Reality is the Set of All things That Exist

[Ostronomos]

God is G and R is reality.

G = R due to the above statement (in the title).

G ϵ R and R ϵ G (this denotes the reflexivity between G and R).

If R ϵ G (If reality is an element of God)

then G ϵ R (then God is an element of reality.)

R ϵ R (reality is an element of reality since it is none other than itself)

Therefore G = R.

[Zinjanthropos]

I dunno.....could be nothing.

[Ostronomos]

Every set is a subset of the universal set:

A ⊆ U.

Reality is the subset as well as the powerset of itself:

R ⊆ R(S).

[Syne]

I dunno.....could be nothing.

I think you're right.

[Ostronomos]

I dunno.....could be nothing.

I think you're right.

You're both wrong.

[Zinjanthropos]

If the positive energy of the universe as matter is equally matched by the negative energy of gravity then total energy of universe equals zero, some hypothesis if I remember correctly. The total energy of nothing would also equal that of the universe in this case I suspect. So if I add up all the yins & yangs I still get nothing. 

So I guess my question would be: if there's a God then should there be an anti-God? Ostro, if you could prove there's an anti-God then surely God must exist. Wonder which one is easiest to prove and how would one tell the difference?

[Syne]

If the positive energy of the universe as matter is equally matched by the negative energy of gravity then total energy of universe equals zero, some hypothesis if I remember correctly. The total energy of nothing would also equal that of the universe in this case I suspect. So if I add up all the yins & yangs I still get nothing. 

Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

So I guess my question would be: if there's a God then should there be an anti-God? Ostro, if you could prove there's an anti-God then surely God must exist. Wonder which one is easiest to prove and how would one tell the difference?

Or just like the universe equals nothing, so does god.

[Zinjanthropos]

I dunno.....could be nothing.

I think you're right.

You're both wrong.

Right minus wrong = nuttin'. Existence in neutral? 

I see one problem at least. What about time, is there a reverse time going on to counter the forward direction?

[Syne]

I see one problem at least. What about time, is there a reverse time going on to counter the forward direction?

Time only contributes to total energy of the universe by making organized energy disorganized, through entropy.
But it's the same quantity of energy, as per the conservation of energy.

[Zinjanthropos]

I see one problem at least. What about time, is there a reverse time going on to counter the forward direction?

Time only contributes to total energy of the universe by making organized energy disorganized, through entropy.
But it's the same quantity of energy, as per the conservation of energy.

Thanks Syne. Never thought of it.that way. I feel I've derailed Ostro's thread a bit. I think he likes.the God proving questions so I'm going to ask some.

I think the limit of  God's knowledge needs to be established first.

Ostro, doesn't.matter how an omniscient being pops.into existence but why would it create anything?  If it's  all knowing then i think you're trying to prove the existence of something that really doesn't need you, as harsh as that sounds.  Proving God would be an exercise in futility, no?

From what I understand, you've proven God or believe.someone else has and you've also experienced close encounters with the divine. As a created being and because of what you hold.to be true,  does God know everything? 

I suppose it's OK to believe that a thought needs to prove the thinker and that one can deploy many measures to accomplish the task. If God is not.omniscient then does he/she/it qualify for.divine status and worthy of your efforts? Maybe you should be looking outside the metaphysical.