Dear George,

You wrote: “You cannot define the concept of God, for instance, you cannot define that of a set in mathematics”

The concept of God is not for me to define since I do not contend any such entity exists. The concept of God as defined in the Bible is quite contradictory. He listens to arguments when Abraham’s argues with him about not destroying Sodom and Gomorrah if a certain number of righteous people can be found. He destroys almost all life on earth in the Flood in a fit of petulance regarded human behaviour. He tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge when he knows darn well that that is just what they are going to do. In the Jewish Bible he plays a lone hand. Christians apparently believe he needs a sidekick so they posit Jesus as an intermediary. Muslims believe his prophet is Mohammed.

We can specify rules by which a set operates even though we don’t define a set. A set is amenable to reason. God is not. He is an arbitrary construct which does not operate in a reasonable manner.

According to Popper it is better to avoid definitions where possible and merely consider the operational aspects of the entities one considers. eg consider the behavior of mounds of sand of particular heights rather than define dunes.

He is given the epithets of loving, slow to anger and merciful even though in many cases he or she acts in a manner that indicates those epithets do not describe its behavior.

Rather than concern oneself about definitions of valid and invalid one can remark that current surveys of philosophers and scientists have shown that 7% of scientists and 14% of philosophers(maybe it’s the other way round) believe that he or she exists.

The existence of God is easily explained in mathematical set theory.
It is called an empty set.

Dear david f,

>>The concept of God is not for me to define since I do not contend any such entity exists.<<

Sorry, so read it as “One cannot define the concept of God, for instance, one cannot define that of a set in mathematics”. It was not meant personally, I know you do not have a need for that concept. Also, I never thought of looking in the Bible for a formal definition of God only for His representation as a person. You can only have an UNDERSTANDING of what is meant by God in everyday language, the same as you can have an understanding of what is meant by a set of objects.

>>A set is amenable to reason. God is not. <<

Both the concepts of God (assumed as amenable to reason by philosophies all present ones are built on) and reason itself preexist that of a set as understood since Georg Cantor. As I said, most people do not need to use the concept of set in that abstraction, although they understand the concept of a set of objects, c.f. ponde’s post. The same as some people do not need the concept or idea of God in their world-view. I understand that they consider that concept superfluous. However, I do not understand why they would need to kidnap the concept of reason to justify their world-view preferences, the same as I do not agree with those believers who claim only their world-view is “amenable to reason”, whereas an atheist’s beliefs or world-view must go against reason, just because they cannot accept the presuppositions it is built on.

I agree that today the majority of scientists and philosophers would not know what to do with the idea of God - even less how to relate it to the biblical representation of Him, see my disputes with Peter Sellick about the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” versus the “God of philosophers” as Pascal put it. Like e.g. the scientist EO Wilson probably would not have use for Cantor’s theory of sets (see my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15928).

Dear George,

Thank you for that. I look forward to reading your other articles. I regret that I have not done so before.

"Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe." - Galileo

Galileo enhanced our understanding of the universe. Darwin said that there is beauty in his view of life, and there is beauty in mathematics. Implicitly E. O. Wilson denies the value of that beauty. A moth just landed on my keyboard. It is fearfully and wonderfully made.

Your reason and your life experiences cause you to arrive at a place different from the one I am at and vice versa.

I have just read Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" It makes the point that physicalist explanations cannot explain consciousness. Perhaps reason can never explain consciousness. The moth just flew off and is on the curtain. I cannot enter its consciousness. I can kill it, but I cannot understand it. Let it be.

Peter Sellick and E. O. Wilson both share a certain type of blindness in their arrogant attitude to that which is outside their worldview. I will try not to emulate them. Good morning.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words. You are certainly one of the few people on this OLO who make me better understand myself.

David f,

That is particularly weird - for last evening I noticed a moth sitting beside my kitchen tap - and took a few moments to acknowledge that " It is fearfully and wonderfully made."

Just happened to remember that I took a moment to indulge that thought.

(If you don't mind me raising it, I remember a few years ago you mentioned you were 86 - you must be nearing 90 now. Thanks for your wisdom here all these years:)