Infinity, God, and the MONAD

[Silent Method]

Re: Uh....

Trivial idea.

They already are down to strings in quantum mechanics. The best visualization is that they are like rubber bands that vibrate. They are the smallest thing yet understood and are not believed to be divisible.

No substance. They are just harmonic vibrations. Essentially, everything is made up of nothing.

Take an asprin or 12 and have a lie down while your brain stops bleeding from the effort of figuring that one out.

Uh, dude, you just reinforced the "trivial idea" of monodology with modern theoretical physics. I think maybe you should lie down for a bit and let your brain cool off.

 

[Silent Method]

Re: Re: Infinity, God, and the MONAD

Lots of good discussion here...

Why is this "logical"?

In it's very being, it is a system of logic. The question of whether it is manifest in reality is open for debate. In order to prove such a thing you would have to be capable of giving regard to an infinity of monads - you'd have to be God.

However, the system of logic in the monodology is compatible with our understanding of physics and calculus. Likewise, the variables in monodology are contingent agreeable to one another.

 

[plornive]

I can see why these particals would be hypothesized. However, I don't see why 'God' would be the conclusion. 'God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist. 'God' would necessarily be a conscious being, or it shouldn't even be called 'God'.

 

[muscle_geek]

I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, _Dennis_, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

Get a grip man. You're a mechanic.

 

[Sinistar]

Get a grip man. You're a mechanic.

hes quoting malice i believe.

did you know that there are 6 dimensions? this according to hawkins. thats the only way some of einsteins shit and hawkins shit can meet up. its in his latest book.

as for me, i beleive in god. there is no doubt in my mind about him. i find that most ppl who like to try to tear down god are ppl who have a hard time accepting responsiblity, like having a child unexpectedly, or are trying to soothe themselves for being titanic assholes. ill tell you, if you dont beleive, thats fine. but you claiming he dont exist, well you dont know any better than i do. so in your logical world, your being a fucking idiot.

no one on here is trying to convert anyone.

 

[Silent Method]

I can see why these particals would be hypothesized. However, I don't see why 'God' would be the conclusion. 'God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist. 'God' would necessarily be a conscious being, or it shouldn't even be called 'God'.

If I remember correctly, Leibniz addresses the "conclusion" of God in the "Monadoloy," but I don't have it down well enough to present it here.


Regardless, the point of my first post was not that this monodology proves God, but it does offer insight into the possibility of a Creator who created the universe out of "nothing."

As for the statement '"God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist," I would argue that God is necessary for anything to exist. I believe God IS the totality of the universe.

 

[Lift Chief]

If I remember correctly, Leibniz addresses the "conclusion" of God in the "Monadoloy," but I don't have it down well enough to present it here.


Regardless, the point of my first post was not that this monodology proves God, but it does offer insight into the possibility of a Creator who created the universe out of "nothing."

As for the statement '"God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist," I would argue that God is necessary for anything to exist. I believe God IS the totality of the universe.

So it is possible that monads exist... however, i think most of us are having a hard time believing that just because this particle exists it necessarily proves the existence of God... seems like too big of a jump in logic to me.

When the Universe was first forming physicists theorize that time may have behaved differently, therefore allowing something to be created from nothing. Many physicists accept this idea as entirely possible... except the inital building blocks were atoms that spontaneously appeared, not monads.

There are both other possible explanations for why monads exist... and there are also counter-theories like the one i just presented about how the matter in the Universe first appeared and formed.

 

[plornive]

As for the statement '"God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist," I would argue that God is necessary for anything to exist. I believe God IS the totality of the universe.

Ok, so your point is regarding the possible creation of the universe. I don't see the connection, but I am not saying it's not there.

So to you, 'God' is the creator and "God IS the totality of the universe". Isn't that just semantics? We could just say the universe transformed, and get rid of the concept of 'God'. Why do you choose the word 'God', which is associated with the Abrahamic idea of 'God', a conscious being? Or do you believe 'God' is conscious? Just wondering.

 

[buddy28]

I think she was just saying that 1/infinity is not a real value and thus not equal to 0, while the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is equal to 0.

I forgot the proper expression, but thats what i was driving at.

 

[40butpumpin]

The truth is that knowledge and understanding of God only comes from revelation by God Himself. My points seem irrational and irrelevant I know, however, I am more sure about this than anything else I know.