The empty set is a subset of every set. Thus, for any set A, there is no member of the empty set that is not a member of A. Thus, everything that is true of the members of A is true of the members of the empty set (precisely by virtue of there not being any). This is known as a vacuous truth; it’s not an axiom, but indeed a straightforward consequence of ordinary logic. Or if you don’t follow/believe me, just check wiki: [
If you think about it, you would see the universe is smaller than existence, if the universe wasn’t in existence, it wouldn’t exist, nor any other universes if they exist!
Only one thing can be proven of God…God exists as a human concept.
Che G. could quite possibly be the greatest troll of all time. He is presenting the most inane for god’s existence and the the thread is still going 3 pages later.
Am I reading him wrong or does Che actually believe in Spiderman? Or does he just believe that the logical concept of Spiderman exists. I don’t quite understand him.
The Holy Spirit likes to watch.
But doesn’t use a contraceptive.
umkay was real!
I think it goes without saying, urns full of blue balls are those of gay men.
I’m not sure why tautologies lead to homosexuality, but hey, it’s science… And science is fun!
Follow-up (all emphasis added):
Wiki: Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory
And see the Wiki article on Empty set to learn that the empty set is a subset of all sets.
So, if no set is a member of the empty set, then the empty set cannot contain such items
as red vases, I don’t think.
Now, I anticipate a chorus of pleading and wailing to the effect that set theory may not
precisely coincide with what is being discussed in this thread. I do not accept that argument,
but rather than elaborate I would rather simply go back and rest my case on the ludicrous
conclusion drawn by my interlocutors:
A red vase is a duck!
Again, don’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates. And we’ve had trolls keep much more inane topics alive for much longer.
…as real as trolls can be.
Why do you call God “him” I wonder? Have you also proven that God has a penis?
I hope so, otherwise Mary would’ve been… disappointed.
No she wasn’t!
Except, I just said she wasn’t, so she … was?
Except you said she might’nt have been, so she might’ve.
OMG, this is another Star Trek brain-melter, isn’t it?
Or is it?
OMG!!!
As noted above, members of the empty set have any attribute. He not only has a penis, but a really, really tiny one.
Oh that’s fuckin’ funny.
If you read your cites very carefully, you will see that they don’t say what you’re saying. And it is in fact true–every red vase on my table right now is a duck. This only seems strange because it’s impossible for a red vase to be a duck. But, since there are no red vases on my table, what is possible and impossible for actual red vases is irrelevant to what attributes can be ascribed to any red vases on my table.
If it looks like a red vase, and it quacks like a red vase…
I am not a Christian, but I don’t think making fun of someone’s beliefs help anyone. Mary was supposed to have conceived by a word of God not an action (as I understand it).She is quoted as saying," be it done unto me according to your word"!
Hrm, that’s not an interpretation I would expect to hear from anyone not invested in the religion…
“According to your word” just means “like you said.”
I don’t think the biblical text supports the idea of a literal sexual act, but I also don’t think your interpretation of “according to your word” is right.