new visitor with a logic question

I was displaying an applicatin of actual infinity NOT any old Agustinian notion. When did GOD hit home runs? I doubt this is in-finity though - hard to say.

quote:

---

When did GOD hit home runs?

---

Given the victory of evil over the forces of good last night, I'd say God sucks at baseball.

For the umpteenth time, God may be omnipotent but He doesn't control things like genocide or professional sports. That's a consequence of human sin, which is another thing I guess God has no control over. Am I making myself clear?------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

MrHambre writes:

quote:

---

God may be omnipotent but He doesn't control things like genocide or professional sports.

---

Ah, but what about his kid?You always see the winners praising Jesus and the losers blaming themselves."Yeah, we were in the game...until Jesus made me strike out! He hates our team!"------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

No need to be blasphemous. Rising from the dead is just a piece of cake compared to bringing a pennant to Boston. Omnipotence has its limits, after all.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

Now if they had been the Shroud of Turin Sox, then they would have had a chance.

Ah, the glory days of the Central Palestine League. I seem to recall the Jericho Walls fell in the standings after they let the Sons of Ham play. And they say the fast ball of Nicodemus couldn't be seen by men.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

Or let's remenisce about the old Eden Ball League. Adam used to smack around a perfect leather ball with his extra rib and hit a homerun everytime. It helped that there was nobody else on the team and no opposing team but lets not dwell on the details. Of course God, baseball hater that he is, changed the rib into Adam's new passtime and it has been downhill ever since.

I would say, Matchette - "Men are after all, only men, not Gods. Within a relative finite world, nothing can achieve perfection. Admittedly man is not nor will ever be...but...it does does not follow that he cannot be improved."OULINE OF METAPHYSICSNagel and Newmann wrote p 13 "A land of rigours abstraction, empty of all familiar landmarks...but this fact caused no alarm." Godel's Proof.I hope at least I will be found consistent if my attempts to contrain plurivocity do not take or stay on hold.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-17-2003]

Well, I haven't checked the board in a few days, and it looked like this post was going in a positive direction, but as the season would have it, conversation has turned to baseball....anyways getting back to a statement from Rrhain and his comic book analogy. He says that we have "counted to infinity" and thus comprehended the concept of infinity. I can't see how this is possible, all we have done is understand that there are an infinite number of points between two defined points on a linear plane, in this case time, in geometry.. between A and B. We have not grasped the concept of a real infinity, and thats the point. Back to my first post when I said that infinity is incomprehensible, and Luke Wadel's proof of existence is just an attempt to bring tangibility to an abstract idea.This post was never meant to be a legitimate argument for the existence of god, it was simply a site that I found and wanted a little input on others reactions from it. I enjoy a little philosophical babble every once in a while... so in short... bump.

Dan Carrol said:

quote:

---

Given the victory of evil over the forces of good last night, I'd say God sucks at baseball.

---

No, no, no, no Dan! God loves the Cubs and especially the fans! He loves them so much He feels the need to test them much, much more than other baseball fans.Conversely, God hates the Yankees and their fans.Don't you see the logic of it all?Of course, I just watched 9 innings of baseball tonight and can't remember a single thing except for Andy's assertion that people all over Texas were praying for a Yankee victory. Blasphemer!------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

[Thinking...]Yes, we Christians believe in the concept of eternity past and eternity future. I have not read the website referenced at the beginning, but cautiously wondered if you might like to know our viewpoint. Infinity can have a starting point, of course. You can start from a point in time, i.e. right now, and continue on forever and ever. This infinite time extends both forward and backward from the present, so there is no starting point. In the terms of Earth, naturally, there was a beginning when God created it, and Earth only extends backwards (as well as only extending forwards) in time a finite number of years. Since this universe exists in a finite timeline, somebody had to start it up.
However, God exists outside of time and space, from eternity past right into eternity future. Since there was no beginning to eternity past, God had no 'beginning' according to our perception, and therefore was not created. Similar to what the big bangers say, there would be no causation for eternally existing Persons.See? [Wipes up puddle of drool]

quote:

---

You can start from a point in time, i.e. right now, and continue on forever and ever. This infinite time extends both forward and backward from the present, so there is no starting point.

---

That's a contradiction. If it starts from a point in time, there is nothing before that point in time. Thus, it may be an infinite ray, but it is not an infinite line.

quote:

---

However, God exists outside of time and space, from eternity past right into eternity future. Since there was no beginning to eternity past, God had no 'beginning' according to our perception, and therefore was not created.

---

And how did this alternate, timeless dimension, with this infinitely complex being in it, just happen come about? I mean, clearly it didn't come about at a point in time, but it nonetheless "became". Is God just a property of reality? An infinitely compex being, just a property of the universe? Please pardon me if Occam's Razor slices this concept to pieces.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

baileyr25 responds to me:

quote:

---

anyways getting back to a statement from Rrhain and his comic book analogy. He says that we have "counted to infinity" and thus comprehended the concept of infinity. I can't see how this is possible, all we have done is understand that there are an infinite number of points between two defined points on a linear plane

---

So? The size of the number of points between two defined points is the same as the size of the number of points between any undefined points, too.Another example. Again, some assumptions must be made:1) You own a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all numbered.
2) You're booked full.Now, suppose somebody comes up and asks you for a room. What do you do? Simple: You ask everybody to move up one room. This takes no time at all, and you're left with Room #1 free which the new person can occupy.Now, suppose 10 people show up. Similar response: Everybody moves up 10 rooms and you're left with Room #1-#10 free which the new people can occupy.Now, suppose an infinite number of people show up. What now?Easy. Everybody moves to the room that is double their current room number. That is, the guest in Room #1 moves to Room #2. The guest in Room #2 moves to Room #4. Room #3 moves to Room #6. This leaves you with all the odd-numbered rooms empty and all the even-numbered rooms occupied. Notice that we just went from all the rooms occupied to all the even-numbered rooms occupied, so those two sets must be the same size. That must mean the number of odd-numbered rooms is also the same size. Thus, the infinite guests can all fit.

quote:

---

We have not grasped the concept of a real infinity, and thats the point.

---

How does the fact that you've drawn a border around it make it "not a real infinity"?To take examples from fractal geometry, have you heard of the Sierpinski Triangle? You take an equilateral triangle and in the middle third of each side, you place another equilateral triangle (whose edge is, of course, one-third the size of the legs of the original triangle). You repeat this process on the new protruding legs and so on and so forth.You eventually get an object that has infinite perimeter but finite area.You can do a similar thing with the Sierpinski Sponge. You take a cube and core out the middle ninth of each face. For the remaining eighths, you repeat the coring process over and over.You eventually get an object with infinite surface area but finite volume.

quote:

---

Back to my first post when I said that infinity is incomprehensible

---

But it is comprehensible. Mathematicians use infinity all the time. The problem with infinity is not that it isn't comprehensible but that it isn't predictable. You have to be careful about how you use infinity as things tend to become undefined when infinity shows up.

quote:

---

and Luke Wadel's proof of existence is just an attempt to bring tangibility to an abstract idea.

---

But it is based on an error: An infinity can't come to an end.It most certainly can. Infinities come to an end all the time.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Sierpinski Triangle ... Sierpinski Sponge

---

Just to nitpick, the technical terms are the Sierpinski Gasket, and the Menger Sponge. The Menger Sponge is the 3d equivalent of the Sierpinski Carpet.One of the interesting thing about all of these shapes is that they can be modeled with iterative formulae in which, using any arbitrary starting point, it will converge on various positions in the gasket/carpet/sponge. Pick a random point (x,y for the gasket and carpet; x,y,z for the sponge). Plot it. Then, pick a random corner. Average your point with the corner point. Plot it. Repeat, each time choosing a random corner.These shapes form the basis of more complex IFS (Iterative Function System) fractals; there are numerous IFS programs out there where you can change the parameters to make different IFS. It's kind of fun trying to get a particular shape (fern, maple leaf, your name, etc), especially the versions which allow you to add extra dimensions to it (color, frequency of impact), adjust the probability of choosing particular corners, scaling, and shear. Another neat thing of IFS is that you can create easy blend animations between different shapes.I've been tempted recently to make myself a literal Sierpinski Carpet carpet, perhaps recursed to depth 3.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-20-2003]