When was God created?

[soliloquy]

1+1=2.5 because 2+2=5.

Proof.

Waste everyone's time thinking about how that's wrong until.


You notice.



2+2=4.

[wotgoplunk]

Waste everyone's time thinking about how that's wrong until.


You notice.



2+2=4.

It's only four if society defines it as four.

[pianistimo]

math doesn't apply to God.  eternity cannot be confined.

[mike_lang]

math doesn't apply to God.  eternity cannot be confined.

Well, thanks be to the Lord, we are free of the burden of science and human reason.  To hell with apologetics!  Sola scriptura, I say, the world is only a delusion of the mind of man...

[prometheus]

2+2=4.

Proof it.

[term]

It's only four if society defines it as four.

Arbitrary and irrelevant. 

[prometheus]

Arbitrary and irrelevant. 

Yes, it's arbitrarily defined. But not irreverent at all. It matters a whole bit if you define 1+1=2 or 1+1=3.

[ahinton]

Maybe pianistimo created God, so we should either ask her the question or just hope that she might answer it anyway of her own accord...

Bestimo,

Alistimo

[term]

Maybe pianistimo created God

That means she actually is god, as per definition god was not created.
omg... *ggg

It matters a whole bit if you define 1+1=2 or 1+1=3.

if the names are arbitrary, how can you say it matters if you call what is known as two, a three. Or an apple.
?

Are you trolling again? I know it's funny. I do it myself. But this is an unsuitable place, even though i may be very suitable as a victim for a troll *g

[soliloquy]

Proof it.

2p2e4 (2+2=4) <- 2cn <- 2re <- readdcl <- axaddrcl <- addresr <- 0idsr <- addsrpr <- enrer <- addcanpr <- ltapr <- ltaprlem <- ltexpri <- ltexprlem7 <- ltaddpr <- addclpr <- addclprlem2 <- addclprlem1 <- ltrpq <- recclpq <- recidpq <- recmulpq <- mulcompq <- dmmulpq <- mulclpq <- mulpipq <- enqer <- mulasspi <- nnmass <- omass <- odi <- om00el <- om00 <- omword1 <- omwordi <- omword <- omord2 <- omordi <- oaword1 <- oaword <- oacan <- oaord <- oaordi <- oalim <- rdglim2a <- rdglim2 <- rdglimt <- rdglim <- rdgfnon <- tfr1 <- tfrlem13 <- tfrlem12 <- tfrlem11 <- tfrlem9 <- tfrlem7 <- tfrlem5 <- tfrlem2 <- tfrlem1 <- tfis2 <- tfis2f <- tfis <- tfi <- onsst <- ordsson <- ordeleqon <- onprc <- ordon <- ordtri3or <- ordsseleq <- ordelssne <- tz7.7 <- tz7.5 <- wefrc <- epfrc <- epel <- epelc <- brab <- brabg <- opelopabg <- opabid <- opex <- prex <- snex <- 0ex <- eueq <- eu4 <- mo4 <- mo4f <- mo3 <- mo2 <- eu3 <- eu2 <- euex <- eu1 <- sb8eu <- sb8 <- sbid2 <- sbco <- sbbi <- sban <- sbim <- sbi2 <- sbn <- sbn1 <- sb4 <- equs5 <- hbnae <- hbae <- alequcoms <- alequcom <- equcomi <- equid <- ax9 <- 19.22 <- 3imtr4g <- 3imtr3g <- anbi2i <- anim2i <- anim12i <- pm3.26 <- sylbi <- biimp <- bi1 <- pm3.26im <- con1i <- negb <- nega <- pm2.18 <- pm2.43i <- pm2.43 <- pm2.27 <- id <- mpd <- a2i <- ax-1



pregnant dog

[thalbergmad]

You just got there before me.

Thal

[wotgoplunk]

2p2e4 (2+2=4) <- 2cn <- 2re <- readdcl <- axaddrcl <- addresr <- 0idsr <- addsrpr <- enrer <- addcanpr <- ltapr <- ltaprlem <- ltexpri <- ltexprlem7 <- ltaddpr <- addclpr <- addclprlem2 <- addclprlem1 <- ltrpq <- recclpq <- recidpq <- recmulpq <- mulcompq <- dmmulpq <- mulclpq <- mulpipq <- enqer <- mulasspi <- nnmass <- omass <- odi <- om00el <- om00 <- omword1 <- omwordi <- omword <- omord2 <- omordi <- oaword1 <- oaword <- oacan <- oaord <- oaordi <- oalim <- rdglim2a <- rdglim2 <- rdglimt <- rdglim <- rdgfnon <- tfr1 <- tfrlem13 <- tfrlem12 <- tfrlem11 <- tfrlem9 <- tfrlem7 <- tfrlem5 <- tfrlem2 <- tfrlem1 <- tfis2 <- tfis2f <- tfis <- tfi <- onsst <- ordsson <- ordeleqon <- onprc <- ordon <- ordtri3or <- ordsseleq <- ordelssne <- tz7.7 <- tz7.5 <- wefrc <- epfrc <- epel <- epelc <- brab <- brabg <- opelopabg <- opabid <- opex <- prex <- snex <- 0ex <- eueq <- eu4 <- mo4 <- mo4f <- mo3 <- mo2 <- eu3 <- eu2 <- euex <- eu1 <- sb8eu <- sb8 <- sbid2 <- sbco <- sbbi <- sban <- sbim <- sbi2 <- sbn <- sbn1 <- sb4 <- equs5 <- hbnae <- hbae <- alequcoms <- alequcom <- equcomi <- equid <- ax9 <- 19.22 <- 3imtr4g <- 3imtr3g <- anbi2i <- anim2i <- anim12i <- pm3.26 <- sylbi <- biimp <- bi1 <- pm3.26im <- con1i <- negb <- nega <- pm2.18 <- pm2.43i <- pm2.43 <- pm2.27 <- id <- mpd <- a2i <- ax-1



pregnant dog

That's not true, because the Bible says it equals 5.

Argument refuted, pianistimo style 

[soliloquy]

That's not true, because the Bible says it equals 5.

Argument refuted, pianistimo style 

You're allergic to peanuts and have a 1 inch penis because the bible says so.  Oh, and a 1 inch clitoris too.

[jlh]

Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.

"Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.

"Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.

"Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?"

Agnostics: Oh I don't believe that two plus two equals anything but four. But, I'm not one of those people who swear it's four.

Mormons: Two plus two equals SEVEN. I had proof, but an angel took it and flew to heaven.

Zen Buddhist: We are all one. 2+2 = 1.

 

[thalbergmad]

Lovely post.

Thal

[prometheus]

Term, I don't understand why you keep asking if I am trolling or joking when I try to educate you a bit about mainstream physics or math.

While 1+1=2 functions just as well as 1+1=3 it does matter in the same way as it matters if 'yellow' refers to what we now call 'tree' or if it refers to a certain spectrum of the EM radiation.

[term]

well yes, but it doesn't matter which names you give things, only to what they refer.
That's why i said it's irrelevant whether you call a two a three.
You probably meant that it is important if one says 1+1=3 if the three written here refers to the actual three, and the one refers to one. And you're right of course ^^

[prometheus]

It doesn't really matter.


We can define that 1+1=2 or that 1+1=3. But we can proof neither. It's only true after we define it because that's how we defined it. So there is no argument. It's just an ad hoc decision.

For 1+1=3 you have to define many things.

But basically first you say that a + 1 is the successor of a.

Then you define that the successor of 1 is 2. And then under those definitions it's true that 1+1=2.

If you say that a + 3 is the successor of a and that 2 is the successor of 1, then 1 + 3 = 2 is just as perfectly true as the above.

Only problem here is if you define 3 as the successor of 2, then 3 can be written as 2 +3 and that 3 can be written as 2 + 3, etc.

That's not logically consistent. Now, we have already an axiom, another ad hoc definition, that math has to be logically consistent.

Of course what and what is not logically consistent if also a pain to have to formally proof.

[term]

For 1+1=3 you have to define many things.

But basically first you say that a + 1 is the successor of a.

Then you define that the successor of 1 is 2. And then under those definitions it's true that 1+1=2.

If you say that a + 3 is the successor of a and that 2 is the successor of 1, then 1 + 3 = 2 is just as perfectly true as the above.

What i don't understand here is, what is 1? You first defined that a+1 is the successor of a. After that, you replace that definition with a+3, which is now the successor of a. You then take 2, and define it as the successor of something which is undefined.
I would say, your statement above is true when i define a+3 as the successor of a and 2 as the successor of three, 3+3=2.
Or did i get something wrong?

Only problem here is if you define 3 as the successor of 2, then 3 can be written as 2 +3 and that 3 can be written as 2 + 3, etc.

[ahinton]

No responses yet from Sister Susan to the questions posed in post #27 or #28 yet - and we're already in the 50s...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

What i don't understand here is, what is 1?

Check out Peano axioms.

[term]

   5. 0 is a natural number.
   6. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number.

Peano's original formulation of the axioms used 1 instead of 0 as the "first" natural number. This choice is arbitrary, as axiom 5 does not endow the constant 0 with any additional properties. However, because 0 is the additive identity in arithmetic, most modern formulations of the Peano axioms start from 0. Axioms 5 and 6 define a unary representation of the natural numbers: the number 1 is S(0), 2 is S(S(0)) (= S(1)), and, in general, any natural number n is Sn(0). The next two axioms define the properties of this representation.

   7. For every natural number n, S(n) ≠ 0. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.
   8. For all natural numbers m and n, if S(m) = S(n), then m = n. That is, S is an injection.
-----
Here i find nothing that supports what you did, i.e. using 1 and 3 ambiguously.

[prometheus]

If you don't understand or like the language of math then you are by all means free not to use it.


I never said that what I said was supported by those axioms. Actually, that was the point. You can't support it. Neither can you support the system we use now with arguments.


Peano's axoims clearly state that 1 is the successor to 0, and that 0 is an empty set. Therefore, 1 = {0} and since 2 is the successor of 1, therefore 2 = {0,1}


And giving all these definitions and axioms, 1+2=3 follows.

[term]

Neither can you support the system we use now with arguments.

Yes, but it is not ambiguous. Yours is.

But......discussing this with you is as arbitrary as it is pointless. I shall stop now.

[prometheus]

It's only ambiguous if you define it ambiguous.

[soliloquy]

It's only ambiguous if you define it ambiguous.

Quit wasting your time.  You're trying to elaborate axioms to people who don't know what an "axiom" is.  Unproductive.

[maul]

Time. When. Kekekeke. Only a human brain would be so foolish.