Cantor theorem doeth not prove the non existence of G-D.

There are several several arguments and reasons for this claim. They are given as follow:-1)Neither the Divine Attribute of Omniscence is a Set Nor the Sets Known to G-D do imply a sets of ALL SETS. 2) According to the Cantor theorem if '' A'' is a set then P(A) is a set of grea ter cardinaliaty . This doeth implyvthat there is '' NO SET OF ALL SETS'' LET THE CLAIM BE '' THERE IS NOS SET SUCH SUCH THAT EACH AND EVERY SET DOETH BEL ONG TO IT. -------[A] CLAIM [A] ==> THERE IS NO SET SUCH THAT ALL THE SETS DO BELONG TO IT. ------------------------------------------------[B] ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF IDENTITY EACH AND EVERY SET IS A SET---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[C] THIS DOETH IMPLY ALL THE SETS ARE SETS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[D] But the term ALL THE SETS doeth not imply '' A Set Of All Sets'' If All Sets do not imply a set of all the sets the knowlidge of All THE SETS can not imply a set of all Sets. SIMILARLY iF EACH AND EVERY SET DOETH NOT IMPLY A SET SUCHTHAT EACH AND EVERY SET BELONGET H TO IT . THE KNOWLIDGE OF EACH AND EVEY SET DOETH NOT IMPLY A SET OF ALL SETS. If G-D KNOW EACH AND EVERY SET THEN THIS DOETH NOT AND CAN NOT IMPLY A ''SET OF ALL SETS''. SINCE IF IT IS [ IE EST THE STATED ABOVE SET] [DOES BE] IMPLIED IT IS [DOES BE ] IMPLIED BY THESE SETS AND NOT BY THE KNOWLIDGE IF THESE SETS. ( IF IT IS IMPLIED IT IS IMPLIED BY ALL OF THESE SETS AND NOT BY THE KNOWLIDEGE OF THESE SETS). If all the ( infinite number of ) sets do imply a set of all Sets then all the s ets do imply the falsification and incorrectness of CANTOR THEOREM OR ALL ( INFI NITE number of ) sets do oeth become a finte nuber of sets which again implieth the falsification of Cantor theorem. This is absurd. Thus Cantor theorem doeth not imply the falsification of the cla im of omniscence of G-D. 3] Cantor theoren existETH in RFC THEORY AND DOETH not exist in NF , MKS, AND A uckerman 's Theories of sets.Thus it is incorrect to attack Omniscence based on RFC SETS AND CANTORIAN SETS. 4]Cantor theorem only proveth that there is no SET OF ALL SETS. AND doeth not di sprove A SET OF ALL FALSEHOOD , AND a SET OF ALL TRUTHS AND FALSEHOOD. A set of All the truth Is Not A Set Of All Sets But A Sub Set Of A SET OF ALL TRUTH AND ONLY ONE FALSEHOOD.thus it doeth not prove that there is no set of all the truth and only one falsehood. Thus Set of ALL THE TRUTH IS NOT A SET OF ALL SETS BUT JUST A SET AND A SUB SET OF A SET OF ALL THE TRUTH AND ONLY ONE FALSEHOOD. As the argument is based on the supposittion that a set of all the truth is the set of all sets, which doeth be a false supposition the argument is incorrects. 5]A set of All truth is either a truth or a falsehood.If it is a falsehood then it doeth not belong to itself. If it is a truth then it doeth belong to it self. This doeth contrdict the RFC axiom IF x doeth belong to A the intersection of x and A is a null set /empty set. If the set of all the sets doeth not exist but non existence of a set of all set s doeth not imply NON EXISTENCE of ALL THE TRUTH, THE KNOWLIDGE OF ALL THE SETS LSO DOETH NOT IMPLY IT. 6] IF set of all truth is either a set of all sets or it doeth imply a set of al l sets THEN ASET OF ALL EXISTENCES MUST IMPLY A SET OF ALL SETS. iF THE UNIVERSE IS A SET OF ALL EXISTENCES THEN UNIVERSE DOETH NOT EXIST. iF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A SET OF ALL EXISTENCES then a number of universes DOETH EXIST and a Set Of All Universes can not exist on very similar grounds.

If non existence of such a set Doeth imply the non existence of each and evey un iverse then there is no aunivers at. all . Cantor therem can be used to cisprove the entire universe if such arguments are supposed to be coreect. Thus cantor theorem shall become MORE PROBLEMATIC THEN z eno's paradoxes. 7)AS DIVINE KNOWLIDGE IS NOT A CANTORIAN SET AND NOT A RFC SET IT IS NEITHER IN ANY CANTORIAN SET NOT IN ANY FRC SET. IT IS FALL BEYOND MAN PROPOSED AXIOMS WHIC DO IMPLY CANTOR THEOREM. SO IT IS NECESSORY TO MODIFY SOME OF THE AXIOMS FROM W HICH CANTOR THEORM ULTIMATELY DOETH REVERS TO. EVEN MKS THEORY IS MORE POWER FUL THAN RFC UNIVERSE IN WHICH CANTOR THEOREM DOETH DWELL. CANTOR PARADISE IS RFC. DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS FAL BEYOUND RFC. 8)A number of mathematicians do opine that a badly defined set is not a set.At least not a RFC SET.If not a RFC set the certitudly not a Cantorian set. RSC DOETH NOT ALLOW A SET X WHICH DOETH BELONG TO IT SELF. One of the proofs of cantor theorem is as follow. LET : ------------->P() BE A BIJECTION Let = { ,/ ( )} ==> is a su set of ==> P() ==> There doeth e ist such that = -1 ( ) <===> () = now either or / In either case <===> / ( )}<===> / This a is a contradicrion This doeth impl that : ------------->P() BE A BIJECTION does e a false supposi tion. The set = { ,/ ( )} IS A BADLY DEFINED SET . A GOODLY DEFINED SET IS AS FOLLOW ' = { ,/ ( ) } WHICH DOETH IMPLY THAT / SINCE IF ' <==> '<==> / ' This is a contradiction. This is atleast a pro lem even in RFC. 9)If there is know set to which ALL THE SETS DO BELONG TO THEN THIS IMPLIETH THA T SUCH A SET IS SELF CONTRADICTIONG AND G-D DOETH KNOW ALL THE SELF CONTRADICTIO NS AND CONTRADICTIONS AS WELL AS NON CONTRADICTIONS. TO KNOW A CONTRADICTION DOE TH NOT IMPLY A CONTRADICTION IN KNOWLIDGE. OTHER WISE NO HUMAN BEING SHAKK EVER KNOW A CONTRADICTION. IF G0D CAN NOT KNOW SOME THING THEN HUMAN BEINGS CAN NOT KNOW THEM AS WELL. G-D doeth know that there is no set such that each and ever set elongeth to. G od Doeth know each and ever set which doeth not elong to the SET OF ALL SETS. If a set either doeth impl a contradiction or is parado ial then it is either a set or not a setIf it is a set then GOD DOETH KNOW SUCH A SET IF IT IS NOT A SE T HEN WHAT SO EVER IT DOETH BE GOD DOETH KNOW IT.IF IT IS NOTHING THEN G-D DOETH KNOW NOTHINGS. 10)ALL '' KNOWN OF G-D '' DO NOT CONSTITUTES A SET. THERE IS NO SET OF ALL KNOWN S OF G-D. THUS CANTOR THEOREM AT MOST DOETH PROVE THAT THERE IS NO SET TO WHICH ALL KNOWNS OF G-D DO BELONG TO. 11)If to each and ever set there is a set of greater cardinialit then this is just like the case to cach and ever real num er ther is a greater real num er. this can not disprove infinit or more srictl a posative infint . it can onl d isprove that infinit is a real num er. Similarl if there is a set greater in cardiniallit to each and ever set then this onl proveth that there is no set great that there is no set with a greate r cardinal value. But it can not disprove some thing wich is e ond sets.To clai

m that there is no non RFC SETS OR NON CANTORIAN SETS is just to prove that ther e is no set in RFC s stem which is non cantorian or more pricisel no set in RFC s stem which does e a NON RFC set. 12)If OMNISCIENCE OF G-D doeth IMPLY that CANTOR THEOREM IS WRONG AND ALL THE K NOWNS OF G-D DOETH CONSTITUTE A SET OF ALL SETS THEN CANTOR THEOREM IS APPLICABL E TO ALL NON DIVINE SETS AND NOT TO ALL SETS INCLUDING DIVINE AND NON DIVINE SET S. RFC AND CANTRIAN SETS ARE NON DIVINE SETS AND RFC THEORY ONLY STATES THE AXIO MS OF NON DIVINES SETS AND NOT OF DIVINE SETS . Conclusions: Cantor theorem doeth prove that G-D AND NOT GODS do not elong to an single set . Thus this theorem doeth prove transcendence and e oundness of GOD. NOTE:-ALL DISCUSSIONS OF OMNISCENCE MAYBE USED FOR OMNIPOTENCE as well.

------