Truth has no essence, so you confound yourself ontically with what covers numbers and what is it and if it covers itself. There is no way to explain how the infinite instantiates into finite objects. Can there be an infinitely large cell phone?

I visual infinity be contemplating infinite space. Am I in the middle? Then I think soliptistically, as only my body existing. Suddenly infinite space appears around me. Am I then in the middle?

The odd numbers, just to recap, are eternally half the natural numbers, as they go to infinity. Moving 3 to place 2 ect is basically just adding the even numbers to the odd, if you think of this series with your imagination, or geometrically. The argument from Cantor is that all geometrical objects have the same infinity inside them. If this is true, it upsets saying for sure that the odd numbers are half the naturals. But then I don't see a clear reason why we couldn't say, considering that a circle inside a circle has the same points within it as the outside one, why countable infinities can't be equal to uncountable. If the part can be equal to the whole, as Cantor implies, then anything seems possible. Anyone?

Scepticism can lead to very existential living. Doubt isn't bad like Christians think. I believe you guys exist ontically, but I have to know someone well to not be somewhat solipsistic towards them. It's fun to doubt someone exists and then to discover their room and bed

Hegel thought Kant's categories were too static and put them on their head in order to create a movement.

Kant thought the conscience was God but saw no reason to affirm a deity from which it came from the conscience itself.

Descartes thought he could prove the existence of God from innate Ideas instead of analysis of conscience.

I don't see the relationship between your equation and moving all the odd numbers back without changing its infinity. I mean I get the equation, but it has no operative power to slide back the odds without consequence. The odd numbers are a specific infinity, half in density than the naturals. I am shocked professional mathematician try to compare otherwise by bijection. None of it means anything. You can't put anything you like in place of odd numbers. Maybe the naturals can be defined geometrically, so that the odd of half in density like a banana is bigger than its peel. MAYBE the peel has as many points as the banana, but it's clear which is larger, and that has more truth

This thread reminds me of Hegel. Making opposites one then negating the united product

Maybe God doesn't want us to look for signs. They could come from the devil or from God anyway. How are we to know which?

Whatever you have in mind, it does not contradict that definitions are not "illegal moves". — GrandMinnow

I think that pairing up odd numbers with natural numbers by sliding the former back is an illegal move. Prove otherwise

Maybe Allah doesn't want us to look for signs, since he doesn't a priori let us know what signs to look for. A great civilization might look great, but as with the "who is smart" question you bring up, intelligence has much to do with how happy you make yourself and others. There is a lot of factors that go into smartness. Just because Islam has the track record of generation after generation keeping the Koran pure, that doesn't mean it's the right religion. Rome so far hasn't proven it doesn't have infallible authority all these years, which could happen by dogmatic contradictions. If you were one who is open to actual miracle claims as proof of divine favor, Christianity has a pretty good case, and Catholicism too after you become a general Christian

William Craig says the resurrection is history, but what of Fatima and thousands of other such? He reasonably should become Catholic so long as he says atheists need to accept the resurrection as history

The only other Christian hierarchy in the world besides what the Pope considers his bishops is basically the Mormoms, because the CC has documents about going back to the first century and Mormoms stem from Joseph Smith's alleged new revelation of a new Testament. The Catholic Church has never contradicted itself in infallible teachings, but I've looked into this extensively and this is only because the Church yet to issue something that actually claims to be infallible. There are loopholes in every decree issued in history, I've discovered. The scruples they put on teachings that contradicted each other can be placed on all Catholic teachings

By pedigree, are you saying that their interpretation and distorting of the Jewish myth is better, --- or are you referring to their inquisitions and witch burnings as well as their lower levels of inquisitions and jihads against women's and gay's equality today? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Just that they base their belief on a number of old documents by Jesus and say "we are the only Church which claims to teach with infallible authority of Jesus." If someone wants to remain a Protestant because they are sure the Spirit is with them, Catholics have no argument against that

A stupid person would be an immoral person. Everyone has the same intellectual light from birth it seems, considering that everyone I've met is a human (although evolution might take some effect here). If you think you are smart, there are the psychological studies about auto-suggestion. Some of those who think they are smart are making themselves smart by telling themselves they are smart! But some people are prideful, and thinking they are smart do not try to be smart. These people are failing at being smart. That's all psychology knows about this issue

"It's legal for finite, not infinite" makes no sense. You can inform yourself about the subject with introductory textbooks. — GrandMinnow

Can you briefly explain why it's a legal move to move 3's place to line up with 2 when it's realty in-between 2 and 4?

Wait, let me correct. It's legal for finite, not infinite

x is finite if and only if there is a 1-1 correspondence between x and a natural number — GrandMinnow

I am saying that is an illegal move

Protestants accepting Calvins or Augustines ideas on original sin (which says it is actual sin committed in Adam's loins) leads to hatred of down syndrome people, twins, ect. Protestants have no authority to interpret the Bible, or say what is the Bible, apart from the "Spirit". They all claim to have Him, but they all contradict each other. Catholicism has major problems for me, but it has a stronger pedigree than Protestantism. The Bible isn't clear if we should baptize infants or a million other things

When frishfry asked me if it Galileo's conclusion sounded rational to me "without overthinking it", I really didn't know what to say. You have proven that the uncountable are not equal to the countable. But that doesn't prove every countable is equal to every other countable. I think we have to base this on geometry. The pineal gland has as many points as the body, but it is a lesser infinity. There is something you guys are missing in this. The bijection argument that the natural and the wholes and the odd numbers are all equal infinities forgets about density first of all, and probably many other things. I think we have to posit a "basic uncountable infinity" such that this infinity plus one is suddenly larger (by one). Lining a couple of units of infinity up proves nothing. Yes they then go to infinity, but which infinity? Again, when you compare the odd to the natural numbers you have to move the odd numbers back, disturbing the infinity in the direction to the right. It's an illegal move imo

Sorry about that.

Anyway, with infinity there are

1) cardinality

2) density

3) measure

It seems to me you have to consider all three of these in comparing uncountable to countable and all the other comparisons. Are we sure there are even only these 3 ways of assessing infinity?

On the subject of religion, will two people in heaven have less eternity than three? I feel like bijection is invalid. With the natural numbers, you have to step every odd numbers back in order to biject them and who knows what that does to the infinity on the other side. I'm probably not smart enough to understand the coming response,.but I like this subject.

Fishfry, if the set is infinite, it's like saying there are the same infinity of points in the pineal gland as in the whole body. That's how it appears to me. I just know infinity from Hegel. He says the finite is the infinite thrown from itself. For him the infinite must be one, not four or whatever

I say, alcontali, you crash your jet into the sun, since it's what you want. You don't respect your betters, are rebellious to everyone, and your mom is disappointed in you

How much math must one know to understand this Catorian proof? It seems to me infinity is everywhere and nowhere, speaking of abstract infinity that is. You might not know how to start a bijection of the reals to the wholes, but I say start with any member, and then another and so we have bijection to 1 and 2. Send them off infinity like you do comparing whole to odd, and walla we have Aristotle's result

I think the West's success started in the liberal arts. Basically in the monastery. Once a culture was created however, rebellion against the religion (the Enlightenment) lead to science blooming. People were interesting in studying the world, not yellowed paper about a Jesus dude. Galileo's works were for a long time on Rome's "index of forbidden books", which meant only the cloistered scholars could read them. So Islam, in limiting science by it's religion, has a lot in common with liberal art culture

No, I don't agree with your argument. The odds numbers don't line up with the whole numbers (you say), but you say they are equal infinities. You can prove "uncountable" infinities don't line up with the whole numbers either, but maybe they are equal as well. Until you prove that "uncountable" cannot be lined up with the wholes you haven't proven Cantor right. The diagonal shows that there are numbers not in the wholes, but there are evens not in the odds. I don't see the argument for why you can't just start at zero and line any infinity up with any other

Faith is believing in something without evidence. You believe in your religion despite the evidence. No religion on earth clearly has God's spirit. It's just stories in your head and you are arrogant to say otherwise. It's deep down just "will to power", yet you hate Nietzsche! There is such a thing as maliciousness, and it's opposite. People who kill over homo sex are the former. The system you want help with is one where gay people get the death penalty. Again, you're a moron.

So you accept Western psychological studies only when they suit you? And why are you asking for help to formalize your system on here? And did you know most biological fields use knowledge of huge gene mutation, and other mutations, over time as a premise?

A lot of Christians put the emphasis on Jesus taking our punishment. But this logically has the Father saying "SOMEONE suffered pain for this, so I am satisfied". Monstrous. If they emphasize the mercy element of Jesus's sacrifice, you still have sinners unable to save themselves, so they are saved by POOF! God, for them, changes evil people into good out of mercy. Think about that for a minute. It's not obviously moral

I am not so sure Tristan. You are assuming a priori that countable infinities are not equal to uncountable. That's one of your premises, but it's left unproven. IF it's true, the diagonal proof works, but not otherwise. Aristotle said all infinities are equal, so i've read

Of course, in liberal arts courses sometimes they read Averroes and Avicenna, and usually the Aristotle those two loved. So in attacking liberal arts you are attacking Islamic philosophical traditions. Is this because you suck at philosophy? After all, you can't even prove there is a God? You tried, you failed. Your only argument was "infinite regress is impossible", which I refute above in this thread

As modern science get's more nominalistic, it breaks the spine of Islamic law, which can't handle all the questions that arise in our age. Even the religion with the stronger pedigree, Catholicism, will bow before science, as it's infallible authority (the Pope, or the Pope with all the bishops together collegially) realizes it has no tools from the Bible and Tradition to handle these issues which confuse them on natural law. I predict Rome will keep issuing weak ass "ordinary Magisterial" (fallible) decrees with general guidance. I prophecy that Islamic scholars will keep thinking they are the wisest in their consensuses, but will feel sorrow as their world is left behind

Considering how much work Muslims put in, they suck

A psychologist would describe Islamic nations as distinct groups of sex addicted workaholics.

The alim and ulema are not a "I'm better" aristocratics? I wonder if Sartre considered himself an aristocratic. Quick question: how does Islam define workaholism?

God is not one! Only haters say others

Protestants take that living authority as the holy spirit. Rome for Catholics. Muslims are forbidden to look for signs, logically, because then there is the resurrection, Fatima, and hundreds of other things. So no signs can give them a living authority. Does the Koran define gender even? America is called the great satan but most true hermaphrodites who are strippers or more are from the Orient. How can the Koran define which sex these people are? We can set aside the shemale ladyboy thing, since that is transition. There will be far to many modern questions like cloning and a hundred other things, which this ancient system can't handle. Bigotry is not welcome in the West. Come on people

Islam has no authority with an infallibility pedigree to deal with modern problems. I defy them even to define sex according to the Quran. In Daoism the man becomes the woman and the woman the man through climax. You need a living authority competent to teach

An Eastern Christian church says it has the Ark of the Covenant. Some of the Eastern saints were very violent. Seeing no reason to choose one religion over another - leaping over them all

Of anyone wants to hear the most spelt sexless music, listen to 99 most essential gregorian chants on Youtube. Islam does not know sexless. In Daoism, the ejaculation are pulled in (semen goes to the bladder then) so the man becomes yin and the woman yang.

What is the longest syllogism?