Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Matheology § 020 Epistola Pentecostes MDCCCLXXXVIII
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 1:56:37 PM5/27/12
to
In article
<c3dcb8eb-2495-493f...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Matheology § 020: Epistola Pentecostes MDCCCLXXXVIII
>
> I have no doubt concerning the truth of the tranfinitum, which I have
> recognized with the help of God. [...] I happen to be a somewhat
> familiar not only in the mathematics but also in several other
> sciences. Therefore I am able to compare theorems, here and there,
> with respect to their objective certainty. From no other subjects of
> the created nature I have a safer and, if this expression is allowed,
> a more certain realization than of the theorems of transfinite number-
> and type-theories. That's why I am convinced that this theory once
> upon a time will belong to the common property of objective science
> and will be confirmed in particular by that theology which is based
> upon the holy bible, tradition and the natural disposition of the
> human race - these three necessarily being in harmonny with each
> other.
>
> If one chooses this foundation for the doctrine of actual infinity,
> one stands firm and is, I might almost say, easily able to reject all
> teh objections which have been devised over millenia against the
> infinite numbers, and to reduce them to their apparent reasons.
>
> I completely agree that [...] all the finite (and, to a much higher
> degree, all the transfinite), from a diversity of aspects, points to
> the Absolute, i.e., the existence of the Absolute can necessarily be
> proved by a dialectical rational conclusion, in accordance with
> Bonaventura's sentence: Invariable rules (of human reason) are rooted
> in the eternal light and lead to it.
>
> "Couldn't God, after having created an infinite set of stones or
> angels, create further anfgels?" {{asks Durandus de Sancto Porciano,
> OP.}} Of course he can do that, must be answered.
> When he then continues to conclude: "Therefore the angels created
> at first were not infinitely many." so is this conclusion utterly
> wrong, because the supposed set of created angels is a transfinitum
> that can be increased as well as decreased.
>
> [Georg Cantor, Letter of Pentecost 1888 to P. Ignatius Jeiler, OFM
> {{that does not mean "Online Football Manager" but "Ordo Fratrum
> Minorum", order created by Francis of Assisi}}, Praefect. Coll. S.
> Bonav., quoted in C. Tapp: "Kardinalität und Kardinäle:
> Wissenschaftshistorische Aufarbeitung der Korrespondenz zwischen Georg
> Cantor und katholischen Theologen seiner Zeit." Boethius Bd. 53, Franz
> Steiner Verlag (2005) p. 410ff]
> http://www.steiner-verlag.de/programm/fachbuch/geschichte/universitaets-und-wi
> ssenschaftsgeschichte/reihen/view/titel/54670.html
>
> Regards, WM
If there really were any gods of unlimited power, then surely they
could do as described, so that to deny infinity is to deny any gods.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<c3dcb8eb-2495-493f...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Matheology § 020: Epistola Pentecostes MDCCCLXXXVIII
>
> I have no doubt concerning the truth of the tranfinitum, which I have
> recognized with the help of God. [...] I happen to be a somewhat
> familiar not only in the mathematics but also in several other
> sciences. Therefore I am able to compare theorems, here and there,
> with respect to their objective certainty. From no other subjects of
> the created nature I have a safer and, if this expression is allowed,
> a more certain realization than of the theorems of transfinite number-
> and type-theories. That's why I am convinced that this theory once
> upon a time will belong to the common property of objective science
> and will be confirmed in particular by that theology which is based
> upon the holy bible, tradition and the natural disposition of the
> human race - these three necessarily being in harmonny with each
> other.
>
> If one chooses this foundation for the doctrine of actual infinity,
> one stands firm and is, I might almost say, easily able to reject all
> teh objections which have been devised over millenia against the
> infinite numbers, and to reduce them to their apparent reasons.
>
> I completely agree that [...] all the finite (and, to a much higher
> degree, all the transfinite), from a diversity of aspects, points to
> the Absolute, i.e., the existence of the Absolute can necessarily be
> proved by a dialectical rational conclusion, in accordance with
> Bonaventura's sentence: Invariable rules (of human reason) are rooted
> in the eternal light and lead to it.
>
> "Couldn't God, after having created an infinite set of stones or
> angels, create further anfgels?" {{asks Durandus de Sancto Porciano,
> OP.}} Of course he can do that, must be answered.
> When he then continues to conclude: "Therefore the angels created
> at first were not infinitely many." so is this conclusion utterly
> wrong, because the supposed set of created angels is a transfinitum
> that can be increased as well as decreased.
>
> [Georg Cantor, Letter of Pentecost 1888 to P. Ignatius Jeiler, OFM
> {{that does not mean "Online Football Manager" but "Ordo Fratrum
> Minorum", order created by Francis of Assisi}}, Praefect. Coll. S.
> Bonav., quoted in C. Tapp: "Kardinalität und Kardinäle:
> Wissenschaftshistorische Aufarbeitung der Korrespondenz zwischen Georg
> Cantor und katholischen Theologen seiner Zeit." Boethius Bd. 53, Franz
> Steiner Verlag (2005) p. 410ff]
> http://www.steiner-verlag.de/programm/fachbuch/geschichte/universitaets-und-wi
> ssenschaftsgeschichte/reihen/view/titel/54670.html
>
> Regards, WM
If there really were any gods of unlimited power, then surely they
could do as described, so that to deny infinity is to deny any gods.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
WM
May 27, 2012, 2:53:42 PM5/27/12
to
On 27 Mai, 19:56, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> In article
> <c3dcb8eb-2495-493f-afff-869525c3c...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.steiner-verlag.de/programm/fachbuch/geschichte/universitae...
finished infinity!
Regards, WM
> In article
> <c3dcb8eb-2495-493f-afff-869525c3c...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> > ssenschaftsgeschichte/reihen/view/titel/54670.html
>
> > Regards, WM
>
> If there really were any gods of unlimited power, then surely they
> could do as described, so that to deny infinity is to deny any gods.
Unlimited power is not sufficient to create self-denying nonsense like
>
> > Regards, WM
>
> If there really were any gods of unlimited power, then surely they
> could do as described, so that to deny infinity is to deny any gods.
finished infinity!
Regards, WM
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 6:01:09 PM5/27/12
to
In article
<151197d4-8369-44d8...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
A god of unlimited power cannot be limited by mere logic, s such a god
could create logic to workany way it wanted.
Or are there limits to what an omnipotent god can have the power do in
your version of the universe?
<151197d4-8369-44d8...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
could create logic to workany way it wanted.
Or are there limits to what an omnipotent god can have the power do in
your version of the universe?
WM
May 28, 2012, 8:17:58 AM5/28/12
to
> <151197d4-8369-44d8-a1a4-193f64705...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
Regards, WM
Regards, WM
FredJeffries
May 28, 2012, 11:29:09 AM5/28/12
to
recognize that fact?
WM
May 28, 2012, 11:46:31 AM5/28/12
to
On 28 Mai, 17:29, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> If God created "a stone too heavy to lift it" could a human being
> recognize that fact?-
>
> > Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> If God created "a stone too heavy to lift it" could a human being
Why not? If you see a God trying again and again in vain, you would
recognize it. (But usually Gods avoid to be observed by humans. One
reason could be their purely axiomatic or dogmatic existenc.)
Regards, WM
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 12:21:43 PM5/28/12
to
In article
<d8185cf5-21d7-42af...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
<d8185cf5-21d7-42af...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
Alan Smaill
May 28, 2012, 1:03:09 PM5/28/12
to
Well, you have managed it.
> Regards, WM
--
Alan Smaill
> Regards, WM
--
Alan Smaill
Ross A. Finlayson
May 28, 2012, 1:47:34 PM5/28/12
to
> <d8185cf5-21d7-42af-8886-3211def76...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Where he could, why do you think he would do that? Why are you
demanding that God would make something antithetical to reason (just
because he could).
Heh God won't even make a stone so heavy YOU can't lift it. However
you might need a lever and a place to stand.
Seems that for whatever ways there are, the Universe as we know it is
the easiest way to keep track of it.
You want a miracle? Make one.
How do you think God works miracles?
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -
Thomas Jefferson
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
> remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
> he who believes what is wrong.
> Thomas Jefferson
Then, for a book, well I guess it helps to have a library first.
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
> remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
> he who believes what is wrong.
> Thomas Jefferson
Where he could, why do you think he would do that? Why are you
demanding that God would make something antithetical to reason (just
because he could).
Heh God won't even make a stone so heavy YOU can't lift it. However
you might need a lever and a place to stand.
Seems that for whatever ways there are, the Universe as we know it is
the easiest way to keep track of it.
You want a miracle? Make one.
How do you think God works miracles?
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
Thomas Jefferson
Aatu Koskensilta
May 29, 2012, 5:49:07 AM5/29/12
to
Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> writes:
> In article
> <d8185cf5-21d7-42af...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
An omnipotent God can of course do anything. Naturally, after creating
> In article
> <d8185cf5-21d7-42af...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
the stone he will no longer be omnipotent.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Uergil
May 29, 2012, 11:41:18 AM5/29/12
to
In article <87ipffm...@uta.fi>,
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> writes:
>
> > In article
> > <d8185cf5-21d7-42af...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
> >
> > If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
>
> An omnipotent God can of course do anything. Naturally, after creating
> the stone he will no longer be omnipotent.
I had not considered any gods of such variable nature.
> Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> writes:
>
> > In article
> > <d8185cf5-21d7-42af...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
> >
> > If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
>
> An omnipotent God can of course do anything. Naturally, after creating
> the stone he will no longer be omnipotent.
Aatu Koskensilta
May 29, 2012, 11:57:04 AM5/29/12
to
Naturally an invariably omnipotent God can't create a stone so heavy
he can't lift it, anymore than he can make two plus two equal
seven. This does not indicate any limitation in his powers. There just
is no such thing as creating a stone so heavy an omnipotent God can't
lift it. This doesn't really have much to do with Gods and
omnipotence. My ability to write down all whole numbers less than 1000
is similarly not contradicted in any way by my inability to write down
an even number less than 1000 that is also not even.
he can't lift it, anymore than he can make two plus two equal
seven. This does not indicate any limitation in his powers. There just
is no such thing as creating a stone so heavy an omnipotent God can't
lift it. This doesn't really have much to do with Gods and
omnipotence. My ability to write down all whole numbers less than 1000
is similarly not contradicted in any way by my inability to write down
an even number less than 1000 that is also not even.
FredJeffries
May 29, 2012, 2:24:43 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 2:49 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> writes:
> > In article
> > <d8185cf5-21d7-42af-8886-3211def76...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> writes:
> > In article
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> >> Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> > If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
>
> An omnipotent God can of course do anything. Naturally, after creating
> the stone he will no longer be omnipotent.
Can not an omnipotent god perform the task: Create the stone and still
>
> >> Can God create a stone too heavy to lift it?
>
> > If there were any omnipotent god, why not?
>
> An omnipotent God can of course do anything. Naturally, after creating
> the stone he will no longer be omnipotent.
retain your omnipotence?
Aatu Koskensilta
May 29, 2012, 5:17:43 PM5/29/12
to
FredJeffries <fredje...@gmail.com> writes:
> Can not an omnipotent god perform the task: Create the stone and still
> retain your omnipotence?
No, an omnipotent God can't both give up omnipotence and remain
> Can not an omnipotent god perform the task: Create the stone and still
> retain your omnipotence?
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
Aatu Koskensilta
May 29, 2012, 5:25:43 PM5/29/12
to
FredJeffries <fredje...@gmail.com> writes:
> Can not an omnipotent god perform the task: Create the stone and still
> retain your omnipotence?
No, obviously an omnipotent God can't both give up omnipotence and
> Can not an omnipotent god perform the task: Create the stone and still
> retain your omnipotence?
remain omnipotent.
Ross A. Finlayson
May 29, 2012, 6:47:26 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 2:25 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
How could this be?
Can't he even fool himself that it's too heavy then remember it's not?
Can God lie to himself?
Can he, make the rock immovable then change it back?
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
> FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Can not an omnipotent god perform the task: Create the stone and still
> > retain your omnipotence?
>
> No, obviously an omnipotent God can't both give up omnipotence and
> remain omnipotent.
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi)
> > Can not an omnipotent god perform the task: Create the stone and still
> > retain your omnipotence?
>
> No, obviously an omnipotent God can't both give up omnipotence and
> remain omnipotent.
>
> --
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
I stand aghast at this.
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
How could this be?
Can't he even fool himself that it's too heavy then remember it's not?
Can God lie to himself?
Can he, make the rock immovable then change it back?
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
Alan Eaton
May 30, 2012, 8:12:46 AM5/30/12
to
Aatu Koskensilta
May 30, 2012, 8:40:45 AM5/30/12
to
Alan Eaton <alan.den...@gmail.com> writes:
> One would suppose that an omnipotent god would not be constrained by
> consistency.
As ordinarily understood consistency is not any sort of
> One would suppose that an omnipotent god would not be constrained by
> consistency.
constraint. It's just that there are no acts for the God to perform that
would correspond to inconsistent descriptions.
> If so, then such a being would best be described using paraconsistent
> logics. Simultaneously giving up and retaining omnipotence is not such
> a big deal.
an omnipotent God is perfectly capable of making it true. But even the
most ardent dialatheist readily grants that there are many
contradictions that are not and can not be true. So if consistency is a
constraint on God, it would seem a paraconsistent God is no less
constrained.
Aatu Koskensilta
May 30, 2012, 8:54:48 AM5/30/12
to
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> writes:
> Naturally if we think it's possible for a contradiction to be true,
thinking some contradiction possible that it is in fact possible. What I
intended to say was that if it's possible for some contradiction to be
true (in combination with the existence of an omnipotent of God), an
omnipotent God is perfectly capable of bringing about that
contradiction.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
> Naturally if we think it's possible for a contradiction to be true,
> an omnipotent God is perfectly capable of making it true.
I expressed myself carelessly. It of course does not follow from our
thinking some contradiction possible that it is in fact possible. What I
intended to say was that if it's possible for some contradiction to be
true (in combination with the existence of an omnipotent of God), an
omnipotent God is perfectly capable of bringing about that
contradiction.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
Ross A. Finlayson
May 30, 2012, 3:15:34 PM5/30/12
to
On May 29, 3:47 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
God doesn't have to have any of our human failings.
Hmm, is playing a subterfuge still lieing? Here, not necessarily.
Can God lie, to himself. He could obviously reason in a device in as
to what is true and false. Yet, he would still know, even as to the
utter determinacy of things. Thus, it would seem he would always know
when he was lieing to himself.
Then, if he could lie but never be lied to, what is that? Then that's
again greater than any human failing, that he would know the reason
why he was trying to lie to himself.
Then that is anthropocentrism about God.
Can God give up omnipotence?
Here I asked this wondering that, as a consequence of acquiring actual
omnipotence that it's immutable.
Then, with the transfer principle and omnipotence, here as we see the
term is rather inclusive, general, regular, standard, universal,
etcetera. Basic, primitive, fundamental, real, concrete, etcetera.
Constant, variable.
Are we then God's attempt at Man?
Ass: God's attempt at Man.
Then, if that's wrong to think that God makes mistakes (because humans
are imperfect), it's to show us how he makes mistakes.
Here's a joke: a guy meets God and doesn't know it and proceeds to
lie to him. I forget how it ends, it doesn't end well, I forget how
it ends.
So,
1) Does God lie to himself or even entertain a notion so base?
2) Can omnipotence give up or forsake omnipotence.
3) What is man but God's attempt at man? Are we not so base?
I remember now, he feeds him the sinker.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
wrote:
Hmm, is playing a subterfuge still lieing? Here, not necessarily.
Can God lie, to himself. He could obviously reason in a device in as
to what is true and false. Yet, he would still know, even as to the
utter determinacy of things. Thus, it would seem he would always know
when he was lieing to himself.
Then, if he could lie but never be lied to, what is that? Then that's
again greater than any human failing, that he would know the reason
why he was trying to lie to himself.
Then that is anthropocentrism about God.
Can God give up omnipotence?
Here I asked this wondering that, as a consequence of acquiring actual
omnipotence that it's immutable.
Then, with the transfer principle and omnipotence, here as we see the
term is rather inclusive, general, regular, standard, universal,
etcetera. Basic, primitive, fundamental, real, concrete, etcetera.
Constant, variable.
Are we then God's attempt at Man?
Ass: God's attempt at Man.
Then, if that's wrong to think that God makes mistakes (because humans
are imperfect), it's to show us how he makes mistakes.
Here's a joke: a guy meets God and doesn't know it and proceeds to
lie to him. I forget how it ends, it doesn't end well, I forget how
it ends.
So,
1) Does God lie to himself or even entertain a notion so base?
2) Can omnipotence give up or forsake omnipotence.
3) What is man but God's attempt at man? Are we not so base?
I remember now, he feeds him the sinker.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
0 new messages