MacCantStopMe:

Consensus? When did I argue for concensus morality?

I never said you did.

SNCOQ3:

God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

God is good in accordance to whose intentions?!

Kay17:

God is good in accordance to whose intentions?!

Their is no "whose intention"; That is why He is God.

Is perfection good?
Is love good?
Is justice good?

Kay17:

I don't even know how he got to that conclusion.

Ask Martian what is opinion of universal morality is.
Also checkout your humanist manifesto.

SNCOQ3:

OK.


1+1+1 = 3 Objective
1X1X1 = 1 Objective

Trinitarian logic states otherwise. In Trinitarian logic, 1+1+1=1 Objective. There cannot be two objective ways to understand the same statement, no?

AgentOfAllah:


Trinitarian logic states otherwise. In Trinitarian logic, 1+1+1=1 Objective. There cannot be two objective ways to understand the same statement, no?

Thanks... Someone sees the irony!

AgentOfAllah:

Trinitarian logic states otherwise. In Trinitarian logic, 1+1+1=1 Objective. There cannot be two objective ways to understand the same statement, no?

Is this a diversionary tactic or what?

1. The Trinitarian doctrine does not affirm your claim: How can "3 Persons in 1 God, 1 God in 3 Persons" be represented as 1+1+1?
If this is how you think, I don't see how you can discover or formulate any original scientific/engineering theory of your own.

2. This thread is not about the doctrine of the Trinity.

OlaAjia:

Thanks... Someone sees the irony!

you funny

SNCOQ3:

Is this a diversionary tactic or what?

1. The Trinitarian doctrine does not affirm your claim: How can "3 Persons in 1 God, 1 God in 3 Persons" be represented as 1+1+1?
If this is how you think, I don't see how you can discover or formulate any original scientific/engineering theory of your own.

2. This thread is not about the doctrine of the Trinity.

It's not diversionary, it's a mockery of your hypocrisy. You claim 1+1+1=3 is objective, but you also believe father is god, son is god holy spirit is god and all three are equal to god, not three gods, one god. And this too is objective. This is a mathematical aberration which means contrary to your claim, you don't really believe in the objectivity of the sentence 1+1+1=3.

--Ok---

SNCOQ3:

God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

In that case, I am morality.
Anything I do is in agreement with myself.

OlaAjia:


I'm guessing he's realised his folly somewhere along the line, but refuses to back down because it might chip a little chunk off his apologetic street cred. The only alternative is to keep wriggling his way out with even more spectacularly vague sentences. It is clear that he's just happy to dwell on the perfunctory.

Oh he is happy alright. Happy with his waffling and piss poor statements. He has realized his folly that is why he is so set against making any clarifications because he realizes that his God will be shown to be wrong.

thehomer:

In that case, I am morality.
Anything I do is in agreement with myself.

That is a long way to say "I am a humanist".

OlaAjia:


Thanks for the compliment



Mathematical truths, are the inevitable formalisms derived from the strict rules and axioms guiding the language of mathematics. Much like any other language, this is a means of communication, not objectively necessary, but useful for making logically true statements, for those to whom logical communication is important (i.e. humans as far as we know). Many humans don't see mathematical truths as objective, like when some say god is a 3 in 1 entity, each part of the 3 being as whole as the 1 whole. That's a mathematically senseless statement, but might be true according to the elusive and mysterious ways of the lord...lol.

but, but his axioms are not our axioms. just as his ways are not our ways...

I prefer beating into them that they might disagree and twist as much as they want, assign whatever values and stories help them sleep at night etv, but there is that one language which is universal, and it doesnt lie. but alas

SNCOQ3:

Their is no "whose intention"; That is why He is God.

Is perfection good?
Is love good?
Is justice good?

Is perfection good?
It depends on the object/subject that is being described as perfect and the person that is doing the attribution.
I can perform a vivisection on humans to perfection. Is that good?

Is love good?
I love to laugh at people who place their pastors on pedestals and they love their pastors. Which one is good?

Is Justice good?
Iranian justice? North Korean Justice? American Justice? Biblical Justice? Quranic Justice? Nigerian? French?

Using these terms to define your god doesn't help clarify or reify the concept. All you're doing is ascribing qualities people generally view as desirable to your god even though the qualities can be used to qualify immoral actions.

If we examine the qualities of perfection, love and justice and how they relate to your god, your god can be said to be the perfection of egomania, who has a love of sadistic actions; and whose idea of Justice makes Osama Bin Laden look like Ms. Daisy.

The only people who think your god is moral are the ones who believe in him.

thehomer:


In that case, I am morality.
Anything I do is in agreement with myself.

Anony has been right after all!!! There is Objective Morality and thehomer is the source.

SNCOQ3:

That is a long way to say "I am a humanist".

Is God a humanist?

Martian:


Anony has been right after all!!! There is Objective Morality and thehomer is the source.

Damn right.

All that is left is for him to admit it.

wiegraf:


but, but his axioms are not our axioms. just as his ways are not our ways...

I prefer beating into them that they might disagree and twist as much as they want, assign whatever values and stories help them sleep at night etv, but there is that one language which is universal, and it doesnt lie. but alas

I was captivated by the bolded, so let me indulge you.
Do you agree that its not every valid concept that as been sufficiently represented in mathematics and that their are interesting problems, valid but yet to be solved?


Even the maths you guys are so quick to glorify to "god status" sometimes employ some quacky approach to solve some real-world problems. Anyone who doesn't know this truth is a novice who doesn't know jack about how maths really works e.g What is the justification for matrix multiplication? Can you give me a logical explanation of why we do orthogonal projection to the 4th dimension in order to rotate an object in a 3 dimensional space?

Do you know why 'imaginary numbers' is known by such a name? why was what use to be a controversial subject is now a very important tool in engineering, particle physics and some other fields?

What is the value of x /0 : x E R (x divided by 0 such that x is a member of Real numbers)

Why are extremely important constants like PI and PHI called 'irrational numbers'? Do the name fit their usefulness?

Yes, maths is the language of the universe but its usefulness to represent reality is limited by our understanding of reality.
Some mathematical models are built on conjectures- 'truth and lie' cannot be ascribed to such models. But established models are nothing but abstractions of the real world. The same can be said about the models we use to represent the Trinity be it in words, graphic symbols or with mathematical notations.

The description of the Trinity in the bible is multifaceted. Its a true but very difficult concept to represent fully, and that is because we have not fully comprehend it and will never do. We only resort to analogies to describe it e.g

God is three persons: 1+1+1 = 3
Three persons is one God: 1x1x1 = 1
The three persons are distinct A{f,s,h}
The Logos was face to face with God (recursive) : f(x) = m, f(m) = x.
In what we understand as 'the principle of headship' The Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God yet one (composite unity not solitary unity) just like a man and his wife are co-equal in nature, two distinct entities yet are one: I can only represent this with geometric symbols.

Their are other valid ways to represent the trinity with Geometry(google is your friend).

Martian:


Is perfection good?
It depends on the object/subject that is being described as perfect and the person that is doing the attribution.
I can perform a vivisection on humans to perfection. Is that good?

Is love good?
I love to laugh at people who place their pastors on pedestals and they love their pastors. Which one is good?

Is Justice good?
Iranian justice? North Korean Justice? American Justice? Biblical Justice? Quranic Justice? Nigerian? French?

Using these terms to define your god doesn't help clarify or reify the concept. All you're doing is ascribing qualities people generally view as desirable to your god even though the qualities can be used to qualify immoral actions.

If we examine the qualities of perfection, love and justice and how they relate to your god, your god can be said to be the perfection of egomania, who has a love of sadistic actions; and whose idea of Justice makes Osama Bin Laden look like Ms. Daisy.

The only people who think your god is moral are the ones who believe in him.

Dude, I have no interest in this twisted idea of things.
If the context is not clear enough, let Kay17 indicate.

SNCOQ3:

Yes, maths is the language of the universe but its usefulness to represent reality is limited by our understanding of reality.

OMG!!! Did you just stylishly imply the subjectivity of mathematics? What happened to the "1+1=2 Objective" statement you made earlier on? Abomination...tu fiakwa!!!

SNCOQ3:

Some mathematical models are built on conjectures- 'truth and lie' cannot be ascribed to such models. But established models are nothing but abstractions of the real world. The same can be said about the models we use to represent the Trinity be it in words, graphic symbols or with mathematical notations.

The description of the Trinity in the bible is multifaceted. Its a true but very difficult concept to represent fully, and that is because we have not fully comprehend it and will never do. We only resort to analogies to describe it e.g

Mate, do you understand the difference between conjectures and true statements? In one stretch, you call the trinity a conjecture, and not one sentence after and what I can imagine will would have been a painful fumble through self-contradiction, it magically becomes true...ahn-ahn now, bros.

SNCOQ3:

We only resort to false analogies to describe it e.g

God is three persons: 1+1+1 = 3
Three persons is one God: 1x1x1 = 1
The three persons are distinct A{f,s,h}

You're entitled to establish your own Trinitarian mathematical formalisms whereby 1+1+1=3=1x1x1=1 and live your life as though it were the truth, but don't abuse millennia old mathematical formalisms and pretend what you're saying makes any sense. Trinity is a grotesquely false mathematical statement that flies in the face of all logical elegance.

SNCOQ3:

In what we understand as 'the principle of headship' The Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God yet one (composite unity not solitary unity) just like a man and his wife are co-equal in nature, two distinct entities yet are one: I can only represent this with geometric symbols.

A husband and his wife are two persons, that is, 1+1=2, nowhere on earth is a husband and his wife seen as one person, except (s)he marries (her/him)self. Stop using silly cultural clichés to commit fallacies of equivocation as though the statement has any mathematical meaning.

SNCOQ3:


I was captivated by the bolded, so let me indulge you.

Please don't. I try to avoid people who should know better, unless they are actively being douches. Though I'm not sure if you qualify as 'should know better'

If you must though, and I do love to hear myself speak

SNCOQ3:

Do you agree that its not every valid concept that as been sufficiently represented in mathematics and that their are interesting problems, valid but yet to be solved?


Even the maths you guys are so quick to glorify to "god status" sometimes employ some quacky approach to solve some real-world problems. Anyone who doesn't know this truth is a novice who doesn't know jack about how maths really works e.g What is the justification for matrix multiplication? Can you give me a logical explanation of why we do orthogonal projection to the 4th dimension in order to rotate an object in a 3 dimensional space?

Do you know why 'imaginary numbers' is known by such a name? why was what use to be a controversial subject is now a very important tool in engineering, particle physics and some other fields?

What is the value of x /0 : x E R (x divided by 0 such that x is a member of Real numbers)

Why are extremely important constants like PI and PHI called 'irrational numbers'? Do the name fit their usefulness?

Yes, maths is the language of the universe but its usefulness to represent reality is limited by our understanding of reality.
Some mathematical models are built on conjectures- 'truth and lie' cannot be ascribed to such models. But established models are nothing but abstractions of the real world. The same can be said about the models we use to represent the Trinity be it in words, graphic symbols or with mathematical notations.

The description of the Trinity in the bible is multifaceted. Its a true but very difficult concept to represent fully, and that is because we have not fully comprehend it and will never do. We only resort to analogies to describe it e.g

God is three persons: 1+1+1 = 3
Three persons is one God: 1x1x1 = 1
The three persons are distinct A{f,s,h}
The Logos was face to face with God (recursive) : f(x) = m, f(m) = x.
In what we understand as 'the principle of headship' The Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God yet one (composite unity not solitary unity) just like a man and his wife are co-equal in nature, two distinct entities yet are one: I can only represent this with geometric symbols.

Their are other valid ways to represent the trinity with Geometry(google is your friend).

As the shitfy agent above suggests (which kind agent of allah speaks like that?!) you just basically repeated what OlaAjia said, something you seem to have just finished contending. Performed it and also cleanly fell into his predicted pitfalls, though you don't know hat yet. You just finished formulating your own language, in a sense, to try to pass your mysteriousnesseses as logical. However, your axioms are not our axioms. Is this what is called hypocrisy? Not sure.

On the issue of math and reality generally, consider a basic example; there's no such thing -5 cups of garri in nature. There is, of course, 'no garri'. What I mean is you cannot show me these -5 cups physically, whereas I could show you 5 cups of garri easily. But mathematically they do exist, and when I apply this concept of negative numbers to reality, guess what? It adds up. It manifests. You can rigorously verify this logically and even observe the concepts in nature if you please. You can also note how the concept of negative numbers seamlessly integrates into well established, universal laws. Truisms, or whatever terms you want to use to call them, not simply conjecture. Ditto other concepts (not the conjectures, bros), eg imaginary numbers

I'm confused as to how you can show 1+1+1=1 can hold up in any way relevant to my case, or voids it; that there are basic objective, universal laws applicable by default. In fact, you're trying to use them now to justify your stance.

The one true language I speak of is definitely not conjecture or anything similar. If it were, it wouldn't be universally, objectively true, or would it? So it looks to me like you speak of something else. And again, you sound very similar to ola, whom you just now seemed to be objecting to....

As for the math itself, don't need google to know the simples. Eg, 3 triangles can equal 1 triangle. But alas, that's not the point per say. And frankly, I smell a measure of subterfuge in your approach, but I won't dwell on the details. (I mean, as allah's man notes, you call the conjecture true, just after claiming conjectures are neither true or false....)

Anyways, indulging you, even with that, you'll piss over logic. Especially as you're using those judeoxtian fables. eg, ola noted your version of this 3 triangles law would be...

ola:
Many humans don't see mathematical truths as objective, like when some say god is a 3 in 1 entity, each part of the 3 being as whole as the 1 whole.

You see the problem there, I hope? It seems so, as you counter and claim that's not what the bible says or means. Cool. Not your stance you say. You'll now lead us through another of the innumerable feats of gymnastics (that ultimately never add up sensibly, at all) you guys seem to have in your bag of cheap tircks, but you went get very far. eg, like just now, your

you:
In what we understand as 'the principle of headship' The Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God yet one (composite unity not solitary unity) just like a man and his wife are co-equal in nature, two distinct entities yet are one: I can only represent this with geometric symbols.

However, we'll show you multiple examples of how this, and your varied other counters you may have, are inconsistent with the rest of the axioms established in your very own set of jewish fairy tales, easily. Let alone with those of reality.

Inevitably, the round and round would lead to; "his ways are not our ways". Just as ola noted. In fact, you already claim we may never understand sef...

there's more, to much to go through to properly treat this, at least using my style to explain stuff, so meh. And deists etc, please don't assume this applies only to judeoxtians. Depending on your version of deism or whatever, this would apply. To you, me, all. But the judeoxtians are the standard we can only dream of emulating. Whar-a-garbl over-emporors

And EDITS

AgentOfAllah:

OMG!!! Did you just stylishly imply the subjectivity of mathematics? What happened to the "1+1=2 Objective" statement you made earlier on? Abomination...tu fiakwa!!!

The value of PI is objective but the choice of representing it in 4 decimal places (3.1415) is subjective. How does this remotely imply that 1+1=2 is subjective?

This is another representation of PI:
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286...

This is my comment again:

Yes, maths is the language of the universe but its usefulness to represent reality is limited by our understanding of reality.

The notion of PI is objective; If your knowledge of its true value is not limited, please provide the actual value: _______________

Mate, do you understand the difference between conjectures and true statements? In one stretch, you call the trinity a conjecture, and not one sentence after and what I can imagine will would have been a painful fumble through self-contradiction, it magically becomes true...ahn-ahn now, bros.

We are clearly not mates. Where are the self-contradictions? Olodo.

-You ignored the first word in the starting line: Some mathematical models are built on conjectures...
-Then you skipped the line between the lines you dubiously highlighted:
...But established models are nothing but abstractions of the real world....
in a failed attempt to prove a self-contradiction that the "trinity is both true and a conjecture".

How dishonest can it get.

You're entitled to establish your own Trinitarian mathematical formalisms whereby 1+1+1=3=1x1x1=1 and live your life as though it were the truth, but don't abuse millennia old mathematical formalisms and pretend what you're saying makes any sense.

lol...<shake head in disbelief> You are the one who created a false analogy(1+1+1=3=1x1x1=1) to debunk how I represented the trinity. Strawman.

Trinity is a grotesquely false mathematical statement that flies in the face of all logical elegance.

In as much as you desperately want the statement to be false, it is not. Perhaps it could be better represented- but not false.
BTW, 'logical elegance' is only a work of art, it doesn't prove or disprove anything e.g:

81 = 3⁴ is elegant and true.
81 = 3x3x3x3 is inelegant but true.
decompose the elegant E=MC²(that is, if you can) and see how fast it gets ugly, does that makes it false?

A husband and his wife are two persons, that is, 1+1=2, nowhere on earth is a husband and his wife seen as one person, except (s)he marries (her/him)self. Stop using silly cultural clichés to commit fallacies of equivocation as though the statement has any mathematical meaning.

Lol. You threw out the aspect that explains oneness in a marital relationship to cook up a fallacy. Enjoy.

---I rest my case ---

SNCOQ3:

The value of PI is objective but the choice of representing it in 4 decimal places (3.1415) is subjective. How does this remotely imply that 1+1=2 is subjective?

This is another representation of PI:
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286...

Sigh! I don't even know where to start with you. I wanted to teach you about the ontology and epistemology of objectivity because you obviously don't know the difference (you can read on it, or if I have time, I'll get to it later), but your vile bastardisation of mathematics is more painful to accept than your juvenile musings. First of all, our crude representation of PI has nothing to do with its objectivity or otherwise, it is rather because it is an irrational number. The only reason you cannot represent pie rationally has more to do with the limitations of the base10 system than an inherent property of pie. This means I can define a new numbering system called (BasePI) where, to the astonishment of your primitive maths knowledge, PI would assume a completely rational value. In this system the value of PI would be 10, and I can prove it with perfect mathematical convergence, but I neither have the time nor the patience to type out such a proof. The reason such a system isn't used is that the irrationality of PI (base10) is such a small price to pay compared to the fact that most rational numbers will become irrational in the (basePI) system. Take 20 (base10) for example, its BasePI projection is a complicated but provable rebasing of the following numbers 1, 6-PI and 20-6PI. Now, using existing mathematical conventions, can you tell me what PI^2 is in BasePI?

On the objectivity of PI, NO, it's not objective. It is descriptive. There is no entity called PI, independent of what it describes, which is the unchanging ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. It's like saying the word cup is objective. That, of course, is an absurd proposition. If there didn't exist people that spoke the language whereby "cup" is used to describe a handheld liquid holding device or any other concept, there would be no need for it to exist, nor would it. Likewise, the the word PI and the value of PI are subjective and only useful to the beholders of the lingual framework within which it exists (e.g mathematics). Another language where PI exists is Greek. So if I were to be a Greek literate and I wished to transliterate "Pond" to Greek alphabet, it would be "πονδ" and only you will tell me PI, π, is objective.

The notion of PI is objective; If your knowledge of its true value is not limited, please provide the actual value: _______________

Non-sequitur

We are clearly not mates. Where are the self-contradictions? Olodo.

-You ignored the first word in the starting line: Some mathematical models are built on conjectures...
-Then you skipped the line between the lines you dubiously highlighted:
...But established models are nothing but abstractions of the real world....
in a failed attempt to prove a self-contradiction that the "trinity is both true and a conjecture".

How dishonest can it get.

I didn't ignore "Some" because I had no need to ignore it...check again, it was emboldened!

Do you mean to say "established models" are 'true' models, 'conjectured' models or both? If established models are 'true', then conjectured models cannot be established models. If they are conjectured, they cannot be true (until proven, in which case they cease to be conjectured) and if you mean to say both true models and conjectured models can be established models, then that's a meaningless statement because we're only interested in the truth or otherwise of your model. So, is trinity a true mathematical model or a conjectured one? If it's a true model, can you present its mathematical proof?

lol...<shake head in disbelief> You are the one who created a false analogy(1+1+1=3=1x1x1=1) to debunk how I represented the trinity. Strawman.

You should shake your head for your shaky mathematical foundation.

According to trinity,
Father, f = god; son, s, = god; spirit, h, = god.
From mathematical axioms f+s+h=god+god+god=3god
therefore, it is not mathematically possible to define a set g={f,s,h} such that the sum of its elements is god. Rather, if you take away s from the god set, you'll be left with a subset {f,h}. Do you wish to say {f,h} is an incomplete representation of set g?

In as much as you desperately want the statement to be false, it is not. Perhaps it could be better represented- but not false.
BTW, 'logical elegance' is only a work of art, it doesn't prove or disprove anything e.g:

81 = 34 is elegant and true.
81 = 3x3x3x3 is inelegant but true.
decompose the elegant E=MC2(that is, if you can) and see how fast it gets ugly, does that makes it false?

I'm not desperate to prove your Triniterian logic false, it's empirically false by mathematical standards, no matter how much you wished it weren't. But if you wish to believe it's true in some other realm, be my guest. You may find numerology an attractive avenue to explore, just don't bring it into the realm of mathematics.

Oh, and I'm ignoring your foolish question because you have no prescriptive jurisdiction over what I choose to consider 'logical elegance'.

Lol. You threw out the aspect that explains oneness in a marital relationship to cook up a fallacy. Enjoy.

Is this imaginary oneness of yours a mathematical statement or a cultural cliche?

---I rest my case ---

Yeah, rest your case; and while you're at it, also rest your head before you experience segmentation fault from your self-imposed cognitive dissonance.

wiegraf:

As the shitfy agent above suggests (which kind agent of allah speaks like that?!)

Take 20 (base10) for example, its BasePI projection is a complicated but provable rebasing of the following numbers 1, 6-PI and 20-6PI.

I worked it out to be ~130.2(basePI) after I became a bit jobless

SNCOQ3:

Their is no "whose intention"; That is why He is God.

Is perfection good?
Is love good?
Is justice good?

If you had been careful to 'listen' to Anony1, he defined 'Good' as what 'ought to be' done in line with its purpose. But reading that into 'God is good' creates an absurd meaning. How is it possible for God's being itself to be prescriptive?! That sounds like an existential conundrum.

In other words, something is not just right with your beliefs.

MrAnony1:

First of all, I must point out that that which is good is by definition that which we ought to do. For it to be true that there are certain things which we ought to do, then it must be true that there is a purpose for which we exist. If it is true that there is a purpose for which we exist, then it must be true that we are designed for that which occurs by chance and not by design cannot be said to have a purpose for it's existence and as a result it cannot be said it ought to act in a certain way and therefore no action it engages in can possibly be either good or evil.

In the question of that which is good, it is impossible to ignore the existence of a Creator. In other words for good to exist in an objective sense, the Creator must necessarily exist.

Now that said, I know an action or instruction is good based on how well it conforms to the will and the purpose of the Creator (a.k.a God) as revealed to us via His Word.
God has set for us an example to follow in the person of Jesus Christ. Anything that is Christlike is good while anything that is unChristlike is evil.

Now, over to you; how do you know whether or not a certain action or instruction is good?

Nice set up and good conclusion..

When nairaland religion section was great. Intelligent Christians and atheists debating with logic.

Now, we just have dumb Christians who only know how to pay tithe and worship pastors.

Cc muttleylaff, felixomor, budaatum, capslocked, lordreed.

MacCantStopMe:
When nairaland religion section was great. Intelligent Christians and atheists debating with logic.

Now, we just have dumb Christians who only know how to pay tithe and worship pastors.

Cc muttleylaff, felixomor, budaatum, capslocked, lordreed.

Bwahahahahaha! I was a Christian when this thread launched but even then I could see all the strawmen the OP contained.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! I was a Christian when this thread launched but even then I could see all the strawmen the OP contained.

I was an atheist and shook my head and moved on. Many of the time caricatured others in such a way that just showed how ignorant they were.
Now both sides are just blinded by a book. We have definitely evolved.

budaatum:

I was an atheist and shook my head and moved on. Many of the time caricatured others in such a way that just showed how ignorant they were.
Now both sides are just blinded by a book. We have definitely evolved.

Hmmmm