First off, nobody should accuse me of flogging this issue to death. As i have said before, it cannot be discussed enough, and will still be discussed long after we are all dead.

If, according to scientific thinking, the Universe started from a singularity, then that singularity is [1].

Given either big-bang or steady-state expansion theorems, in terms of abstract quantification we have -

← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [size=16pt][1] [/size] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity →

Where the [1] = The singularity = The oneness of Infinity = God.

The idea of a Oneness of Infinity in abstract terms conclusively proves the existence of God.

Tudor? Krayola?

_{p.s - since long-winded arguments were not too successful, i will be pouring down legions of different proofs thick and fast on this thread.}

Interestin, but belief is by faith

Deep Sight:


← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [size=16pt][1] [/size] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity →

Where the [1] = The singularity = The oneness of Infinity = God.

The idea of a Oneness of Infinity in abstract terms conclusively proves the existence of God.

Huh?? ??

Oneness of infinity (as outlined in that interesting formula up there) "conclusively proves" nothing about the existence of God, I'm deeply sorry to announce. In just about the same way, the same formula could be used to argue for the "conclusive proof" of existence of anything at all!

No, Deep Sight, the OP there was not significant enough to convey your persuasion and may only be circling around a "given". Now please pardon my ignorance upfront, I could be wrong somewhere; but I'd be glad to see a bit more development to that theory/theorem.

haha. my last midterm is tomorrow. I go get time well well. but that looks like fallacy central

Deep Sight,

Here are my preliminary thoughts on your interesting OP. Certainly, I'm a Christian - which makes me a theist. However, when trying to convey our convictions about the existence of God to any audience (whoever they may be), our theories would be closely examined before any conclusions could be reached. Now, that is not to mean that a faulty or falsified theory necessarily negates the existence of God; rather, we may come off with the realisation that no theorem or theory is categorically 'conclusive' in furnishing "proof" for issues like this - at least, not one that I know of at the present.

Following therefrom, the idea as set forth in your OP for the "oneness of infinity" may actually not add up for the "conclusive proof" of the existence of God - as far as arguments/polemics go on this issue.

For one, I contend that no argument is so water-tight as to be "conclusive" on the matter of proving the existence of God or anything for that matter.

Second, the simple formula set forth in the OP . .

       (← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity →)

. . is quite flawed, because it assumes a "given" at '1' where '0' should have been placed. If every digit counts and is not to be taken for granted in the argument, then their value should not only be  graphically represented, but also be correctly identified. So, I would propose a simpler model for the infinity index to be:

        ← Infinity  ← -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 |[zero]| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 → Infinity →

This is not only true but also rational because the value of any digit in either direction (left or right) is predicated upon its relationship to '0'. We may further develop this point where need be; but I shall not be tedious thereto.

Third, in as much as we're not focusing on the number system per se, the idea of the 'oneness of infinity' drawn from your postulations yet do not stand up. The questions such an idea necessitates may include the following and more:

        (a)  what is meant by 'one' and 'oneness'?

        (b)  what is meant by 'infinity'?

        (c)  what parameters define both 'oneness' and 'infinity' in such a relationship
              as to provide "proof" for the existence of God or any deity,
              (let alone a "conclusive" proof thereto)?

        (d)  why choose to start at 1 for the 'infinity' in that theory/theorem -
              why not any other number, even '0'?

You see, the assumption held out in the OP for the "conclusive proof" of the existence of God is froth with problems - not because I wish it so; but rather because that assumption, when queried, may not seem to go the distance.

However, I would say that my preliminary remarks might have missed the point in your persuasions - and it would be great to see what you might have meant.

(infinity/infinitely small) . . . ,1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,  . . . . (infinity/infinitely large)

brb

Pastor AIO:

(infinity/infinitely small)  . . . ,1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,  . . . . (infinity/infinitely large)

haha. I had to stare at that for like 2 mins straight to see what u were getting at  I need sleep. But yeah. . .  makes perfect sense to me. Especially as far as things existing goes (in the way we understand existence).  Never heard of negative existence. . .would my dikc be behind me? 

Hello Viaro -

Your analysis is superb, and i give you top marks for it.

You have actually hit at the very core of the cosmological discussion. . . because zero represents nothingness, and the question has always been - "How could something come out of nothing?"

I have two answers to your supposition involving the zero factor, and i can only hope that they would be satisfactory.

The first answer is this: The Zero factor should not be of concern to us because it stands for nothingness. We are living already within somethingness. We have deduced an expansion from the point of the big bang. That point we call a singularity. A singularity is perforce single, thus 1. Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all. This is the first and more direct answer.

The second answer is more comprehensive, but i fear, difficult to communicate. What is nothingness really? Can you imagine such a state. Fine. Conceptualize it. Absolute emptiness in stark blackness. If you conceptualize this aright, you will see that it is by its very nature infinite. Emptiness is emptiness in an eternity of emptiness. And this emptiness being ifinite cannot be segregated, because it is nothing. It is accordingly one infinity. One single infinity. That is what i mean by the term "Oneness of Infinity". Interlaced in this subtle answer i have laid out is, i believe, the very equation that leads nothingness to be somethingness - namely - a singularity - which i call God.

I hope this addresses your concerns, even as i accept it may be too difficult for most to grasp.

Pastor AIO:

(infinity/infinitely small) . . . ,1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, . . . . (infinity/infinitely large)

Pastor. . . you are feeling me right?

Deep Sight:

I have two answers to your supposition involving the zero factor, and i can only hope that they would be satisfactory.

A singularity is perforce single, thus 1. Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all.

I hope this addresses your concerns, even as i accept it may be too difficult for most to grasp.

Deep Sight,

Yes, I am quite satisfied within the context of your explanations. I also dare say that your summations summarily addressed the initial 4 questions (a, b, c & d) in my previous observations. That was why I hinted earlier that there's all possibility that my initial inferences might have been skewed from what you intended to convey. The weakness in mine was that I applied broad strokes to your simple assumptions. My apologies.

On the other hand, your postulations are very interesting - as long as we follow your ink and style. I'd not go into technicalities here; but this one got me thinking a lil deeper:

What is nothingness really? Can you imagine such a state. Fine. Conceptualize it. Absolute emptiness in stark blackness. If you conceptualize this aright, you will see that it is by its very nature infinite. Emptiness is emptiness in an eternity of emptiness. And this emptiness being infinite cannot be segregated, because it is nothing.

That's okay. The huge problem for me (not for you) is that I cannot fathom or conceptualize "absolute emptiness in stark blackness". That would necessitate three things:

(a) it would necessitate my defining what is -
* absolute
* emptiness
* blackness

(b) it would also require me to define my index for -
* the degrees of "absolutes"
* the degrees of "emptiness"
* the degrees of "blackness"

(c) whereupon from (a) and (b) above, the resultant indices would
form the basis for my correlation between all factors aforementioned.

Phew! I sincerely hope that my musings there are not tangential to the grain of this fine discussion. However, the point in all that is that I am not convinced as yet that either emptiness or blackness is nothing. No. Blackness is actually something existing in relation to other indices - or it would not be "blackness". Emptiness, for me, would actually point to something as well, however hard to conceptualize that 'something' might be. More on this later.

However, your point is well noted and appreciated; and consequently I would not like to muddy the waters. Within the context of your postulations and all things considered, you have addressed my initial concerns. But some might argue (and rightly so) that they may not quite stand up in the wider context of other factors (such as existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension).

Cheers.

@ deepsight
Have u ever known anything that came out of nothing? If not why would u think that ever happened, even if it were "created"

Haha. I just read ur last post. ignore my last post.

Sounds like u just rebuilt the goal post.

viaro:

Deep Sight,

Yes, I am quite satisfied within the context of your explanations. I also dare say that your summations summarily addressed the initial 4 questions (a, b, c & d) in my previous observations. That was why I hinted earlier that there's all possibility that my initial inferences might have been skewed from what you intended to convey. The weakness in mine was that I applied broad strokes to your simple assumptions. My apologies.

On the other hand, your postulations are very interesting - as long as we follow your ink and style. I'd not go into technicalities here; but this one got me thinking a lil deeper:

That's okay. The huge problem for me (not for you) is that I cannot fathom or conceptualize "absolute emptiness in stark blackness". That would necessitate three things:

(a) it would necessitate my defining what is -
* absolute
* emptiness
* blackness

(b) it would also require me to define my index for -
* the degrees of "absolutes"
* the degrees of "emptiness"
* the degrees of "blackness"

(c) whereupon from (a) and (b) above, the resultant indices would
form the basis for my correlation between all factors aforementioned.

Phew! I sincerely hope that my musings there are not tangential to the grain of this fine discussion. However, the point in all that is that I am not convinced as yet that either emptiness or blackness is nothing. No. Blackness is actually something existing in relation to other indices - or it would not be "blackness". Emptiness, for me, would actually point to something as well, however hard to conceptualize that 'something' might be. More on this later.

However, your point is well noted and appreciated; and consequently I would not like to muddy the waters. Within the context of your postulations and all things considered, you have addressed my initial concerns. But some might argue (and rightly so) that they may not quite stand up in the wider context of other factors (such as existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension).

Cheers.

Viaro - With this singular post, you have no idea how high my estimation of you has leapt. You have always deployed very sound reasoning, but I must say in this you have exceeded yourself. This is absolutely brilliant. You are now within my Secret Hallowed Cult of Revered Nairaland Minds, entering as the fourth person!

I would like to make a few comments.

(a) it would necessitate my defining what is -
* absolute
* emptiness
* blackness

(b) it would also require me to define my index for -
* the degrees of "absolutes"
* the degrees of "emptiness"
* the degrees of "blackness"

Absoluteness is only a degree that shows an extreme, in this instance, the extreme of nothingness. Now within this peculiar extreme, we can no longer speak of degrees because nothing exists! (I know it’s a nightmare trying to conceptualize such a state). The adjectives I used (“black”, “empty”) were mere words struggling to imagine what such a state would be like.

However, the point in all that is that I am not convinced as yet that either emptiness or blackness is nothing.

Exactemente! Now here, you are really onto it. . . emptiness itself is something! That is the singularity! And that is how nothingness is the “mother” of somethingness.

so where does God come into the picture? let's get to the koko of the matter.

^^^ Thought i had already done that in the first post?

Deep Sight:

Viaro -  With this singular post, you have no idea how high my estimation of you has leapt. You have always deployed very sound reasoning, but I must say in this you have exceeded yourself. This is absolutely brilliant. You are now within my Secret Hallowed Cult of Revered Nairaland Minds, entering as the fourth person!

No dude! I can't take all that accolade for myself. So allow me to defer to you.
There's no gainsaying the fact that you've always been of a sound mind in
engaging discussions.

I would like to make a few comments.
Absoluteness is only a degree that shows an extreme, in this instance, the extreme of nothingness. Now within this peculiar extreme, we can no longer speak of degrees because nothing exists! (I know it’s a nightmare trying to conceptualize such a state). The adjectives I used (“black”, “empty”) were mere words struggling to imagine what such a state would be like.

Apt! There again, I agree.

Exactemente! Now here, you are really onto it. . . emptiness itself is something! That is the singularity! And that is how nothingness is the “mother” of somethingness.

Okay, again within the context of your postulations, I defer and quite agree. It may be difficult for some to get the hang of what you're on to; so allow me for now to hold on until the thread progresses.

Thank you again.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Thought i had already done that in the first post?

haha. aight.

Let's pretend everything in that post is accurate and true. How does that God = Transcendent creator.

Deep Sight:

Pastor. . . you are feeling me right?

I was just trying to help out.

Krayola:

haha. I had to stare at that for like 2 mins straight to see what u were getting at  I need sleep. But yeah. . .  makes perfect sense to me. Especially as far as things existing goes (in the way we understand existence).  Never heard of negative existence. . .would my dikc be behind me? 

That's the way it was done back in the day. Long before those pesky Hindu philosophers invented the concept of Zero.

I think the Hindus messed it up for everybody. Was probably invented by some very broke guy with nothin for pocket. Who came up with base ten counting? Hindus or Arabs?

The guy(deepsight) with the nameless god is here again. . . .

Krayola:

I think the Hindus messed it up for everybody. Was probably invented by some very broke guy with nothin for pocket. Who came up with base ten counting? Hindus or Arabs? 

haha. Egyptians 2000 years ago.  wikipedia is my friend.

Has Europe of North America ever invented anything that truly changed the world? Besides nukes and bombs and shit like that 

mazaje:

The guy(deepsight) with the nameless god is here again. . . . 

pssstt!! u just don't grasp the argument. It's too deep for your short sighted self. 

Krayola:


pssstt!! u just don't grasp the argument. It's too deep for your short sighted self. 

I laugh in yoruba

Krayola:

haha. aight.

Let's pretend everything in that post is accurate and true. How does that God = Transcendent creator.

^^^ Because everything is spawned from that Singularity, which i call God, thus, everything is spawned by God.

I am done with this proof, it is conclusive, and Tudor has deliberately run away finding no awnswers to this proof.

I now move speedily to the next proof.

I am sure you are all very familiar with this pyramid (BELOW)

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111=123456789 87654321

Abstract quantities by the very nature of co-existing multiply mathematically to infinity. Thus it is no coincidence that this pyramid matches the infinity axis which i drew up in the first post. This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom, in terms of abstract quantification.

GBAM.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Because everything is spawned from that Singularity, which i call God, thus, everything is spawned by God.

I am done with this proof, it is conclusive, and Tudor has deliberately run away finding no awnswers to this proof.

I now move speedily to the next proof.

I am sure you are all very familiar with this pyramid (BELOW)

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111=123456789 87654321

Abstract quantities by the very nature of co-existing multiply mathematically to infinity. Thus it is no coincidence that this pyramid matches the infinity axis which i drew up in the first post. This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom, in terms of abstract quantification.

GBAM.

hunh??
So this God is now immanent and not transcendent? Does God morph?

so this is a different God from the others?

If anything numbers is the one thing you really suck at deep sight , lol and pastor tried to correct you by saying infinitely small or as we call it tending to zero. Every time you raise threads like this I just shake my head and laugh, why did you skirt around viaro's questions that is a good place to start, me I am at the comfortable junction where you turn your very very shaky mathematics into matter, you have never ever managed to get there, quite sad.

Chrisbenogor:

If anything numbers is the one thing you really suck at deep sight , lol and pastor tried to correct you by saying infinitely small or as we call it tending to zero. Every time you raise threads like this I just shake my head and laugh, why did you skirt around viaro's questions that is a good place to start, me I am at the comfortable junction where you turn your very very shaky mathematics into matter, you have never ever managed to get there, quite sad.

Lol, forgive me guys. . em, Chrisbenogor. I don't tink Deep Sight skirted around my questions, no. Infact, I dare say that he nailed them away for good. I was damn too broad in my strokes and missed his own point - the fault was mine.

I know, numbers suck - it does to me too. But allow me to indulge a little more.

Please forgive me, Deep Sight, but I couldn't resist. Numbers are not exactly my thing, but my eyes light up any time I see 'em in such an inviting array.

So, let me make a small observation.

Deep Sight:

Abstract quantities by the very nature of co-existing multiply mathematically to infinity. Thus it is no coincidence that this pyramid matches the infinity axis which i drew up in the first post. This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom, in terms of abstract quantification.

In terms of abstract quantification, yes. . maybe. . and no. But I choose to follow your ink and answer yes. Which was why I hinted earlier that your postulations would satisfy my initial queries in terms of your contexts.

But this was what I wanted to draw out:

This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom

Continuous infinity by that factoring would point back to singularity of oneness - in which case you score a double when you stated in post #8 that "Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all". As long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that.

(Oh dear me, where are those smart heads that bullied me in class with Lie Algebra?!?   )

No, Lie Algebra does not mean the mathematician was 'lying'. Rather, he was trying to work out a vector space with a specific kind of binary operation on it. That's all I should say there and shut up!

Moving on now, once anyone steps outside the vector space (which for you defines an infinity where the factoring of zero does not come into play at present), then the whole theorem collapses. Please note: I'm talking in terms of a vector space that includes '0' within its abstraction, not one within the domain of your factoring of singularity. The reason why I point out this is just to show that once a zero is introduced, the singularity theorem for infinity collapses into a black hole.

Am I making sense so far? If so, read on:

Now, if the pyramid number factoring remains within an abstract quantifying clearly defined as in yours, the theorem stands 100% every single time. But here is the difficulty: the moment you step outside that defined domain, a black hole occurs faster than twice the speed of light! This can be simply tested by a Lie Algebra (pronounced 'Lee Algebra'). We use the Lie Algebra to test domains, and here's a test for the undefined domain that includes zeros -

        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  x  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =

                 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9[b]0[/b] 1 2 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Please note carefully:

(a) I increased the digits of singularity to 12 (pls count them) -

(b) counting above 9 digits of singularity immediately introduces a 'black hole' - '0'

(c) that 'black hole' shows a double '0' within a close perimeter

(d) the define pyramid result would introduce "mirrors"

(e) these mirrors are such that a single digit appears at least four times (that digit is '2')

(f) notice in all the results of the pyramid, 8 appears only once!

(g) guess what? 8 is the new singularity, not 1.


Now, please leave all my useless rants behind - they are useless only in terms of the fact that using the Lie Algebra to test your postulations simply does not hold any grounds. Why? Because you already defined your parameters in post #8 when you stated that "nothingness does not come into the equation at all".

I only tested the pyramid for singularity of oneness outside your domain to show what I stated earlier:

Within the context of your postulations and all things considered, you have addressed my initial concerns. But some might argue (and rightly so) that they may not quite stand up in the wider context of other factors (such as existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension).

Okay, I couldn't resist playing with numbers. Forgive me. But ride on, Deep Sight - I'm enjoying your domain.

Ok if you say so viaro, I am really struggling here so help me understand more, let me go back to his very first post.

← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [1]  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity →

There is a common denominator in all of deep sight numerical proof's of God's existence, the question of existence. Can we say I own -5 books? I think not, so for the sake of the argument a more correct model I think contrary to yours should have been

0----------->Infinitely small-------------->1-------------->Infinitely large

Which pastor tried to point out to him.

Can we start from here?

@ viaro. .  please what does "vector space" mean?. Please explain in simple english. ,  I checked wikipedia and they were just talking gibberish

Phew. This was why I expressed concern that my comments might muddy the waters. But if not, here are a few to consider.

---

Krayola:

@ viaro. .  please what does "vector space" mean?. Please explain in simple english. ,  I checked wikipedia and they were just talking gibberish

Well, at the risk of repeating the Wiki 'gibberish', here's what I was considering:

A vector space defines objects that may be "added together and multiplied ("scaled" by numbers, called scalars in this context. Scalars are often taken to be real numbers, but one may also consider vector spaces with scalar multiplication by complex numbers, rational numbers, or even more general fields instead".

In simple English? Quantities that can be added together or multiplied within a set of operations. Does that help?

If so, then computing a simple binary operation between '1' and '0' would deliver a set of quantities. These may either be in a pattern, like the pyramid in Deep Sight's post; or they may not follow that pattern.

Still waiting viaro.