Who Made God?

The ultimate question?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Who Made God?

#221  Postby scott1328 » Oct 21, 2016 3:09 pm

Thirteen billion years ago space was probably so compact that Pythagoras probably didn't apply.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 6952
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#222  Postby Shrunk » Oct 21, 2016 3:20 pm

scott1328 wrote:Thirteen billion years ago space was probably so compact that Pythagoras probably didn't apply.


But, even if so, two dimensional right angle triangles could still exist as abstract concepts, even if they couldn't actually exist in physical space. No?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25606
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#223  Postby newolder » Oct 21, 2016 3:22 pm

When I was taught these things, Pythagoras did not apply on the Poincaré disk. Since 1999, however, it appears otherwise: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2589022?se ... b_contents
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 3240
Age: 5
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#224  Postby Wortfish » Oct 21, 2016 3:35 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Yes, epic fail. But not mine. :whistle:


No, epic fail on your part, sir. The laws of arithmetic and the laws of physics can handle any quantity, real or imagined. What the laws of physics require is the existence of objects regardless of their magnitude.

So what about a triangle that exists hypothetically, but not in anyone's mind? That is to say, was the Pythagorean theorem true 13 billion years ago, when (most likely) no life existed in the universe? I would say it was. Whereas your argument, if you follow it, would lead to the conclusion that the Pythagorean theorem not yet true then. Is that actually your position?


Pythagoras' theorem requires the existence of two dimensions wherein a triangle or circle can reside.
Wortfish
 
Posts: 85

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#225  Postby Blackadder » Oct 21, 2016 3:43 pm

Still here Fishy? I see you are fucking about with arcane idiocy about whether a description requires a thing to exist before it can be a description. Let's get to the point. Have you demonstrated where your God lives yet? And explained how he/she/it lives in an "eternal present"?
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3169
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#226  Postby scott1328 » Oct 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Shrunk wrote:
scott1328 wrote:Thirteen billion years ago space was probably so compact that Pythagoras probably didn't apply.


But, even if so, two dimensional right angle triangles could still exist as abstract concepts, even if they couldn't actually exist in physical space. No?

In exactly the same way that hypercubes exist.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 6952
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#227  Postby Shrunk » Oct 21, 2016 5:01 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Yes, epic fail. But not mine. :whistle:


No, epic fail on your part, sir. The laws of arithmetic and the laws of physics can handle any quantity, real or imagined.


When did I say they didn't?

What the laws of physics require is the existence of objects regardless of their magnitude.


So you say. Show your work. :coffee:

So what about a triangle that exists hypothetically, but not in anyone's mind? That is to say, was the Pythagorean theorem true 13 billion years ago, when (most likely) no life existed in the universe? I would say it was. Whereas your argument, if you follow it, would lead to the conclusion that the Pythagorean theorem not yet true then. Is that actually your position?


Pythagoras' theorem requires the existence of two dimensions wherein a triangle or circle can reside.


Or maybe it doesn't. Your saying so doesn't really prove much, does it?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25606
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#228  Postby Shrunk » Oct 21, 2016 5:06 pm

scott1328 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
scott1328 wrote:Thirteen billion years ago space was probably so compact that Pythagoras probably didn't apply.


But, even if so, two dimensional right angle triangles could still exist as abstract concepts, even if they couldn't actually exist in physical space. No?

In exactly the same way that hypercubes exist.


Yes. "Wortfish" would have us believe that we cannot say anything about hypercubes, because we exist in space that is only 3 dimensional. That will come as a surprise to mathematicians, I expect.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25606
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#229  Postby Wilbur » Oct 22, 2016 5:44 am

Blackadder wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
jamest wrote:This is a naive thread in my eyes, as the usual attitude of most theists to this question (including myself), is that God is eternal and thus had no beginning... hence required no cause for its own existence. It wouldn't even make sense for God to be an effect of another cause! I mean, God cannot be 'God' if it's a mere effect of something else. That's why God is consistently defined as the primal cause of everything.

I was under the impression that most atheists were aware of this, hence my judgement that it's a naive thread.


Either eternal existence is possible or it's not. If it is, then God is unnecessary. If it's not, then the question of who made God is relevant. Questioning the special pleading for God by theists may seem naive, but that's because the theists' position is itself naive. I await the barrage of sophistry to show that it is instead an exquisitely reasoned and profound position. :grin:



jesus mo hucking christ. hompley debuntz dun pleebus.


That makes a lot more sense than creationism.


Your either/or is not the question, it fucks up the kalam but it doesn't really defeat theism.

\edited from fucked up-ed ness
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#230  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 22, 2016 8:46 am

Wilbur wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
Blackadder wrote:

Either eternal existence is possible or it's not. If it is, then God is unnecessary. If it's not, then the question of who made God is relevant. Questioning the special pleading for God by theists may seem naive, but that's because the theists' position is itself naive. I await the barrage of sophistry to show that it is instead an exquisitely reasoned and profound position. :grin:



jesus mo hucking christ. hompley debuntz dun pleebus.


That makes a lot more sense than creationism.


Your either/or is not the question, it fucks up the kalam but it doesn't really defeat theism.

\edited from fucked up-ed ness

Correct, what defeats theism is the complete lack of evidence in favor of it.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 25148
Age: 27
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#231  Postby Wortfish » Oct 22, 2016 2:49 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Or maybe it doesn't. Your saying so doesn't really prove much, does it?


I can't believe I am having this "conversation". Pythagoras' theorem states that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. You can't have a triangle existing in one dimensional space. In the same way, you can't have laws of arithmetic in the absence of numbers. The laws of physics are derived from our observation of the behaviour of physical objects. Some of them may even be wrong and based on our own misunderstanding.
Wortfish
 
Posts: 85

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#232  Postby Wilbur » Oct 22, 2016 2:55 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:complete lack of evidence


Oh, outre!
Last edited by Wilbur on Oct 22, 2016 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#233  Postby Shrunk » Oct 22, 2016 2:55 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Or maybe it doesn't. Your saying so doesn't really prove much, does it?


I can't believe I am having this "conversation". Pythagoras' theorem states that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. You can't have a triangle existing in one dimensional space. In the same way, you can't have laws of arithmetic in the absence of numbers. The laws of physics are derived from our observation of the behaviour of physical objects. Some of them may even be wrong and based on our own misunderstanding.


OK, I clearly have not been making my point in a way you can follow, "Wortfish". Maybe if I try a different tact:

Why can you not draw a right angle triangle that does not obey the Pythagorean Theorem? Is that because the Pythagorean Theorem is a physical law? Is the reason you cannot violate it the same reason that you cannot jump of a cliff and remain suspended in midair indefinitely? Don't get ahead of yourself, Just answer this one question, and then we can move on.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25606
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#234  Postby Wilbur » Oct 22, 2016 2:59 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Or maybe it doesn't. Your saying so doesn't really prove much, does it?


I can't believe I am having this "conversation". Pythagoras' theorem states that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. You can't have a triangle existing in one dimensional space. In the same way, you can't have laws of arithmetic in the absence of numbers. The laws of physics are derived from our observation of the behaviour of physical objects. Some of them may even be wrong and based on our own misunderstanding.


OK, I clearly have not been making my point in a way you can follow, "Wortfish". Maybe if I try a different tact:

Why can you not draw a right angle triangle that does not obey the Pythagorean Theorem? Is that because the Pythagorean Theorem a physical law? Is the reason you cannot violate it the same reason that you cannot jump of a cliff and remain suspended in midair indefinitely? Don't get ahead of yourself, Just answer this one question, and then we can move on.


You're shitslamming a whole thing off one dysfuct, no fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#235  Postby Shrunk » Oct 22, 2016 3:01 pm

OTOH, I do think it would be worth seeing if you can elaborate on this point, "Wortfish":

In the same way, you can't have laws of arithmetic in the absence of numbers.


What do you mean by "the absence of numbers"? How can numbers not exist? In what sense can they now be said to "exist"?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25606
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#236  Postby Wortfish » Oct 23, 2016 1:27 am

Shrunk wrote:
Why can you not draw a right angle triangle that does not obey the Pythagorean Theorem? Is that because the Pythagorean Theorem is a physical law? Is the reason you cannot violate it the same reason that you cannot jump of a cliff and remain suspended in midair indefinitely? Don't get ahead of yourself, Just answer this one question, and then we can move on.


No. Pythagoras' theorem is not a "physical law". It is a rule about shape, in this case of a right-angled triangle. If you want to know how Pythagoras proved his theorem, you can read this article: http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt668/emt66 ... orean.html
Wortfish
 
Posts: 85

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#237  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 23, 2016 10:07 am

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Why can you not draw a right angle triangle that does not obey the Pythagorean Theorem? Is that because the Pythagorean Theorem is a physical law? Is the reason you cannot violate it the same reason that you cannot jump of a cliff and remain suspended in midair indefinitely? Don't get ahead of yourself, Just answer this one question, and then we can move on.


No. Pythagoras' theorem is not a "physical law". It is a rule about shape, in this case of a right-angled triangle. If you want to know how Pythagoras proved his theorem, you can read this article: http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt668/emt66 ... orean.html

So you continue to mindlessly regurgitate the same PRATT, whilst failing to actually adres the topic of this thread: "Who made God?".
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 25148
Age: 27
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#238  Postby Shrunk » Oct 23, 2016 12:11 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Why can you not draw a right angle triangle that does not obey the Pythagorean Theorem? Is that because the Pythagorean Theorem is a physical law? Is the reason you cannot violate it the same reason that you cannot jump of a cliff and remain suspended in midair indefinitely? Don't get ahead of yourself, Just answer this one question, and then we can move on.


No. Pythagoras' theorem is not a "physical law".


Good! That is the correct answer. :clap:

Now, a follow up: Would the Pythagorean Theorem still hold in the absence of two dimensional space? That is to say: If only one dimensional space, or no space at, all existed (e.g. if all that existed was an immaterial god who transcended time and space and who had decided not to create any universe at all), would the Pythagoren Theorem no longer hold true? Would it then be possible that, in a two (or more) dimensional universe, one could draw a right angle triangle that did not obey the theorem?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25606
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#239  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 23, 2016 2:09 pm

Wortfish wrote:Pythagoras' theorem states that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. You can't have a triangle existing in one dimensional space. In the same way, you can't have laws of arithmetic in the absence of numbers. The laws of physics are derived from our observation of the behaviour of physical objects. Some of them may even be wrong and based on our own misunderstanding.


You're still hunting after a statement that is necessarily true without being self evident. That's the difference between theology and science/mathematics. If you think the notion of an 'uncaused cause' is self-evident, it's entirely because you don't want to think about the problems such a statement invokes as a result of being plucked out of thin air or someplace smellier. That is because the first theologian who came up with 'uncaused cause' plucked it out just so.

In science, nothing is necessarily true, and statements always have to be supported by evidence. In mathematics, statements that are argued to be true are based on beginning with self-evident axioms and definitions that are not obfuscated. Scientific theories are better than hypotheses, because they have been repeatedly tested.

You're right that scientific hypotheses can be wrong, but they can be corrected by making further observations. It is not to say that they must inevitably be corrected, any more than it is to say that some statement can be necessarily true without stating self-evident axioms and undisguised definitions.

You can, of course, have laws of arithmetic, but they need not be based on 'numbers'. You begin by defining a field that is closed under a pre-determined set of operations, and go from there. If you don't know how mathematics works at this basic level, you should stick to theology.

Wortfish wrote:Pythagoras' theorem is not a "physical law". It is a rule about shape, in this case of a right-angled triangle.


Don't obfuscate with imprecise terminology like 'shape'. The Pythagorean theorem is a rule about about the relations of the lengths of sides and hypotenuse. Do all triangles have at most one right angle? Then you can start talking about 'shape'.

Wortfish wrote:And irrational numbers can be physically expressed.


You mean, written symbolically. If you'd like to say the word was made flesh, let's just not go there, because it's happy horseshit.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 23327
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#240  Postby Wortfish » Oct 26, 2016 5:11 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Now, a follow up: Would the Pythagorean Theorem still hold in the absence of two dimensional space? That is to say: If only one dimensional space, or no space at, all existed (e.g. if all that existed was an immaterial god who transcended time and space and who had decided not to create any universe at all), would the Pythagoren Theorem no longer hold true? Would it then be possible that, in a two (or more) dimensional universe, one could draw a right angle triangle that did not obey the theorem?


As long as at least two dimensions exist, Pythagoras' theorem holds true. As long as mass and light exists, e=mc2 holds true.
Wortfish
 
Posts: 85

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest