Lets think of a set of things conceivable, call C. Another of things unconceivable, ~C (a strange notion: conceiving the unconceivable, but may not be a contradiction, as we are not conceiving the unconceivables but just such a collection, and a collection of anything is conceivable.)
What then is the union , C U ~C? What, conceptualy, is such a thing?
Now let us think of a set of things true, T, in the sense that they exists, or ontologically consistent, and another that is not true, or ~T.
Again what is the meaning of the union, T U ~T?
Let superimposed the unions, (C U ~C) and (T U ~T).
Certainly the intersections, C ^ T, C ^ ~T, ~C ^ T, ~C ^ ~T, are not necessarily empty sets.
And thus there can be things unconceivable, that are conceivably true, and things conceivable that are conceivably false. And things unconceivable are by definition not accessible to the human consciousness or intellect at all. And God can be such an unconceivable but true thing.
Thus there is no grounds philosophically speaking to say that just because we cannot know or conceive of a thing it is not true or does not exist.
Now an interesting question: is (C U ~C) = (T U ~T)?
Another of conceiving omnipotence, apart from the idea of the infinite or infinity, is the notion of chance or probability.
If I throw a dice and would pay 1000 your bet if you guess rightly the upward facing face, how would you bet?
Now if I am omnipotent, what is the difference?
Indeed if I can make a call on all such stochastic events, such as the movements of Wall Street, or the outcome of the next presidential election in the US, or the outcome of every sport played in the world, I can truly be god!
To God there is no such thing as probability, which is the degree of belief of an occurrence of a future event (or unknown event).
Let’s take the universal set and union it with everything not in the universal set. That’s a better question. What is that?
The union of anything and its compliment is always the universal set.
The intersection between all things concievable and all things true it our reality at the moment.
The intersection between all things concievable but not true is called rational fantasy.
The intersection between all things inconcievable but true is an empty set, by dependant on the corrolary that all things that are true are also concievable in one form or another by man. (Rationalist thinking… self defeating to consider otherwise).
The intersection between all things inconcievable and not true is still fantasy, but reserved for an alternate fantasy realm where the laws of reality are not the same as ours (a realm that can neither be proven to have existed or not to have exist, but if it does exist, would contradict ours so deeply that our reality would not be related in any fashion.
One is, indeed, an empty NULL set.
Yes, but there is nothing inconcievable that is true. It would contradict man’s rationatlity, which is “undesireable”.
Yes, and if such things are in existence, then all talk of rationalizing God (as this conversation is doing), is moot.
See, I’m agnostic. This means, I don’t think God doesn’t exist. It does mean that I feel that I don’t have the answer, and am on a search to know. I’m not saying that god doesn’t exist (although, I proposed an idea that he may, possibly, not exist by ontological definition…but this is unexplored by me). I will give to the idea that he MAY exist…
However, I will not say that he does exist. This is what THIS particular conversation is about.
That’s a basic corrolary in rationalist thought… you cannot prove something’s non-existence with absolute certainty.
Yes it does… well… they are both one-to-one and onto each other. Plus as they approach the infinite (an impossible concept, but a possible direction), they have the same range which is all complex reals.
This leads me to state that the Universal Set derived from {C U C} is the same as the Universal Set derived from {T U T}.
However, I’m not as clear on the properties of the Universal Set as I should be.[/img]
This is a BIG claim. Essentially you are say that T => C, ie T is a subset of C.
I would rather think that there are T^~C is NOT an empty set, without any contradiction whatsoever to all that is known.
And by definition I cannot know this set, although, obviously, we can talk about it.
You say if T^~C is not an empty set then it contradict man’s “rationality”. Why this is so? What is it in man’s “rationality” that guarantees that he can know ALL truths?
I will now make a BIG claim of my own, namely that we can get some glimpse of elements in the set {T^~C} via revelation.
Perhaps. But not if we factor in revelation, such as God entering into our conceivable world itself, ie making some elements of ~C to be C.
What is the “universe” set form by C U ~C? Reality? as real as real is, and not necessary only that conceivable today. For example until quantum mechanics came along could you even consider the possibility of parallel universes real?
We can talk about the set, but the set is not the same thing as its elements. Its elements cannot be explained or talked about by man.
You have every right to claim that these things can exist, but to Rationalists, this is gibberish.
Man has to be able to understand everything in the universe, otherwise, we have no point in discussing such ideas.
Because, if we can’t know all truths, we cannot fully understand ANYTHING because it adds a factor of probability into even the most simple discussion. I have to believe that everything can be rationally proven and that all things rational are a subset of all things concievable.
Stop mystifying scientific thought. It trivializes the hard work put into it.
So, you believe god CAN make a rock so large he couldn’t lift it? That’s exactly what is means to make some elements of C` to be C.
Yes, yes you could. Because the idea has been around since the 40’s. This is all prior to its proof (which did NOT happen with quantum mechanics… superstring theory, bro).
In fact, if you want to consider every work of fiction as a parrellel universe, you can say man has been considering “other worlds where magiks are real and elves roam amongst man,” for all time.
Neither am I, but I’m pretty sure the Universal Set (U) is equal to itself…
I have a question about this, Rafajafar. Do you mean to say that everything must be capable of being understoof by a human in order for humans to have absolute knowledge of anything in particular? I'm not sure how I feel about that, but even if we grant that everything is capable of being understood, it seems to me that we don't escape the doubt problem. I say that because it's surely impossible for any [i]one[/i] person to understand all things(in terms of lifespan and so on), so for any [i]one[/i] person there is still a factor of probability in all things, I would think. The end result is the same- everybody must be slightly in doubt about all things. Is that right, or am I missing something?
Yes, you’re missing something. The idea that reason is the ruleset of all reality. If you want to reason ANYTHING, you have to believe that EVERYTHING is rational. If there are irrational forces in the universe, then why bother rationalizing anything? Everything could be based on irrationality and we only see apparent rationality.
If you want to believe everything can be irrational, fine. I wont stop you. I wont follow you off of that cliff, but I wont stop you.
I think you are mixing up irrationality with inconceivability. Seemingly you have made them equivalent, without proof.
I can accept that EVERYTHING that is reasonable is RATIONAL - for this statment is merely tautological - and that everything knowable must be accessible to human reason.
And I also can accept that everything conceivable is that which can be arrived at by reason or imaginations, however inspired.
And it is certainly conceivable that that which are inconceivable are not necessarily irrational. And therefore this notion is rational.
And surely you cannot deny that there are things that cannot be derived from mere reason alone nor even the wildest imaginations.
You can, but this is perhaps not the wisest nor the most rational position to hold.
For have you never been surprised by something you never thought of, eg 9/11?
Surprise? What does that have to do with anything?
Wasn’t there a made for T.V. movie in the mid-90’s where terrorists took over a plane and tried to crash it into the white house?
Yeah, I was surprised by 9/11…so what?
I do deny that there are things in existence that cannot be derived from reason (wildest imagination?.. eh, who cares… imagination is more powerful than rationality in so far as things can be seen by imagination but are rationally impossible…such as energy non-conservation physics… and magik). All things that exist not only can be, but ARE derived from reason alone.
I also state that all things in existence are a subset of all things concievable. There are things that are inconcievable that do not exist, there are things concievable but not in existence, and there are things concievable that exist. Lets make this clear…
Nothing inconcievable exists.
Not all things concievable exists.
All things rational are concievable.
All things rational do not exist.
God, even if believed to be a rational being, does not necessarily exist.
God’s existence can be proven through rationality, IF and ONLY IF he exists.
If you find something that is inconcievable but in existence, tell me about it… I wanna see how you persieved the inconcievable.
Have you been to the deepest oceans? Have you been to outermost planet in our solar system? of the universe? Have you been to the centre of the sun? Were you on earth at the time it was formed? Do you know what existed in these times and places?
Are you sure that there will be nothing that can exist other than that you can conceived, by rationale or imaginations? I think it is far too arrogant and foolish a position to hold. I rather err on the side of ignorance and assumption of the limitedness of our rational and imaginations.
And even if I take your position, what you must be saying is all that is conceivable humanly, ie it is the sum of all things conceived and conceivable by all humankind, dead, alive and perhaps even yet to be born.
For an incident like 9/11 was conceived, but not by you, for you are surprised. But it exists or came into existence, despite you not conceiving it.
And as you can never know what is all that is conceived, in the whole world for all times, practically to you, as an individual, there can be things inconceivable but existing.
And then how do you know there is not someone in the whole wide world, for all of humankind history, and in the future, who have or will conceived God?
One: I cannot go to the center of the sun, but that doesn’t make it inconceivable. That means my perceptions are physically limited.
Two: What, pray tell, is the point of rational discussions of god if god is not rationally provable? And how could you prove that god is not rationally provable. If you really believe what you’re saying, then stop posting. I don’t think you do, though. You just fail to see the implications of what you’re arguing.
What are you tring to say with that one. Seems like you trailed off and forgot your predicate.
Ug… please.
There’s an almost infinite combinations of plausible outcomes that are never considered. This is not things “inconcievable”. You can concieve of them just fine. You just do not. Inconcievable is like… oh I dunno, something that defies all rationality. I can’t really think of an example, though. It’s inconcievable.
You don’t know what the word inconceivable means, then. There are things left unpercieved that I can easily conceive of.
Again, you’re missing the point…
Not everything conceivable is rationally possible. EVERYTHING inconceivable is rationally impossible. The idea (and remember, I’m agnostic), is whether we can prove if something we concieve of IS real or IS impossible. Sure, god may be possible, but that means jack shit if he doesn’t exist, yes?
A foolish martyr who still had good to do but succumbed to his own morality for the sake of a point that no one really listens to, only claims they do.
The argument here is “that which is inconceivable does not exist.”
But we have not define what it is to exist? What to you is existence?
We have also not define several other key terms, which I will attempt now: Conceivable: That which a human being can think of, at one time or another.
Inconceivable. That which is beyond any human imagination for all times.
Perception: The human ability to be aware of things other than himself.To be sure you, although you cannot perceive it, you can conceive of what the centre of the sun can be.
However how can you be absolutely sure or rationally certain that your conceptions are all that can possibly exist in the centre of the sun?
Even if I can sum up all the conceptions of every human being dead, alive and yet to be, for all times, I will not be sure I will not be surprised if one day I can indeed perceive the centre of the sun.
You have asserted that “EVERYTHING inconceivable is rationally impossible”. But this is merely tautological, as it simply defines inconceivables as that inaccessible by reason or rational, and not as if it is derived from some fundamental/axiomatic rational imperatives.
And again is being “rationally impossible” the same as not capable of existing? Unless, again you are defining existence merely as that which is rationally possible? Are you? If so then again it is a tautology, and your argument above is true, by definition, but we are no closer to knowing anything at all.
Hey, bud. I was the one who said that perceptions and concievability are of no relation. Even if you COULD percieve the center of the sun, it has no bearing on this argument. Right? So… what’s your point?
I fail to see how this is a tautology. In fact, I disagree whole heartedly with you on that. This is an axiom in and of itself. It neither defines that which is inconcievable nor does it define that which is impossible. It is a simple premise for arguments that eschews all irrational thinking from happening. It is the miracle killer. This is a very strong and important statement. It means that we should no longer worry about that which we cannot conceive of. We should focus directly on that which we can conceive of and whether or not it is impossible. It means that we are transcending mystical evidence and looking at what we can rationalize and its validity. It means that there are no more invisible men.
It means that if god is to exist, he must show himself to our reasons.
You still fail to see the circularities in your arguments. But ignoring it, just as you did, let me just focus on one question I have asked: what do you mean to say something exist?