## Who Made God?

The ultimate question?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

### Re: Who Made God?

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.

juju7

Posts: 829

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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...

Newmark

Posts: 344
Age: 38

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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: 4590

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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.

Wortfish

Posts: 609

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

So have we determined who made God yet?
Illegitimi non carborundum

Agrippina

Posts: 36649
Age: 107

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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

BlackBart

Posts: 11097
Age: 55

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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

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

Scot Dutchy

Posts: 39726
Age: 69

Country: Nederland
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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

proudfootz

Posts: 10440

Country: USA
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

Scot Dutchy

Posts: 39726
Age: 69

Country: Nederland
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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...

Newmark

Posts: 344
Age: 38

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

Plus the whole discussion about numbers is off-topic.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC

Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14799
Age: 64

Country: United Kigdom
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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 ??

aban57

Name: Cédric
Posts: 5342
Age: 38

Country: France
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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 .

Fallible
RS Donator

Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 46162
Age: 45

Country: Engerland na na
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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

Illegitimi non carborundum

Agrippina

Posts: 36649
Age: 107

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

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: 1319

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

Newmark wrote:
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?

Today has only come about after a succession of yesterdays. If there were an endless number of yesterdays, "today" would never come about. It would be indefinitely postponed.

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.

Forever means to continue without ever stopping.

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.

No. You are confusing apples with oranges. An infinite set of odd integers is a complete set of odd integers. An infinite set of even intergers is a complete set of even integers. Neither set lacks anything because they can only possibly contain odds or evens, but not both types of integers.

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...

I'm done with negative numbers because they relate to a point in the arbitrary here and now (i.e zero). But that present point is never reached if there is an infinite amount of prior numbers.

Wortfish

Posts: 609

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

So how many negative integers do you think are there ?
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.

Greyman

Name: Graham
Posts: 476
Age: 50

Country: Australia
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
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?

Today has only come about after a succession of yesterdays. If there were an endless number of yesterdays, "today" would never come about. It would be indefinitely postponed.

God has always existed and is here today. How many yesterdays does God know of?
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.

LucidFlight
RS Donator

Name: Luv
Posts: 9772

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

Wortfish wrote:I'm done with negative numbers because they relate to a point in the arbitrary here and now (i.e zero). But that present point is never reached if there is an infinite amount of prior numbers.

The great thing about circular arguments is that they are great.

Thommo

Posts: 23535

Print view this post

### Re: Who Made God?

I remember an explanation I once heard of the concept of the convergence of a sequence to a limit. The idea is that a sequence converges if for any specified error margin epsilon then there is some index number for which all subsequent terms of the sequence after that index number are within the error margin of the value the sequence converges to. This is likened to a call and response challenge, if someone doubts that a sequence converges, then they are challenged to provide some value of epsilon where this can't be done - and then the response is to specify the index number that meets the challenge.

There's a very similar, but much more boring version of that game with negative integers. For any point in the set, it's really not that hard to specify how many times +1 has to be added to get back to zero. Or for an integer set indexing days in the past how many days must pass from any day within an infinite past to get to the present.

It is a peculiar feature of certain strains of thought amongst (for want of a better term) mathematical laymen that somehow fails to distinguish between integers and an affine extension of the integers and that declares the winning move in the game is to ask how far -∞ is from 0, and to consistently overlook the fact that -∞ isn't an integer.

Thommo

Posts: 23535

Print view this post

PreviousNext