Christian mathematics

[Stu]

Christian mathematics

2=7

(Gen 7:2  and Gen 7:8)

3.141592654=3

(1 Kings 7:23-26)

1=2

(Revelation 1:8)

or possibly

1=3

depending on whether you are a trinitarian.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

No-Christian or more closely, non-creator mathematics.

0 = 1
0 = 2
0 = 3

and so on …

i.e., Nothing created all things.

From zero any number can be created.

No need for a mathematician either coz that would imply a creator.

[Proclaimer]

BTW, your example of Christian mathematics is too complex for me. What are you talking about?

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ April 12 2009,10:50)

No-Christian or more closely, non-creator mathematics. 0 = 1 0 = 2 0 = 3 and so on … i.e., Nothing created all things. From zero any number can be created. No need for a mathematician either coz that would imply a creator.

The maths is only the way of counting the things that did not need a creator. It is not a model like quantum physics, just a tool for making models.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ April 12 2009,10:51)

BTW, your example of Christian mathematics is too complex for me. What are you talking about?

I'm sorry if you cannot interpret scripture.

Stuart

[charity]

whats the mathematics of a personal relationship with a creator?

1=1+0

dust and death original Mathematics
Man….1=1+1

eternal life on earth Mathematics
3=1+1

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ April 12 2009,19:00)

Quote (t8 @ April 12 2009,10:51) BTW, your example of Christian mathematics is too complex for me. What are you talking about? I'm sorry if you cannot interpret scripture. Stuart

OK, I forgive you because you said sorry.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ April 12 2009,18:59)

Quote (t8 @ April 12 2009,10:50) No-Christian or more closely, non-creator mathematics. 0 = 1 0 = 2 0 = 3 and so on … i.e., Nothing created all things. From zero any number can be created. No need for a mathematician either coz that would imply a creator. The maths is only the way of counting the things that did not need a creator.  It is not a model like quantum physics, just a tool for making models.   Stuart

Mathematics is often described as the language of logic. In this case, nothing creating everything is illogical. Doesn't compute, doesn't compute, doesn't compute.

Often scientific theories are imagined and mathematics is used to see if it is feasible. Other times, mathematics itself helps provide the theory, e.g., dark matter and dark energy.

So nothing creating everything is illogical. Maths doesn't back that view up.

But if you start with infinite / an infinite creator, then all things that we see are possible. This computes and it is logical.

Admittedly, just because something is logical doesn't mean that it exists, but it is more likely that logic prevails over something illogical within the realm of physical things.

[Stu]

t8

Quote

Mathematics is often described as the language of logic. In this case, nothing creating everything is illogical. Doesn't compute, doesn't compute, doesn't compute.

No, it just tells us how many things there are, not how they got there

Quote

Often scientific theories are imagined and mathematics is used to see if it is feasible. Other times, mathematics itself helps provide the theory, e.g., dark matter and dark energy.

And often the mathematics gives a religious answer, one based on fantasy imaginings with no evidence. At least in those equations the value of pi is still 3.141592654, not 3 as it is in 1 Kings.

Quote

So nothing creating everything is illogical.

I agree, which is why I do not believe that.

Quote

Maths doesn't back that view up.

Maths does what we tell it to. Scientific dependent variables do not.

Quote

But if you start with infinite / an infinite creator, then all things that we see are possible. This computes and it is logical.

That also is “nothing creating everything”, because of the infinite regress of creators.

Quote

Admittedly, just because something is logical doesn't mean that it exists, but it is more likely that logic prevails over something illogical within the realm of physical things.

So you think “nothing made nothing” is better than “nothing made nothing” because it is more logical?

Hmmm. Do we need a new thread on christian logic?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ April 13 2009,17:41)

Maths does what we tell it to.  Scientific dependent variables do not.

1 + 1 = 3

OK, 1 + 1 =3 from now on guys.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ April 13 2009,17:41)

Quote So nothing creating everything is illogical. I agree, which is why I do not believe that. Stuart

Actually I thought that is what you believed. Didn't you say recently that you believed that nothing created everything, or was that a mistype?

So if you don't believe that nothing is the cause of everything, and you do not believe that there was a creator, then you are left with a universe that has always existed in some form. i.e., the matter and energy have always existed in some form for eternity past.

Wow, is this the religion of Stu? Stuanity? Insanity? Some sort of black hole white hole scenario where everything gets sucked into a black hole and spits out a white hole as a big bang and that this or a similar process has been going forever in the past.

If so, then you actually do believe in a creator of sorts because the latest version of this eternal thing was caused by the previous version and so you have an eternal list of creators, except to say that your creator has no intelligence, it just sort of created order without it, even surpassing our ordered things even though we possess life and intelligence.

And the weirdest part is that the non-intelligent and non-living thing that causes the universe to be, actually somehow created life and intelligence, both which do not exist in Stu's creators/causes.

Wow Stu. Spectacular.

[Proclaimer]

Here it is.

Quote (Stu @ April 05 2009,06:41)

Quote (t8 @ April 05 2009,00:29) But Stu, you believe in the everything came from nothing delusion, or the everything has existed forever in varying (non-living/aware) forms delusion. You should fix up your own backyard before trying to help out others, don't you think? I do believe that everything 'came from nothing', and while every piece of evidence we have points to that, I am not so prideful as to claim that strong contrary evidence would not change my mind.  There are some things we just don't know. Is there anything you don't know, t8?  You have access to an omniscient being who grants favours.  How did the baryons get separated asymmetrically from the anti-baryons?  Will you ask for us? Stuart

So I take it that Hawking is your prophet of whom you follow? As indeed you mentioned that this is what Hawking believes.

BTW: I give you a point for at least being opened minded enough to say this could be wrong, but you lose that point with your bias toward there being a creator. If you are open minded and unbiased, then you should at least consider that a creator is just as possible as nothing being the cause, considering that you cannot comprehend either scenario.

[charity]

Quote (t8 @ April 14 2009,00:41)

Quote (Stu @ April 13 2009,17:41) Maths does what we tell it to.  Scientific dependent variables do not. 1 + 1 = 3 OK, 1 + 1 =3 from now on guys.

1+1=3      is the Mathematics for eternal Life on earth.

Now how did God count the apple on THE tree. MY KNOWLEDGE IS 1+2=5 and the fathers generator filled the earth.

what is true is 2 divided by 1 = the mother of all generations.

1 divided by 2 = tribes Nat1ons, races governments,

[Stu]

t8

Quote

Actually I thought that is what you believed. Didn't you say recently that you believed that nothing created everything, or was that a mistype?

No, it was your strawman.

Quote

So if you don't believe that nothing is the cause of everything, and you do not believe that there was a creator, then you are left with a universe that has always existed in some form. i.e., the matter and energy have always existed in some form for eternity past.

You have clearly not bothered to read what I wrote about the word ‘cause’ either. Either that, or you are willfully breaking a commandment.

Quote

Wow Stu. Spectacular.

Have you been taking what the writer of Revelation took?

Stuart

[Stu]

t8

Quote

So I take it that Hawking is your prophet of whom you follow? As indeed you mentioned that this is what Hawking believes.

Well if you actually bother to slow down and read what I wrote in that post, you will see that I do not live in an ancient, ignorant world of infallible prophecy by demigods. I did write “I am not so prideful as to claim that strong contrary evidence would not change my mind”. Hawking could be wrong, and he would be the first to admit that. Was Isaiah that honest?

Has god answered your prayers on the subject of how the baryons separated asymmetrically from the antibaryons?

Quote

BTW: I give you a point for at least being opened minded enough to say this could be wrong, but you lose that point with your bias toward there being a creator. If you are open minded and unbiased, then you should at least consider that a creator is just as possible as nothing being the cause, considering that you cannot comprehend either scenario.

Sure I am open to the possibility that Litavis created everything, but I would need you to convince me with evidence.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (charity @ April 14 2009,08:14)

Quote (t8 @ April 14 2009,00:41) Quote (Stu @ April 13 2009,17:41) Maths does what we tell it to.  Scientific dependent variables do not. 1 + 1 = 3 OK, 1 + 1 =3 from now on guys. 1+1=3      is the Mathematics for eternal Life on earth. Now how did God count the apple on THE tree. MY KNOWLEDGE IS 1+2=5 and the fathers generator filled the earth. what is true is 2 divided by 1 = the mother of all generations. 1 divided by 2 = tribes Nat1ons, races governments,

When is your next scheduled lecture, Prof. charity?

My favourite maths quote is:

2+2=5, for large values of 2.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

I will let you into a little secret Stu.

When you deny something, it should only be because you have the answer and you know that this something isn't the answer. However Stu, it seems quite clear that you have no idea bout anything when it comes to creator or not. If you know the truth, then please let us know it. If you continue to hide your truth/belief/theory away, then it can only mean one of two things.

1. You are ashamed of your belief
2. You don't have a clue. You are lost.

Either option doesn't warrant writing off one of the 3 available options does it? Not if you are to be taken seriously or to be considered fair and reasonable.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ April 14 2009,10:49)

I will let you into a little secret Stu. When you deny something, it should only be because you have the answer and you know that this something isn't the answer. However Stu, it seems quite clear that you have no idea bout anything when it comes to creator or not. If you know the truth, then please let us know it. If you continue to hide your truth/belief/theory away, then it can only mean one of two things. 1. You are ashamed of your belief 2. You don't have a clue. You are lost. Either option doesn't warrant writing off one of the 3 available options does it? Not if you are to be taken seriously or to be considered fair and reasonable.

I reject your religious criteria for denial. Unlike you, I do not have all the answers on which to base my decisions. I can only weigh the evidence and come to a provisional conclusion, for example that there are no gods because there is no evidence for any. While you claim to know absolute truth, I only claim to try and model it without bias. What is it like to know everything, t8?

Stuart

[charity]

Quote (Stu @ April 14 2009,10:47)

Quote (charity @ April 14 2009,08:14) Quote (t8 @ April 14 2009,00:41) Quote (Stu @ April 13 2009,17:41) Maths does what we tell it to.  Scientific dependent variables do not. 1 + 1 = 3 OK, 1 + 1 =3 from now on guys. 1+1=3      is the Mathematics for eternal Life on earth. Now how did God count the apple on THE tree. MY KNOWLEDGE IS 1+2=5 and the fathers generator filled the earth. what is true is 2 divided by 1 = the mother of all generations. 1 divided by 2 = tribes Nat1ons, races governments, When is your next scheduled lecture, Prof. charity? My favourite maths quote is: 2+2=5, for large values of 2. Stuart

At the next heaven net convention?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ April 14 2009,10:57)

I reject your religious criteria for denial. Unlike you, I do not have all the answers on which to base my decisions.

Beautiful. All the more reason you should shoot down possibilities. You cannot comprehend any of the three options, so shooting down one of them based on bias and ignorance is not the actions of a wise or smart person.

[Author]

Posts