No, i don't get your point. how you defining 'totality'?
If I defined God as...
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
No, i don't get your point. how you defining 'totality'?
Quote from fhl:
How many Wall Street Bankers were capitalists before this whole blowup happened if they gave half of their profits to the gov't.
Taxing their profits away makes the GOV'T socialist.
Taking gov't money after gambling the house away makes WALL ST - the masters of the universe - socialist.
Something illogical.... could possibly exist.
Totality+1.... could possibly exist.
Totality cannot include something, (totality itself or totality+1 for example) so the definition you gave for totality is not logical.
As totality cannot include totality+1 (you said so!)
....therefore there cannot logically be a totality of all that is known to exist and all that could possibly exist...
So accepting that God is another word for totality makes God logically false.
I can define Gilbert as whatever God is defined as....... +1.
Therefore Gilbert = God+1 and Gilbert is then always +1 more logical and +1 more illogical than God.
Game over, God.
right again stu
The term "Totality" is ill-defined. So, by the way, is "God".
If you start with the equality as conclusion rather then premise, then there is no debate.
However -it is true that the premise of Totality+1 is interesting, and not necessarily illogical. Calculating to the last digit of Pi cannot be expressed in it's totality, as it is infinite. Totality is a measuring description denoting the aggregation of a sum.
Which goes back to how you define "God"...
If you start with the equality as conclusion rather then premise, then there is no debate.
However -it is true that the premise of Totality+1 is interesting, and not necessarily illogical. Calculating to the last digit of Pi cannot be expressed in it's totality, as it is infinite. Totality is a measuring description denoting the aggregation of a sum.
Which goes back to how you define "God"...
You haven't found the love son, seek and ye shall find it...
Is there a sum of all numbers?
Yes, the sum would be zero...
As for every positive number, there is a negative equivalent, so they cancel themselves when summed leaving only zero...
You can never cancel out zero, it is always there, it is just hidden when looking at +1 in relation to zero...
So if you had the totality of all possible numbers, both negative and positive, the totality would equal zero if the numbers were summed...no matter if you had an infinite number of positive numbers or and infinite number of positive sets of numbers, they would be canceled out by an equal number of negative sets and negative numbers, resulting in zero...
See, numbers themselves, which are just mental concepts having to do with the relationship of material objects have no size, no weight, no mass, no energy...which of course would make then non existent if we measure existence by empiricism...
Numbers exist on the mental field, not the physical field. If we see the numeral 1 on anything, we don't actually see the concept of one we see an agreed upon shape or symbol of something that represents the concept of one, a symbol of the concept of one. The symbols represent something else. Someone who had never see 1 used for the concept of one that we agree upon, would not look at 1 and think one. He might have grown up using 2 as the symbol for the concept of one. If the person had no training in math, the numerical symbol of 1 would have no meaning at all to him.
Math is the universal language, because it is beyond the symbols we use, beyond the differences in language, and because it is true for all people, through all time and space assuming they are educated to understand spatial relationships.
Math was not created, it has always existed. Just try to imagine any situation that would create a condition where the principles of math did not exist.
Impossible...
The same with the concept of totality. There has always been a totality, there is a totality, and there will always be a totality. That totality cannot be increased or reduced by something outside of the totality, because by definition the totality includes everything that exists or could possibly exist.
If you did sum all the positive and negative numbers, you would still have the totality of zero remaining...
However, zero is never empty, because it contains all numbers, both positive and negative in a virtual potential state. Zero is a constant, it is absolute, and it is the origin of everything else, including all numbers. Something is understood by its relation to nothing.
You can negate something by introducing its opposite value, but you can never negate zero because zero has no opposite value. Have you ever seen a -0?
Thus zero is absolute, and the numbers are relative because they exist in relation to other numbers.
The totality of zero and all possible numbers added or subtracted from zero is still zero, so zero remains at all times and is complete, zero is a totality which never changes, and could never change.
Yes, the sum would be zero...
As for every positive number, there is a negative equivalent, so they cancel themselves when summed leaving only zero...
You can never cancel out zero, it is always there, it is just hidden when looking at +1 in relation to zero...
So if you had the totality of all possible numbers, both negative and positive, the totality would equal zero if the numbers were summed...no matter if you had an infinite number of positive numbers or and infinite number of positive sets of numbers, they would be canceled out by an equal number of negative sets and negative numbers, resulting in zero...
See, numbers themselves, which are just mental concepts having to do with the relationship of material objects have no size, no weight, no mass, no energy...which of course would make then non existent if we measure existence by empiricism...
Numbers exist on the mental field, not the physical field. If we see the numeral 1 on anything, we don't actually see the concept of one we see an agreed upon shape or symbol of something that represents the concept of one, a symbol of the concept of one. The symbols represent something else. Someone who had never see 1 used for the concept of one that we agree upon, would not look at 1 and think one. He might have grown up using 2 as the symbol for the concept of one. If the person had no training in math, the numerical symbol of 1 would have no meaning at all to him.
Math is the universal language, because it is beyond the symbols we use, beyond the differences in language, and because it is true for all people, through all time and space assuming they are educated to understand spatial relationships.
Math was not created, it has always existed. Just try to imagine any situation that would create a condition where the principles of math did not exist.
Impossible...
The same with the concept of totality. There has always been a totality, there is a totality, and there will always be a totality. That totality cannot be increased or reduced by something outside of the totality, because by definition the totality includes everything that exists or could possibly exist.
If you did sum all the positive and negative numbers, you would still have the totality of zero remaining...
However, zero is never empty, because it contains all numbers, both positive and negative in a virtual potential state. Zero is a constant, it is absolute, and it is the origin of everything else, including all numbers. Something is understood by its relation to nothing.
You can negate something by introducing its opposite value, but you can never negate zero because zero has no opposite value. Have you ever seen a -0?
Thus zero is absolute, and the numbers are relative because they exist in relation to other numbers.
The totality of zero and all possible numbers added or subtracted from zero is still zero, so zero remains at all times and is complete, zero is a totality which never changes, and could never change.
Where would the +1 that you are adding to totality come from? From within the totality, or outside of totality?
LOL!!!
If you say outside of totality, then you are suggesting that something is outside of totality, which is false, as totality includes everything. There is by definition nothing outside of totality. Totality is inclusive of all things, and also inclusive of no things.
If you take a line and cut it in half for infinity, will the number of points on each "smaller" line have less than an infinite number of points on that line?
LOL!!!
Totality cannot include something, (totality itself or totality+1 for example) so the definition you gave for totality is not logical.
Totality includes itself, itself is something. So the definition I gave for totality is quite logical.
As totality cannot include totality+1 (you said so!)
Correct, you cannot +1 to a totality that includes everything. Moving a part of the totality to another part of the totality, subtracting a part from one area of the totality and adding it to another part of the totality does not change the totality. It remains a totality.
If a person cuts themselves, and then takes that blood of theirs and writes on their forehead the symbol 1 with that blood, they have only moved the blood from themselves to another part of themselves, but they have not changed the totality of the person one bit.
It is a zero sum situation. No addition or subtraction within the totality by the totality renders the totality anything more or less than a totality. It is impossible for the totality to change to a non totality, or less than a totality, because there is no place to go where the totality isn't already there. Infinite in all directions at all times in all spaces...that is totality which is God.
Totality by definition can never be a partial value, it is always a whole value that cannot be added to from outside the totality, as there is nothing outside of a totality.
No beginning, no end, no middle, no partial value, no opposite value, etc.
Game over indeed...
LOL!!!
If you say outside of totality, then you are suggesting that something is outside of totality, which is false, as totality includes everything. There is by definition nothing outside of totality. Totality is inclusive of all things, and also inclusive of no things.
If you take a line and cut it in half for infinity, will the number of points on each "smaller" line have less than an infinite number of points on that line?
LOL!!!
Totality cannot include something, (totality itself or totality+1 for example) so the definition you gave for totality is not logical.
Totality includes itself, itself is something. So the definition I gave for totality is quite logical.
As totality cannot include totality+1 (you said so!)
Correct, you cannot +1 to a totality that includes everything. Moving a part of the totality to another part of the totality, subtracting a part from one area of the totality and adding it to another part of the totality does not change the totality. It remains a totality.
If a person cuts themselves, and then takes that blood of theirs and writes on their forehead the symbol 1 with that blood, they have only moved the blood from themselves to another part of themselves, but they have not changed the totality of the person one bit.
It is a zero sum situation. No addition or subtraction within the totality by the totality renders the totality anything more or less than a totality. It is impossible for the totality to change to a non totality, or less than a totality, because there is no place to go where the totality isn't already there. Infinite in all directions at all times in all spaces...that is totality which is God.
Totality by definition can never be a partial value, it is always a whole value that cannot be added to from outside the totality, as there is nothing outside of a totality.
No beginning, no end, no middle, no partial value, no opposite value, etc.
Game over indeed...
Da Vinci paints the Mona Lisa........ is the painting da Vinci? or just a creation of the artist?
If we add all the paint and canvass not used in his efforts, does that equal the artist.
The Universe is just God's creation, and is held together by his will, don't confuse the subject being equal with it's creator.
If we add all the paint and canvass not used in his efforts, does that equal the artist.
The Universe is just God's creation, and is held together by his will, don't confuse the subject being equal with it's creator.
In which particular part of the "creation" of God is omnipresent God not located?
God and God's creation are one...not two.
That's the way omnipresent works...
God and God's creation are one...not two.
That's the way omnipresent works...