You don't have to believe me, just read the facts and decide for yourself.

What does the Bible say about morality, the afterlife, reality, time, science in general, truth, and absolute good or evil? Well, let's go to the source, shall we?

First, is there an absolute good or evil? This is necessary obviously to prove if or not God is real. What is good and what is evil? Good is defined as whatever comes from God, not how nicey nicey you can be toward someone or something. How do we know if what comes from God is good or if He is even real, you ask. Well, here's how we know; first, the Bible says that God created the earth in seven days. Whoa, you say, how could even a supreme being create the entire universe in seven "days" when there weren't even days until the light was separated from the darkness? And days are different lengths relative to what planet you're standing on? Obviously the term "days" was a figure of speech directly translated from Hebrew. Now, the Bible also says that in God's eyes a thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years; this in turn goes to show that we are entering the seventh "day", or the day of rest, according to Bible chronology. Coincidence? Probably not. Anyway, there is a lot more proof I'll go into later, but for now let's assume that God is real. If then He is real and the creator of all there is and the Bible says that in Him there is no darkness at all, that He cannot lie and is truth and love, then we know that goodness is defined as whatever is true, whatever comes from love, and whatever comes from the SOURCE of those things--God. And evil would obviously be the opposite of that. Voila! Simple yet true.

Now, what does the book say about the essence of reality, the laws of physics such as time, relativity, acceleration, gravity, matter, anti-matter, light, darkness, mass, etc. etc.? Not much, but then again, it doesn't really need to. What?!! Are you dumb or something, you screech and holler? Yes, but that's besides the point. Where was I? Oh yeah, it doesn't have to because the Bible says this in very simple terms: "That which is seen is temporary. That which is unseen is eternal." Wow!!! How about that?!! It said in one simple statement a truth that is so heavy that even the great Alexiev couldn't lift it!! (Alexiev was a Russian Olympic weightlifter who won many gold medals, for those of you still wearing Underoos). Anyway, what a cool statement!! And how true!! Let me ask all of you, 2 + 2 = 4 right? It always was, is now and ever shall be true!!! Wow, and it's such a SIMPLE concept!!!! Pythagorean's theorem was, is, and ever shall be!!! The more mass an object has, the more it tends to stay in motion, and the more it resists motion when at rest. Was, is, and ever shall be!! And the really weird thing is, those truths can't be seen unless given a physical example!! Yet it is the UNSEEN CONCEPT that rules those physical things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Wheeee eeeeeee!!! Isn't this fun? What about evolution and natural selection? What about dinosaurs?!!! Huh? You fricking prick? You slimy bastard? You fanatical lunatic?!!! Huh?! What about that, jerk? Well, let's settle down, now, shall we? Okay, here's what I know about that, the Bible said, "Let the waters teem with fish and other life, and let the skies be filled with birds of every kind." and "Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal--cattle and reptiles and wildlife of every kind." I don't know if there were dinosaurs even with all the so-called "proof". Why? I saw on a t.v. program how the scientists found fossils of a carnivorous dinosaur in the antarctic. Um, excuse me, but aren't dinosaurs supposed to be cold-blooded reptiles? Yes, and if this is the case, then how could a fricking dinosaur even exist for more than five seconds down there? Do you have any conception of how cold it really is? It's blood would have frozen in seconds!! You know what I think? I think the entire dinosaur thing is a complete fraud. That's a pretty heavy statement, but could you think of a better way of getting government funding for so called dinosaur research when they would probably be out of a job if it didn't exist? C'mon, people; let's think a little bit.

I'm going to bed now, I'll have more for you later. You are ALL intelligent people and obviously looking for truth and answers, otherwise we wouldn't be here at this site.

Oh yeah, one more thing before I hit the sack, you know how the Bible says that he created man in His image and that Adam was created from the dust? Well, what do you eat? Meat, milk, grains, legumes, nuts, fruits and vegetables, etc. right? Where does a plant get its nutrients from? The sun, the rain, the air and what else? The SOIL!! What do we eat again? And where does that food come from? Where do the cattle (meat) get their nutrients from? PLANTS!! And where do plants get their nutrients from? The SOIL!!!! We are literally made from soil!!!! Wow, what a concept! Well, good night. God bless you and keep you.

<center>Tectonic plate movement...Bozo!</center>

You know fella,
it's not by opening a 'new topic' that you can open a new discussion. Why don't you try and read a bit the other threads first before you begin barking bullshit again.

I've heard the one day is one thousand days argument before but if this is so then how come SOME days are like a thousand years and others are just plain days in the bible ? I thought there was enough confusion already in the 'Good Book' and you are adding some to it.

Look empericists simply ignore your so called proof because it comes from a book and books are written by men. You have to look at the universe itself in order to understand it.

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

"Look empericists simply ignore your so called proof because it comes from a book and books are written by men. You have to look at the universe itself in order to understand it." (Plato, 9/3)

Amen? Such a simple summary of the situation, and I've never heard those words used that way before. In this case, "You have to look at the universe" is among one of the simplest, brightest statements I've seen among the religious debate posts.

Otherwise, all I can say here is that I would advise those who disagree with the "faithful" to NOT take the Bible line by line and argue with it. It simply doesn't sink in; mind you, I've known a good many faithfuls who pore over their chosen philosophical texts for no better reason than to build one-liner comebacks for the "heathens". For instance, as a non-Christian, I haven't enough time to read the Bible cover to cover several times. Of course, if that's the only resource I'm using in my argumentative development, then I suppose I would have the time. But many faithful--for the sake of this argument only, Christians--know their Bible inside and out, and are capable of performing the same graceful twists of logic that are often attributed to ... the Devil.

During Holy Week, 1993, I attended a political forum sponsored by the University of Oregon Campus Christian Coalition; after listening to people argue themselves purple over homosexuality, one dissenter noted that the Coalition speakers kept referring to the Old Testament, and cited Leviticus 21:16-ff, in which God instructs Moses to tell Aaron the Priest that none of his (Aaron's) descendants could be handicapped, as they would profane what the Lord made holy. A Coalition speaker leapt up, waved his hands in the air, and shouted, "Ephesians! Put on your armor!" which drew a boisterous, "Amen" from the crowd. Since then I have been convinced that logic and faith are like oil and water.

But don't quote the religious texts when debating against their corresponding faith; if you find God in a book, is it an answer, or merely the original question?

thx
Tiassa



------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Barking Bullshit? Yes, some days are like normal days and sometimes it is like a thousand years. Here it is in simple and plain english: If God is eternal (let's just assume for this arguement that He does exist) then what is a thousand years to Him? What is a billion trillion trillion trillion years to him? like an infinitely small speck of nothing in an endless sea of time. It's ETERNAL, pal. Can you conceive of eternity? I can't. If you can, maybe YOU'RE GOD!! Wow, God, can you tell me about how empirical knowledge is based on unseen concepts? Does 2 + 2 sometimes equal five? Huh? I'm waiting, "God". Well? No answer? Why don't you tell me, pal, how the physical laws of this universe are all unseen concepts, and yet they rule the physical? Look, I'm just telling you what the "Word" says, not my own opinions. I don't hate you, but when morons start stating things that aren't even in a single logic tree, then I have to speak up. There was a creator and you know it, clap your hands.

Hello Dork,

Although I am not God, I can understand the concept of eternity. How do I know that I am not God? Because I have a relationship WITH God. I also have no recollection of a previous life so, I figure that my existence had a beginning. In contrast, as you alluded... God is, was and always wil be.

Thank God! (Seriously)

Dork,


Wow, God, can you tell me about how empirical knowledge is based on unseen concepts? Does 2 + 2 sometimes equal five? Huh? I'm waiting, "God". Well? No answer?


Why don't you wait for an answer first, before claiming victory (I believe you must have chosen your callsign with great care, because it seems to fit like a glove)? First of all, by definition empirical knowledge is that knowledge which stems from direct observation. Hence, it is first and foremost <u>based</u> on <u>observation</u> (hence, things that are <u>seen</u>)! 2+2=4 is an observed fact. You put two objects near another two objects, you count the whole bunch, and you end up with four. That's how you find out the answer for the first time. Of course, after this you can just build and memorize addition tables. And in different universes, or under different conditions, 2+2 may indeed equal five. For example, you may put 2 bacteria next to 2 other bacteria, then proceed to count them all up and end up with 8!


Why don't you tell me, pal, how the physical laws of this universe are all unseen concepts, and yet they rule the physical?


If the concepts were unseen, we wouldn't know about them. Physical laws are mathematical models of observed behavior. And they don't rule anything; they merely describe. As for the real laws that govern the very foundations of our existence -- we may never even know them. But this doesn't mean they are divine, or eternal for that matter.


Look, I'm just telling you what the "Word" says, not my own opinions.


Where does the "Word" say anything about the connection between 2+2 and empirical knowledge?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Seek and ye shall find.

We DO know the real laws which govern the very foundation of our existence and they are divine. They are the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The fact is that some choose to ignore this great event, because there is no so-called "proof".

It's too bad that humans did not have technology such as video-cameras at that time. If we did, I'm sure there would be many more believers today. At that time, events were recorded and reported via the old methods we call writing and speaking.

Uh, Boris:

As for the 2+2=8... That would be (2+2)X2. Just because you didn't see the bacteria multiply does not mean that they didn't!

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 20, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 20, 1999).]

Say dork,

I'm not going to debate your medieval ideas, you can keep on dreaming about your hopelessly outdated kosmology.
One more thing about infinity, you don't understand the concept at all ! Supposing that god is infinite in time and space for example disconnects him entirely from our finite selves. Compared with inifity, any finite thing is nothing ! In the very sense of nothing. Suppose a is a finite number then a / infinity = 0 ! This is a simple mathematical truth that you can verify on your calculator by dividing a number by an increasingly large number, the result will become smaller and smaller, in the limit to infinity it will become zero !
So if god is infinite, he can not care about us because we don't exist compared to him, so he certainly will not be how christians like to think about him.

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Oh, Plato, Plato, Plato!

Here's the real deal: a (being a finite number)/infinity = 0 is a FALSE statement. (It might appear to be zero on a calculator because calculators are limited in the amount of digits which they can show). In reality, as the denominator in your example grows larger, the answer to: a (being a finite number)/infinity will APPROACH zero to infinitesimal amounts, but it will NEVER equal zero. And that's the truth. Just like God.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 20, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 20, 1999).]

truestory,

Would you describe how the Ten Commandments govern the behavior of DNA?

And by the way, what you just wrote to Plato would seem to claim that God only <u>approaches</u> infinity, but is actually finite. What blasphemy! :D

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

The DNA shalt not kill, lie, steal, or covet the neighboring string's wife...

ROFLMAO!

PS - what point did you miss?
PPS - Dork sounds like my soul-mate, huh? Figures his name is Dork. LMAO!

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Hello Boris,

First: I am quite curious to learn if you still believe your bacteria example of 2+2=8 or if if you now believe that the bacteria would in fact multiply (reproduce through fission) even if you didn't see it?

Second: I responded to your statement, "As for the real laws that govern the very foundations of our existence -- we may never even know them. But this doesn't mean they are divine, or eternal for that matter."
by pointing out that, although we did not actually see the event, we know through the word of mouth and recordings of the time that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments which are seen by many to be the real laws which govern the foundations of our existence. Now, you are asking me to describe how the Ten Commandments govern the behavior of DNA? This question seems to imply that you regard DNA as the foundation of our existence. If this is so, then my answer to you is that you and I are coming from a very different viewpoint. To me, DNA determines individual hereditary characteristics which, to me, is a far cry from the very foundations of our existence. Reality is the quality or state of being actual or true. Reality is the totallity of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. Therefore, in reality, it is all of these which comprise the foundation of our real existence. Given that we must take into consideration our essence (or our soul, if you will) to truly determine our real existence, then the Ten Commandments, given to Moses by God are the real laws that govern the very foundations of our (real) existence. The answer to how DNA behaves is also given by God: "Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shall return." Although the study of the behavior of DNA during it's lifetime can be interesting, to me, it is inconsequential in the big scheme of things because DNA is, in fact, finite. The soul (or our essence if you will) is not. Therefore, we should look to the laws which govern our essence (our souls) to find the "real laws" to live by. That, my friend, would be the divine Ten Commandments.

Last: As for your having perceived my post to Plato as seeming to claim that God was finite, rather than infinite, I suggest that you read it again to better understand. It was Plato who used a FALSE statement in an unsuccessful attempt to somehow prove his misperception that God does not care about us. If you read Plato's post again, you would also learn that it was Plato who suggested that infinity had limits... "In the limit to infinity it will become zero" is what Plato said. First of all, there is no limit to infinity. Second of all, as I explained previously, a(being a finite number)/infinity can never become zero (therefore, in fact, it will never be nothing... it will always exist). Lastly, contrary to what Plato falsely purports, God cares a great deal about us. More, probably, than we could ever imagine using our finite, DNA composed, brains.

It's been great discussing this with you Boris. I hope to hear your current thoughts on your 2+2=8 assertion soon.

Dork -
You excel at misperceiving statements. First, Boris's 2+2=8 example was either implying that said bacteria multiplied in the interval between placement and counting, or describing how physical laws could be different in other universes. Second, Plato's reference to infinty was mathematical, not intuitive. Taking a "limit" of a function is a concept from early calculus. On the other hand, your conclusion about infinity is entirely theoretical. You have no concept of inifinty other than "real big". Few people have any more of a concept than that because we are finite beings.
Another thing; you could at least recognize the difference between observable and provable fact and "word of mouth". I could walk up to you and tell you that I was an apple, but, upon observation, you would (I hope) conclude otherwise. As for DNA.. harmful changes to DNA can cause a fetus to fail to develop, or to develop with problems, or to develop without a mind/soul. If something that powerful does not qualify as a foundation of our existence, what does?
Your definition of reality is excellent. The conclusions you draw from it are groundless. Why must we take our "souls" into consideration? Because we don't fully understand them? I would also like to know how you came to the conclusion that our "souls" are infinite.

Regards,
FyreStar

"It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance"
-Thomas H. Huxley

Well, FyreStar!

You sound intelligent and your passionate defense of Boris and Plato is intriguing! First, please let me clear up what I perceive to be a big misperception on your part... I am truestory, not Dork.

Being human, I guess we can all perceive things differently. Even when I re-read Boris' lecture about "empirical knowledge" and the example of how 2+2 could equal five or eight, I must tell you, I found the logic to be extremely faulty. If the observer did NOT employ a method to directly observe the bacteria between the time of placement and the time of counting then, the conclusion that 2+2=8 would not be "empirical knowledge". Rather, it would be a faulty conclusion based on an illusion (an erroneous perception of reality) stemming from sloppy scientific methods. It would not change the fact that 2+2 still equals 4.

Speaking mathematically, infinity IS the limit that a function, f, is said to approach at x=a when for x close to a, f(x) is larger than any preassigned number. In mathematics, "infinite" exists beyond or is greater than any arbitrarily large value. In mathematics, "infinitesimal" is a function having values arbitrarily "close to" zero. This function, therefore, can not be limited to suit those who wish to make it become finite or zero. Those who do are attempting to create a conceptual illusion (an erroneous perception of reality).

Of course I can acknowledge that there is a difference between observable, provable and word of mouth. Can you acknowledge that many things have ocurred throughout history and that there is no way to prove that they ocurred other than to believe what is being passed along to us by word of mouth or in writing?

As I said previously, something which is so-called "observable" is not necessarily provable. (Take the observed, but erroneous conclusion that 2 bacteria plus 2 bacteria equals 8 bacteria). So far, no one has proved to me that 2+2 can equal anything but 4.

I am also sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but, there are probably many things that you believe that you have not observed (you believe them because others have told you that they have observed them or because others simply say that it is so). For example, you made the "powerful" statement that a fetus can develop without a mind/soul. Now, have you actually observed a soul? Or, do you believe that souls usually exist in fetuses because someone told you that they did? I think this has to do with a matter of trust, or faith, if you will. For example, who observed your conception? Supposing your mother was having intercourse with two different men around the time you were conceived? (Hey! It happens!) If she was a married woman and told you that her husband was your father, you would probably believe her because you trust her. Without actually getting physical tests done to prove her assertion, you believe her because she is/was and always will be your mother and you had faith that she was telling you the truth. (Sorry if this does not describe your particular relationship - I use you for illustrative purposes only). If your mother was also the one who told you that a fetus has a soul, you probably believe this to be true because you trust your mother and have faith that she is telling you the truth.

Conversely, there are probably many things which others have observed which you choose not to believe because you do not trust them or have faith in what they are saying.

Judging from your last question, it appears that you understand that I believe that souls are infinite. This understanding should answer your question of why we must take our souls into consideration when determining what comprises the foundations of our real existence and what laws really govern our existence.

It has to do with the quality of our everlasting life.

Thanks again for the discussion.






[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 20, 1999).]

truestory,

If by "our existence" you mean only the existence of the soul, and exclude everything you perceive around you (including your own body) -- then "our" existence is not <u>my</u> existence. The fundamental laws that govern existence are those laws which everything in existence follows. Moreover, they are called fundamental for the very simple reason that nothing can break them, even if it wanted to.

I do not regard DNA as the foundation of our existence. Actually, I regard the space/time/matter/energy combination as being indicative of the foundation of our existence. I merely picked DNA to illustrate the ineptitude of religion in describing the behavior of the real world around us (including our very own bodies.) The fundamental laws everybody else talks about (excluding you) are the fundamental laws that enable us to predict, explain and understand the world around us. Sorry, but the Ten Commandments just don't qualify. If you want to develop normally from an egg into an adult, if you want to take in your next breath, if you want to perceive the computer screen in front of you, if you want to churn out your next reply -- you would have to follow certain laws other than the Ten Commandments. Sorry, that's life.

In short, the fundamental laws of existence are not the laws "to live by" -- they are the laws that define existence in the first place.

<hr>

With respect to infinities... You must not have had much of a mathematical education, because you completely misunderstood what Plato said. "In the limit to infinity it will become zero" means that if you take the limit of a/b where a is constant and b approaches infinity, then the limit is zero. This means that were b to actually become infinity, then a/b would actually equal zero. In mathematics, we don't like to deal with infinities, so we never let anything become infinite. Therefore, we have the mechanism of limits. If you don't know what I am talking about, pick up a high school calculus textbook and read the first chapter.

<hr>

With respect to your math lessons. I am glad you have figured out that I suggested bacteria could divide before you can count them. They can also eat one another, crawl away, or be instantaneously tunneled to the opposite edge of the galaxy through sheer randomness of quantum fluctuations. The point is not what can or have been observed to happen in our particular universe. Rather, the point is that 2+2=4 is not an <u>absolute</u> truth; it is only true in the universe you and I inhabit, but it does not have to absolutely be true just for the heck of it. In fact, what is '2'? Numbers have no meaning without their empirical context; numbers merely represent quantities, or amounts. Were the universe structured differently, you would not even be able to conceive of the concept of '2'. Were the universe to obey no laws other than the ten commandments, it would be in an utter unpredictable chaos, and you wouldn't be able to exist, much less count.

The big, subtle, all-important and overriding point is that there are no absolute truths that must be true merely by the virtue of their absolute validity -- because there is no such thing as absolute validity; validity must always be determined <u>with respect to something that exists</u>. 2+2=4 is only valid with respect to the world that exists around us. Get it?

(well, actually I lied -- there is one absolute truth: that if you can consider your own existence, then you must exist somewhere in some way or shape. That's the only thing in the world that is undeniably, absolutely, unquestionably true.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

You seemed like an intelligent person. I was sure that if you read my post, you would realize that I was considering the totality of ALL things, including that which you seem to choose to ignore... that is, the soul. The soul, as PART OF our total real existence. The only part which is infinite.

Now, the way you are attempting to explain Plato's post in yet another attempt to distort reality, the way you are attempting to speak for all mathematicians (even those who disagree with your assertions concerning infinity) and, given the rest of your unpleasant personality which is now coming across in your posts: I know it all... I am sure that I am more intelligent than you (even thought I don't know you from Adam)... I am sure that I am more learned than you (even though I don't know you from Adam)... I will attempt to draw attention away from the valid points which you make, which I disagree with, by attempting to belittle you...

Boris, it now seems like an exercise in futility to attempt to have a meaningful discussion with you.

You are so unpleasant to associate with, you will probably never be able to accomplish your goal of "swaying" people to your way of thinking.

I'll pray for your soul. So long, Boris.


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 20, 1999).]

truestory,

I am sorry for failing to be nice today; I am not in my best of moods. Yes, I am indeed only human, and I do not deny the fact that I have feelings, emotions and indeed moods. Everything I said, but for occasional personal uppercut, I will stand by -- none of it constitues a twisting or distorting of reality.

Consider this: do I choose to ignore the soul, or do you choose to imagine it? Since when did the soul become an integral part of our experience? Had somebody detected a soul lately? Just what is it that the soul does, that is impossible to do with the mere material brain?

P.S. The swaying that I talked about is accomplished through mere argument, not through charming personality. I don't want people to agree with me because I am nice; I want them to agree with me because I am right (or otherwise, not to hold back when they think I am wrong.) As to the 'misinterpretation' of Plato's post, and "speaking for all mathematicians" -- Plato will eventually set the issue straight, and mathematicians do not speak for each other; mathematics is not a science of opinion, it is a discipline of stringent definition and rigid interpretation.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 20, 1999).]

truestory -
I apologize for the error, I am unsure why I failed to notice your name in the corner :)
Anyways, comments about my questionable ancestry aside...
In regards to infinity, it can be used in abstract mathematical models to show the relationships between itself and some other numbers. A function in which real positive constant divided by "X" as "X" approaches infinity will approach zero, so theoretically, a constant divided by infinity will equal zero. Maybe. Neither of us is equipped to observe what happens, so our conclusions are equally invalid.
I can accept that events happened which our only way of knowing about is word of mouth; however, I cannot accept that as proof that they did happen.
On the concept of belief in other people, I am fully aware of my own biases towards what I can accept as fact. No, I did not observe my parents during procreation (can we pick a new analogy PLEASE?), but I do know that they are the ones who raised me and earned my respect and love. So, I don't have proof that they are my biological parents (although blood testing could clear that up, were I so inclined), but they have the same relationship to me whether they are or aren't. I accept very little on "trust" alone. If a friend tells me something, I am inclined to believe them, but I still apply logic to it, and try to discover the truth to the best of my ability. If I can not find the facts, I must use logic to decide which is more likely if I am forced to act on it. This is perhaps one of the reasons why I am mathematically inclined. In math, I can prove what is true.
As to a "soul"... It has to begin sometime, perhaps upon conception, perhaps upon birth, perhaps upon some other event. Personally, I see conciousness as a predictable result of the evolution of the brain. What I am asking is why you call "souls" infinite?

Regards,
FyreStar

"If you are out to describe the truth, leave the elegance to the tailor"
-Albert Einstein

The soul continues to exist while the mere material brain dies.

There are many of us humans who have had contact with the souls of those whose physical beings have died. Some have been very ancient souls. For those of us who have not had such contact, I can only imagine that it would be a very difficult aspect of reality to accept.

This is one of those times I really hate the timedifference between Europe and America, while you guys are discussing this stuff almost in real time I always have to wait till the next morning to see how things developped.
Anyway Truestory,
tell me honestly, would you have attacked my statement about infinity as violently if I hadn't included god in the picture ? I think your attack was more based on emotions then on pure mathematics, your anger against Boris and FyreStar who came to my defence (who I here by thank) somehow confirms this.

Now if we could leave god and emotions out of the picture and simply look at the notions themselves. First we must agree that mathematics is all about logical consistent statements that form a framework. The reason why a/infinity = 0 is to have a consistent mathematics.
Lets look at multiplication itself : if I say that a * b = c (with a, b and c natural numbers for simplicity) then this means that a + a + a + ... + a = c if you count the a's in the sum there should be b of them. Or one can say b + b + b + ... + b = c now there should be a b's, this property is called cummutativity.
Thus we have the relation : a * 0 = 0.
Any finite number multiplied by 0 equals zero. Why ?
because we sum 0 a's on the left side or we have 0 + 0 + 0 + ... + 0 = 0 so we sum a 0's. 0, being the neutral element of the summation (this means 0 + a = a + 0 = a) makes this a valid statement.
On the other hand we have : a * inf = inf this is quite obvious but look at the two statements, they are both of the form : a * something = something, for the multiplication this something can only be 0 of infinity ! All other solutions are incorrect.
Lets look at the inverse of 0 and infinity, the inverse X in multiplication of a number A means that X * A = A * X = 1. So X = 1/A.
If we look at the inverse of 0 then we must have a number X for which 0 * X = 1. But we have seen that the product of any finite number multiplied by 0 must equal 0 this means that X is not a finite number or in other words <FONT SIZE=5 COLOR="#ff0000"> X is infinite </FONT> !!
I hope this convinces you.

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

No, Plato. This does not convince me. As you know, in reality, zero can never be the denominator. Oh, yes, we can put it on paper, but it will be a FALSE statement. Try it on your calculator with any number. You will be notified that you have made an ERROR. No biggy.

PS

Our mutual perceptions of violence and anger are on two different ends of the spectrum! Perhaps you perceive the strength of my arguments as violent and/or angry?

------------------
Have a great day!

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 21, 1999).]

Plato,

What? You still didn't disprove that those concepts are unseen eternal things. The concepts are REPRESENTED on paper or on a calculator or on a computer screen, but the concepts themselves (which rule the physical universe) are unseen and eternal, which the bible states; just like I said before.

Why is it so hard to understand? It's basically very simple. There is an intelligence behind all of this.

Love to all,

Dorkus ka Dabra

------------------
"What is your favorite color?" "Blue...No, Yellow! AAAAAAaaaaaahhh!"
Monty Python

truestory,

And if you write a computer program (say, in C) to divide a number by 0 and print out the result -- if you are careful to shut down the division-by-0 interrupt you most likely will get this answer: "INF" -- meaning infinity. Most calculators were designed for use by ordinary people, not professional mathematicians; their behavior does not a point make. And why don't you stop proclaiming things about which you have no idea? Go study mathematics, as it truly is in full glory of reality.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 23, 1999).]

Dork,

And just as the concepts are represented on paper when you write them down -- so are they represented in you brain when you discover or memorize them. Beyond your brain, they do not exist. And they are not eternal, absolutely true, unshakable and fundamental -- your entire knowledge, whether you like it or not, is composed of theories -- which, not unlike scientific theories, <u>can be</u>, and sometimes <u>are</u>, disproven. Get...it...yet...?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

>And just as the concepts are represented on paper when you write them down -- so are they represented in you brain when you discover or memorize them. Beyond your brain, they do not exist. And they are not eternal, absolutely true, unshakable and fundamental -- your entire knowledge, whether you like it or not, is composed of theories -- which, not unlike scientific theories, can be, and sometimes are, disproven. Get...it...yet...?<

Yes, Boris, I..do...get...it...yet. Beyond your brain they do not exist? Yes they DO!! How many times do I have to explain it? If I die and what you say is true, then nothing matters.....to me, but to you they still do since you're alive (let's assume for this example). If you die and there's no God, then nothing matters anymore.....to you; but to me it still does. That's the entire arguement. I can see your point of view but you obviously cannot see mine. There OBVIOUSLY is something called existence outside of what we can experience or think of in our brains because if the opposite were true, then nothing I myself experience is real, therefore you are not real, my mom and dad (which I'm not experiencing in this moment) does not exist, the Statue of Liberty does not exist, the New York Stock Exchange does not exist, the national capitol does not exist, Bill Gates does not exist, antelope in Africa do not exist, the metal used in cars that is found in the ground does not exist, the telephone company making this communication possible does not exist. OBVIOUSLY IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO...YOU...GET...IT...YET? :\

[This message has been edited by Dork (edited September 23, 1999).]

Dear Boris,

I am sorry that you are having another bad day (your arrogance and nastiness are showing again!) I'll say another prayer.

As Blacktubby could rewrite the definition of certain words to suit his purpose, so could you rewrite the laws of mathematics to suit yours. However, I do not find that as being the professional thing to do.



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 23, 1999).]

truestory,

I meant what I said about studying mathematics. It is just infuriating when someone starts making authoritative statements about a subject they do not know well enough. It's like if I started to proclaim that nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about a huge Ark -- without having ever done even a little research on the subject. And if you objected, I would call you mean, arrogant and close-minded. Perhaps now, given the analogy, you could see why your remarks annoy me so?

I understand that you may have had algebra and geometry in school -- but probably not calculus. It is calculus (or perhaps pre-calculus) where you discuss infinities and limits for the first time. And you can take my and Plato's words for what we say; we know what we are talking about. If you doubt it, find any professional mathematician and confirm it.

<hr>

As for the "get it yet", Dork did it first. Go blame him; he started it. :D

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 23, 1999).]

Dork,

Of course there is such a thing as reality outside of the mind. What does not exist, is a single human concept that is an eternal or absolute truth. In case you haven't noticed it, that's been my big and overriding thesis here, and the very reason I keep debating you.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

First - For a self-proclaimed scientist, you certainly are exhibiting a pattern of making assumptions and drawing conclusions about me without first getting your facts straight.

Second - I find it intriguing that you took great exception to my suggestion about trying my assertion on a calulator (to the point of causing yet another one of your failed ATTEMPTS at belittling me). Yet, you seemed to have no problem with the very same suggestion that your friend Plato made in his original erroneous mathematical example.

Third - I do not know or proclaim to know your level of education or the extent of your knowledge (or lack there of). It is also quite apparent that you know nothing about mine. Without getting into a war of credentials, let me assure you that mine goes way beyond calculus.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 23, 1999).]

truestory,

Ok, if you want to take it down to character assassination, here we go.


As you know, in reality, zero can never be the denominator. Oh, yes, we can put it on paper, but it will be a FALSE statement. Try it on your calculator with any number. You will be notified that you have made an ERROR.


That was a quote from you. Now, I would kindly ask you to quote from Plato where "he says the same thing".

As for "credentials" -- I do not assume that you don't know calculus, I <u>know</u> it, by simply reading your posts. If you suggest that you actually have had exposure to higher math, then I must conclude that you slept through most of it.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

truestory,

If your knowledge of mathematics is so great could you perhaps elaborate a bit on the following simple problem :
Does the integral with bounderies +infinity and +R (with R being a positive real number) of dx/x^2 has a finite answer ?

If so what is the answer ?

Do you recognise the formula ? If so what did you just calculate ?

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Hello Boris,

First of all - I did not say that "he (Plato) says the same thing". Please get your facts straight! What I indicated was that we both made the same suggestion about trying our assertions on a "calculator". Here is Plato's suggestion:

"This is a simple mathematical truth that you can verify on your calculator by dividing a number by an increasingly large number, the result will become smaller and smaller, in the limit to infinity it will become zero !"

Yes, the great mathematician Plato used the ORDINARY "calculator" word. Shame on Plato! (Your bias is obvious, Boris. The way you tried to use the use of a calculator, of all things, to try and imply that you and Plato were above me some how, was utterly ridiculous!).

Now, if you cannot acknowledge this, then I am not going to bother discussing anything else with you.

Second of all - Your "character assassination" remark smells like the old "I can dish it out, but I can't take it" routine. I have no need to assassinate your character. As far as I'm concerned, it's been committing suicide.


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 24, 1999).]

Truestory,

could you please answer my questions ? Besides, I have an other one for you :
Is it possible to take the squareroot of a negative number ?
Try it first on your calculator perhaps...

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

[This message has been edited by Plato (edited September 24, 1999).]

Plato,

Before I go any further in my discussions with you, I need to know what your character is like so please answer this:

Was Boris' proposed C-programming solution a mathematical truth, or was it a way to debug the inherent "Division by Zero" problem to avoid a run-time error and to be able to have more control over an application?

They said it couldn't be done, Plato... but you and Boris have proved it... you are the roots of negativity... squared!

truestory :

Boris C-program example was there to show how programmers omitted the 'division by zero' problem in C. The reason though why they have this problem in the first place is because computers (and calculators) have finite memories, meaning they can't represent infinitly large numbers. This limitation does nothing away from the fact that 1/0 = infinity as being a mathematical truth.
I find this a strange way to deduce my character from though, what have you learned from my answer ?

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Something else truestory,

perhaps you know this all ready but zero was one of the last numbers to be discovered.
It was invented during the early middle ages in India and was passed to Europe via the Arabians. Zero is not like any other number you see, if you include it with the other real numbers, the product function loses it's group property ! One could even debate if zero is a proper reeel finite number because it behaves very differently then all the other numbers. The reason lies in it's close relation with infinity : zero is the infinitly small number, take any small number, zero is smaller !
You see how very different the world of the infinities is from our finite world ?

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Plato states:

"This limitation does nothing away from the fact that 1/0 = infinity as being a mathematical truth."

What I have further deduced about your character from your statemement above is this... either:

1) You are not the mathematician that you purport yourself to be, or

2) That you have a character flaw which causes you to distort the facts (the truth about the mathematical axiom with respect to 1/0) to suit your own purpose.

Why/how do I deduce this? Well, for starters, as any knowledgeable mathematician can tell you, the mathematical axiom (the truth, the fact) with respect to 1/0 is that 1/0 is "undefined." The answer is... there is no answer. That is why mathematicians refer to numbers that are divided by zero as "undefined." Some people tend to think of them as being infinite, but this isn't exactly true (in other words, it is not a mathematical fact, Plato). The fact is, there simply is no answer.

The field of axioms lay down a set of rules about how to put numbers together to get other numbers. Division by zero contradicts these rules (this proof is usually taught in beginning algebra classes).

Technically speaking, division by zero is not necessarily impossible. Rather, division by zero is provably contradictory to a given set of mathematical rules and therefore is not permitted.

One can "interpret" 1/0 as positive or negative infinity (Which one is it? Positive or negative infinity? Instead of just assigning one willy-nilly, in mathematics, we say that infinity isn't a number, and that 1/0 is "undefined"). If one does interpret 1/0 as positive or negative infinity, they should be prepared to deal with whatever happens.

Some people say that 1/0 is infinity as a kind of short-hand for "interpreting" what happens to 1/X as X approaches zero. This is done as a convenience. As you probably know, 1/0=infinity is NOT a mathematical truth and I think this forum would be better served if you would refrain from stating that it is. The FACT is this: The mathematical truth about 1/0 is that it is "undefined."

truestory,

First of all, I cannot believe you decided that I went after you simply because you mentioned claculators. As far as I recall, you utilized the example of a calculator to "demonstrate" that division by zero is an "ERROR", not mathematically allowable. To counter your point, I pointed out another example of a calculator, which actually treats division by zero as a legal operation resulting in infinity. The point was that calculators were designed for general use and convenience, and the designers don't want to confuse the mathematical non-cognoscenti with such "advanced" concepts as limit behavior or imaginary numbers (as is the case with Plato's second example.)

Secondly, for positive real numbers x and n, as n->0, lim(x/n) = +inf. Similarly, lim(-x/n) = -inf. Positive and negative infinities do indeed exist. They are even routinely used in integrals of certain functions, such as the Gaussian. Even in algebra, you have a precise definition of such a thing as "infinite slope" -- the slope of a vertical line (and that infinity, incidentally, arises precisely because of division by 0, though in the case of lines the infinite slope can be either positive or negative, depending on the way you measure it. Although, if the line is a time-parametrized curve that approaches vertical from a finite slope at time 0, then its slope in the limit still has a well-defined sign.) The irrational numbers such as 2^(0.5), pi, e -- cannot be defined by a finite formula. They invariably arise either from limit expressions, or from infinite series. For example, one of the ways to define the natural number is: e = lim[(1+n)^(1/n)], n->0. An alternative, and totally equivalent, definition is lim[(1+1/x)^x], x->inf. As you can see, mathematically, 1/0 and inf are interchangeable. In fact, the irrational numbers have <u>infinitely</u> many digits after the decimal point, which is also a fact that is actually <u>proven</u> mathematically.

As I said earlier, in Algebra they tell you that division by 0 is not allowed, and the result is undefined. They also tell you that an even-power root of a negative number is not allowed, and the result is undefined. In both cases, they blatantly lie to you. The reason they lie, is because they want you to take it one step at a time; it would be too much to jump to calculus before you learned algebra, or to talk about infinities or non-Real numbers before you got comfortable with the number line.

The point is, truestory, you are simply wrong. Swallow the fact and move on. Perhaps it would serve you better to spend the time browsing through an introductory text to higher mathematics -- rather than trying to argue such a hopelessly doomed case from such a limited perspective.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 24, 1999).]

The continuing story of LIFE, according to Boris:

Hear ye, hear ye!!! They (mathematicians) are lying to us! The laws of mathematics are lies! Boris has rewritten the laws of mathematics so that we will know the truth! I swear! And that's the whole truth and nothing but the truth! So help me... Boris!



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 24, 1999).]

Everybody,

I have found an excellent web site that pits bible literalism against science and observation. It includes lively, informed and intelligent debates. It directly cites creationist papers, radio shows, conference presentations. And the thing I like about it, it goes to great lengths to show in great detail how superficial and false the "creation-science" proclamations really are. But what I like even more is that it includes detailed discussions by scientists of the full counterarguments to the objections against the Big Bang, evolution, old earth, the flood -- you name it -- including clarifications of the actual principles and theories involved (which often get muddled and distorted beyond belief by bible literalists.) For example, the site goes to great lengths to clarify evolution and counter the many popular misconceptions. As another example, it contains plenty of detailed information on the fossil record, including the heretofore presumed "missing" links! It keeps up with the latest breakthroughs in science. And (I say this rather glibly by my own admission) -- it basically extolls the same ideals that I have been defending about science, empirical knowledge, and the process of discovery, only far better than I ever could.

I highly recommend this site for a wide excursion into the "Facts", as well as "Statements" that have been circulating in the religion vs. science debates for the past few decades.

The site is <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org">http://www.talkorigins.org</A>.

Enjoy!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 01, 1999).]

Very good site indeed Boris ! I have it bookmarked from now on !

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Boring site... Ho-hum... for the "maintstream" thinker only... Ho-hum... think for yourself and be gone... Ho-hum... you are not a member of the good ol' boys club... Ho-hum.

------------------
Have a great day!

truestory,

So, you don't like it because it's boring -- or maybe because you are afraid it could send your favourite fairy tales crashing down in flames?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.