Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fred pratt · 01-28-2002, 12:35 PM

Theophilus,

Yes I do.

Best regards.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: fred pratt ]

FarSeeker · 01-28-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
I must have had some kind of impoverished life up until this point, but I've never heard anyone, much less atheists, attempt to defend 2=1. Could someone please let me in on this dirty little atheist secret?

Regards,
Bill Snedden

Maybe some hints will help?
1. What walks on 4 legs in the morning,
2 legs during the day,
and three legs in the evening?
2. How can a circle be a square?
3. How can a triangle be a circle?
4. How can someone as intelligent as you have not read "Flatland"?
5. Given: A cannot equal B
Given: B cannot equal A
How can the logical statement A=C=B be true?

I will give you some time to figure these out.

Quote:

But we can often make "sense" of things we cannot experience, usually by analogy or some other descriptive form.

For example, we don't "experience" atoms (in the sense of actually touching them or seeing them individually in detail), but we can make sense of much of their function by studying the effects of their interactions and describing their apparent form through analogy (I'm sure we've all heard the orbits of electrons compared to those of planets). While these methods may not be exact, they certainly do serve the purpose.

So, is there perhaps a good analogy that one might use to assist non-believers in "making sense" of the Trinity?

All of which require that the subject under study be taken into a lab and experimented on. You cannot do that with the supernatural. But even if you could, it wouldn't convince many Atheists.

For example, I remember reading that if Jesus returned and to prove miracles do happen, walked on water. Even if He did this in a lab, repeatedly, under strict scientific standards, all that could be concluded is that some humans can walk on water without artificial aids.

But maybe you can help me with some QM questions about atoms. Take electron orbits for example; given the quanta-ization of electrons (e-), how do they get from one orbit to the next? The explanation I heard is that the orbits are within the uncertainty principle on e-'s location, and thus an e- simply ceases to exist in one orbit and magically appears in the next.

How can that be?

Ta...

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

Bill Snedden · 01-28-2002, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FarSeeker:
1. What walks on 4 legs in the morning,
2 legs during the day,
and three legs in the evening?
2. How can a circle be a square?
3. How can a triangle be a circle?
4. How can someone as intelligent as you have not read "Flatland"?
5. Given: A cannot equal B
Given: B cannot equal A
How can the logical statement A=C=B be true?

1. Man (the Sphinx riddle)
2. It cannot.
3. It cannot.
4. I have read it.
5. It cannot be true.

Okay, I've answered your five questions. Could you perhaps now please explain what you meant by "atheists defend 2=1"? None of these seem to have anything to do with a claim that 2=1.

Quote:

Originally posted by FarSeeker:
I will give you some time to figure these out.

It took me all of about five seconds to "figure them out." What I still haven't figured out is what the hell you're talking about!

Quote:

Originally posted by FarSeeker:
For example, I remember reading that if Jesus returned and to prove miracles do happen, walked on water. Even if He did this in a lab, repeatedly, under strict scientific standards, all that could be concluded is that some humans can walk on water without artificial aids.

Well, as that would require some radical revisions to our understanding of physical law, I would imagine that such a conclusion would be difficult to support without further experimentation. After all, gravity, surface tension, liquid dynamics, etc. are all relatively well understood. I'd say that Occam's razor might well rule out the naturalistic hypothesis.

Quote:

Originally posted by FarSeeker:
But maybe you can help me with some QM questions about atoms. Take electron orbits for example; given the quanta-ization of electrons (e-), how do they get from one orbit to the next? The explanation I heard is that the orbits are within the uncertainty principle on e-'s location, and thus an e- simply ceases to exist in one orbit and magically appears in the next.

Sorry, I'm not a physicist. Perhaps you could take this question to the Science & Skepticism forum?

All of that said, I don't see that you've come any closer to explaining why or how "atheists defend 2=1". Maybe a more direct reply and less obfuscation next time?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

Bill Snedden · 01-28-2002, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Foxhole Atheist:
How do you know all this to be true?

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:
I read the book.

Hehehe...Very witty riposte!

Bill

Photocrat · 01-28-2002, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly:
Hey Foxhole A,

You may as well just say "Hey Christians, spew incomprehensible nonsense in my general direction"!. I have long given up hope that someone can justify the equation 3=1. Good luck, though. Maybe someone will come along and suprise us.

Griz

No, I would not say 3=1, if anything I would say that the intervals (0, 1) and (0, 3) are equinumerous.

Why are the equinumerous? Because there exists a bijection f: (0, 1) -> (0, 3) -- namely f(x) = 3x

If you want to talk mathematics, why don't you learn some more? :] I mean, from the sound of it, you'd probably also complain that .99999999... != 1

Whereas, if you let x = .99999999... [ad infinitum]
10x = 9.99999999...
10x = 9 + x
(10x) - x = (9 + x) - x
9x = 9
x = 1
QED

Now then, we return you to your regularly scheduled arguement over theology.

sbaii · 01-28-2002, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sidewinder:
Foxhole: I have asked this question and the answer most frequently given is that the Trinity is ultimately a mystery. In other words, we don't know but damn those ancient bastards for coming up with this and expecting us to defend it 1600 years later. It's certain that Jesus didn't see himself as the Jewish God or any part of this God. He would have seen this claim as serious blasphemy.

I think Xians would quote John 6:33-38, 44-51

daemon · 01-28-2002, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Photocrat:
If you want to talk mathematics, why don't you learn some more? :] I mean, from the sound of it, you'd probably also complain that .99999999... != 1

Whereas, if you let x = .99999999... [ad infinitum]
10x = 9.99999999...
10x = 9 + x
(10x) - x = (9 + x) - x
9x = 9
x = 1
QED

Now then, we return you to your regularly scheduled arguement over theology.

This appears to be poor mathematics to attempt to prove .999... = 1. As illustration, substitute 9.5 for 9.9999... in the first step, and claim x = 0.5. If this were mathematically valid, 0.5 = 1 would be true.

Is 10x = 9.999... given x = 0.999... true, or simply an assumption? It seems to me that 10x should be 9.999...0.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: daemon23 ]

sbaii · 01-28-2002, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
Very easy Foxhole Atheist.

At least in Catholicism (which is after Jesus) we have the capacity to become Christ (the Baptist tell me it is in the Cathechism and object to it, (or I would not know it was there)).

If we have the capacity to become Christ and Christ can become one with God "my Lord and my God" Jn.24:28), we, as humans while in oblivion t......blah blah... intercourse.

Amos

My goodness, the catechism has changed from when I studied it in the fifties.

sbaii · 01-28-2002, 03:13 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by theophilus:
[QB]

If I were going to deny God, I hope that I would at least take the time to make sure I understood what I was denying.
You are mistaken that the OT does not mention the Trinity: It is explicit almost from the very first verse; "the Spirit of God was over the waters..;" and "let us make man in our image.

In "A History of God", I believe the author discusses the use of the plural "elohim" which is translated as the singular "Lord". "El" was a very important god in the Middle East before Yahweh, ie. Beth El.

sbaii · 01-28-2002, 03:22 PM

So, is there perhaps a good analogy that one might use to assist non-believers in "making sense" of the Trinity?

Well, Hinduism has a trinity, Brahma the creator, Krishna the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. SO maybe other ancient religions had trinities which would make it more likely that the early christians would adopt the concept.

P.S. Could <a href="http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/trinity/trinity.html" target="_blank">this</a> be the essay of which you were speaking?[/QB][/QUOTE]

01-28-2002, 12:35 PM	#31
fred pratt Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 72	Theophilus, Yes I do. Best regards. [ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: fred pratt ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-28-2002, 03:13 PM	#39
sbaii Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: big bad Deetroit Posts: 2,850	[QUOTE]Originally posted by theophilus: [QB] If I were going to deny God, I hope that I would at least take the time to make sure I understood what I was denying. You are mistaken that the OT does not mention the Trinity: It is explicit almost from the very first verse; "the Spirit of God was over the waters..;" and "let us make man in our image. In "A History of God", I believe the author discusses the use of the plural "elohim" which is translated as the singular "Lord". "El" was a very important god in the Middle East before Yahweh, ie. Beth El.

01-28-2002, 03:22 PM	#40
sbaii Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: big bad Deetroit Posts: 2,850	So, is there perhaps a good analogy that one might use to assist non-believers in "making sense" of the Trinity? Well, Hinduism has a trinity, Brahma the creator, Krishna the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. SO maybe other ancient religions had trinities which would make it more likely that the early christians would adopt the concept. P.S. Could <a href="http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/trinity/trinity.html" target="_blank">this</a> be the essay of which you were speaking?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.