Tenspace

Here we go again... "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," right yguy?

You are so wrong in the above analogy. I can *prove* that 1 + 1 is equal to 2 (in a Euclidean space, anyway). One husky plus one weimeraner equals two dogs.

what plus what equals one God?

Hmm.... I guess, using your worldview, you could say that we are both atheists... I just happen to believe in one less god than you do.

Tenspace

Kimpatsu

Yes it could.
(Oh, no, it couldn't.)
Oh, yes, it could.
Jesus, Yguy, this is a bloody pantomime.
The universe can exist quite happily without a god--and it does.
No, you don't. 1+1=2 can be proven mathematically. Where's the proof of god? You don't know god exists, you believe that god exists. There is a world of difference between the two. You're really just committing the pathetic fallacy: projecting your inward desires onto the external world.
In other words, your steps are completely mismatched to the music. Way to go.

yguy

Uh huh. That one's been done...like, to death, KWIM?

yguy

Do it then.

Tenspace

Nice attack... my apologies, I didn't know you had heard it so many times. I humbly retract that statement.

But, I would still like the answers to the following questions that you removed when quoting earlier posts:

1. Outside of the Bible, where do you find knowledge of the Judeo-Christian God?

2. How does being created in an image equal free will?

3. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for whether He actually parted the Red Sea and all that stuff, that is belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean by this? That each believer is open to interpret whether to believe or not believe sections of the Bible? What basis is used to determine if a story is Word, parable, or fable?

4. What about the order of creation? Do you believe in the sequence of events as spelled out in Genesis I?

5. How can one argue for the existence of God before arguing for the infallibility of the Bible? You answered, "I do it all the time." I'm still awaiting the "How".

Tenspace

Kimpatsu

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
*****
Check out The Math Forum for further details.

yguy

Great. Now all you have to do is prove the postulates.

Lobstrosity

Nothing can be logically extrapolated from 1+1=2. 1+1 is defined as 2. 1+1+1 is defined as 3. 1+1+1+1 is defined as four. This is what "two" means. How are you not understanding this? If two is not defined as 1+1, then what does two mean? What does one mean? How do you first define "two" without reference to "one" such that you can now make a meaningful independent relation between the two? What logical extrapolation are you making, exactly?

To the point, your statement is nothing more than x=x. It's void of all meaningful context, whether you actually understand this or not.

I know x=x so therefore I know God exists? I know what's true is true, so therefore God exists? Wow, that makes so much sense.

yguy

Bits and pieces of it are scattered throughout literature. The first 4 books of Herbert's Dune series come to mind, Hugo's Les Miserables, lots of Stephen King's stuff, etc.

How I do it, I don't know - I just do it. The best recent example might be the Probability and Science thread Jesse referred to earlier.

The rest of the questions were answered previously.

yguy

Umm...how about 2+1=3?

That's not what I said. I shall not repeat myself.