Who Made God?

The ultimate question?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Who Made God?

#821  Postby juju7 » Sep 14, 2017 11:15 am

VazScep wrote:
If you use that axiom I mention above, you can play this game in three dimensions using a simple observation from group theory, and, with a few rotations and translations, you find that you can conjure up whole solid balls out of nothing. In particular, you can take a single solid unit ball and rotate bits of it into two solid unit balls.

I don't much like this.


It would be a balls up.
User avatar
juju7
 
Posts: 773

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#822  Postby Newmark » Sep 14, 2017 11:23 am

VazScep wrote:Here's a situation that bothers me about infinity.

Take a point a distance of 1 unit from the origin. This is going to be the first point in a figure that we're going to build up. To build the rest of the figure, take an angle that is some irrational number of degrees, say the square root of 2 degrees. To create a second point, rotate the first point about the origin by that angle. To create the third point, rotate again. To create the fourth, rotate again. And so on, and so on.

This gives you a potential infinity of points, since rotating by a multiple of an irrational number of degrees can never take you back to a point you've already been to. Take, as our figure, all the points that can be generated by this method.

Now rotate the whole figure by that same angle. If you think about this, you realise that the first point rotates to the second, the second to the third, the third to the fourth, and so on. The figure maps to itself, expect for the very first point. That doesn't get mapped to.

So this means that the simple rotation deletes a point. In fact, you can delete any number of points you like by using the appropriate rotation. But if you rotate back in the other direction, you magically get all these points back. Rotation somehow generates matter out of nothing, and erases it just as easily.

If you use that axiom I mention above, you can play this game in three dimensions using a simple observation from group theory, and, with a few rotations and translations, you find that you can conjure up whole solid balls out of nothing. In particular, you can take a single solid unit ball and rotate bits of it into two solid unit balls.

I don't much like this.


I can't say that I'm well versed enough in group theory to actually understand that, but that does indeed seem to be the case. My spontaneous guess would be that a similar example from set theory could be the fact that you can split the integers into two disjoint sets (such as the odd and the even integers), each with the same bounds and the same size as the integers...

But there are quite a lot of situations that bother me about infinities too, chief among them the summation of 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... (I've gotten over the fact that 0.999... = 1). But infinities are (more or less) by their very nature counter-intuitive, so I've learned not to judge them on the basis of what I like or not. The main issue is if and how we can apply these concepts on reality...
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 334
Age: 37
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#823  Postby VazScep » Sep 14, 2017 3:09 pm

Newmark wrote:I can't say that I'm well versed enough in group theory to actually understand that, but that does indeed seem to be the case. My spontaneous guess would be that a similar example from set theory could be the fact that you can split the integers into two disjoint sets (such as the odd and the even integers), each with the same bounds and the same size as the integers...
A variant of the example I gave above with the rotation that can destroy and create points is used during the proof, and the way the proof works mirrors these weird dust-like sets that create larger sets as you rotate them. The full proof doesn't rely on anything deep in group theory, but it does exploit free-groups, which are all about generating objects by a successive operation like the one I gave above. Crucially though, you need the axiom of choice to get the higher dimensionality. The bits you end up with consist of spokes out from the origin to the edge of the sphere, and if you look at the tips, you've again got this infinitely dense dust like I had in my circle example.

But there are quite a lot of situations that bother me about infinities too, chief among them the summation of 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... (I've gotten over the fact that 0.999... = 1). But infinities are (more or less) by their very nature counter-intuitive, so I've learned not to judge them on the basis of what I like or not. The main issue is if and how we can apply these concepts on reality...
Oh, playing with analytic continuations often gives you cool stuff. A crucial function is the Gamma function, which lets you evaluate the factorial function at non-positive integers, and you get weird results. I can't really visualise what's going on, because complex graphs are four dimensional, but I give complex analysis a free pass because analytic continuation is such a beautiful thing.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4461

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#824  Postby Wortfish » Sep 27, 2017 2:51 am

Newmark wrote:
We've been over this. Do you think that the sets {..., -2, -1} and {..., -2, -1, 0} are equal? Both have no lower bound, and thus no beginning as I have defined it. You are, as usual, dead wrong.


Why are -1 and -2 negative with respect to? The anwer, of course, is 0. And that's why this set is meaningless with respect to the flow of time which flows forward towards zero and not away from it.

You conception of what constitutes "all possible elements" is ill-defined (must the natural numbers contain every possible complex number?), and so is your idea of infinity (since you by your definition above can't tell me that the set of every integer except zero is infinite). In short, if you want to actually understand mathematics, don't take all your lessons from a conspiracy crackpot.

If something has been moving forever, it must have covered all possible points because it has had an endless amount of time to do so. If it has not covered every possible point, that implies it did not have enough time to do so which is clearly absurd. An infinite set is a complete set.

And here (aside from previously refuted points) you provide an ample example of why your concepts of infinity doesn't apply to the past, while at the same time displaying that you don't understand a model as simple as the negative numbers, and thus continue to argue against your strawman.Yet again, "there must have been a beginning, because infinity is impossible, because there must have been a beginning"... Don't you every get dizzy?

I'm done with negative numbers since you don't realize that they only make sense in this context once an infinite duration has already endured....and, yes, that is impossible.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#825  Postby Agrippina » Sep 27, 2017 7:54 am

So have we determined who made God yet? :ask:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36406
Age: 106
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#826  Postby BlackBart » Sep 27, 2017 8:02 am

Currently, the strategy is to jibber on about negative numbers and hope that no-one notices that one can't actually answer that question honestly.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 10466
Age: 55
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#827  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 27, 2017 9:44 am

Agrippina wrote:So have we determined who made God yet? :ask:


What do you think Aggie? This fishy guy refuses to answer anything honestly.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 37866
Age: 68
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#828  Postby proudfootz » Sep 27, 2017 10:03 am

It was me. I did it. I made God from some chemicals I found under the kitchen sink.

I just want to say I am very, very sorry.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 9999

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#829  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 27, 2017 10:08 am

You naughty boy.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 37866
Age: 68
Male

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

Re: Who Made God?

#830  Postby Newmark » Sep 27, 2017 12:38 pm

And here I thought that you had gotten tired of being wrong, and just skulked off. Oh, well...

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
We've been over this. Do you think that the sets {..., -2, -1} and {..., -2, -1, 0} are equal? Both have no lower bound, and thus no beginning as I have defined it. You are, as usual, dead wrong.


Why are -1 and -2 negative with respect to? The anwer, of course, is 0. And that's why this set is meaningless with respect to the flow of time which flows forward towards zero and not away from it.


Tomorrow is 1 day from today. Yesterday is... how many days from today? I would say that "-1" would be a perfectly reasonable answer. Or do you propose that we can't measure the distance from now to a point in the past? Or are "yesterday" and "tomorrow" the same day, if both are the same distance from today?

You conception of what constitutes "all possible elements" is ill-defined (must the natural numbers contain every possible complex number?), and so is your idea of infinity (since you by your definition above can't tell me that the set of every integer except zero is infinite). In short, if you want to actually understand mathematics, don't take all your lessons from a conspiracy crackpot.

If something has been moving forever, it must have covered all possible points because it has had an endless amount of time to do so. If it has not covered every possible point, that implies it did not have enough time to do so which is clearly absurd.

Not that this hasn't got the slightest bit to do with the passage you quoted, but I have explained several times why your usage of "forever" is insufficient. This "problem" only becomes absurd in your straw man version of infinity.

An infinite set is a complete set.

No.

You are, as usual, dead wrong. Some infinite sets fulfills the requirements for some mathematical definitions of "complete". No definition of complete fits all infinite sets in a way that would help your argument, especially since you could even answer my question above about what constitutes "all possible elements". Give me the definition of "complete" and "infinite" you are using (and "endless" while your at it), and tell me if you think the following sets are both "infinite" and "complete":
    All natural numbers
    All odd numbers
    All negative numbers
    All primes
    The union of all integers greater than 1 and all integers less than -1
    All rational numbers between 0 and 1
    All real numbers
    All complex numbers, excluding the real numbers
Or, you can simply admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

And here (aside from previously refuted points) you provide an ample example of why your concepts of infinity doesn't apply to the past, while at the same time displaying that you don't understand a model as simple as the negative numbers, and thus continue to argue against your strawman.Yet again, "there must have been a beginning, because infinity is impossible, because there must have been a beginning"... Don't you every get dizzy?

I'm done with negative numbers since you don't realize that they only make sense in this context once an infinite duration has already endured....and, yes, that is impossible.

Translation: you are done with negative numbers because you still haven't grasped the the difference between set size and distance between points, and prefer to stick with your straw man. You are indeed wise to stop arguing about things you know nothing about, like your claim that the reals and the rationals are the same set if you approximate enough...
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 334
Age: 37
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#831  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 27, 2017 2:39 pm

Plus the whole discussion about numbers is off-topic.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14257
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#832  Postby aban57 » Sep 27, 2017 2:44 pm

proudfootz wrote:It was me. I did it. I made God from some chemicals I found under the kitchen sink.

I just want to say I am very, very sorry.


As you should.

But who made you ??
User avatar
aban57
 
Name: Cédric
Posts: 3935
Age: 38

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#833  Postby Fallible » Sep 27, 2017 4:57 pm

Little lamb, who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee?
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43936
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#834  Postby Agrippina » Sep 28, 2017 10:55 am

I am God. No one made me, I emerged from the ether. Worship me you mortals!

Image
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36406
Age: 106
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#835  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 03, 2017 1:13 am

But is she white Animavore? Because if she's not, you're clearly wrong!
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1267
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest