/lit/ - Literature

>>17424404
Refuted by Chevalier
>inb4 he was french

>>17424404
How does this refute God?

>>17424413
>Chevalier
Literally who

>>17424404
in no way cantor btfos god

>>17424461
God is linked to the idea of the infinite. This proof shows a paradoxical property of the infinite. The number of S rows is an infinite set of rows, with an infinite number of symbols. Yet, if you start at the first symbol of the first row, draw a diagonal line, and take all the symbols from this diagonal line, you get a new row of symbols that doesn’t appear in the first infinite set, which means that you now have two sets of infinities, where the second infinity is bigger than the first

>>17424476
Then give me the properties of infinity of Cantor’s God that don’t allow me to construct an even bigger infinity

>>17424477
>God is linked to the idea of the infinite
Confirmed for being absolutely retarded

>>17424477
So the idea is that there is no ultimate infinity which would be God?

>>17424477
Cringe

>>17424485
God has already done that an infinite number of times, therefore any combination you can come up with is already inside God's set.
You'd have thought that once you wrapped your brain around some infinities being bigger than others you'd reach the logical conclusion that there has to be an infinite of infinities.

>>17424493
God isn’t all powerful then? Is his power limited by something?

>>17424504
>God has already done that an infinite number of times
I’m going to need a proof on this

>>17424515
He is God, therefore he can and did.
We are talking about ideas here.

>>17424547
>source: dude trust me bro

>>17424477
Atheist philosophers, everyone.

>>17424591
Then prove me wrong

>>17424477
God is beyond our pity numbers.
back to r/atheism you go

>>17424605
>God is beyond our pity numbers.
And your proof of this is...?

>>17424599
What is there to even refute? You got the most basic diagonal argument here. By the way, you can extend it without issue to a set in general, its power set having a strictly superior cardinal.
You must not understand what cardinality is, or you would have realized it is a property of sets. The word infinite used in other contexts has nothing to do with it. Did you really think that when people say God is infinite, they meant "methinks there is a bijection between God and a strict part of Him"? Which would have no relevance. Interpreted metaphysically, God being a simple substance, the proposition would be false.

>>17424630
>Interpreted metaphysically
>making up a metareality in which all of this magically works

Also, the fact that your post is filled with technical jargon that you refuse to explain is pretty gish-gallopy

>>17424642
>technical jargon
That's something you would know after one hour reading a book on the subject, or in the first hour of a course.
Jumping on the mere word metaphysic is even more pitiful. I could have said ontologically, or mereologically (to bring technical jargon). In any case, all it says is that God having no parts (fragments), it would be quite hard to find a bijection there. Not to mention sets are eidetic objects in the first place, not beings.

>>17424691
>That's something you would know after one hour reading a book on the subject
Then you should have no problem explaining it in a non-technical way. I explained my argument in a non-technical way, why can’t you?

Could your bad faith have something to do with it, where you apparently consider it legit to overwhelm your opponent through complexity?

>>17424404
>Cantor
BTFO'd by Guénon in The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus

>>17424477
God's infinity is obviously not equivalent to what we can conceive as mathematical infinity, it's more abstract than that.

why cant humans understand infinity?

>>17424701
I already explained it in as non-"technical" words as possible. The word infinite is used in many contexts, with widely different senses. Even in set theory, you would distinguish ordinal and cardinal infinities, transfinite methods, etc. What Cantor speak about is a property of sets. It has no relevance to what you think it implies.
It is also only "paradoxical" (as you say in >>17424477) in the original sense of surprising to common opinions, there is no antinomy.

>>17424477

> God refuted by nonsensical mathematics

Mate I'm atheist and this shit is cringe as fuck. Some people have faith and like to talk about it, why does it rustle you so much?

>>17424508
the set of things God can do is uncountably infinite. I don't see how that contradicts anything

>>17424740
Because by our very nature, we are finite even if indefinitely so.

>>17424630
this is a better post then i would ever have been able to come up with.

>>17424642
no it isn't, you're just an idiot. he just layed out precisely the claims *you* made in OP.

>>17424701
this triggers me so hard. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS IMPOSED THIS AUTISTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF GOD THROUGH MAPPING PROPERTIES. NO ONE OWES YOU AN INTRO TO MATHEMATICAL PROOFWRITING CLASS. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS INVOLVED THE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND NOW YOU ARE CRYING BECAUSE YOU DIDNT ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN.

The worst part is none of the concepts or words in the reply (to the level they are being used) are even that difficult to understand.

>>17424783
>I already explained it in as non-"technical" words as possible.
You didn’t even attempt this. Look at these two posts:

>>17424630
>>17424691
Filled with terms generally not used outside of mathematics, which are apparently ‘super easy to understand’, but magically not easy enough for you to explain, which shows that this is a classical gish gallop of conplexity where you inevitably go ‘you DO know what a bijection is, rite dummi??!1?’. All this needs to be a full on gish gallop is for you to add more text, so that not only the quality, but also the quantity overwhelms the opposite side.

You’re a bad faith actor, and you can go fuck yourself

>disproving the existence of god with ones and zeros
This just brings to question who's more retarded. Him for thinking that's a proof, or you for believing him.

>>17424828
>MAPPING PROPERTIES
Again, more uncommon technical jargon, that you don’t even attempt to explain.

You’re a bad faith actor, go fuck yourself

>>17424740
what is even more strange is the meager collection of things that we can understand.

We have some vague intuition about spatial continuum, collections of objects where you can form comparisons "bigger than" and less than" and "equal to". We can imagine some simple shapes in 2D and some really really basic shapes in 3D.

i am thinking as hard as I can and basically nothing else comes to mind.

>>17424834
>gish gallop
>gish gallop
>gish gallop
ARE YOU GENUINELY RETARDED? BIJECTION IS TAUGHT IN HIGHSCHOOL

>>17424477

>>17424859
And yet, you still refuse to explain it. I honestly can’t believe that you continue to use the debate strategy that I called you out on. That takes a truly shameless bullshit artist

>>17424477

>>17424845 >>17424834
If this were a good faith discussion (it isn't, because of you) then at this point you would need to specify to us what "nontechnical" means in your mind. Like what words are we allowed to use and not use?

As it is you are like the bad tempered, shrieking 2 year old who has just learned the word "no" and refuses any vegetables he is presented for no reason other than because he has the ability to do so.

if i were standing in front of you and you told me these things i would look you directly in the eye and tell you to sincerely go back to R3ddit .

>>17424928
>(it isn't, because of you)

I’m not the one insisting on not explaining terms typically only used in mathematics, you are. And you continue to not explain them. Now, you’re right, I’m not going to discuss the subject of this thread anymore, because you’ve clearly showed yourself to be a bullshitter (while accusing the opposing side, who apparently can explain things in a clear and non-technical way, of being a bad faith actor, another tactic typically used by bullshitters), I’m just curious, why did you think this would work?

This could be excusable in context, but you throw around mathematical terms on a LITERATURE board, on a website that literally has a board dedicated to math. This tells me that you’re not just a con artist, you’re also extremely stupid

>>17424914
It means that for every element in set X there's one and exactly one element in set Y. You're actually fucking retarded.

>failing high school mathematics
>finds ontological consequences in set theoretical arguments he doesn't understand
Seems legit. I'll play ball because I have nothing better to do than shitpost. I'll tell you what a bijection is.
A (single valued) function (E, F, G) is an ordered set of three sets, E its domain, F its range, G its graph if every element of G is of the form (x, y) with x is E and y in F, and for two elements (x1, y1), (x2, y2) of G, x1=x2 implies y1=y2.
A function is called injective if for (x1, y1), (x2, y2) both in its graph, y1=y2 implies x1=x2.
A function is called surjective if every element of the range is reached, that is for y in F, there is an x in E such that (x, y) is in G.
A function is bijective if it is both surjective and injective.

>>17424477
Oh great, we're back to numerology again. Go play Sedoku in hell, infidel.

Theres no way to disprove God. That being said there's no reason to think he exists either

>>17424990
What were you thinking when:
>you chose the OP picture >>17424404
>wrote this post >>17424477

these posts demonstrate the same (LOW LEVEL OF) mathematical proficiency required to understand ANY POST MADE IN THIS THREAD SO FAR. IF I COULD REACH THROUGH THE SCREEN I WOULD CLAW YOU BY THE SKULL AND SQUISH YOUR EYEBALLS OUT OF THEIR SOCKETS LIKE A PORTION CUP OF SMUCKERS BLACKBERRY JAM

>>17424642
>technical jargon
You talk about Cantor and yet knows nothing about sets, power sets, bijection, cardinality and so on? Holy shit, nigga, I refuse to believe someone can be this retarded.

>>17424990
What were you thinking when:
>you chose the OP picture >>17424404 (OP)
>wrote this post >>17424477

these posts demonstrate the same (LOW LEVEL OF) mathematical proficiency required to understand ANY POST MADE IN THIS THREAD SO FAR. IF I COULD REACH THROUGH THE SCREEN I WOULD CLAW YOU BY THE SKULL AND SQUISH YOUR BEADY AUTISTIC EYEBALLS OUT OF THEIR SOCKETS LIKE TWO LITTLE PORTION CUPS OF SMUCKERS STRAWBERRY JAM YOU SNIVELING FUCK

>>17424740
>infinity
'because infinity is a literal mathematical placeholder like ''god'' casual talks by NPCs and ''universe'' in physics

>>17425001
based effortposter

This entire thread has been refuted by spinoza (PBUH). How could a man understand infinity so greatly before the discovery of calculus?

>>17424404
>3 hours later
>this thread still hasn't been deleted by Jannies

>>17424477
>Yet, if you start at the first symbol of the first row, draw a diagonal line, and take all the symbols from this diagonal line, you get a new row of symbols that doesn’t appear in the first infinite set
No you don't. You're supposed to change every digit so your new number is different in every place.

>>17424477
Spinoza: "God is an infinite substance consisting of infinite attributes each of which express an infinite essence."

>>17425164
>Wildburger

>>17424477
doesn't this just prove god more?

You people are all retarded. First of all, it's obvious to any thinking human that one infinity can't be bigger than another infinity. Cantor and everyone following in his schizophrenic footsteps were playing backsliding complex-valued mind games while ignoring the actual applications of mathematics, which is to count the percentage of income that your congregants are tithing.

>>17425164
> No one really knows if there's a prime bigger than 10^10^10

jesus fucking christ lmao

>>17424404
how did the diagnalization arguement refute god? too many people take the concept of infinity too literally and apply their own human aspect to any concept of god. god likely exists outside of consciousness and a timeframe alike light, at which the universe begins and ends within an instant. god could be a particle or concept of a field which exists at every time, everywhere, making it the creator and the abrahamic laws likely are just rules for humanity to act reasonably for our own survival.

>>17426468
What is it then?

>>17426538
P_{10^10^10}, the 10^10^10th prime.

>>17426456

yes, it can just because you can’t see it or visualize it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it’s a byproduct of the axiomatic system of math we use and if u want an application of an infinity of infinities, simply break down the gamma function of any zeta function value using a reinmann integral to evaluate the gamma function.

>>17424477
You're an idiot Guenonian and a third-rate mathematician (assume you know any at all).

>>17426538
take all prime numbers up to a limit and say that limit is defined as the last prime number. then multiply all those primes together. now add 1 to the product. either that number is prime or has a prime factor outside the list, meaning there is an invite number of prime numbers as we can always create more iterating this infinite times

>>17426580
It's enough to say that something infinite has no beginning and no end. So something else can have even more the lack of beginning and the end?

>>17426580
If you're actually supposed to carry out whatever calculation you're talking about, it doesn't involve infinities of different sizes.

>>17425941
Based, Baruch (PBUH) always has the upper hand and cannot be refuted

>>17424477
Based genius math anon shitting on these brainlet theists with one clever argument

Now THIS is literature! Excellent thread all, glad I opened it.

>>17426627
0 to infinity is infinite and begin, anon.

>>17426627
That's the most pants on head definition of infinite I have e'er heard

>>17425001
Overly complicated anon. Just say function. Anyone who didn't fail 8th grade math knows what you mean.

Proof: God doesn't exist.

Start by rejecting the axiom of infinity, which is clearly bullshit. Therefore God must be finite. Therefore he is not all encompassing. Therefore he ain't really God.

Theists will never recover from this one.

>>17424477
>you get a new row of symbols that doesn’t appear in the first infinite set
No you don't, both sets of symbols are contained within one another, that's what infinite means.
>which means that you now have two sets of infinities, where the second infinity is bigger than the first
Infinity doesn't just mean "really fucking big", it escapes the concept of scale altogether. You can't have two infinities of different sizes because something that's infinite doesn't have a size.

>>17426820
>Infinity doesn't just mean "really fucking big", it escapes the concept of scale altogether. You can't have two infinities of different sizes because something that's infinite doesn't have a size.
Based high school math anon doesn't know the difference between countable infinity and uncountable infinities

>>17424477

>>17424404
All he showed was that real numbers are not countable. What does that have to do with god?

>>17424477
Thats fucking stupid. Every line should have
>000000000000000...
>000000000000000...
>000000000000000...
Etc

Because there’s a 1 at some infinite point in the first line, two 1’s at some infinite point on the second line etc

>>17426772
Huh, you're right.
But that raises another problem. You can't count to infinity. Yes, there's an infinite amount of numbers, but you can't go from 0 to infinite.

>>17427085
that's correct, anon. but there is no infinity to count to. in this case don't think of infinity as another object within the realm of numbers, but as a concept above numbers describing their properties.

every number is finite and you can count to it, infinite describes the whole collection of numbers.

>>17426880
anon, it's impossible to have a number at an infinite position. that's incoherent. all numbers in a list have a finite number associated with them, that's why specifically they're able to be put in a list.

OP's argument is the Cantor diagonalization argument and it's perfectly valid mathematics. but as always, you just can't apply this shit to stuff with religious themes.

>>17427142
There's a difference between countable infinity and uncountable infinity anon. Countable infinity is what you described, but an uncountable infinity can't be listed like that. An example is all real numbers between 0 and 1. What comes after 0?

>>17424404
Proving that there are different sizes of infinity doesn't disprove the idea of God you DUMB DUMB STUPID IDIOT

>>17424477
imo countability is really just about pattern matching. you can give me a function that knows the pattern such that you can ask for the nth element in the pattern.

>>17424404
He was persecuted his entire life because of his discovery and he went insane.
>>17424461
>>17424477
This was actually controversial back then. This is not a joke.

>>17424404
>>17424477
Hey look Redditor, I'm gonna refute God
>∞
>3∞ > ∞
UAU GOD REFUTED

>>17424404
Doesn't Badiou use a bunch of Cantor's stuff in his philosophy? How reliant is Badiou on Cantor's actual mathematics?

>God conceived not as the universal subject and substance
Many such cases. Sad

>>17424477
I don't understand what this has to do with God. It just introduces us to the concept of different classes of infinity. If anything it would enrich any concept of God.

>>17428899
>Some Christian theologians saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God.[6] In particular, neo-Thomist thinkers saw the existence of an actual infinity that consisted of something other than God as jeopardizing "God's exclusive claim to supreme infinity".[76] Cantor strongly believed that this view was a misinterpretation of infinity, and was convinced that set theory could help correct this mistake:[77] "... the transfinite species are just as much at the disposal of the intentions of the Creator and His absolute boundless will as are the finite numbers."[78]

I guess he wasn’t persecuted, exactly, but he was ridiculed and his career ruined over it. And he was bipolar, apparently, and then lost it.

>12 hours later
>thread still hasn't been deleted by Jannies despite not being about literature or relating to the discussion of a piece of literature
Hey Jannies. Clean it up. Do your fucking job.

>>17429747
The ignorance and prejudice of Christians is very /lit/.

>>17425001
it sucks that op tricked this guy into taking the time to type this out

>>17424404
Oh great, baby is taking analysis I this semester.

>>17430269
It has nothing to do with what OP said. He’s probably learning it for unrelated homework.

I've opened this thread a few times now considering replying, but I cannot properly articulate how utterly retarded this argument is. This literally makes no fucking sense at all. In what way does this abstract, semantic mathematical concept hold any connection to, let alone disprove, God?

>>17431208
in atheism, maths are not social construct, otherwise they destroy scientific realism and face back their cognitive dissonance about hyping the narrative of the human rights as truth and yet admitting that they are just another man-made narrative and technological progress is just heodnism

Don't forget that atheists like Spinoza, Nietzsche and Deleuze have pushed the meme made up for the gentiles that ''nature is god''

>>17431675
Spinoza isn't even really an atheist tho, his whole phylosophy is relatively easy to salvage if you solve some basic stupid errors and the whole fiasco was basically due to autistic screeching

>>17424477
Ni-Nietschke is that you?

>>17424477
Retard-sama....I kneel

Take primes.
Plot them on a circular graph
Discover the same shape as the galaxies of the universe.
The pattern displayed transcends the numeric value of the primes in sequence.
Because God is Pattern
And Mother Nature is Material

>>17431954

>>17424477
Lmao sure triggered the christian larping pseuds.

>>17424477
Put me in the screencap.

>>17424609
That is an anslytical property.

>>17432022
>I was only pretending to be retarded.

>>17428291
>This is not a joke.
But it is now.

>>17428291
He was persecuted because (((Kronecker))) was jelly he was only a good algebraist while Cantor was a goat theory builder.

>>17424591
It's all so tiresome.
>10s of thousands of books discussing philosophy and metaphysics.
>THIS MATH EQUATION PROVES THAT YOURE WRONG AND UHHHHHHH WE ARE ALL JUST STARDUST BRO

>>17432904
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BYPASS MUH CANON OF MEANINGLESS METAPHYSICAL RAMBLING

>>17431954
> I graphed the primes on a spiral
> It looks like a spiral
oh my god, it's proof of the divinity of jesus