The ultimate question?
Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86
scott1328 wrote:Thirteen billion years ago space was probably so compact that Pythagoras probably didn't apply.
Shrunk wrote:
Yes, epic fail. But not mine.
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?
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.
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.
jesus mo hucking christ. hompley debuntz dun pleebus.
That makes a lot more sense than creationism.
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.
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
Shrunk wrote:
Or maybe it doesn't. Your saying so doesn't really prove much, does it?
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.
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.
In the same way, you can't have laws of arithmetic in the absence of numbers.
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.
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
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".
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.
Wortfish wrote:Pythagoras' theorem is not a "physical law". It is a rule about shape, in this case of a right-angled triangle.
Wortfish wrote:And irrational numbers can be physically expressed.
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?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest