"WM" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.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: 978-0-444-50328-2, ISBN-IO: 0-444-50328-5 Rewieved by Jean-Michel Kantor in The Mathematical Intelligencer 30, 4 (2008) 70-71] 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.
Definition 1: x is God-like 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 by-i.e., strictly implied by-a positive property is positive Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. Axiom 3: The property of being God-like 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 God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. (T1) = It is not true that if it always has been the case that a God-like being exists then a God-like being exists and it is always going to be the case that a God-like being exists in (n).
(T2) = It always has been the case that a God-like being existed in (n).
(T3) = It is not true that a God-like being exists and it is always going to exist in (n).
(T4) = A God-like being does not exist in (n)
(T4)' = It is not the case that a God-like being will always exist in (n).
(T5) = In sometime in the future it will be the case that a God-like being will not exist in (n).
(T6) = (n) occurred before (k).
(T7) = A God-like being does not exist in (k).
(T8) = (k) occurred before (n). (Reflexive Rule)
(T9) = A God-like 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.