Did God choose mathematics?
Charles Brenner
I'm reposting in the hopes that some creationists, especially those
who suspect the hand of God in the constants of physics, are willing
to pursue the logic.
On Oct 2, 8:30 pm, "adman" wrote (inter alia):
> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
> know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
> physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
> happened in the first place.
"and mathematics" eh? I have always wondered if creationists attribute
mathematics to God, in the sense of God had a choice, and chose, that
mathematics could be one way rather than another. In particular I
wonder
Did God decide that 1+1=2? Some would say at this is merely one way to
state the definition of 2, but do you feel otherwise?
Did God decide that 17 is a prime? Could God, in another mood, have
ordained that 17 is 3 times something? (To be clear, by the word "17"
I mean the number of rocks you have if you take one, then one more,
then one more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then one
more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then
one more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then one more,
then one more. By "prime" I mean that there is no way to arrange the
rocks in even rows and columns other than 1 by 17.)
Or is it perhaps that the trivial facts of mathematics are simply
tautologies but the more advanced and interesting ones are the work of
God? If so, about how where is the dividing line? It it between those
truths that are obvious and those that are obscure? And if so, obvious
to you, or to a mathematician?
Finally, if you will concede that it makes no sense to say God had a
choice about mathematics, can you agree that perhaps ... just
perhaps ... it similarly makes no sense to assume that the famous
constants of physics are arbitrary, i.e. that perhaps God could no
more "tune" the universe so that light were slower than he could
arrange that 1 plus 1 is other than 2?
Tiny Bulcher
<snip>
> Finally, if you will concede that it makes no sense to say God had a
> choice about mathematics,
Well, yeah, cause maths is compulsory. God chose Latin and woodwork
(and flunked swimming .. walking on the pool doesn't count).
John Wilkins
Well technically God did Hebrew first, then Aramaic, then Greek, and
*then* Latin. He is something of a polyglot in school. Loved there being
many languages apparently. Lately he's taken a real shine to Arabic.
He also did very well at Composition, not so well at History, and
abysmally at Geography. And Science, well, the less said about that, the
better. Strong words were said at the parent-teacher interview.
Also, he claims to be good at Art, but will never allow anyone to
actually *make* a picture in class.
His Critical Reasoning essays are a mishmash of ad hominems, fallacies
of affirming the consequent, and the use of rhetorical flourishes to
persuade his readers, rather than using reasoned argument. He makes a
*lot* of appeals to authority, but never cites the sources.
I have to say, though, he makes an excellent librarian, so long as there
are no more than 66 to 81 books.
God's form teacher
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Tiny Bulcher
> Tiny Bulcher <alycid...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 12:38 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Finally, if you will concede that it makes no sense to say God had a
> > > choice about mathematics,
>
> > Well, yeah, cause maths is compulsory. God chose Latin and woodwork
> > (and flunked swimming .. walking on the pool doesn't count).
>
> Well technically God did Hebrew first, then Aramaic, then Greek, and
> *then* Latin. He is something of a polyglot in school. Loved there being
> many languages apparently. Lately he's taken a real shine to Arabic.
>
> He also did very well at Composition, not so well at History, and
> abysmally at Geography. And Science, well, the less said about that, the
> better. Strong words were said at the parent-teacher interview.
>
> Also, he claims to be good at Art, but will never allow anyone to
> actually *make* a picture in class.
>
> His Critical Reasoning essays are a mishmash of ad hominems, fallacies
> of affirming the consequent, and the use of rhetorical flourishes to
> persuade his readers, rather than using reasoned argument. He makes a
> *lot* of appeals to authority, but never cites the sources.
>
> I have to say, though, he makes an excellent librarian, so long as there
> are no more than 66 to 81 books.
>
> God's form teacher
Not too good at gym, either: he moves in a mysterious way. And I
gather the omnipresence thing means he's out of bounds the whole time.
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>Tiny Bulcher <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 12:38 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Finally, if you will concede that it makes no sense to say God had a
>> > choice about mathematics,
>>
>> Well, yeah, cause maths is compulsory. God chose Latin and woodwork
>> (and flunked swimming .. walking on the pool doesn't count).
>
>Well technically God did Hebrew first, then Aramaic, then Greek, and
>*then* Latin. He is something of a polyglot in school. Loved there being
>many languages apparently. Lately he's taken a real shine to Arabic.
>
>He also did very well at Composition, not so well at History, and
>abysmally at Geography. And Science, well, the less said about that, the
>better. Strong words were said at the parent-teacher interview.
>
>Also, he claims to be good at Art, but will never allow anyone to
>actually *make* a picture in class.
>
>His Critical Reasoning essays are a mishmash of ad hominems, fallacies
>of affirming the consequent, and the use of rhetorical flourishes to
>persuade his readers, rather than using reasoned argument. He makes a
>*lot* of appeals to authority, but never cites the sources.
>
>I have to say, though, he makes an excellent librarian, so long as there
>are no more than 66 to 81 books.
>
> God's form teacher
Dear parent:
Your son, God, seems to have a problem with "acting out". Also, we
are obliged to inform you that smiting has now been added to biting
and spitting as offenses that can warrant suspension or expulsion.
geo...@hotmail.com
someone made this same argument in succinct quote form: 'Six is not a
perfect number because God made the world in six days; rather, God
made the world in six days because six is perfect.'
(M)-adman
You look at God creating math in a very superficial, even trivial and
immature way. One dimensional and liner. In a way that only man can see it.
Just because you are on a moving train does not mean the person outside your
window is moving. Man is using math to explain God. God created man.
Therefore God created math indirectly through man. But math is just an
explanation, and not really how God created. We do not know how anything was
created or came about yet. But the principals behind math and physics are
real. Well, maybe. So far the best man can do for an origin of the universe
is a singularity that defies known physics. Is God's physics wrong? Is man
wrong about singularity or wrong about physics? I put my money on man has
not discovered the correct formulas God used to create yet. Probably because
man and this dimension is inside this time and space as we understand it and
God is in another that probably operates on different laws. No math
required.
What is beyond quantum? And beyond that? What are the details of String and
Dark matter/energy? Considering man used rocks to count at one time, I would
suggest man has not scratched the surface of understanding the formulas and
physics behind creation/creator yet. If they were even used at all. Physics
may exist simply because we exist.
Funny though, because None of this really matters. I already know you will
not find these answers. Looking for such answers as how the universe got
here, where did man come from, etc...; these are questions that man has
asked since he first looked up at night and saw the stars. Looking for these
things give man something to do while he waits. Waits to die. And since the
bible says man will look and look but never find Him, --looking for these
answers just occupies time.
But, hey..I like math. It is fun. It makes our lives here better. It gives
us understanding. But, beyond that, math serves no other purpose but as a
tool to discover and subdue the earth as we mark time in this dimension of
existence. This is part of our prime directive. We were told to subdue the
earth and master it in the beginning.
I said earlier: "God exists outside of time and space as we know it."
Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of physics
and mathematics or we would not have discovered them. If there was a point
where time began and there was nothing as we understand it before time, then
that is where God resides because something had to be around to start time.
Put everything into motion so-to-speak.
I think of it as a continuous line that never ends. On that line is a point
where time began, and we are told that there will be a point where time will
end. Your math can only explain what is between those two points.Your math
can only exist between those two points. You can only exist in your present
form between those two points.
Math, it's not just for breakfast anymore.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liars
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
Grandbank
Ranch, Thousand Island, or Italian with that?
KP
Charles Brenner
> Charles Brenner wrote:
>
> >> motion all the natural laws of physics and mathematics discovered so
> >> far in order for big bang to have happened in the first place.
>
> > "and mathematics" eh? I have always wondered if creationists attribute
> > mathematics to God, in the sense of God had a choice, and chose, that
> > mathematics could be one way rather than another. In particular I
> > wonder
>
> > Did God decide that 1+1=2? Some would say at this is merely one way to
> > state the definition of 2, but do you feel otherwise?
[snip further questions for now]
> You look at God creating math in a very superficial, even trivial and
> immature way. [... ]
> Just because you are on a moving train does not mean the person outside your
> window is moving. Man is using math to explain God. God created man.
> Therefore God created math indirectly through man.
[snip lengthy meandering]
> I said earlier: "God exists outside of time and space as we know it."
> Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of physics
> and mathematics or we would not have discovered them.
I understand that is your claim. Whether it makes any sense,
especially with regard to mathematics, is what I'm trying to explore.
You wrote at length but vaguely, and did not address my specific
questions, the simplest of which was
> > Did God decide that 1+1=2? Some would say at this is merely one way to
> > state the definition of 2, but do you feel otherwise?
Can you answer that?
J. J. Lodder
Of course he did.
Didn't you know he fine-tuned the value of pi
to make life in the universe possible?
Jan
Charles Brenner
> Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Of course he did.
> Didn't you know he fine-tuned the value of pi
> to make life in the universe possible?
>
> Jan
George Gamow published an article in Scientific American that quoted
pi as 3.14158265... . This engendered a memorable (in that I still
remember some of it after many decades) letter to the editor which
began
Professor Gamow fie! You've undervalued pi
A hundred-thousandth. Why is pi so oddly shy?
The red-shift -- is it due to tamperers like you?
Where'd relativity be if you diminished c?
Or logarithms if one could vary e?
etc.
north5
> [...]
> I think of it as a continuous line that never ends. On that line is a point
> where time began, and we are told that there will be a point where time will
> end. Your math can only explain what is between those two points.Your math
> can only exist between those two points. You can only exist in your present
> form between those two points.
>
> Math, it's not just for breakfast anymore.
You misspelt "Meth". HTH.
Al
wf3h
> What is beyond quantum? And beyond that? What are the details of String and
> Dark matter/energy? Considering man used rocks to count at one time, I would
> suggest man has not scratched the surface of understanding the formulas and
> physics behind creation/creator yet. If they were even used at all. Physics
> may exist simply because we exist.
>
it's funny to watch creationists spin their yarns about science and
natural laws when the first thing they do is deny that natural laws
apply to wide areas of nature.
it's one of the many contradictions within the theocon universe
Devils Advocaat
... and at the same time always in matron's bed.
Here is the whole of his school report for those who are interested:
http://home.clara.net/darvill/funnies/funny23.htm
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
(M)-adman
> On Oct 22, 10:17 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Charles Brenner wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 8:30 pm, "adman" wrote (inter alia):
>>
>>>> [...] Someone or Something had to put into
>>>> motion all the natural laws of physics and mathematics discovered
>>>> so far in order for big bang to have happened in the first place.
>>
>>> "and mathematics" eh? I have always wondered if creationists
>>> attribute mathematics to God, in the sense of God had a choice, and
>>> chose, that mathematics could be one way rather than another. In
>>> particular I wonder
>>
>>> Did God decide that 1+1=2? Some would say at this is merely one way
>>> to state the definition of 2, but do you feel otherwise?
>
> [snip further questions for now]
>
>> You look at God creating math in a very superficial, even trivial and
>> immature way. [... ]
>> Just because you are on a moving train does not mean the person
>> outside your window is moving. Man is using math to explain God. God
>> created man. Therefore God created math indirectly through man.
> [snip lengthy meandering]
The meandering was valid information.
I get so amused at you nutsacks. I took the time to answer your ramblings
when it seems you only had a single question.
>> I said earlier: "God exists outside of time and space as we know it."
>> Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
>> physics and mathematics or we would not have discovered them.
>
> I understand that is your claim. Whether it makes any sense,
> especially with regard to mathematics, is what I'm trying to explore.
>
> You wrote at length but vaguely, and did not address my specific
> questions, the simplest of which was
>
>>> Did God decide that 1+1=2? Some would say at this is merely one way
>>> to state the definition of 2, but do you feel otherwise?
>
> Can you answer that?
I answered your question.
"God created man.Therefore God created math indirectly through man." So if
man discovers 1+1=2, and man knows this is true, then that fact had to be
there for us to discover it in the first place. If you are asking if God
assigned the values, well, who knows?
I went on to explain and further qualify my remarks.
You cut them out also.
Man has assigned the values you mention and thought up mathmatics to explain
the world around him. Which is an innate desire. It started out with rocks,
perhaps to count sheep. It advanced to money as a counting tool in trade.
Math further advanced as man's needs and inquires advanced. So directly, it
is mankind responsible for math. Indirectly, God set everything up. We are
just explaining what was already set up with math. The 1+1=2 formula in
God's dimention may not use the 1+1 formula. That formula may only work in
this dimention between the start and end of time.
You seem to want a Yes or No answer to a question that is more complicated
then yes or no.
Charles Brenner
> Charles Brenner wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 10:17 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Charles Brenner wrote:
> >>> On Oct 2, 8:30 pm, "adman" wrote (inter alia):
>
> >>>> [...] Someone or Something had to put into
> >>>> motion all the natural laws of physics and mathematics discovered
> >>>> so far in order for big bang to have happened in the first place.
>
> >>> "and mathematics" eh? I have always wondered if creationists
> >>> attribute mathematics to God, in the sense of God had a choice, and
> >>> chose, that mathematics could be one way rather than another. In
> >>> particular I wonder
>
> >>> Did God decide that 1+1=2? Some would say at this is merely one way
> >>> to state the definition of 2, but do you feel otherwise?
>
> > [snip further questions for now]
>
> >> You look at God creating math in a very superficial, even trivial and
> >> immature way. [... ]
> >> Just because you are on a moving train does not mean the person
> >> outside your window is moving. Man is using math to explain God. God
> >> created man. Therefore God created math indirectly through man.
> > [snip lengthy meandering]
>
> The meandering was valid information.
No doubt, but it wasn't on point to what I am trying to find out from
you. If you find the word "meandering" insulting I'm sorry; I don't
think it is. As for the snipping itself, of course your words still
exist in your own post so I didn't destroy them.
> I get so amused at you nutsacks.
I realize that name-calling is part of the arsenal of many here on
both sides of the fence, but it's not part of mine.
> I took the time to answer your ramblings
> when it seems you only had a single question.
You said what came to your mind. That's not the same as answering a
question.
If you can imagine a simpler question that "Could it have been
different [than 2 being the answer to 1+1]?" please do tell. But
despite your protest, I THINK that in saying the "formula may work
only in this dimension ..." you have answered that God had the power
or the possibility to make it different -- perhaps make 1 and 1 come
out to 3?
Robert Camp
I mostly avoid reading your posts, so I don't fret too much over your
inability to reason, inept communication (have you wondered why it's
so easy for people to know when you are plagiarizing?) and your
infantile taunts. But could you *please* learn the difference between
"then" and "than?" It's a small thing, I know, but it's annoying. And
heck, if you start with small improvements like this maybe some day
you might tackle bigger things, like thinking clearly.
RLC
johnetho...@yahoo.com
But if he learns to think clearly he might see that some of his
beliefs are ridiculous. So he has to avoid learning that, and anything
that might lead to it. Thus his determination to never learn anything
- it's the only way to guarantee that he doesn't accidentally learn
something dangerous.
(M)-adman
It seems the laws that govern the universe are set. Could God change the
outcome to 1+1=3. I would assume yes if God is represented accurately in
most ancient texts. But that would be a result that does not make sense in
this dimention since we asigned the value of 2. But why would he change the
result? Highly unlikely since it would probably cause a domino effect on all
other related laws. How would 1+1=3 change the world and all formulas
related to that basic formula if it were to read 1+1=3? Mankind thought up
the values and groups of 10. How would math look in groups of 15? 17?
Truth be told, we have no idea how the universe came about. But for
everything to be here and follow some laws, that suggests the matter and the
laws were put here and in place by something that existed before time and
matter as we know them.
Maybe God does not need math but we can explain some of what has been put
into motion with math and science.
(M)-adman
Avoid reading my posts altogether. Problem solved.
(M)-adman
I look at both sides of the equation. Something i realize you find difficult
to do.
Earle Jones
<6560824c-fde8-4fa6...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
geo...@hotmail.com wrote:
*
Wasn't that St. Augustine?
In realtalk six is a perfect number because it is equal to the sum of
its divisors 1, 2, and 3. Just like 14. What is the next one?
earle
*
r norman
Is this a quiz to find out who doesn't know how to google "perfect
numbers" and also doesn't bother to complain about your choice of the
second value?
Mark VandeWettering
14 isn't a perfect number. If 2^n-1 is prime, then 2^(n-1)*(2^n-1) is
an even perfect number. This relates the Mersenne primes and perfect
numbers.
The first four perfect numbers are 6, 28, 496 and 8128.
Last I heard, whether there were any odd perfect numbers was still an open
question.
> earle
> *
John Wilkins
That is from the Monty Python Big Red Papperbok. Mine was sort of
original... apart from the idea that I stole from the Monty Python Big
Red Papperbok.
heekster
Wilkins) wrote:
>Tiny Bulcher <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 12:38 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Finally, if you will concede that it makes no sense to say God had a
>> > choice about mathematics,
>>
>> Well, yeah, cause maths is compulsory. God chose Latin and woodwork
>> (and flunked swimming .. walking on the pool doesn't count).
>
>Well technically God did Hebrew first, then Aramaic, then Greek, and
>*then* Latin. He is something of a polyglot in school. Loved there being
>many languages apparently. Lately he's taken a real shine to Arabic.
>
>He also did very well at Composition, not so well at History, and
>abysmally at Geography. And Science, well, the less said about that, the
>better. Strong words were said at the parent-teacher interview.
>
>Also, he claims to be good at Art, but will never allow anyone to
>actually *make* a picture in class.
>
>His Critical Reasoning essays are a mishmash of ad hominems, fallacies
>of affirming the consequent, and the use of rhetorical flourishes to
>persuade his readers, rather than using reasoned argument. He makes a
>*lot* of appeals to authority, but never cites the sources.
>
>I have to say, though, he makes an excellent librarian, so long as there
>are no more than 66 to 81 books.
>
> God's form teacher
Well, I suppose it is a good thing that some nimrod didn't mention the
tower of Babel, then.
Cory Albrecht
> 14 isn't a perfect number. If 2^n-1 is prime, then 2^(n-1)*(2^n-1) is
A B
For A, is that 2^(n-1) or (2^n)-1? Sans parentheses, order of operations
say that the latter would proper, but one sees many equations in which
the former which appears.
Without being able to do super and subscripts, there is some ambiguity
in what you wrote.
For B, is that
(2^(n-1))*(2^(n-1)) or
(2^(n-1))*((2^n)-1) or
2^((n-1)*(2^(n-1))) or
2^((n-1)*((2^n)-1)) and so on...?
Can you tell that my Mom was a high school mathematics teacher for 30
years? :-)
Charles Brenner
> Mark VandeWettering wrote, on 2008-10-23 17:31:> 14 isn't a perfect number. If 2^n-1 is prime, then 2^(n-1)*(2^n-1) is
>
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> A B
>
> For A, is that 2^(n-1) or (2^n)-1? Sans parentheses, order of operations
> say that the latter would proper, but one sees many equations in which
> the former which appears.
Since primes are odd, you can infer that Mark meant the latter --
consistent with conventional notation. Further, you can see from the
same sentence that when he means 2^(n-1) he parenthesizes accordingly.
Finally, he have four examples of perfect numbers which the expression
evaluates to so if you are still in doubt you can try your various
interpretations of the expression for small values of n and see which
interpretation manages to come up with the examples.
In short the amount of ambiguity is zero or perhaps negative.
Charles
Charles Brenner
Interesting speculation. So your view is that God had the flexibility
to create a mathematics in which 1+1=3 but didn't have the flexibility
to do so independently of other parts of mathematics. Obvious
questions that arise:
Why does God's flexibility stop exactly where it does?
Does God have similar limitations in tuning the constants of physics.
I.e., could he have reduced the speed of light only by simultaneously
changing Planck's constant?
> How would 1+1=3 change the world and all formulas
> related to that basic formula if it were to read 1+1=3? Mankind thought up
> the values and groups of 10. How would math look in groups of 15? 17?
(Well, all that has been done but it's mostly childish. That is, no
one thinks of the number base 10, rather than 15 or 17, as being
intrinsic to mathematics. One can ask questions specifically involving
the number base, such as "In the decimal expansion of pi=3.14159...
does every digit occur equally often?" but such questions are of
limited interest.)
Since you regard 1+1=2 as mutable I'd like to move back and put an
even simpler question to you, with your indulgence. Simpler would be
the basic syllogism, stuff like "If A implies B, then not-B implies
not-A." However, the absolute simplest example of a syllogism that I
can think of is the tautology. Suppose A is some meaningful statement
-- i.e. something that by it's form is either true or false. Tautology
is the claim that "If A is true, A is true." That's always a true
statement in our world. Could God have made things differently,
created a universe in which even the rule of tautology doesn't hold?
(M)-adman
I clearly said i believe God could (if he is everything we are told he is)
change the results. I do not recall setting limitations on that. I simply
said he probably would not. As that would effect all the other laws and they
would need changing also.
Just as with the 1+1 formula, if the speed of light was reduced, i am sure
anything related the speed of light such as Planck's constant would be
changed along with the first change.
>
>> How would 1+1=3 change the world and all formulas
>> related to that basic formula if it were to read 1+1=3? Mankind
>> thought up the values and groups of 10. How would math look in
>> groups of 15? 17?
>
> (Well, all that has been done but it's mostly childish. That is, no
> one thinks of the number base 10, rather than 15 or 17, as being
> intrinsic to mathematics. One can ask questions specifically involving
> the number base, such as "In the decimal expansion of pi=3.14159...
> does every digit occur equally often?" but such questions are of
> limited interest.)
>
> Since you regard 1+1=2 as mutable I'd like to move back and put an
> even simpler question to you, with your indulgence. Simpler would be
> the basic syllogism, stuff like "If A implies B, then not-B implies
> not-A." However, the absolute simplest example of a syllogism that I
> can think of is the tautology. Suppose A is some meaningful statement
> -- i.e. something that by it's form is either true or false. Tautology
> is the claim that "If A is true, A is true." That's always a true
> statement in our world. Could God have made things differently,
> created a universe in which even the rule of tautology doesn't hold?
I think you missed my train of thought on this from the very first post.
Perhaps my over simplifying was actually a stumbling block for you.
None of this you inquire about actually attributes mathematics to God or how
God created. I doubt the creationist believes God needs or relies on math to
create. I cannot make your answer amymore plain then that. Math, quantum,
and all the laws that mankind has discovered or conceived of so far (real or
otherwise) are only man's explanation of what we can see from this
particular perspective. The laws are only real to us. Change the perspective
from which we see these laws and you may very well get a different answer
such as 1+1=3. (with only minor intercession by God needed for the laws to
change). I gave an example of this in my first post. If you are riding in a
moving car, the person standing outside your window appears to be moving.
Change positions with the standing man and it is now clear that the standing
man was not moving, it was you that was moving. Our perspective is what
gives our physical laws their validity. The math is simply our explanation
of these physical laws. So your inquiry regarding God changing laws is a
moot issue.
So you will feel no further need to ask a series of questions such as "Can
God do this"? or "Can God do that"? Or "Could God have made things
differently"; suffice to say that my readings say "Nothing is impossible"
for God and God can do anything. If you want to know how God could change
math, quantum, equations, the rule of tautology and the like; I would assume
all God would have to do is change our current perspective of them.(a minor
intercession) From that new perspective we would probably discover the old
laws no longer work and we have new laws in operation that cannot be seen
from the old perspective. Death of the physical body is probably how God
will change our perspective and move us to a new perspective.
Also from my readings, there are several of these perspectives each with
their own laws they operate on (I would assume). Or perhaps from the new
perspective there will be no laws needed for an explanation of that
perspective such as we have in this perspective. So to get to God's
perspective we will need to move through a series of dimensions or
perspectives that ancient man calls heavens. One of them is supose to be
very unpleasent.
I also gave an example of this in my first post. I'll reitterate; Science
thinks there was a point when time began and a point when time will end.
Represent eternity with a line that has no beginning and no end. Place the
two points of time on the line that represents eternity. The other
perspectives are outside the two points on time. Either before or after or
both.
So as you can see, we can only indirectly attribute mathematics to God
inclusive from this perspective and only through mankind.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liars
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;
and there shall no sign be given unto it,
Robert Carnegie
things are so, if things are constituted to obey mathematical laws,
then the outcome will be what is calculated.
I propose that a universe could be (except in the sense that only one
universe really can exist, the real universe) in which some laws of
conservation naturally don't apply - conservation of energy, mass,
momentum, that sort of thing - and mathematics wouldn't be
applicable. So in that sense you could suppose that God chose to make
a universe in which mathematics works - in which the mathematics that
we know works - instead of a universe without our kind of
mathematics. But this is quite an abstract question to think about.
For some reason, C.S. Lewis's fictional portrayal of Jesus, the lion
Aslan, told more than one person, as far as I recall, "No one is ever
told what might have been." This usually is after they have made a
choice with bad consequences, and probably can be quickly disproved
from sources. I find rather attractive the idea that by choosing, you
are closing off part of the quantum-mechanical universe of
possibilities that previously you had access to.
Or maybe the point is that "what might have been" also depends on what
other people would do, as moral actors, and with free will, supposedly
you don't know in advance what that is - the choices that they could
have had to choose from if your own choice was different.
Anyway, yes - there are bible stories where rules of mathematics in
physics are broken; I'm not thinking of the familiar record that
appears to assert that pi = 3, but where for instance Jesus takes a
small mass of food and starts passing it out and there's a huge
amount. (I forget if the story makes clear why it became his job to
feed people who presumably had some food at home.) Or where entropy
is reversed.
(M)-adman
> I think mathematics is a form of truth but it is conditional truth: if
> things are so, if things are constituted to obey mathematical laws,
> then the outcome will be what is calculated.
>
> I propose that a universe could be (except in the sense that only one
> universe really can exist, the real universe) in which some laws of
> conservation naturally don't apply - conservation of energy, mass,
> momentum, that sort of thing - and mathematics wouldn't be
> applicable. So in that sense you could suppose that God chose to make
> a universe in which mathematics works - in which the mathematics that
> we know works - instead of a universe without our kind of
> mathematics. But this is quite an abstract question to think about.
>
> For some reason, C.S. Lewis's fictional portrayal of Jesus, the lion
> Aslan, told more than one person, as far as I recall, "No one is ever
> told what might have been." This usually is after they have made a
> choice with bad consequences, and probably can be quickly disproved
> from sources. I find rather attractive the idea that by choosing, you
> are closing off part of the quantum-mechanical universe of
> possibilities that previously you had access to.
>
> Or maybe the point is that "what might have been" also depends on what
> other people would do, as moral actors, and with free will, supposedly
> you don't know in advance what that is - the choices that they could
> have had to choose from if your own choice was different.
How could one even write a formula to calculate that? The combination of
possibilities are astronomical.
What would the world, and your life be like if Eve had not ate the apple for
instance. How would her choice have effected every other choice along the
way from her to you? If there is a predestination factor involved, then I
guess whatever choices we make the outcome will be the same even though the
path taken would be different. Such as there may be several ways for you to
drive to work, but the end result will be you are still arrive at work. So
getting to word may have several choices but the end result is the same
regardless of the choice. If there is *no* predestination factor then there
would be true randomness. But the universe is very ordered with laws it
seems.
>
> Anyway, yes - there are bible stories where rules of mathematics in
> physics are broken; I'm not thinking of the familiar record that
> appears to assert that pi = 3, but where for instance Jesus takes a
> small mass of food and starts passing it out and there's a huge
> amount. (I forget if the story makes clear why it became his job to
> feed people who presumably had some food at home.) Or where entropy
> is reversed.
Some of the people traveled great distances to hear Him speak. Apparently
Jesus was quite a dynamic teacher. So they may have not been close enough to
home to be near food. Anyway. Feeding many with little can be considered
outside our known laws. But everything written about Jesus' behaviors defy
known laws. The healings etc, are all outside what can be explained by
science.
Science can only speak about our laws of nature, not what could happen when
those laws are broken through God's intervention. This is why so many think
Jesus was God with us. Or at least had the power of God with him to bend
known laws.
--
God created. No evolution needed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
J. J. Lodder
With Gamow you'll never know.
He may have done it on purpose,
just to see if anyone would notice,
Jan
Cj
Robert Carnegie
Well, I referred to some books, C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" fantasies. You
could read them to see how it works there. Of course that's only
fiction. Anyway, they're not very long.
> > Anyway, yes - there are bible stories where rules of mathematics in
> > physics are broken; I'm not thinking of the familiar record that
> > appears to assert that pi = 3, but where for instance Jesus takes a
> > small mass of food and starts passing it out and there's a huge
> > amount. (I forget if the story makes clear why it became his job to
> > feed people who presumably had some food at home.) Or where entropy
> > is reversed.
>
> Some of the people traveled great distances to hear Him speak. Apparently
> Jesus was quite a dynamic teacher. So they may have not been close enough to
> home to be near food. Anyway. Feeding many with little can be considered
> outside our known laws. But everything written about Jesus' behaviors defy
> known laws. The healings etc, are all outside what can be explained by
> science.
I remember he once told off a woman for getting on with the housework
while her sister socialised.
I don't recall that the food story (in multiple versions) took place
during a famine, so why would a "Multitude" travel out of the reach of
food that presumably they keep at home, without bringing some along?
Just to make a miraccle happen? Or perhaps they expected Jesus to
have less to say than he did, to be finished well before lunch?
(M)-adman
I did. "The Chronicles of Narnia" When i was a kid. I passed the books down
to my children, that have passed them down to theirs.
>
>>> Anyway, yes - there are bible stories where rules of mathematics in
>>> physics are broken; I'm not thinking of the familiar record that
>>> appears to assert that pi = 3, but where for instance Jesus takes a
>>> small mass of food and starts passing it out and there's a huge
>>> amount. (I forget if the story makes clear why it became his job to
>>> feed people who presumably had some food at home.) Or where entropy
>>> is reversed.
>>
>> Some of the people traveled great distances to hear Him speak.
>> Apparently Jesus was quite a dynamic teacher. So they may have not
>> been close enough to home to be near food. Anyway. Feeding many with
>> little can be considered outside our known laws. But everything
>> written about Jesus' behaviors defy known laws. The healings etc,
>> are all outside what can be explained by science.
>
> I remember he once told off a woman for getting on with the housework
> while her sister socialised.
>
> I don't recall that the food story (in multiple versions) took place
> during a famine, so why would a "Multitude" travel out of the reach of
> food that presumably they keep at home, without bringing some along?
> Just to make a miraccle happen? Or perhaps they expected Jesus to
> have less to say than he did, to be finished well before lunch?
It could be just a lie too.
It sure sounds far fetched right? The bible described 5000 men came to hear
him but does not include the woman and children in that description.
Assuming one wife and two kids per man that is actually 20,000 people fed +-
several thousand.
If for a moment we assume the story is true, then apparently the message
(and miracles) they came for was compelling enough to keep people there long
enough to be hungary. Maybe days. Maybe the ones that brought food simply
ran out. Now my theory is Jesus has 12 apostles, but he also had hundreds of
disciples traveling with him.(he sent 72 special ones out into Judea to
teach and heal in his name at one point).
If we look for an explanation that is other then supernatural, I would
assume each disciple may have had a bit of food that stretched to upwards of
20,000 people. Even that would be somewhat miraculous because the laws of
entropy would still be reversed to feed so many with so little.
The Jewish leaders with a powerful Roman army behind them were very afraid
of Jesus. So Jesus drawing a crowd of 20,000 seems quite possible imho. His
appeal and drawing power of so many was part of their fear. The descriptions
of his miracles also seem to be real. In one case a man had to bring his
family to testify in court that he was lame before his encounter with Jesus.
The man was in obvious fear of the Jewish leaders claiming him a liar. To
draw such large crowds even the most dynamic of speakers must be offering
something other then lip service and miracle healings seem to be the
additional element.
If I had a sick or lame loved one that would motivate me to stay beyond
dinner time too. It may even make me leave my home in such a rush that I
forgot to pack food in fear that I would miss the event. I would also stick
around for days if necesary to get a shot at being healed. So this much of
the story seems to line up with what could be considered truth. It adds up
so to speak.
It now comes down to a choice. You either want to believe these stories are
simply lies, or you want to believe them as truth. I see no real reason or
evidence to think all of this was written down in an effort to lie.
Therefore Jesus had the ability to suspend such natural laws as entropy,
even reverse them. Or he had one hell of a magic show.
Tim Norfolk
> On Oct 22, 2:22�pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tiny Bulcher <alycid...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 12:38 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Finally, if you will concede that it makes no sense to say God had a
> > > > choice about mathematics,
>
> > > Well, yeah, cause maths is compulsory. God chose Latin and woodwork
> > > (and flunked swimming .. walking on the pool doesn't count).
>
> > Well technically God did Hebrew first, then Aramaic, then Greek, and
> > *then* Latin. He is something of a polyglot in school. Loved there being
> > many languages apparently. Lately he's taken a real shine to Arabic.
>
> > He also did very well at Composition, not so well at History, and
> > abysmally at Geography. And Science, well, the less said about that, the
> > better. Strong words were said at the parent-teacher interview.
>
> > Also, he claims to be good at Art, but will never allow anyone to
> > actually *make* a picture in class.
>
> > His Critical Reasoning essays are a mishmash of ad hominems, fallacies
> > of affirming the consequent, and the use of rhetorical flourishes to
> > persuade his readers, rather than using reasoned argument. He makes a
> > *lot* of appeals to authority, but never cites the sources.
>
> > I have to say, though, he makes an excellent librarian, so long as there
> > are no more than 66 to 81 books.
>
> > � � � � � � � � �God's form teacher
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't forget that he's a bad wrestler (Joshua?) and can't have been
good at metalwork (Daniel?)
Robert Carnegie
Jacob kicked his ass in the ring. Jews = champion wrestlers
evidently.
What was that about Daniel?
Robert Carnegie
Which is more likely?
I am in doubt that these are factual stories - for one thing this
story is supposed to have happened twice during the same Gospel, with
the twelve disciples going "Whatever shall we do" both times, I
think. Would you like to check?
And you've set up a false choice there. It's not a matter of wanting
to believe that a story is true, or wanting to believe that it is
false, and then doing whichever you chose. It's a matter of judging
on reasonable evidence, which mostly is the multitude-feeding story
itself, modified by the fact that there is more than one version of
it.
I think that some or all of the "gospels" are anthologies of stories
first told orally about Jesus in early days of Christianity, and then
written down by someone going around collecting them. But that seems
quite an unreliable process, as you see with tall stories about famous
people today.
I think there even may have been more than one "Jesus" in some of the
teachings - and the miracles substantially invention rather than truth.
(M)-adman
More then likely the stories are true based upon the surrounding evidence.
>
> I am in doubt that these are factual stories - for one thing this
> story is supposed to have happened twice during the same Gospel, with
> the twelve disciples going "Whatever shall we do" both times, I
> think. Would you like to check?
Two different places IIRC
>
> And you've set up a false choice there. It's not a matter of wanting
> to believe that a story is true, or wanting to believe that it is
> false, and then doing whichever you chose. It's a matter of judging
> on reasonable evidence, which mostly is the multitude-feeding story
> itself, modified by the fact that there is more than one version of
> it.
Clearly I have shown how the surrounding events regarding Jesus add up.
First you asked why would the people not have their own food. I gave you
valid seneros.Now you say that it is not reasonable evidence. Well, who can
define reasonable evidence for a supernatural event? All of the natural
evidence lines up. Such as Why the people where there, the healings, why
they did not have food, etc. That psrt all line up. So it is a choice as to
weather you want to believe the supernatural part.
Consider this.
Shortly after Jesus was crucified his followers were scared. Very frightened
that the Jewish leaders would come after them next. A few of the followers
had already been put in prison as Josephus writes. The place where some of
the apostles were hiding was described as gated and locked. They were
obviously hiding and in fear for their lives. Even Peter denied Jesus 3xs in
fear he would also be rounded and perhaps crucified along with Jesus.
Days latter it is reported that Jesus had risen and shown himself to the
apostles. (and latter to others)
From that moment on these people went back out and *boldly* spoke and taught
of Jesus and his ministry with no fear of dying what so ever. Death meant
nothing to them after that encounter. This enraged the Jewish leaders
further. At every opportunity they sought to stone whom ever could be caught
teaching in Jesus name. Yet this did not deter anyone from the continued
teaching of Jesus Kingdom principals.
You do not get that kind of behavior change without something big, really
big, happening such as seeing someone you know is dead standing before you.
While none of this is hard proof, I see no real reason for any of these eye
witnessed accounts to be nothing more then lies either. The physical events
surrounding Jesus line up. So it is a choice as to weather you want to
believe the supernatural ones happened as well.
> I think that some or all of the "gospels" are anthologies of stories
> first told orally about Jesus in early days of Christianity, and then
> written down by someone going around collecting them. But that seems
> quite an unreliable process, as you see with tall stories about famous
> people today.
I am sure this accounts for some discrepancies. But the Q gospel is reported
to have been written a mere few decades after Jesus death.
>
> I think there even may have been more than one "Jesus" in some of the
> teachings - and the miracles substantially invention rather than
> truth.
How did you arrive at the 'more then one Jesus idea?
Robert Carnegie
You propose that in fact the disciples had enough food. But in the
story they don't seem to have food.
Another interpretation I've heard is that in fact the multitude had
food - or some of them did and they were persuaded to share it by the
conspicuous example.
But the intention of the text is to convince you that Jesus can do
things that you'd call impossible.
Mind you, the same logic applies to terrorists - everyone's against
them but they are not discouraged. Generally the rest of us assume
that they don't have a divine sanction.
> > I think that some or all of the "gospels" are anthologies of stories
> > first told orally about Jesus in early days of Christianity, and then
> > written down by someone going around collecting them. But that seems
> > quite an unreliable process, as you see with tall stories about famous
> > people today.
>
> I am sure this accounts for some discrepancies. But the Q gospel is reported
> to have been written a mere few decades after Jesus death.
"Reported", when it doesn't exist any more and no contemporary
authority mentions it.
> > I think there even may have been more than one "Jesus" in some of the
> > teachings - and the miracles substantially invention rather than
> > truth.
>
> How did you arrive at the 'more then one Jesus idea?
Well, it's an alternative to "one Jesus" or "no Jesus". The bible
itself has "John the Baptist" and other groups as contemporaries of
Jesus - I'm thinking of the people who try to cast out demons in
Jesus's name and can't. And there are other cases where a story has
become attached to the most famous person who resembles the true
subject.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
IIRC, God 'couldn't' help the Jews against the Philistines, because
they had 'chariots of iron'.
John Wilkins
> On Oct 28, 10:55?am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
...
> > What was that about Daniel?
>
> IIRC, God 'couldn't' help the Jews against the Philistines, because
> they had 'chariots of iron'.
Judges, I think.
(M)-adman
Frankly. This is a piss poor analogy. And i suspect you know that.
>
>>> I think that some or all of the "gospels" are anthologies of stories
>>> first told orally about Jesus in early days of Christianity, and
>>> then written down by someone going around collecting them. But
>>> that seems quite an unreliable process, as you see with tall
>>> stories about famous people today.
>>
>> I am sure this accounts for some discrepancies. But the Q gospel is
>> reported to have been written a mere few decades after Jesus death.
>
> "Reported", when it doesn't exist any more and no contemporary
> authority mentions it.
That does not make them correct. That makes them like you. Accepting nothing
but hard evidence. Most true biblical scholars agree however, that there was
a primitive gospel source. Matthew being written around 0089, Jesus died
0033, the Q gospel was written somewhere in-between.
Here is some evidence of Q
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/q.html
>
>>> I think there even may have been more than one "Jesus" in some of
>>> the teachings - and the miracles substantially invention rather than
>>> truth.
>>
>> How did you arrive at the 'more then one Jesus idea?
>
> Well, it's an alternative to "one Jesus" or "no Jesus". The bible
> itself has "John the Baptist" and other groups as contemporaries of
> Jesus - I'm thinking of the people who try to cast out demons in
> Jesus's name and can't. And there are other cases where a story has
> become attached to the most famous person who resembles the true
> subject.
Jesus sent many to teach and to heal in his name. 72 are mentioned in the
Gospel. There were probably more.
Perhaps these deciples teaching and healing *in* his name is confused as
them being Jesus.
If you stumble across further info of that nature, I would be interested in
reading it.
thanks.
--
Intresting conversations at T.O.