Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Matheology � 197
Posted:
Jan 25, 2013 10:47 AM


"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote in message news:0a1509c903394944a37a39d048ad4dd0@f25g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Matheology § 197
"The global unity of mathematics with religion is central in Plato's work, and in his followers' such as Plotinus and Proclus, but also much later in modern times." [Mathematics and the Divine. A Historical Study edited by Teun Koetsier and Luc Bergmans, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2005, Hardbound, 716 pp., US $250, ISBN$3: 9780444503282, ISBNIO: 0444503285 Rewieved by JeanMichel Kantor in The Mathematical Intelligencer 30, 4 (2008) 7071] Compare Goedel's proof of God and Cantor's arguing in favour of uncountable numbers and Hilbert's laudatio of Cantor's work. My often cursed noun matheology does not seem to be really far fetched.
Regards, WM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
but you dont have anything like this;
Definition 1: x is Godlike if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed byi.e., strictly implied bya positive property is positive Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. Axiom 3: The property of being Godlike is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being Godlike is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is Godlike, then the property of being Godlike is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being Godlike is exemplified. (T1) = It is not true that if it always has been the case that a Godlike being exists then a Godlike being exists and it is always going to be the case that a Godlike being exists in (n).
(T2) = It always has been the case that a Godlike being existed in (n).
(T3) = It is not true that a Godlike being exists and it is always going to exist in (n).
(T4) = A Godlike being does not exist in (n)
(T4)' = It is not the case that a Godlike being will always exist in (n).
(T5) = In sometime in the future it will be the case that a Godlike being will not exist in (n).
(T6) = (n) occurred before (k).
(T7) = A Godlike being does not exist in (k).
(T8) = (k) occurred before (n). (Reflexive Rule)
(T9) = A Godlike being exists in (k).
The negation of the formula creates a contradiction.
The argument is logically valid, meaning that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is guaranteed to also be true.



