Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Atticus_Finch · 03-26-2002, 02:22 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goliath:

Frankly, I'm man enough to say I don't understand the connection of our discussion on religion and your theorem. Further, I'm a lawyer and we have a occupational problem with any math that doesn't involve dividing sums of money by three. (See the Christian lawyer can make a funny).

I'll take a crack at it though. The theorem only seems to work if the two real numbers are the same number. If they are not, then x=y is not a true statement.

Regards,

Finch

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]

not a theist · 03-26-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:


Multiple attestation is support for accuracy. Peter, John, Matthew each separately attest to seeing Christ die and then rise from the dead.

Regards,

Finch.

Where?
According to critical scholarship, Matthew probably wasn't written by Matthew. John may or may not have been written by the apostle but in any case was probably edited. 2Peter is almost certainly a forgery and 1Peter may be one as well.
You must first make a compelling case that these are actually eyewitness accounts and not merely assert that they are if you wish to submit them as attestation at all.

Atticus_Finch · 03-26-2002, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samhain:


Is this a joke? Please tell me that it is, because I've been laughing at it for the past 20 minutes. Considering the widespread growth of Christianity was mainly due to "strong-arm" actions through holy wars against other countries who did not have the technological means to resist, I'd like to see how you can support the statement that it grew at a time when it had no state or military power. Unless of course it was through coersion of the weak minded by telling them they had an eternity of torment waiting for them unless they followed God...

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]

I believe we were discussing the early growth of Christianity. It had no state power for its first 300 years.

Regards,

Finch

Goliath · 03-26-2002, 02:25 PM

Atticus_Finch,

Quote:

Frankly, I'm man enough to say I don't understand the connection of our discussion on religion and your theorem.

I'll give you a hint: the connection has to do with a logical fallacy.

Quote:

I'll take a crack at it though. The theorem only seems to work if the two real numbers are the same number. If they are not, then x=y is not a true statement.

That's correct. The "Theorem" is not true, since I can pick two real numbers that are not equal--eg. 2 and 34 (there are infinitely many such counterexamples).

Now, where is the error in the proof?

Sincerely,

Goliath

not a theist · 03-26-2002, 02:25 PM

Double Post. Sorry.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]

Atticus_Finch · 03-26-2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by not a theist:


Where?
According to critical scholarship, Matthew probably wasn't written by Matthew. John may or may not have been written by the apostle but in any case was probably edited. 2Peter is almost certainly a forgery and 1Peter may be one as well.
You must first make a compelling case that these are actually eyewitness accounts and not merely assert that they are if you wish to submit them as attestation at all.

Oh my God! Critical scholars say that? Well, that changes everything.

Frankly, refering to "critical scholars" for support makes less sense then me referring to the bible. These critical scholars start with the proposition that no supernatural event described in the bible could have occurred. That is hardly an objective starting point.

Regards,

Finch

Goliath · 03-26-2002, 02:28 PM

Atticus_Finch,

Quote:

These critical scholars start with the proposition that no supernatural event described in the bible could have occurred.

Unproven assertion.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Jayhawker Soule · 03-26-2002, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
Frankly, I don't know a thing about the Vedas. Just looked it up on the internet and can't make heads nor tails of it. I've been working my way around to debunking that religion but I haven't gotten there yet.

Why would you be working your way around to debunking that religion when you "don't know a thing about the Vedas"? I can't quite tell if this is attempted sarcasm directed towards me, or some bigoted contempt of hinduism.

Atticus_Finch · 03-26-2002, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath:
Atticus_Finch,

That's correct. The "Theorem" is not true, since I can pick two real numbers that are not equal--eg. 2 and 34 (there are infinitely many such counterexamples).

Now, where is the error in the proof?

Sincerely,

Goliath

I will work on the error tomorrow. Frankly, I'm too worn out from celebrating the fact that I got the answer right in the first place.

Regards,

Finch

Goliath · 03-26-2002, 02:30 PM

ReasonableDoubt,

Quote:

In response to Atticus_Finch:
I can't quite tell if this is attempted sarcasm directed towards me, or some bigoted contempt of hinduism.

My money's on the latter.

Sincerely,

Goliath

03-26-2002, 02:22 PM	#61
Atticus_Finch Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 392	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goliath: Frankly, I'm man enough to say I don't understand the connection of our discussion on religion and your theorem. Further, I'm a lawyer and we have a occupational problem with any math that doesn't involve dividing sums of money by three. (See the Christian lawyer can make a funny). I'll take a crack at it though. The theorem only seems to work if the two real numbers are the same number. If they are not, then x=y is not a true statement. Regards, Finch [ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

03-26-2002, 02:25 PM	#65
not a theist Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Not in Kansas. Posts: 199	Double Post. Sorry. [ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.