Can God....

[Carl_William]

Are you jesting with this portentous subject matter?

[DavidC]

I don't know much about math.

Why not just ask

"Can god make a positive integer that isn't a positive integer?"

[DavidC]

And out of curiosity, why these odd questions on the nature of God?

I mean, even if you knew the answer to your question, what would it change about how you should live?

You know in poker there are situations that have such minute difference in EV that there's really not much point in devoting time to figuring it out, right? This is probably one of them, spiritually.

Take care,
Dave.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand.

Triangle - The plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments; a three-sided polygon.

Person A believes there can be a four sided triangle.

You're not suspiscious about this persons opinions? I sure am.

Persons A and B can think whatever they want about subjective topics. I may agree - I may not. But when one of them disagrees with simple facts, they are just acting foolish. I'm going to be suspiscious of the opinions of the one who doesn't think rationally, not the one who may just have a differing opinion from mine.

-DP

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on man, they're not just acting foolish. It's truly profound to say things like... "god can make 3+3=7" and then give the other party in the conversation a self-satisfied smile for not being able to comprehend your brilliance.

If they respond by saying: well, uh, that's just changing what + means, or what 3 means, or what 7 means... you need to cut them off and say that they're a mere human who cannot understand.

If they respond by saying that yes, it's fine to invent things outside of our system that mean nothing within it, then you say: And that is what god is. See how ignorant you are?

These same people don't realize that all they're doing is inventing a new and unknown space that god can occupy. Yes, there will always be things that are not understood if you include things that are outside our current system, but that's not useful at -all-. Never can you use this idea to discover anything new and interesting about our own universe. They then invent a character that knows all of these things, which is sillyness at its finest. Following up a statement that there exist unknown things with sure knowledge and belief that someone exists that knows these things is quite contradictory.

But that's not the point. The point is that purveyors of religion get to feel superior to everyone else in their own mind, and it makes them feel like a better person. At the same time, they get to hide behind their shroud of mediocrity (they "know" that they're ignorant beasts in the shadow of their lord).

It's quite a brilliant contrivance. Though you can never prove that there exists nothing that is unknown, religiophiles prove by their own breath that they are little more than people who desperately need to create for themselves a shred of self-importance, and do that by creating a stage upon which they can stand and look down at everyone else who doesn't adhere to their conceptual nonsense.

No, you can never disprove god, as it's defined to exist outside of the system. But you don't need to prove anything about people who fervently try to spread the "word." They prove all that needs to be discovered about them on their own.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

This post would make sense if all believers believed that God could do the logically impossible. Or, more important, if all believers felt superior to those who don't believe, as you suggest.

I don't deny that it is true for a lot of people. But you seem to suggest that it's the case for all believers everywhere. That is a serious overgeneralization. What about believers who don't feel superior to others?

What is your point, exactly? That hypocrites suck?

Well, I don't like hypocrisy either. But I believe that hypocrisy is found (in roughly equal measure) both inside and outside the believing community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I guess it's basically that a lot of people don't even see it as hypocrisy, and it's annoying.

~D

[gsyme]

A fancy version of the "four-sided triangle" argument, with the same answer.

Ill try to phrase it clearer than anyone. Mathematics is defined by humans. The axioms of number theory, et cetera, are part of the definition of mathematics. If God did something that didn't obey the rules that define math (of which Fermat's Last Theorem is a consequence), then it wouldn't be math. Just like a four-sided triangle isnt a triangle.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I guess it's basically that a lot of people don't even see it as hypocrisy, and it's annoying.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

Duke, I'm pleased that you and I have found some area of agreement. It's too bad that we mostly agree on what annoys us. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[PairTheBoard]

I don't think that relying on "Proved" mathematical Theorums is a guarantee of certainty. Sometimes even the most well scrutinized proof, especially the more complex ones, can still contain a flaw. Mathematicians are only human you know lol.

There's also the question of the mathematical system you are using. Most modern Math assumes the Axiom of Choice but there are still Mathematicians who object to this axiom and only work on Mathematics within a system which excludes it. I don't know the history of this particuliar Theorum but it's possible it has not been proven without the Axiom of Choice. If so, where are you then? What the bleep do you really know.

As far as religion goes I consider it all a special form of Human Poetry. It can be inspiring and help you lead a better life. Yes, there are Religious Fanatics who basically excommunicate themselves from everyone but themselves. I see that more of a human failing than a religous one though. It's a psychological flaw in many people which can come out in their Religion, Politics, as well as other Arenas. imo, Logical Positivists exhibit this flaw in the Scientific Arena. It amounts to a kind of Human Arrogance.

What many sophomoric science types don't understand is that the Human Construct of Science itself amounts to a kind of poetry. Certainly a very specialized kind which employes mathematics to produce powerful predictive tools. But as far as telling us what reality really IS they are at best metaphores to what we already feel we understand, and at at worst simply mathematical filing cabinets for organizing experimental data.

btw David, your "Go For It" analysis doesn't mention the human emotions of the players. You can't ignore the "Big Mo" factor in football. lol.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

oh, and to answer your question more directly - speaking poetically here - God is a better mathematician than any of us. If She says it can or can't be done I would tend to believe Her.

PairTheBoard

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
God could not make a 4 sided triangle.

If math says it can't be done...unless we are missing information or some other perspective, it can't be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Could God come up with two positive integers such that when you cube each and add them up, you get the cube of a third integer?" If God is God, then most likely he can. Or, should I say, maybe he could, but not by using the probably-simplistic language of math humans have created to help themselves understand things. You may as well ask if God can say, "Dog," and have it mean "cat." He probably could say, "Dog," and have it mean "cat." The question is, would YOU understand that it means "cat"?

Math is not God. Math is a language made by humans to help them understand how the world works. All languages evolve over time. Math is not real. It is a map of the territory, but it is not the territory.

[DiceyPlay]

Sorry, I'm just a simple guy taking things at face value. I very much enjoy reading Josh W's posts and believe he's a great poker player. His post made me wonder what the heck is he thinking?

If I choose not to be simple it takes WAY TOO MUCH time to digest profound statements.

I'm also a Math guy or at least think of myself as one. And definitions are definitions. There's nothing you can do to change them. Blatantly disagreeing with a definition isn't wrong like making a paradoxical statement such as "I always lie" - it's worse ... it's dumb. And we cease to function if we don't agree on definitions. Why don't I just kill somebody and then say that person never existed so I didn't kill them <---- just plain stupid.