All-powerful gods - the worst creators in the universe

[Folgora]

Has anybody ever thought about how an all-powerful god is actually the worst creator of all times? Humans are actually infinitely better creators.

First, let's define an all-powerful god:
-An all-powerful god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It is truly infinite.

Let me define "truly infinity": Mathematically, truly infinite would be R (the real numbers, C isn't necessary for this example).
-So a truly infinite set of numbers is the set R, between -inf and +inf.
-A lesser infinity would be a set within R, which is infinitely smaller than R, for example, the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 (0,1 0,2 0,3 0,31 0,32 0,33 0,331 ...). A lesser infinity still contains an infinite amount of numbers.

Now, about supposedly creating the universe (for this, I'll generously assume that the universe is infinite):
-A truly infinite god creates a lesser infinite universe (even if space would be infinite, and even if time would go on forever, there is a beginning, the axis of time is only one way infinite, which doesn't make it truly infinite).
-If we could quantify both objects (the god and the universe), the universe would be infinitely smaller than the god, making the god a terrible creator. The gap between the god object and the universe object would be infinite.

Now, about supposedly creating humans:
-An infinite god is creating a finite being.
-As before, if we could quantify both objects, the being (human in this case) is infinitely smaller than the god, making the god.
-This time around, we can compare them. The humans, being finite beings can somewhat compare with their creations. There some creations which are considered better than the creator, such as creations that helped the entire human race (ex: Newton's laws of motion, The steam engine, The automobile, The computer, The internet, etc.).
In this case, if we could quantify the objects (human and it's creation), the gap between them would be finite, which makes the human creator an infinitely better creator than any all-powerful god.

What are your thoughts on this logic?

 

[Vivre]

What are your thoughts on this logic?

It hurts my brain.

I still try to figure out what 'faux infinity' or 'bigger infinite than lesser' could be.

Besides I don't see where humans created anything so far (implying your allusion of creation).

Although humans invented the omnibus the ones I used could neither pick up all passengers nor did they route at infinitum - they always dead-ended at the school portal :mrgreen:

Why do you aim to pove yourself to be superior over something unverifiable?

 

[Folgora]

Some infinities are bigger than others, for example, the amount of numbers between 10 and 20 that belong to R is infinite, but it's smaller than the amount of numbers between 10 and 21 that belong to R, catch my drift?

I was just proving a point, how humans are much better creators than gods, if you could quantify the gap between the creator object and the creation object.

By create I mean to make something unique, to make the first object in a series of objects. For example, the first TV was created, it was something new. All the others that followed, flat screen, LCD TVs were not creations, they were innovations.
I suppose you could use the synonym "to invent".

I wasn't trying to prove myself "superior" to something unverifiable, I was just stating an obvious flaw in the concept of an all-powerful creator. The conclusion was that, if you consider an all-powerful creator, then, if you could quantify their creations, the gap between them would always be infinite, making the creator the worst creator of all time.

 

[Vivre]

Some infinities are bigger than others ...

I don't think this mind game brings you further.
It's impossible to compare an unmeasurable infinity A to another infinity B.

Besides it is not the quantity that counts but the quality. Living beings are to a certain extend capable of self-preservation - a TV isn't.
Please don't think that humans created any law of nature, but detected and described them.

If quantity is your major indicator then I could say there are more ants on this planet unknowingly caring to keep the soil loosely and nourished than computers to plant wisdom into consciousness.

But nonetheless - what would you gain if your hypothetical assumption would work out?
Will you acknowledge an all-powerfull creator, even if minor potent, to be for real?

Why do you bother? What are your nagging doubts?
All these omni-hyper-properties express pure infinite maxima of certain qualities which are 'beyond' human achievement, but still hypothetical thinkable. Why accumulate them all in one point and say that position would exist and even more so be capable of targeted activity instead of eternal stasis?

All-power doesn't imply all-perfect and has no intention.

 

[Folgora]

Some infinities are bigger than others ...

It's impossible to compare an unmeasurable infinity A to another infinity B.

No.

I'm also not gaining anything from this. It was just food for thought, but I think you interpreted it in all the wrong ways...

 

[Vivre]

No.

The first sentence is: "Infinity is not a number." - but you want to quantify it?

Besides, the video explains different types of infinities, not that they would vary in size.

But however, it's nice to learn about Georg Cantor and his uncountability proof.

I'm also not gaining anything from this.

You surely do.

It was just food for thought, but I think you interpreted it in all the wrong ways...

Seems to be, if you say so. But you are too superior to resolve the to you known missunderstanding.

Oh well, I wished you hadn't asked for 'thoughts' and hope you don't proceed to tell people that the laws of nature are a human invention.

 

[Folgora]

No.

The first sentence is: "Infinity is not a number." - but you want to quantify it?

Besides, the video explains different types of infinities, not that they would vary in size.

So when he says that the integers line of number is basically twice as big as the natural line of number, they didn't vary in size? Also if you listen carefully, he actually says that some infinities are bigger.
It also doesn't help your case that you learn about this in high school (at least here we learned it)

But however, it's nice to learn about Georg Cantor and his uncountability proof.

I'm also not gaining anything from this.

You surely do.
Then explain what I'm gaining, because I don't seem to know xD

It was just food for thought, but I think you interpreted it in all the wrong ways...

Seems to be, if you say so. But you are too superior to resolve the to you known missunderstanding.

I don't understand this sentence

Oh well, I wished you hadn't asked for 'thoughts' and hope you don't proceed to tell people that the laws of nature are a human invention.


Well, your thoughts are largely beside the point, and with missing knowledge (the infinities part), so I don't see how they're too relevant.
Also the laws of nature aren't a human invention, but Newton's laws of motion are, as in, he invented calculus to explain them, he also invented the terms to describe them, and the mathematics to explain them.

Now about the smaller - bigger infinities part which you don't seem to understand, here's an easy way to understand it:
-Let's say the set of numbers A contains ALL the real numbers between 1 and 2.
-Let's say the set of numbers B contains ALL the real numbers between 3 and 4
-Let's say the set of numbers C contains ALL the real numbers between 1 and 10.
Can you tell which sets of numbers are equal, and which one of them is bigger than the rest? Again, it's not about the values of the numbers, it's about how many numbers they have.
All of the sets have an infinite amount of numbers, but you can tell which one of them is bigger.

And about the "quality" thing. Quality can be quantified. The simplest example that comes to mind is a rating system, like one youtube, from 1 to 5 stars. That's how you quantify quality.
So in my example, the quality from the human beings example is finite. So let's assume that the humans have a 10 star quality, and the "TV" has a 1 star quality. The gap between them is 9 stars, a finite gap. But the gap between the creator object, which would have an infinite amount of stars, and the human object, which has 10 stars, is infinite.
Do you understand the example?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Now about the smaller - bigger infinities part which you don't seem to understand, here's an easy way to understand it:
-Let's say the set of numbers A contains ALL the real numbers between 1 and 2.
-Let's say the set of numbers B contains ALL the real numbers between 3 and 4
-Let's say the set of numbers C contains ALL the real numbers between 1 and 10.
Can you tell which sets of numbers are equal, and which one of them is bigger than the rest? Again, it's not about the values of the numbers, it's about how many numbers they have.
All of the sets have an infinite amount of numbers, but you can tell which one of them is bigger.

Actually no, that is wrong. The real numbers between 1 and 2 is exactly the same infinite as between 1 and 10.
Don't believe me? So let me map one set to another for you.
Set Y is the set of all numbers between 1 and 10, while y is a number in that set.
Set X is the set of all numbers between 1 and 2, while x is a number in that set.
y = 9x -8
Done.
And why would it make a difference if it is a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity?
Infinite is far much more complicated than it seems on the first glance.
Actually so is 1+1=2, there are entire books dedicated to trying to prove this.

But curiosity apart, and for the topic itself, it seems to me to be equivalent to postulating how many angels can dance on top of a pin.
This is a philosophical question that shall never answer (because 1. the concept of a God is absurd, 2. and most importantly philosophy doesn't give you answers about real things), and I don't why you even care.
But let's entertain how many angels can dance on top of a pin.
Let's say that I build a machine who's only function is to build an other machine exactly like itself.
By your measurement this machine would be better than us, why?
1. Because we are not able to achieve the full extent of our capabilities
2. We can build that machine and much more, but we do not reach the limit of our capabilities.
3. The machine is limited in its capacity, yet it is capable to produce the exact same machine as we can and it achieves the full extent of its design.
4. Sense you and the machine can both build that same machine, but the machine is much more limited in its capacity then you are, then by comparison you would be led to believe that the machine is proportional more creative than you are.
So do you think that a machine that is only capable of building itself is much more creative than you are?

But then again, if the machine is better than you, wouldn't that mean that you were able to create something better than yourself and therefore be better than the machine that can just create itself, which by extent makes the machine not better and therefore makes you not better, and therefore... well you get the picture.

Now, also why is it that creating something that is not infinite worst than creating something that is infinite?


But then again, I digress, Gods do not exist, and therefore none of this reasoning is even valid to begin with, and to ignore this is to ignore that we are already wrong even before we started.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, Folgora!

Has anybody ever thought about how an all-powerful god is actually the worst creator of all times? Humans are actually infinitely better creators.

First, let's define an all-powerful god:
-An all-powerful god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It is truly infinite.

With all due respect, Folgora, that's tautological: "all-powerful" = omnipotent.

Let me define "truly infinity": Mathematically, truly infinite would be R (the real numbers, C isn't necessary for this example).
-So a truly infinite set of numbers is the set R, between -inf and +inf.
-A lesser infinity would be a set within R, which is infinitely smaller than R, for example, the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 (0,1 0,2 0,3 0,31 0,32 0,33 0,331 ...). A lesser infinity still contains an infinite amount of numbers.

Here, you're contradicting yourself.

If a "lesser infinity still contains an infinite amount of numbers", then it is not "lesser" than infinity.

Infinity = Infinity.

Now, about supposedly creating the universe (for this, I'll generously assume that the universe is infinite):
-A truly infinite god creates a lesser infinite universe (even if space would be infinite, and even if time would go on forever, there is a beginning, the axis of time is only one way infinite, which doesn't make it truly infinite).

That is not the case.

If a universe is spatially infinite, it occupies the same space as the Creator - regardless of the temporal limit you place on it..

The normal concept of "omnipresence" is that the Supernatural First Cause (SFC) "permeates" the universe: in other words, all of the universe lies within the SFC, but not all of the SFC lies within the universe.

Correctly put, the SFC creates a finite universe - both spatially and temporally.

-If we could quantify both objects (the god and the universe), the universe would be infinitely smaller than the god, making the god a terrible creator. The gap between the god object and the universe object would be infinite.

Your above definitions of "lesser infinities" render your scenarios invalid.

Now, about supposedly creating humans:
-An infinite god is creating a finite being.
-As before, if we could quantify both objects, the being (human in this case) is infinitely smaller than the god, making the god.
-This time around, we can compare them. The humans, being finite beings can somewhat compare with their creations. There some creations which are considered better than the creator, such as creations that helped the entire human race (ex: Newton's laws of motion, The steam engine, The automobile, The computer, The internet, etc.).
In this case, if we could quantify the objects (human and it's creation), the gap between them would be finite, which makes the human creator an infinitely better creator than any all-powerful god.

What are your thoughts on this logic?

This is a somewhat confused comparison of the SFC, Mankind and their respective creations.

One could argue, contrary to your claim, that the SFC's proverbial Creatio Ex Nihilo cannot be equalled by humans. On the other hand, we - as finite beings - being able to create anything would trump a Infinite Being's ability - except that our ability to create allegedly comes from said SFC.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Vivre]

It also doesn't help your case that you learn about this in high school (at least here we learned it)

Sounds like an argument from arrogance. Lucky you if you've learned all about infinity ;-)

Then explain what I'm gaining, because I don't seem to know xD

If this interaction within this thread, that you evoked doesn't tell you anything, you can't be helped. I simply doubt that it'll pass you by without learning effect.

But: if you state that putting up your whole assumption plus questioning for thoughts, is meant to be without any gain on your side, then this thread is only an accidental conglomerate of characters with an unfortunate contents of meanings.

2nd BUT: You missed my question. I asked what you'd gain from your whole argumentation as such.

Seems to be, if you say so. But you are too superior to resolve the to you known missunderstanding.

I don't understand this sentence

Sorry - I think I sticked to close to my native grammar.
I meant: if you clearly see my lack of understanding your points, than it would be good if you'd clarified it instead of just stating that you know better.

Well, your thoughts are largely beside the point, and with missing knowledge (the infinities part), so I don't see how they're too relevant.

You can't be more arrogant - congrats

Next time, please post such a topic in the forum 'math & science' and postulate that only thoughts by mathematicians will be appreciated, while all other humans don't 'count'.
And don't forget to mention that the target of the subject [topic] is irrelevant and only the method wants evaluation.

And about the "quality" thing. Quality can be quantified. The simplest example that comes to mind is a rating system, like one youtube, from 1 to 5 stars. That's how you quantify quality.

Great - like a teacher once told us: "If a million flies fly on [crazy for] shit - then shit must be tasteful."

The gap between them is 9 stars, a finite gap. But the gap between the creator object, which would have an infinite amount of stars, and the human object, which has 10 stars, is infinite.
Do you understand the example?

I doubt, as I don't approve your needs.
Still to me it's ridiculous to compare an infinite outcome to a fixed value of 10 ... except it is meant as joke or as devious method to confuse an opponent.

edit: corrected typos

 

[Folgora]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, Folgora!

Thanks

Has anybody ever thought about how an all-powerful god is actually the worst creator of all times? Humans are actually infinitely better creators.

First, let's define an all-powerful god:
-An all-powerful god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It is truly infinite.

With all due respect, Folgora, that's tautological: "all-powerful" = omnipotent.

Well, I stated omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because some people that define an infinite creator somehow don't include omniscience, just so that they could have a cause for "free will"

Let me define "truly infinity": Mathematically, truly infinite would be R (the real numbers, C isn't necessary for this example).
-So a truly infinite set of numbers is the set R, between -inf and +inf.
-A lesser infinity would be a set within R, which is infinitely smaller than R, for example, the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 (0,1 0,2 0,3 0,31 0,32 0,33 0,331 ...). A lesser infinity still contains an infinite amount of numbers.

Here, you're contradicting yourself.

If a "lesser infinity still contains an infinite amount of numbers", then it is not "lesser" than infinity.

Infinity = Infinity.

I think this would only be true if you wouldn't have any limits to it. In the example I gave before, I gave three sets with limits. So the set C includes set A and set B. They indeed both have an infinite amount of numbers, but since there are numbers in set C which are not included in set A, makes the whole set C logically bigger than set A, even though both of them contain an infinite amount of numbers.
This is kind of like which is more infinite, something infinitely small or something infinitely big.
Basically, can you say that the set C does not have more numbers in it than the set A?

Now, about supposedly creating the universe (for this, I'll generously assume that the universe is infinite):
-A truly infinite god creates a lesser infinite universe (even if space would be infinite, and even if time would go on forever, there is a beginning, the axis of time is only one way infinite, which doesn't make it truly infinite).

That is not the case.

If a universe is spatially infinite, it occupies the same space as the Creator - regardless of the temporal limit you place on it..

The normal concept of "omnipresence" is that the Supernatural First Cause (SFC) "permeates" the universe: in other words, all of the universe lies within the SFC, but not all of the SFC lies within the universe.

Correctly put, the SFC creates a finite universe - both spatially and temporally.

I agree, but I just put an "infinite" universe to have a relative measure of the power of the creator object. Even though spatially infinite, if it has a start, then it is still a subset A of a larger set C (if we presume that the creator object was timeless, as many would believe).

-If we could quantify both objects (the god and the universe), the universe would be infinitely smaller than the god, making the god a terrible creator. The gap between the god object and the universe object would be infinite.

Your above definitions of "lesser infinities" render your scenarios invalid.

Now, about supposedly creating humans:
-An infinite god is creating a finite being.
-As before, if we could quantify both objects, the being (human in this case) is infinitely smaller than the god, making the god.
-This time around, we can compare them. The humans, being finite beings can somewhat compare with their creations. There some creations which are considered better than the creator, such as creations that helped the entire human race (ex: Newton's laws of motion, The steam engine, The automobile, The computer, The internet, etc.).
In this case, if we could quantify the objects (human and it's creation), the gap between them would be finite, which makes the human creator an infinitely better creator than any all-powerful god.

What are your thoughts on this logic?

This is a somewhat confused comparison of the SFC, Mankind and their respective creations.

One could argue, contrary to your claim, that the SFC's proverbial Creatio Ex Nihilo cannot be equalled by humans.

That's why I tried to quantify the gaps between the "quality" of the supposed creations.

On the other hand, we - as finite beings - being able to create anything would trump a Infinite Being's ability - except that our ability to create allegedly comes from said SFC.

I haven't thought of it this way

Kindest regards,

James

Now about the smaller - bigger infinities part which you don't seem to understand, here's an easy way to understand it:
-Let's say the set of numbers A contains ALL the real numbers between 1 and 2.
-Let's say the set of numbers B contains ALL the real numbers between 3 and 4
-Let's say the set of numbers C contains ALL the real numbers between 1 and 10.
Can you tell which sets of numbers are equal, and which one of them is bigger than the rest? Again, it's not about the values of the numbers, it's about how many numbers they have.
All of the sets have an infinite amount of numbers, but you can tell which one of them is bigger.

Actually no, that is wrong. The real numbers between 1 and 2 is exactly the same infinite as between 1 and 10.

So you're saying that the set C contains the same amount of numbers as the set A in my example?
My logic was that if the set C contains even 1 number that the set A doesn't contain, it is logically bigger, even though they both contain infinite amount of numbers. For example, the set C contains the number 8, which the set A doesn't contain. Can you then say that both C and A contain the same amount of numbers?

Don't believe me? So let me map one set to another for you.
Set Y is the set of all numbers between 1 and 10, while y is a number in that set.
Set X is the set of all numbers between 1 and 2, while x is a number in that set.
y = 9x -8
Done.

I don't understand this example, care you elaborate?

And why would it make a difference if it is a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity?
Infinite is far much more complicated than it seems on the first glance.
Actually so is 1+1=2, there are entire books dedicated to trying to prove this.

But curiosity apart, and for the topic itself, it seems to me to be equivalent to postulating how many angels can dance on top of a pin.
This is a philosophical question that shall never answer (because 1. the concept of a God is absurd, 2. and most importantly philosophy doesn't give you answers about real things), and I don't why you even care.

Well I was having a conversation with a colleague about how would the world have looked if we had created it, to which I responded that being all-powerful (infinite) would be impossible because then every point in space would have to contain infinite mass. Then I thought about how, if I was a finite creator, I could actually compare in quality with my creation, since we'd both have a finite quantified quality.
Then I wondered, if an infinite creator would have created something finite, it could never compare with the creation, since the gap between them would be infinite.

But let's entertain how many angels can dance on top of a pin.
Let's say that I build a machine who's only function is to build an other machine exactly like itself.
By your measurement this machine would be better than us, why?

Not necessarily better than us. I just gave arbitrary examples, I don't know how you would quantify the quality in real life. I was just saying that, if you could quantify it, for us finite beings, the quality would be also finite, and the gap between them would be finite, which wouldn't happen if an infinite being creates something finite.

1. Because we are not able to achieve the full extent of our capabilities
2. We can build that machine and much more, but we do not reach the limit of our capabilities.
3. The machine is limited in its capacity, yet it is capable to produce the exact same machine as we can and it achieves the full extent of its design.
4. Sense you and the machine can both build that same machine, but the machine is much more limited in its capacity then you are, then by comparison you would be led to believe that the machine is proportional more creative than you are.
So do you think that a machine that is only capable of building itself is much more creative than you are?

Not more creative than the humans, but better at that specific function. If the machine is able to create another exact copy with 100% success rate, then it's better than the human at doing that, since two human made things are never the same, and in the case of humans there is always the possibility of human error.
But in my example, I meant something like this:
-Humans can create computers that calculate faster than the humans, so in that aspect, they are better.
-Humans can create sensors which can detect a wider array of wavelengths of sound and light, so they are better in that aspect than the humans.
-Humans can create digital storing devices, which not only play back sounds (relatively) exactly as they record them, but can also store more information than humans, and access it faster, so they're better in that aspect too.
-etc
So collectively they do a better job than the humans in what they're supposed to do.

But then again, if the machine is better than you, wouldn't that mean that you were able to create something better than yourself and therefore be better than the machine that can just create itself, which by extent makes the machine not better and therefore makes you not better, and therefore... well you get the picture.

Now, also why is it that creating something that is not infinite worst than creating something that is infinite?

It was actually about the creator object being finite-infinite, not the creation.

But then again, I digress, Gods do not exist, and therefore none of this reasoning is even valid to begin with, and to ignore this is to ignore that we are already wrong even before we started.

I agree that gods do not exist, but this was a hypothetical questions and line of reasoning, and I just wanted to get some feedback, but I suppose everybody was too preoccupied with the bigger-smaller infinity part, so I'll make a simplified version of it now

Okay, so let's assume a star rating system to quantify the quality of these objects:
-The human object has 10 stars
-The TV object has 1 stars, and it is a creation of the human object
-The internet object has 5 stars, -||-

Now, in both of these creations, the creations are worse than the creator in terms of quality. But the internet object is better than the TV object, in terms of quality.
The gap between them is 1- 10 = -9 in the case of the TV, and 5 - 10 = -5 in the case of the internet.
So basically, the bigger the gap number is, the better the creation. If the gap number is positive, then the creation is better than the creator.

Now let's assume the infinite creator object:
-Creator object has inf stars
-Human object has 10 stars, and is a creation of the creator object.

Now the gap between these two is 10 - inf = -inf, so it doesn't matter how many stars the creation has, if it is finite, and the creator object has infinite stars, then the gap between the creator object and the creation object will always be infinite.

So then, the human creator that created the internet creation has a -5 gap, so we'll call it a decent creator
The human creator that created the TV creation has a -9 gap, so we'll call it a bad creator
Now the infinite creator that created the finite being has a -inf gap, so what will we call it, if not the worst creator?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

With all due respect, Folgora, that's tautological: "all-powerful" = omnipotent.

Well, I stated omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because some people that define an infinite creator somehow don't include omniscience, just so that they could have a cause for "free will"

I understand what you were trying to do - perhaps a better term would have been to say "Supreme Being" instead of "all-powerful creator" - then you wouldn't have run into the issue.

Here, you're contradicting yourself.

If a "lesser infinity still contains an infinite amount of numbers", then it is not "lesser" than infinity.

Infinity = Infinity.

I think this would only be true if you wouldn't have any limits to it. In the example I gave before, I gave three sets with limits. So the set C includes set A and set B. They indeed both have an infinite amount of numbers, but since there are numbers in set C which are not included in set A, makes the whole set C logically bigger than set A, even though both of them contain an infinite amount of numbers.
This is kind of like which is more infinite, something infinitely small or something infinitely big.
Basically, can you say that the set C does not have more numbers in it than the set A?

That's the problem - when you bring infinity into the mix, there are, and can be, no limits.

People confuse themselves with common sense terms: such as, "half infinity is less than infinity" or "infinity minus half infinity equals half infinity".

We see "half" and think that that changes things - but it doesn't: infinity has no limits - you can't speak of "half" infinity, because it's still infinity.

I see that MGK has made the same point to you.

That is not the case.

If a universe is spatially infinite, it occupies the same space as the Creator - regardless of the temporal limit you place on it..

The normal concept of "omnipresence" is that the Supernatural First Cause (SFC) "permeates" the universe: in other words, all of the universe lies within the SFC, but not all of the SFC lies within the universe.

Correctly put, the SFC creates a finite universe - both spatially and temporally.

I agree, but I just put an "infinite" universe to have a relative measure of the power of the creator object. Even though spatially infinite, if it has a start, then it is still a subset A of a larger set C (if we presume that the creator object was timeless, as many would believe).

But, as I indicated, putting a temporal limit on the universe doesn't affect a spatially infinite universe. I get what you're trying to do but be careful with how you throw around the concepts "infinite"/"infinity".

Your above definitions of "lesser infinities" render your scenarios invalid.

Now, about supposedly creating humans:
-An infinite god is creating a finite being.
-As before, if we could quantify both objects, the being (human in this case) is infinitely smaller than the god, making the god.
-This time around, we can compare them. The humans, being finite beings can somewhat compare with their creations. There some creations which are considered better than the creator, such as creations that helped the entire human race (ex: Newton's laws of motion, The steam engine, The automobile, The computer, The internet, etc.).
In this case, if we could quantify the objects (human and it's creation), the gap between them would be finite, which makes the human creator an infinitely better creator than any all-powerful god.

What are your thoughts on this logic?

This is a somewhat confused comparison of the SFC, Mankind and their respective creations.

One could argue, contrary to your claim, that the SFC's proverbial Creatio Ex Nihilo cannot be equalled by humans.

That's why I tried to quantify the gaps between the "quality" of the supposed creations.

On the other hand, we - as finite beings - being able to create anything would trump a Infinite Being's ability - except that our ability to create allegedly comes from said SFC.

I haven't thought of it this way

I don't think it's possible to "quantify the gaps between the quality" of objects - between creators and created - when you make both infinite.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Folgora]

I understand what you're trying to say, but then answer these simple questions:
If set A has the numbers between 1 and 2 and set C between 1 and 10 (real numbers):
-Do they both have an equal amount of numbers?
-If you say that set C doesn't have more numbers in it than set A, what about the numbers between 2 and 10?

And also, what's your take on the topic itself, since you mostly commented on the lesser-bigger infinities part
Here's the simplification to what I was trying to say:

Okay, so let's assume a star rating system to quantify the quality of these objects:
-The human object has 10 stars
-The TV object has 1 stars, and it is a creation of the human object
-The internet object has 5 stars, -||-

Now, in both of these creations, the creations are worse than the creator in terms of quality. But the internet object is better than the TV object, in terms of quality.
The gap between them is 1- 10 = -9 in the case of the TV, and 5 - 10 = -5 in the case of the internet.
So basically, the bigger the gap number is, the better the creation. If the gap number is positive, then the creation is better than the creator.

Now let's assume the infinite creator object:
-Creator object has inf stars
-Human object has 10 stars, and is a creation of the creator object.

Now the gap between these two is 10 - inf = -inf, so it doesn't matter how many stars the creation has, if it is finite, and the creator object has infinite stars, then the gap between the creator object and the creation object will always be infinite.

So then, the human creator that created the internet creation has a -5 gap, so we'll call it a decent creator
The human creator that created the TV creation has a -9 gap, so we'll call it a bad creator
Now the infinite creator that created the finite being has a -inf gap, so what will we call it, if not the worst creator?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If a "lesser infinity still contains an infinite amount of numbers", then it is not "lesser" than infinity.

Infinity = Infinity.

Well the magnitude of some infinities are bigger than others, they are still infinite but they can have different "sizes". (quotation mark extremely important)
It is true that the set of Real numbers is a bigger infinity than the set of natural numbers. However it is not true that the subset of the real numbers between 1 and 10 is bigger than the subset of the real numbers between 1 and 2.

So you're saying that the set C contains the same amount of numbers as the set A in my example?

Well that is actually correct, and I have just proved it to you

My logic was that if the set C contains even 1 number that the set A doesn't contain, it is logically bigger, even though they both contain infinite amount of numbers. For example, the set C contains the number 8, which the set A doesn't contain. Can you then say that both C and A contain the same amount of numbers?

You would think so but unfortunately it isn't. Even if C contains all the elements of A plus something else that A doesn't have, it doesn't necessarily mean that one is bigger than the other. It would be true if the sets were finite, but unfortunately they aren't.
And to prove that, What I did was to pair all the numbers from one set to all the numbers in the other set.

Let's say I want to know what number from the set between 1 and 10 I have paired with the number 1.5 from the set between 1 and 2.
I just put into my equation, 9*1.5-8 = 5.5, so the number 1.5 pairs with 5.5. You can also do it the other way around, lets say what number from the set between 1 and 2 is paired with the number 7 from the set between 1 and 10. You just put it into the equation 7=9*x-8 and by the powers of algebra x=5/3.
There isn't a number in one set that isn't univocally paired with another number on the other set, this means that I have paired them all, this means that they are the same size.
This kind of trick for instance isn't possible to be done between the set of natural numbers and the real numbers, that is why it is said that they have different magnitudes.

Now as for everything else. Aren't you forgetting that the quality you used to compare creator from the created is itself the quality of the created object, i.e. making it a circular reference.

 

[Folgora]

I still don't see how pairing them proves that they have the same amount of numbers, where did that equation come from? Do you have any documentation on this?

Now as for everything else. Aren't you forgetting that the quality you used to compare creator from the created is itself the quality of the created object, i.e. making it a circular reference.

Well I need something to compare it with. The creator - created comparison works even if you start from the quality of the creator object, and it gives the same result.

 

[Vivre]

But nonetheless - what would you gain if your hypothetical assumption would work out?
Will you acknowledge an all-powerfull creator, even if minor potent, to be for real?

I'm also not gaining anything from this.

You surely do.

Then explain what I'm gaining, because I don't seem to know xD

If this interaction within this thread, that you evoked doesn't tell you anything, you can't be helped. I simply doubt that it'll pass you by without learning effect.

But: if you state that putting up your whole assumption plus questioning for thoughts, is meant to be without any gain on your side, then this thread is only an accidental conglomerate of characters with an unfortunate contents of meanings.

2nd BUT: You missed my question. I asked what you'd gain from your whole argumentation as such.

The creator - created comparison works even if you

don't care about correct arguments.


What would you gain if your hypothetical assumption would work out?

 

[Folgora]

What would you gain if your hypothetical assumption would work out?

Do you gain anything from a conversation with somebody?
Except for a little insight on other people's points of view, there is no gain.

 

[Folgora]

I did some research and asked a few mathematicians, and I didn't come up with anything concrete...

According to one theory, the set of all natural numbers, which is N, is infinite, but the set of all real numbers, R, is undoubtedly bigger and has more numbers than N, in this theory.
But in this same theory, any line in the set of real numbers R has as many number of dots as any other line, no matter of how long the line is, and that number is infinite. So any interval in the real numbers has the same amount of numbers.
So by this rule, what I said isn't correct. Set C that contains all the real numbers from 1 to 10 has the same number of dots as the set A which contains all the real numbers between 1 and 2: both infinite and equal.

But then, in the same theory, I came up with this part:
Let R be the infinite set of all the real numbers.
Let {R} a set that ONLY contains R and nothing else.
According to this, the {R} set is bigger than R.
This can go to infinity, for example, {{R}} < {{{R}}} < {{{{R}}}} < {{{{{R}}}}} < {{{{{{R}}}}}} < {{{{{{{R}}}}}}} etc
So by extension of this rule, what I said is true, in that set A is a subset of set C,
So set C could be defined as {A,D}, where D is a set of all the real number between 2 and 10.
So by this theory, the set C is bigger than the set A, and would be so, regardless if there weren't any other numbers in between (like set D), simply because A is a subset of C.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I did some research and asked a few mathematicians, and I didn't come up with anything concrete...

According to one theory, the set of all natural numbers, which is N, is infinite, but the set of all real numbers, R, is undoubtedly bigger and has more numbers than N, in this theory.
But in this same theory, any line in the set of real numbers R has as many number of dots as any other line, no matter of how long the line is, and that number is infinite. So any interval in the real numbers has the same amount of numbers.
So by this rule, what I said isn't correct. Set C that contains all the real numbers from 1 to 10 has the same number of dots as the set A which contains all the real numbers between 1 and 2: both infinite and equal.

But then, in the same theory, I came up with this part:
Let R be the infinite set of all the real numbers.
Let {R} a set that ONLY contains R and nothing else.
According to this, the {R} set is bigger than R.
This can go to infinity, for example, {{R}} < {{{R}}} < {{{{R}}}} < {{{{{R}}}}} < {{{{{{R}}}}}} < {{{{{{{R}}}}}}} etc
So by extension of this rule, what I said is true, in that set A is a subset of set C,
So set C could be defined as {A,D}, where D is a set of all the real number between 2 and 10.
So by this theory, the set C is bigger than the set A, and would be so, regardless if there weren't any other numbers in between (like set D), simply because A is a subset of C.

The first part is a contradiction with the second, just read it carefully.

 

[Folgora]

That's why I haven't reached anything concrete...
Though it's funny that I read these 2 parts from the same theory lol