Photocrat

Bah, mere limits and mere calculus :] Those are long behind me... set theory is *so* much more interesting :]

Photocrat

I believe I said *ad infinitum* -- that .9999... is a *reapeating decimal* There is NO last number in it... that's like asking for the "largest" number, which makes no sense. Why not just ask for a set of all sets? Or worse, as set of all sets which do not contain themselves? [if it contains itself, it doesn't belong in itself; if it doesn't, it belongs in itself--hence it cannot exist :]

Besides:

lim (n -> infinity) 9/(10^1) + ... + 9/(10^n) == 1

The 9/10 + 9/100 + ... + 9/(10^n) is another way of saying .99999999... which should be more familiar to you guys; assuming you've covered limits in math class (they do that way back in calculus, don't they???) I was just using another form of that; though I *do* know that there are other, silly, tricks like that which aren't valid (usually division by zero or somesuch...)

I guess that none of you have had set theory yet? Well, HRG has, I'm sure, which is probably why he didn't "correct" me... :]

Photocrat

*ahem* That doesn't show .99999... = 1.

You guys need to read up on set theory. I agree that some of it is counter-intuitive, but it is legitimate mathematics.

Yes, .999999[repeating] *is* equal to 1. Or are you saying that you don't believe limits "really" converge? You leave off a last "1/infinity" [aka zero...] in every integral you do. See the above post, or ask HRG here. Last I knew, he knows enough mathematics to confirm what I've said.

Photocrat

Well, aside from the use of seemingly plural words for God at times [which any anti-missionary will scoff at], there is an interesting use of "logos" in John 1:1 and its relation to "memra" in the tanakh [the OT] That arguement, however, is long & boring.

In any event, part of the notion is that the three persons are one in "essence" [which is eternal]. IIRC, the greek notion of it was one person who puts on three masks to play three different parts in a play. There's only one guy, but the audience sees three. That's why christians don't feel like they're actually worshipping three gods...

GunnerJ

Welcome, Stryphe! I'm not sure many theists would like your interpretation, as it flirts with the type of "We are all part of God/ part of the mind of God" stuff that New Agers like, but Xians don't. It sure gives new meaning to the phrase "in Christ" though!

Stryphe

Thanks for the welcome Rimstalker.

I didn't know theists had a problem with this particular aspect of being..... perhaps that's why the Mormons never visit me anymore??? Now that I think of it, the Jehova's Witnesses haven't stopped by again either....

Nonetheless, I merely served this up as the simplest explanation of the Trinity I've come up with. I only use the human body as a focal point that most anyone can understand, it does not neccessarily have to be taken literally. Although it DOES happen to parallel my particular view of things.

I've discussed this with quite a few Christians and most of them thought it actually very good, a number of pastors among them. Lise I say though, just as a general explanation.

I don't see how one could claim an infinite god and profess to exist outside of it, however.

Anunnaki

Complex mathematical equations and countless hours pondering how a circle could be a triangle is a complete waste of time since what you`re trying to figure out will NEVER make any logical sense.
It didn`t make sense when they made it up,it doesn`t now and it never will.

Perhaps <a href="http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/trinity.html" target="_blank">this</a> will help.

daemon

My question was not an attempt to correct, but a question of validity--is (10 * 0.999...) truly equivalent to 9.999...? I would certainly agree that the lim(x-&gt;inf) sum(n=0-&gt;x) 9/10^n = 1, but AFAIK, that does not mean that sum(n=0-&gt;inf) 9/10^n = 1.

It's been a while since my college math courses, so I'm rusty, and this is a complete digression on this subject anyway...

daemon

Okay, so how does your example prove that the circle is a square? You can use a variety of transformations to create them, but this seems to be an attempt to confuse the issue. This is like saying 1 = 2 because 1+1=2. It's neither mathematically or semantically correct.

Your question 3 is simply a repetition of the same exercise. Please speak more clearly--word games are no substitute for thought.

Again, you're playing word games. At least one of the claims here must logically be false; if an electron is both particle and wave, it is obvious that it is certainly possible for a particle to be a wave.

You're attempting to use your personal and provably incorrect assumptions as basis for logically proving logic invalid. Congratulations on your astounding lack of reason.

theophilus

This is known (I think) as Modalism, and is not historic Trinitarian doctrine, i.e., 3 persons, not one person in three forms.