't needed.

[pack3tg0st]

Meh, its not really a proof that he doesn't exist...

Its more of a proof that in order for him to exist, we have to get into logical paradoxes...

this is just one of many...

I wrote it up and posted it in response to a christfag on another forum... figured I'd put it here for anyone to use if they'd like.

[Tiberius]

The paradox is destroyed if we actually assume the correct view of the Judeo-Christian God, which is that this being created everything except for itself.

{exist} \ {God} + {God} = {exist}

Thus, existence already exists, and doesn't need to be created.

Existence as a concept already existed, but that doesn't mean that the entire set of existing things exists. Existence already existed at the time of the Big Bang, but humans didn't. By your argument, humans already existed 13.7 billion years ago, which is false.

The Judeo-Christian God was the first existing thing, and added to the set of existing things by creating stuff. It isn't a hard concept to grasp, and I'm afraid this mathematical "disproof" fails on all counts.

[Rhizomorph13]

There I fixed it. Christfag huh? lol

[pack3tg0st]

The paradox is destroyed if we actually assume the correct view of the Judeo-Christian God, which is that this being created everything except for itself.

{exist} \ {God} + {God} = {exist}

Thus, existence already exists, and doesn't need to be created.

Existence as a concept already existed, but that doesn't mean that the entire set of existing things exists. Existence already existed at the time of the Big Bang, but humans didn't. By your argument, humans already existed 13.7 billion years ago, which is false.

The Judeo-Christian God was the first existing thing, and added to the set of existing things by creating stuff. It isn't a hard concept to grasp, and I'm afraid this mathematical "disproof" fails on all counts.

not really, you're using the set {exists} in correctly...

Either something exists and belongs in the {exists} set... or it doesn't and it belongs in the {no/exist} set.

using god as a seperate set outside of the other two sets doesn't work...

Predicate logic is black/white... etc... just raw logic...

Everything MUST belong to {exists} or {no/exist}. One or the other.

[Minimalist]

I hate math.

[fr0d0]

I hate math.

Awesome!

Haha

[tavarish]

The paradox is destroyed if we actually assume the correct view of the Judeo-Christian God, which is that this being created everything except for itself.

{exist} \ {God} + {God} = {exist}

Thus, existence already exists, and doesn't need to be created.

Existence as a concept already existed, but that doesn't mean that the entire set of existing things exists. Existence already existed at the time of the Big Bang, but humans didn't. By your argument, humans already existed 13.7 billion years ago, which is false.

The Judeo-Christian God was the first existing thing, and added to the set of existing things by creating stuff. It isn't a hard concept to grasp, and I'm afraid this mathematical "disproof" fails on all counts.

If existence is eternal, why need a God? Wouldn't things pretty much sprout on their own sooner or later with an infinite amount of time?

Also, who created existence if God is subject to it?

[Tiberius]

Either something exists and belongs in the {exists} set... or it doesn't and it belongs in the {no/exist} set.

I got that, and I didn't use it incorrectly. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with set notation?

{exist} \ {God} means "Everything in the set of existing things minus the subset containing God". So {exist} \ {God} + {God} = {exist} simply states that the set of everything that exists apart form God, plus God, equals the set of everything that exists. It is the same as saying: 2 - 1 + 1 = 2

using god as a seperate set outside of the other two sets doesn't work...

Well it does if you aren't breaking the rule that everything has to be in one set of the other. How else can you reference specific items of either set?

My point of contention is that you are arguing that everything in {exist} must already exist at the beginning, and therefore God cannot possibly have created everything in the {exist} set. You ignore the common Christian belief that God created (brought into existence) everything.

Thus, at the "beginning":

{exist} = {God} (The only thing existing was God)
{no/exist} = Every possible thing that does not exist.

God, being supposedly all-powerful, then moves items from the set of {no/exist} into the set of {exist}. So, say for example that God creates man:

{exist} = {exist} U {man}
{no/exist} = {no/exist} \ {man}

In the first step, God puts {man} in the {exist} set, since he now exists. He simultaneously (so as not to break your rule) removes {man} from the set of {no/exist}.

If existence is eternal, why need a God? Wouldn't things pretty much sprout on their own sooner or later with an infinite amount of time?

Existence isn't actually a thing though. Existence itself doesn't belong in the set {exists} since it would be contradictory. Existence is an attribute of the system, nothing else. The very system was set up so as to preclude existence, otherwise you could not come up with the rules he set out at the beginning (that everything that exists belongs in {exist}, and everything that doesn't is in {no/exist}). If there is nothing that exists that can bring things into existence, how do expect things to move out of the {no/exist} set into the {exist} set?

Also, who created existence if God is subject to it?

See above. Existence is an attribute (and a subjective one at that). It is an attribute of the system used to describe relationships between the {exist} and {no/exist} sets, not an object in the set.