God's Creation, and Some Misconceptions

[mikkel_the_dane]

see above, quit bellyaching and do the MATH.

101G.

Do you understand what math is in relationship to the world as such?

 

[101G]

well the bible presented a mathematical fact and these men of.... suppose to be science cannot answer a simple equation.

good day.

101G

 

[Subduction Zone]

see above, quit bellyaching and do the MATH.

101G.

You did not even present any math.

I am not surprised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well the bible presented a mathematical fact and these men of.... suppose to be science cannot answer a simple equation.

good day.

101G

You presented no math, you only did the equivalent of asking someone if they quit beating their wife yet and demanded a yes or no answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

can you solve the A+B=C, or is it over your head?

101G.

Well, do you understand the limit of math, logic and truth?

 

[101G]

Well, do you understand the limit of math, logic and truth?

mathematics has no limits.

101G

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

mathematics has no limits.

101G

Okay, we had received different education on that.
Have you ever heard of logical positivism and its relationship to math at the start of the 1900's?

 

[101G]

Have you ever heard of logical positivism and its relationship to math at the start of the 1900's?

No, but just looking at the definition, that's nonsense. A mathematical measurement problem, cannot be subjective and objective at the same time. example.
in God's creation, why are there "objects?". the measurement problem. if there was only one object in space could there be any measurement? no. what about two objects, again no, three or more? the same thing

what if one object was in motion, then could we measure.... it dependent on the object speed. if at the seed of LIGHT, no, but slower than the speed of Light yes. .

so, no mathematical measurement problem, cannot be subjective and objective at the same.

101G

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, but just looking at the definition, that's nonsense. A mathematical measurement problem, cannot be subjective and objective at the same time. example.
in God's creation, why are there "objects?". the measurement problem. if there was only one object in space could there be any measurement? no. what about two objects, again no, three or more? the same thing

what if one object was in motion, then could we measure.... ito dependent on the object speed. if at the seed of LIGHT, no, but slower than the speed of Light yes. .

so, no mathematical measurement problem, cannot be subjective and objective at the same.

101G

So math is just that?

 

[101G]

So math is just that?

and this also. go to a blackboard and write the biggest number you can think of, and 101G will add 1 to it and it will be bigger than yours, yet, in the same fashion, zero can never divide your number.

understand God is "subjective", the GREATER, unlimited, and yet he is never divided .... "Objectively", so mathematic can never prove God.

101G.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

and this also. go to a blackboard and write the biggest number you can think of, and 101G will add 1 to it and it will be bigger than yours, yet, in the same fashion, zero can never divide your number.

understand God is "subjective", the GREATER, unlimited, and yet he is never divided .... "Objectively", so mathematic can never prove God.

101G.

Yrs, you have your version of God and math as it relates to the world. I have another.

 

[101G]

Yrs, you have your version of God and math as it relates to the world. I have another.

(smile), Fine......

101G.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

(smile), Fine......

101G.

Okay, then act like that and don't put smile in () if I understand you correctly. Not smiling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and this also. go to a blackboard and write the biggest number you can think of, and 101G will add 1 to it and it will be bigger than yours, yet, in the same fashion, zero can never divide your number.

understand God is "subjective", the GREATER, unlimited, and yet he is never divided .... "Objectively", so mathematic can never prove God.

101G.

No, that is just an unjustified assumption of yours. You have no logical argument that even supports the existence of God. You used an argument based upon false premises.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that is just an unjustified assumption of yours. You have no logical argument that even supports the existence of God. You used an argument based upon false premises.

A premises can be true, false or unknown. As religious I try to avoid false and hide behind unknown. But that is me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A premises can be true, false or unknown. As religious I try to avoid false and hide behind unknown. But that is me.

In a logical argument a "false premise" can be true. It merely has not been supported properly. If one bases a logical argument based on premises that are not properly supported it fails due to that "logical fallacy". Again, a logical fallacy is not necessarily wrong. It is a conclusion that was arrived at by faulty logic. He claimed to have proven God, and his argument was logically sound, but it was based upon premises that were assumptions not facts.

When one fails at proving something with a logical argument that does not prove the converse. In does not prove that there is no God. It only shows that that particular argument was faulty and did not prove anything.

 

[101G]

No, that is just an unjustified assumption of yours. You have no logical argument that even supports the existence of God. You used an argument based upon false premises.

so we can take this as your own personal opinion then? else write your biggest number you can think of..... ok. (smile).

101G

 

[Subduction Zone]

so we can take this as your own personal opinion then? else write your biggest number you can think of..... ok. (smile).

101G

No, but I notice when even you know that you are wrong you try to claim that it is someone else's opinion. State your argument again and I will explain which premises of yours are false and why. Once again. a false premise does not mean "wrong". It means that more than likely you assumed that something was factual when you cannot show that it is factual.

 

[101G]

No, but I notice when even you know that you are wrong you try to claim that it is someone else's opinion. State your argument again and I will explain which premises of yours are false and why. Once again. a false premise does not mean "wrong". It means that more than likely you assumed that something was factual when you cannot show that it is factual.

ERROR, just like the bible states, Call evil Good, and Good EVIL.

NO.

101G.

 

[101G]

now the pre-Adamic race misconception. scripture Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"

question, "When God formed Eve, the Woman from the Man/Adam, did Adam have blood when Eve was taken out of him. read the account in chapter 2

101G