Widor1 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 140 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 105 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1987 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Jesus made one statement about how a person can enter heaven, but His words have far more reaching value then just answering one question. Matthew 19:26 "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." You keep comparing God to man. This is your mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0username0 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 Jesus made one statement about how a person can enter heaven, but His words have far more reaching value then just answering one question. Matthew 19:26 "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." You keep comparing God to man. This is your mistake. I'm not sure what this quote refers to in particular, but the second statement applies to everything. This second statement means that logic doesn't work, which means that it (the statement) doesn't work, by definition. But since I'm using logic to make that point, that doesn't work either, which means that it's totally pointless to talk about anything, but that uses logic too. You just made a statement that logic means nothing, which means that your statement means nothing, and it means nothing to say your statement means nothing. No matter what I say about this statement, it's meaningless because you disabled logic. Even saying it disabled logic is a logical statement. Your statement means that no logic exists, period. But that is a logical statement, so technically your statement is meaningless, but that's a logical statement. Do you see where I'm going with this? Your statement can't even prove itself, and yet you make it, for no reason at all, because it has no reason, and this, no reason at all, is your reason. I don't think I'm joining that mindstream, I like my logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0username0 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 suppose there was this number, that was .666666....6666666 ad infinitum watch this: 2/3 I already addressed this if you had read my posts, where I said "Imagine if you use a symbol to represent all of the whole numbers, this is just a representation of those numbers and not the process of counting them all, and if at any point you stop as you are counting them, because they keep going on, this is just a representation as well, which means that trying to use a transcendental argument won't work." Or something to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I would say the problem with your whole thesis is that it is based upon a theoretical concept, that of infinity. philosophically infinity does not exist in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0username0 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 *sigh* people are replying without even reading what I wrote. I've covered the "outside of time" argument, that's what "infinite parallel processing speed" means, outside of time, you can't process information infinitely fast in time. *sigh* Also, I addressed the transcendence argument, just slapping a symbol on top of a process does not mean the process has been expressed, it has only been approximated. Approximating something is not transcending it!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0username0 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 I would say the problem with your whole thesis is that it is based upon a theoretical concept, that of infinity. philosophically infinity does not exist in reality. Most theists agree with infinity, so I addressed the first argument using infinities. What about my second argument about complete convergence of finites making it impossible to be sentient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0username0 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 I just wanted to take a moment to fill potential respondents in on something. I have been sweating this conjecture for 20 years straight, I have checked all the nooks and crannies. Every point raised thus far is something I've already pondered when trying to figure out whether a being can be omniscient. Twenty years, and I'm super smart, twenty years of super-smart on the same problem is going to be difficult to stump as you consider your responses. I am a world expert on this conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I just wanted to take a moment to fill potential respondents in on something. I have been sweating this conjecture for 20 years straight, I have checked all the nooks and crannies. Every point raised thus far is something I've already pondered when trying to figure out whether a being can be omniscient. Twenty years, and I'm super smart, twenty years of super-smart on the same problem is going to be difficult to stump as you consider your responses. I am a world expert on this conjecture. as I said, you have way too much free time on your hands. and I just have to say, I have never met a smart person that needed to tell people he was smart. Everyone I have ever known to make that claim did so falsely. With that, have a great night, it is past my bedtime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0username0 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 I just wanted to take a moment to fill potential respondents in on something. I have been sweating this conjecture for 20 years straight, I have checked all the nooks and crannies. Every point raised thus far is something I've already pondered when trying to figure out whether a being can be omniscient. Twenty years, and I'm super smart, twenty years of super-smart on the same problem is going to be difficult to stump as you consider your responses. I am a world expert on this conjecture. as I said, you have way too much free time on your hands. and I just have to say, I have never met a smart person that needed to tell people he was smart. Everyone I have ever known to make that claim did so falsely. With that, have a great night, it is past my bedtime What I meant to say, is that I process more information than most people, and I have ample evidence to support this, I spend a lot of time thinking about processing speed and time dilation. The thing about being able to process lots of information is that you make more mistakes than most people, but eventually, you also end up finding things out that most people can't solve in a lifetime because they don't process that much information. Me working this problem for 20 years is like a talented musician working on the same song for 20 years, I have a talent for this, and I obsessed, lived and breathed this problem for 20 years straight, not because I wanted to disprove it, but because I wanted to know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0username0 Posted July 12, 2013 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) *sigh* people are replying without even reading what I wrote. I've covered the "outside of time" argument, that's what "infinite parallel processing speed" means, outside of time, you can't process information infinitely fast in time. *sigh* Also, I addressed the transcendence argument, just slapping a symbol on top of a process does not mean the process has been expressed, it has only been approximated. Approximating something is not transcending it!!!!!!!! I think you will need to restate your 'infinite parallel process speed' argument. I don't claim that God processes information infinitely fast. I claim that God doesn't need to operate in time at all. Processing something infinitely fast means the same thing as operating outside of time. They mean the same thing. Edited July 12, 2013 by 0username0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts