Religion - Printable Version +- Frictional Games Forum (read-only) ( https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum)+-- Forum: Frictional Games ( https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-3.html)+--- Forum: Off-Topic ( https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-16.html)+--- Thread: Religion ( /thread-23750.html) |

RE: Religion - Red - 05-03-2014
Those words were so wise that i couldn't understand them, all hail wubwub, the real son of god, we should rewrite the bible by your words. RE: Religion - BAndrew - 06-08-2014
I am going to prove through logical steps the following statement: "There are either infinite or zero omnipotent beings." Let's say P(n) is the claim we want to prove. So P(n) is "For any number n (n>0 , n integer) there can't be exactly n omnipotent beings." We are going to prove that P(1) is true: Let's assume that there is exactly one omnipotent being which we will call x, then: Can x create another omnipotent being y? - If no, then it is not omnipotent because there is something it can't do. Contradiction.
- If yes, then there are two omnipotent beings. Contradiction.
We arrive at contradiction in any case. Therefore there can't be exactly one omnipotent being. So P(1) is true. Now we are going to assume that the same claim holds for exactly n omnipotent beings and we are going to prove that this claim is true for n+1 omnipotent beings. Or in short: We assume that P(n) is true and we are going to prove that if P(n) is true then P(n+1) is true. With that said: Assuming there are exactly n+1 omnipotent beings, then: Can any of the above entities create another omnipotent being? - If yes, then there aren't exactly n+1 omnipotent beings (there are at least n+2). Contradiction.
- If no, then there is something that these beings can't do. Contradiction.
We arrive in contradiction in any case. Therefore if P(n) is true then P(n+1) is also true. Let's see what we proved so far: - P(1) is true
- If P(n) is true then P(n+1) is true (1)
(1) => (for n = 1) if P(1) is true then P(2) is true and because P(1) is indeed true, P(2) is true. but if P(2) is true then similary P(3) is true but if P(3) is true then similary P(4) is true and so on and the forth. Therefore P(n) is true for every n. The only cases left are if n=0 or n --> +∞ Q.E.D. Prove me wrong RE: Religion - Nice - 06-08-2014
hmm that's interesting but I have a different theory It's called "dogfoodolians theory of infitism" basically imagine that omnipotent being like God represents "X" okay so Galaxy is "1" Now lets look how it works out it math 5+5x -1 + 1 = 0 5 + 5x = 0 5x = -5 /:5 x = -1 RE: Religion - eliasfrost - 06-08-2014
What if the answer to your first question is "Yes but it doesn't want to"? RE: Religion - BAndrew - 06-08-2014
(06-08-2014, 10:00 PM)Dogfood Wrote: hmm that's interesting but I have a different theory Erm...You made assumptions that you never proved: (06-08-2014, 10:00 PM)Dogfood Wrote: -okay so Galaxy is "1" My above proof made no assumptions whatsoever. I assumed some things to be true only to prove that they can't be true. see reductio ad absurdum I welcome you to find a flaw in my proof (if there is one). RE: Religion - Deep One - 06-08-2014
what the fuck RE: Religion - BAndrew - 06-08-2014
(06-08-2014, 10:03 PM)eliasfrost Wrote: What if the answer to your first question is "Yes but it doesn't want to"? Then my whole argument fails. Congratulations you found a flaw. (no irony here) RE: Religion - Nice - 06-08-2014
(06-08-2014, 10:06 PM)BAndrew Wrote: I welcome you to find a flaw in my proof (if there is one). okay so Spoiler below! First you must define the word "true". True can be false and false can be true but can true be true? The word "True" can easily mean something completely different, all it takes is a pen and a new dictionary. Now lets look at "1" ...The number 1 is a man made concept. Some dude declared the "1" to be the first number after 0 but because someone just happened to decide it, it means it's not reliable since it was done completely randomly and out of place why is 1 1? why is not 1 2? Does a pure number even exist? How do you know that "1" and the way we calculate things is not completely false? We know negative numbers and we know positive numbers...How come it's not just "dogfood" if its positive and "froge" if its negative? the two opposite forces working against each other. Surely it would make more sense than "1" vs "-1" Also you're probably wondering what my source on this knowledge is I advice you to give this a look, it may help you understand: RE: Religion - BAndrew - 06-08-2014
@Dogfood I tried, but I can't follow your thought process. Anyway @eliasfrost found a flaw in my proof and therefore it is wrong. I just found this and I think it is quite interesting: Gödel's ontological proof See Outline of Gödel's proof. I might just switch my religion status to: "I know there is at least one God, but I don't know anything more about him, whatsoever" RE: Religion - Froge - 06-08-2014
(06-08-2014, 09:48 PM)BAndrew Wrote: I am going to prove through logical steps the following statement: Unfortunately P(n) does not arrive at the statement "There are either infinite or zero omnipotent beings," because the restriction that you put on n is n>0 and n is an integer. So P(n) being true still allows the possibility of 1.5 omnipotent beings, or -3.2 omnipotent beings. |