Fair enough... And now?

I’ve finally got your point @Sheldon it was not really about the definition but maybe more about the God exists. Point taken and sorry I didn’t get that earlier.

Now how is that?
P. Either(A) the God at the very origin of our world has an origin or (B)the God at the very origin of the world has an infinite timeline without a start.
C1. If(A) the God at the very origin of the world has an origin, (C)some being or (D)something is at his origin. if(A) => C or D
C2. If(C) it’s some being, this one should be then called The God at the very origin of our world => Contradiction => !C
C3. If(D) it’s something, The God at the very origin of our world is nothing more than the result of an explainable process and so is not at the very origin of our world => Contradiction => !D
C4. !C and !D => !A
C5. If(B) the God at the very origin of the world has an infinite timeline, he either (E)made the world as an unique point in his timeline or (F)the world had always existed. if(B) => E or F
C6. If(E) he made the world as an unique point in his timeline, we could then find that he created the world after an infinite amount of time, meaning never => Contradiction => !E
C7. if(F) the world had always existed, we can’t make a chronology between the world and the God at the very origin of our world but god needs to be situated in time before his creation => Contradiction => !F
C8. !E and !F => !B
C9. !A and !B => !P. The God at the very origin of our world can’t have something else than an origin or no origin, therefore the God at the very origin of our world doesn’t exist.

And now I’m seeing the de Morgan law @Nyarlathotep , but it wasn’t the intersection one (this one got me confused) and you could have been more explicit instead of quoting my distribution, that also confused me. I didn’t know this logic equivalency had a name.

Also @David_Killens I took well note of your interjections as you might see.

Yes it was.
Your Dunning-Kruger is showing again.

I gave you the exact name of the law, more than once. I repeated it so many times it felt like spam. But I guess you were more interested trying to “one up” me, than to learn anything. Just like last time…

The intersection one is about sets!

they are all about sets, dummy

1 Like

Okay then. Sorry I didn’t take your word for a truth oh lord of truth… I need to check what you’re saying, that’s called a scientific approach.
What’s I’ve seen with sets didn’t felt compelling for what I was looking for but I guess I was wrong on that one. Can happens, right?

That is why I made sure to give you the exact name of the law, so you could look it up. Here is what I’m guessing happened. You took a 5 second look at some page about it, saw the word “set” and came back and told me it didn’t apply (meanwhile you used it over and over again while saying it wasn’t applicable). How is that anything but Dunning-Kruger effect? How many more times are you planning on doing this?

The problem is with the page I gave you in link, the definition of what I was looking for don’t go directly neither at the second approach into mind while in another page: De Morgan's laws - Wikipedia
It appears more clearly for me, so yeah I was confused. Also the little story we had together about Sheldon probably didn’t help me to trust you.
So about that particular point (De Morgan’s Law) I’m sorry.

Have you realized yet that union corresponds to logical OR, and intersection corresponds to logical AND? Making your complains that the laws were for intersections even funnier (because that is exactly how you were using them, while claiming you were not). :clown_face:

Yeah now I get it, I guess it was my programmer’s mind who were talking deep inside of me.

I deduced De Morgan’s laws independently (I needed them to solve something but had never heard of them) when I was a kid, in a programming class. So it is pretty funny when I have someone who didn’t know what they were 24 hours ago, trying to tell me what they are for.

Haha just because I didn’t know the name doesn’t mean I didn’t know the concept behind it, right? The proof is I used it repeatedly as you insisted… But you want some revenge as I can see…

Yep that would be correct. Except you didn’t know the concept either. That is why you made all those mistakes, because you didn’t know the concept? Because if you did know the concept and had made those mistakes and false statements…that would be a very different conversation.

As a programmer if I didn’t knew the principle !(A or B) <=> !A and !B that would be a bit weird to say the least, and I used it accurately most of the time, until I tried to reason C3 from C1 and C2…
Do i now need to prove that too? Well I don’t care if you trust me actually. Not a big deal for me.

“all those mistakes”


I rest my case. :speak_no_evil:

Look this principle is so easy to use that even me has found it. It’s not exceptional to use it in every day life sentences, so what are you implying… That I don’t know that if I have no apple and no banana then I have no apple or banana? Dude…

I don’t think so. If God and the World are both eternal, they may exist side by side without the least separation. You mention “origin” in this C7. If the world is eternal it does not have an origin. Thus there is no contradiction.

You also haven’t considered the case that God may not be eternal.


And there’s more.

Creation need not be a single act. So the Bible says seven days. Who cares?

If God is in a continual state of Creation, he can sustain and destroy the world at any point without contradiction to his eternal existence. His eternal existence isn’t an established fact. It’s a process that never ends and never starts.

The limitation to your thinking is that even if God obeys the laws of infinity, His existence is in the present moment. It need not span infinite past and future all at once. All it need do is exist moment to moment without ever losing potential. And that is how God exists, by moving effortlessly from one moment to the next without interval - thus infinite without recourse to “infinite past” or “infinite future”.

Therefore God (if He exists, which is pretty much a matter of how mentally I’ll you are) has infinite free will and infinite Creative ability.

The world may be one single volitional act of God’s laziness away from utter annihilation. That, at least, is what he taught me after my girlfriend dumped me during my final exams in third year Uni.

And even then, were the world to perish, it could come back in a moment and as such be sustained by God’s creative power moment to moment.

I’m not saying He exists (although I have personal and direct experIence of both the OverLord and the EvilOne). But, that is my understanding of the infinite process by which he creates. Creation is like a foam in a river. Not the river itself.

Well then it’s even easier, The God at the very origin of our world can’t be at the origin of our world (and is therefore kinda useless)

About your last post, are you implying that god doesn’t even have a chronology in his thoughts? Or in his acts?