Sirniyeh: Obalola, your question is cacochocoshious!
Have you read the history that Moses spoke to sea, the sea hearken and divided. Elijah spoke to fire and the fire hearken. How many pastors in Nigeria have ever done something relating to that? Kudos to TB Joshua and Oyakhilome, their secret is commanding the spirit. What your pastor can not do with 1000 days of prayer, bitter leaf can do it within minutes. So my son can not die because I know how to engage and commune with thin air to take control. It is a mystery.
Every dead people becomes ghost in the thin air, they therefore turn to minister for us. Depending on your spiritual frequency, they make friend with you ignorantly, and you can command them to ward off all manner of evil. It does not need ritual. Thats the secret

I smile. We are of opinions and many times they are different from each other. However, you are confusing things or it may be your level of reasoning or self assimilation.
However, i do not have a pastor nor do i submit to any pastor but the Almighty God. However, i think what you did was what people of old that you mentioned above (Moses and Elijah) call prayer and the power of authority.Remember this does not come by good will or soliloquizing rather by prayer and fasting. You had not spoken to any spirit or ask any dead body spirit to do anything for you.

You might indirectly be praying to the Almighty and the ever presence at all places showed compassion on your child. You might not believe it, because God is not a man that he should think like you or assume what you assume.
There are many that do not believe in God and God still rain and sun on them. He gives them air to breaths on and provide for their daily needs. For the miracle of your child, its not what you did that actually make any changes, it was the faith that you had. Just like the centurion that ask Jesus to command and Jesus did and at the same hour his son was healed.

So you could believe that you have spoken to spirit or angels, however, God does not need you to perform his miracles rather, he sometimes perform his duty as a God and you might not know, your son and your wife might at the same time whisper a little prayer to God and God harkened. No spirit is capable of healing your child if God has not given them the power to do so.

I think my explanation is sufficient for your above phrase.

Mr_Anony:
lol, you are beginning to sound as childish as macdaddy these days (even macdaddy is don dey grow small small).

You are still doing the same thing here. A number is an abstract used in describing entities it is not an entity by itself. You should have to tell us exactly what it means to create a number.

For instance If you ask: Did God create 4? you must tell us what it means to create 4. . . .or 4 of what?

Please do us all a favour and start asking intelligible questions

And you're becoming even more irrational. The questions you are desperately trying to avoid are childish? Is this the newest anonysm? As for logicboy, well, he can defend himself.

Not 4 or anything, stop it. Concepts like numbers, immaterial concepts, and let's consider foundational ones. God created everything, no? Are you saying he created only the physical, had nothing to do with concepts? Then 'good' existed without him? This is really simple...

Did god create numbers or not?

wiegraf:

And you're becoming even more irrational. The questions you are desperately trying to avoid are childish? Is this the newest anonysm? As for logicboy, well, he can defend himself.

Not 4 or anything, stop it. Concepts like numbers, immaterial concepts, and let's consider foundational ones. God created everything, no? Are you saying he created only the physical, had nothing to do with concepts? Then 'good' existed without him? This is really simple...

Did god create numbers or not?

Interesting.



God created everything both seen and unseen. All I am saying is that the concept of numbers are not things. they are describers or attributes of things same as 'good'.
I still maintain that your questions are nonsense but since you want to play the game of silly semantics, why don't we start by you defining for me what "numbers" is and what "good" is.

You must not refer to the concept of numbers or goodness in your definition.

Or heck, let us play your game . . .

Did God create numbers or not?

yes He did.

Did god create numbers or not?

No He did not?

Please give your follow up answer to both.

Mr_Anony:
Interesting.



God created everything both seen and unseen. All I am saying is that the concept of numbers are not things. they are describers or attributes of things same as 'good'.
I still maintain that your questions are nonsense but since you want to play the game of silly semantics, why don't we start by you defining for me what "numbers" is and what "good" is.

You must not refer to the concept of numbers or goodness in your definition.

Or heck, let us play your game . . .


yes He did.


No He did not?

Please give your follow up answer to both.

Incredible. I'd rather assume you are being disingenuous. I claim god could not have created concepts, and you ask me not to use concepts in my answers.
Do tell, what do you think my claim is?

wiegraf:

Incredible. I'd rather assume you are being disingenuous. I claim god could not have created concepts, and you ask me not to use concepts in my answers.
Do tell, what do you think my claim is?

lol, I am not being disingenious, I am only trying to show you the logical problems with your question.
well anyway, since you say that your position is that God did not create abstract concepts such as numbers. My counter is that numbers cannot exist on their own without an object being described. You cannot even define what it is you are claiming that God cannot do.

The moment you ask whether God created numbers, you have refered to numbers as an object. Assuming I answered yes, you would immediately start arguing about how numbers are not objects but are abstract qualifiers. On the other hand, If I had said no, you will immediately forget that numbers are abstract concepts and start treating the concept as an object.

So my friend, I think it is time you put on your thinking cap and begin defining how the abstract concept of "numbers" qualifies as a thing.

Your work is still cut out out for you.

Mr_Anony:
lol, I am not being disingenious, I am only trying to show you the logical problems with your question.
well anyway, since you say that your position is that God did not create abstract concepts such as numbers. My counter is that numbers cannot exist on their own without an object being described. You cannot even define what it is you are claiming that God cannot do.

The moment you ask whether God created numbers, you have refered to numbers as an object. Assuming I answered yes, you would immediately start arguing about how numbers are not objects but are abstract qualifiers. On the other hand, If I had said no, you will immediately forget that numbers are abstract concepts and start treating the concept as an object.

So my friend, I think it is time you put on your thinking cap and begin defining how the abstract concept of "numbers" qualifies as a thing.

Your work is still cut out out for you.

Numbers do not exist but they are ideological constructs.

Mr_Anony:
lol, I am not being disingenious, I am only trying to show you the logical problems with your question.
well anyway, since you say that your position is that God did not create abstract concepts such as numbers. My counter is that numbers cannot exist on their own without an object being described. You cannot even define what it is you are claiming that God cannot do.

Defensive lol again? I'm not accusing you of anything, yet.
Saying that without physical objects numbers, an abstract concept, do not exist is patently false. In any universe numbers MUST exist. Even in nothingness, void/null/0 exists by default. A 'God' shows up? Then the number 1 which had always existed with or without a god or any other physical thing now has some physical entity which can use it to describe something. 1 was not created by whatever physical thing is available. And, importantly, numbers are not subject to any other construct, including a god (again, note my usage of the word 'a', meaning 1, always existed).
1 exists, then 1 + 1 = 2 also exists. Gods have no power over mathematical logic. Gods have no power over rigorous logic. You can see where that is heading to.

Mr_Anony:
The moment you ask whether God created numbers, you have refered to numbers as an object.

I love it when you go on these "the moment you ask" musings. No, I have not referred to numbers as a physical object. Where do I do that?

Mr_Anony:
Assuming I answered yes, you would immediately start arguing about how numbers are not objects but are abstract qualifiers. On the other hand, If I had said no, you will immediately forget that numbers are abstract concepts and start treating the concept as an object.

You mind reading now? You became your god or something?

Mr_Anony:
So my friend, I think it is time you put on your thinking cap and begin defining how the abstract concept of "numbers" qualifies as a thing.

Your work is still cut out out for you.

You seem to be lost. Omnipotent god that is above reason. You can switch 'math' and 'logic' (rigorous, objective) in this write up.
Enjoy...

Numbers do not qualify as physical 'things', they qualify as abstract 'things'. Just as "physical 'things'" can qualify as an abstract concept as well. With or without god, the concept of having a physical thing, even without having anything physical whatsoever in that universe, always existed.

Say you have the concept of a thing being 'round', if indeed you do come across a round thing then good and fine, you now have a physical round thing. Again, the concept always preceded it. These concepts adhere to certain rules, for instance a 2 dimensional object cannot be both round and square. These laws naturally exist and any god would be subject to them. If indeed a 2 dimensional round object did show up in reality, no matter what god does he cannot make it both round and square, the rules must apply.

Consider mathematics, and you now have a list of many, many things that our good lord cannot or can do. Just about EVERYTHING in this universe can be described in purely mathematical terms. Consider the amount of physical objects your computer translates into the abstract just by mixing 1's and 0's; virtual universes, predictive simulations being performed, etc etc. This is all accomplished using mathematical tools, translating reality to abstract to create virtual worlds. Using simulations performed in these abstract worlds that follow mathematical rules, you can predict many phenomena that are not even physically confirmed yet. Note how even certain physical objects must exist because mathematical laws predict them. This is the reason physics and mathematics are so closely connected. Reality has myriad objects in it, all following unbreakable mathematical laws.

Einstein does the math and says space bends, lo and behold years later when the appropriate tools to test nature had been devised we find that the math is true, space does indeed bend. Mathematical tools also refuted other theories as impossible. This is great example of physical reality showing that it has no choice but to follow mathematical rules. By extension, there are myriad laws God does not create, they exist with or without him. Mayhaps he has the tools to concretely create some objects, but in his being subject to logic there are a ridiculous amount of things it can or cannot do. And like I said initially, a huge chunk of both physical and abstract stuff it cannot have created, he'd had to have discovered them as they exist so long as the math says so. In fact, god did not create any abstract concepts, he'd had to have discovered them all. As for physical objects, once a root object is created, they in turn would have to follow mathematical rules which cannot be altered, and thus certain effects would exist by default. Create two physical objects? Then collisions must physically exist (the concept having existed already before the physical feat was accomplished), god has no say in the matter etc etc.

edited, and probably needs a lot more to reduce redundancy

wiegraf:
Defensive lol again? I'm not accusing you of anything, yet.
Saying that without physical objects numbers, an abstract concept, do not exist is patently false. In any universe numbers MUST exist. Even in nothingness, void/null/0 exists by default. A 'God' shows up? Then the number 1 which had always existed with or without a god or any other physical thing now has some physical entity which can use it to describe something. 1 was not created by whatever physical thing is available. And, importantly, numbers are not subject to any other construct, including a god (again, note my usage of the word 'a', meaning 1, always existed).
1 exists, then 1 + 1 = 2 also exists. Gods have no power over mathematical logic. Gods have no power over rigorous logic. You can see where that is heading to

Lol, The nature of God being that He is eternal means that for you to say He "shows up", you are defining something else other than God.
Saying 1+1=2 exists, the question that follows is where and how does it exist? 1+1 cannot exist without describing an entity and another entity. It is the objects that exist and not the qualifiers.

I love it when you go on these "the moment you ask" musings. No, I have not referred to numbers as a physical object. Where do I do that?

Lol, neither have I referred to numbers as physical objects. I have only said that you have objectified numbers but you haven't defined it so your question is still null.

You mind reading now? You became your god or something?

What??

You seem to be lost. Omnipotent god that is above reason. You can switch 'math' and 'logic' (rigorous, objective) in this write up.
Enjoy...

Numbers do not qualify as physical 'things', they qualify as abstract 'things'. Just as "physical 'things'" can qualify as an abstract concept as well. With or without god, the concept of having a physical thing, even without having anything physical whatsoever in that universe, always existed.

Say you have the concept of a thing being 'round', if indeed you do come across a round thing then good and fine, you now have a physical round thing. Again, the concept always preceded it. These concepts adhere to certain rules, for instance a 2 dimensional object cannot be both round and square. These laws naturally exist and any god would be subject to them. If indeed a 2 dimensional round object did show up in reality, no matter what god does he cannot make it both round and square, the rules must apply.

Consider mathematics, and you now have a list of many, many things that our good lord cannot or can do. Just about EVERYTHING in this universe can be described in purely mathematical terms. Consider the amount of physical objects your computer translates into the abstract just by mixing 1's and 0's; virtual universes, predictive simulations being performed, etc etc. This is all accomplished using mathematical tools, translating reality to abstract to create virtual worlds. Using simulations performed in these abstract worlds that follow mathematical rules, you can predict many phenomena that are not even physically confirmed yet. Note how even certain physical objects must exist because mathematical laws predict them. This is the reason physics and mathematics are so closely connected. Reality has myriad objects in it, all following unbreakable mathematical laws.

Einstein does the math and says space bends, lo and behold years later when the appropriate tools to test nature had been devised we find that the math is true, space does indeed bend. Mathematical tools also refuted other theories as impossible. This is great example of physical reality showing that it has no choice but to follow mathematical rules. By extension, there are myriad laws God does not create, they exist with or without him. Mayhaps he has the tools to concretely create some objects, but in his being subject to logic there are a ridiculous amount of things it can or cannot do. And like I said initially, a huge chunk of both physical and abstract stuff it cannot have created, he'd had to have discovered them as they exist so long as the math says so. In fact, god did not create any abstract concepts, he'd had to have discovered them all. As for physical objects, once a root object is created, they in turn would have to follow mathematical rules which cannot be altered, and thus certain effects would exist by default. Create two physical objects? Then collisions must physically exist (the concept having existed already before the physical feat was accomplished), god has no say in the matter etc etc.

edited, and probably needs a lot more to reduce redundancy

Lol, you still have not made much sense unfortunately. Like I said your question is like asking if someone can do doing. You are saying that for instance God can create a round object but He can't create roundness itself or God can create 237 objects but not 237 itself.
I put it to you that the only reason why you can observe roundness or the number 237 are because the objects exist for you to describe them in that manner.
For your question to make any sense, you have to show how roundness or numbers can exist without being tied to any object, until then it makes no sense to talk about creating numbers.

The next thing you go into is even funnier....Here you are somehow claiming that God is "subject" to mathematics and logic.....

Lol, much like saying weigraf is one person, and since one is less that two, wiegraf is subject to the number 2. The question that follows is: 2 what? Either you define the two things that wiegraf is subject to or you explain what properties the number 2 has on it's own that make wiegraf subject to it. Until you do that, your statement remains unintelligible nonsense. You can't just leave "2" undefined and hope to make sense.

Once again you objectify abstract concepts but you still leave them undefined. You still have a lot of work to do. As at now, you are yet to make any sense.

Logicboy03:
Numbers do not exist objectively but they are ideological constructs.

Lol I agree with you. (my little modification in italics)

Now try knocking some sense into your friend wiegraf here.

Mr_Anony:
Lol I agree with you. (my little modification in italics)

Now try knocking some sense into your friend wiegraf here.

Shutup. There is no such thing as objective existence. Either numbers exist or they dont. Numbers do not exist

The lol'ing is scaring me. It might turn to one of those passive aggresive things, like when ned flanders goes howdly-doodely.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, The nature of God being that He is eternal means that for you to say He "shows up", you are defining something else other than God.
Saying 1+1=2 exists, the question that follows is where and how does it exist? 1+1 cannot exist without describing an entity and another entity. It is the objects that exist and not the qualifiers.

1+1 has always existed. Pi has always existed. A gogool has always existed. You don't create mathematical truths, you discover them. At the very, very least your god existed simultaneously with numbers, ie assuming your papa is eternal. At no point could he exist without numbers. In fact, even in true nothing numbers still exist.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, neither have I referred to numbers as physical objects. I have only said that you have objectified numbers but you haven't defined it so your question is still null.

What does 'objectify a number' mean $deity dammit? Yes numbers, an abstract concept, exist universally. You want me to introduce you to the number 2? 3 doesn't exist because there are no 3s in physical nature?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you still have not made much sense unfortunately. Like I said your question is like asking if someone can do doing. You are saying that for instance God can create a round object but He can't create roundness itself or God can create 237 objects but not 237 itself.
I put it to you that the only reason why you can observe roundness or the number 237 are because the objects exist for you to describe them in that manner.
For your question to make any sense, you have to show how roundness or numbers can exist without being tied to any object, until then it makes no sense to talk about creating numbers.

This is all very wrong, so very very wrong. You should feel bad for trollin' so blatantly. You get this right; god cannot create roundness, he can only discover it. You want me to prove that an abstract concept exists physically in this world? Or numbers exist without something physical to tie them down to? What have I been doing so far?
The bold is particularly egregious. Simple predictions from physics alone pi$$ all over that notion. So, the higgs boson did not exist before the LHC? I thought all the calculations and what not already described it. That and the many other mathematical tools used by scientist around the world. The billionth point in pi does not exist because we've not calculated it? You do notice that 1+1 = 2 universally? Every culture agrees on this, yes?

Mr_Anony:
The next thing you go into is even funnier....Here you are somehow claiming that God is "subject" to mathematics and logic.....

Lol, much like saying weigraf is one person, and since one is less that two, wiegraf is subject to the number 2. The question that follows is: 2 what? Either you define the two things that wiegraf is subject to or you explain what properties the number 2 has on it's own that make wiegraf subject to it. Until you do that, your statement remains unintelligible nonsense. You can't just leave "2" undefined and hope to make sense.

Bold, not at all what I'm saying at all. I'm saying something like since wiegraf is 1 person, wiegraf cannot be 2 people. Simple, god cannot escape logic, in any universe.

Mr_Anony:
Once again you objectify abstract concepts but you still leave them undefined. You still have a lot of work to do. As at now, you are yet to make any sense.

I am yet to make any xtian or anony sense. Which will probably never happen considering time travel is impossible according to the math (for now, see, we might discover some other math later that may help us, we won't create it), hence there's no way to reverse your indoctrination..

Logicboy03:


Shutup. There is no such thing as objective existence. Either numbers exist or they dont. Numbers do not exist

Oh no! not again!

wiegraf:
Bold, not at all what I'm saying at all. I'm saying something like since wiegraf is 1 person, wiegraf cannot be 2 people. Simple, god cannot escape logic, in any universe.

Permit me to ignore the rest of your comment and focus on this. Let's say I didn't understand you previously and that the above is what you are saying. I want you to note here that you have now defined the number by using it to describe persons so now it makes sense. (but then again, you move along to objectify logic by describing it as a "thing" that may be escaped rather than a description of a phenomenon which it really is).

In the same way "wiegraf is 1 person and not 2 people" is intelligible because the numbers are defined so is saying "God can/cannot create numbers" only intelligible if you define what the number is describing.

If you can't define your numbers, you might as well say "byu uiono'k huh90-0]= uhh9n8-0- i0-n ' 'omom#o" or other such unintelligible nonsense

Mr_Anony:
Permit me to ignore the rest of your comment and focus on this. Let's say I didn't understand you previously and that the above is what you are saying. I want you to note here that you have now defined the number by using it to describe persons so now it makes sense. (but then again, you move along to objectify logic by describing it as a "thing" that may be escaped rather than a description of a phenomenon which it really is).

In the same way "wiegraf is 1 person and not 2 people" is intelligible because the numbers are defined so is saying "God can/cannot create numbers" only intelligible if you define what the number is describing.

If you can't define your numbers, you might as well say "byu uiono'k huh90-0]= uhh9n8-0- i0-n ' 'omom#o" or other such unintelligible nonsense

Haven't I done that? Numbers are universal non-physical abstractions. For the abstraction bit just like house can mean bungalow or flat, 4 means 4 Bleep, and Bleep can be anything (numbers can even translate to nothing: null). These abstractions must exist in any universe, god or no they must be there, as again they apply to everything including nothing, and they follow/dictate certain rules.

The magic with numbers is that as they can be translated to represent anything physical, when translated the abstract rules which numbers follow must also be followed by the physical, making them excellent tools to predict/dictate behavior of the physical. In essence, they are the basic abstract building blocks/tools of everything. Every idea is built on numbers, representing any physical object can be done with numbers, and the physical world must bow to their laws.

The only thing I can think of wrenching everything is uncertainty, which is something from nothing, pi$$ing all over numbers and their laws. Then again even that seems to be represented by bell's theorem (I'm no expert though), and uncertainty might not be the true translation (come in string theory?)

tl: dr; Not physical objects, non-physical abstraction tools that can represent everything including nothing and describe and dictate laws of behavior.

wiegraf:

Haven't I done that? Numbers are universal non-physical abstractions. For the abstraction bit just like house can mean bungalow or flat, 4 means 4 Bleep, and Bleep can be anything (numbers can even translate to nothing: null). These abstractions must exist in any universe, god or no they must be there, as again they apply to everything including nothing, and they follow/dictate certain rules.

The magic with numbers is that as they can be translated to represent anything physical, when translated the abstract rules which numbers follow must also be followed by the physical, making them excellent tools to predict/dictate behavior of the physical. In essence, they are the basic abstract building blocks/tools of everything. Every idea is built on numbers, representing any physical object can be done with numbers, and the physical world must bow to their laws.

The only thing I can think of wrenching everything is uncertainty, which is something from nothing, pi$$ing all over numbers and their laws. Then again even that seems to be represented by bell's theorem (I'm no expert though), and uncertainty might not be the true translation (come in string theory?)

tl: dr; Not physical objects, non-physical abstraction tools that can represent everything including nothing and describe and dictate laws of behavior.

Lol, ok first of all you missed what I meant when I asked you to define your numbers but that's by the way.
Secondly, your definition is inadequate because it assumes that I already know what numbers is. I'll also leave that aside
Thirdly, you use a lot of figurative speech in your definition that it becomes hard to take it seriously. I'll overlook that as well.

The gist of your definition from what I can tell is that numbers may be used to represent anything and nothing. This should immediately tell you that numbers are not an actual thing but are descriptors. Hence it makes no sense to talk about exacting an action upon a descriptor without specifying what is being described.

Compare: "Can you build 12 cars?" vs "Can you build 12"
"I saw a big cat" vs "I saw a big"

In the examples above, you can see (I hope you can) that the second sentences do not make any sense once the object that defines them has been removed. "12" and "big" when left undefined results in a senseless statement.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, ok first of all you missed what I meant when I asked you to define your numbers but that's by the way.
Secondly, your definition is inadequate because it assumes that I already know what numbers is. I'll also leave that aside
Thirdly, you use a lot of figurative speech in your definition that it becomes hard to take it seriously. I'll overlook that as well.

The gist of your definition from what I can tell is that numbers may be used to represent anything and nothing. This should immediately tell you that numbers are not an actual thing but are descriptors. Hence it makes no sense to talk about exacting an action upon a descriptor without specifying what is being described.

Compare: "Can you build 12 cars?" vs "Can you build 12"
"I saw a big cat" vs "I saw a big"

In the examples above, you can see (I hope you can) that the second sentences do not make any sense once the object that defines them has been removed. "12" and "big" when left undefined results in a senseless statement.

All your long story of 'leave that aside'.... I'll let it go... Just for now...

'Can you make 12?' makes sense, abstractly. 6 + 6 = 12. When you want to apply these abstractions to the physical world then of course you have to specify 12 what. Doesn't mean this abstractions do not exist, as like I've said even in true nothing these abstractions exist. Also these abstractions dictate laws that MUST be followed. No god, man etc can break them, nothing can.

Moving on a bit (you can query the above as you see fit), with these abstractions, which exist throughout time/existence, their implications and permutations exist through all time as well. 1+1, squares, complex numbers, fractals and frameworks, all exist abstractly . Via 'what if' scenarios if you will, but they exist by default, and they all follow mathematical laws. The fact that numbers and their laws are discovered independently by every society demonstrate this to a degree. Now, all knowledge can be translated to mathematics, since we already know that ALL these formulas and what not already exist by default, when you translate some physical process you're not creating some new math, rather you're discovering some hitherto undiscovered math, it always existed. By extension, ALL KNOWLEDGE ALREADY EXISTS, it's just waiting to be discovered. Take einstein's famous imaginative thought experiments, grounded in logic and translated to math, as proof that all knowledge exists mathematically. (He was then able to use math and it's laws to more accurately describe reality, and even predict remarkably unintuitive phenomena, as the math laws said it must be so.) You just have to find the right 'what if' that accurately translates to the universe. And all the valid 'what if's' must respect the laws of math.

If I ask 'if being didn't exist before God existed, how did God come to be?', it's a very valid question. At the very least the concept of being has to exist abstractly, and it does via numbers, every number other than 0 being something, or 'being'. The concept of anything has to exist abstractly before (or simultaneously, if that makes you happy) it can be represented in the physical world, and they all do via numbers.

I'm sure all this can be explained in other ways, but this will suffice for now.

Quantum mechanics, I'm looking at you...


Edited

wiegraf:


All your long story of 'leave that aside'.... I'll let it go... Just for now...

'Can you make 12?' makes sense, abstractly. 6 + 6 = 12. When you want to apply these abstractions to the physical world then of course you have to specify 12 what. Doesn't mean this abstractions do not exist, as like I've said even in true nothing these abstractions exist. Also these abstractions dictate laws that MUST be followed. No god, man etc can break them, nothing can.

Moving on a bit (you can query the above as you see fit), with these abstractions, which exist throughout time/existence, their implications and permutations exist through all time as well. 1+1, squares, complex numbers, fractals and frameworks, all exist abstractly . Via 'what if' scenarios if you will, but they exist by default, and they all follow mathematical laws. The fact that numbers and their laws are discovered independently by every society demonstrate this to a degree. Now, all knowledge can be translated to mathematics, since we already know that ALL these formulas and what not already exist by default, when you translate some physical process you're not creating some new math, rather you're discovering some hitherto undiscovered math, it always existed. By extension, ALL KNOWLEDGE ALREADY EXISTS, it's just waiting to be discovered. Take einstein's famous imaginative thought experiments, grounded in logic and translated to math, as proof that all knowledge exists mathematically, you just have to find the right 'what if' that accurately translates to the universe. And all the valid 'what if's must respect the laws of math.

If I ask 'if being didn't exist before God existed, how did God come to be?', it's a very valid question. At the very least the concept of being has to exist abstractly, and it does via numbers, every number other than 0 being something, or 'being'. The concept of anything has to exist abstractly before (or simultaneously, if that makes you happy) it can be represented in the physical world, and they all do via numbers.

I'm sure all this can be explained in other ways, but this will suffice for now.

Quantum mechanics, I'm looking at you...


Edited

Lol, interesting how you agree that all knowledge already exists but for God who possesses all knowledge, you argue over how He came to be. You are still yet to make sense my friend.

Another mistake you are making is saying that abstractions exist objectively without describing anything. This is false. Your example: 6+6 also does not exist objectively until it is applied to actual things. Mathematical laws are worthless without applying them to actual things. Mathematics on it's own is useless unless it is defined by actual entities.

Again you claim that even if nothing existed, the laws of mathematics will still hold. May I ask how so?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, interesting how you agree that all knowledge already exists but for God who possesses all knowledge, you argue over how He came to be. You are still yet to make sense my friend.

Another mistake you are making is saying that abstractions exist objectively without describing anything. This is false. Your example: 6+6 also does not exist objectively until it is applied to actual things. Mathematical laws are worthless without applying them to actual things. Mathematics on it's own is useless unless it is defined by actual entities.

Again you claim that even if nothing existed, the laws of mathematics will still hold. May I ask how so?

Heh, now you're just dancing.

Numbers exist by default, I see no evidence to support some being anywhere that knows the maybe infinite permutations and just which to apply to our reality. In fact it's downright risible and silly to propose such a notion. Also, are you accepting that 'god' didn't create any knowledge?

Nothing = null
There you go, it has been abstracted. Null has it's properties. In these parts a famous argument for the existence of a first cause is nothing + nothing != something. That looks like math to me, holds even in nothing.

Math exists with or without a physical reality, and it's certainly not useless. It's an abstraction, does not need the physical to exist, at all. Like I've already said, it's uses include predictions, explaining behavior, etc. The ultimate building tool of abstract concepts, perhaps the only 'ultimate' in existence.

wiegraf:


Heh, now you're just dancing.

Numbers exist by default, I see no evidence to support some being anywhere that knows the maybe infinite permutations and just which to apply to our reality. In fact it's downright risible and silly to propose such a notion. Also, are you accepting that 'god' didn't create any knowledge?

Wow.....unfortunately, you have made a non-argument again. God made all things, as a result, He knows all things. The argument along the line of God creating knowing all things is to put it mildly: unintelligible nonsense.

Nothing = null
There you go, it has been abstracted. Null has it's properties. In these parts a famous argument for the existence of a first cause is nothing + nothing != something. That looks like math to me, holds even in nothing.

Lol. This is by far the silliest comment you have made on this thread. It doesn't deserve a response.

Math exists with or without a physical reality, and it's certainly not useless. It's an abstraction, does not need the physical to exist, at all. Like I've already said, it's uses include predictions, explaining behavior, etc. The ultimate building tool of abstract concepts, perhaps the only 'ultimate' in existence.

Lol, predictions of what? behaviour of what? What is it predicting and explaining other than actual entities. You have not yet been able to show the use of math independent of actual entities.......and I am quite sure you won't be able to.

Frankly, I have grown tired of dancing around in circles with you. You have not yet made a sensible statement so far and I think I have been patient enough but now I have run out of patience. You can have the last word on this if you like. I will respond no more.

Mr_Anony:
Wow.....unfortunately, you have made a non-argument again. God made all things, as a result, He knows all things. The argument along the line of God creating knowing all things is to put it mildly: unintelligible nonsense.


Lol. This is by far the silliest comment you have made on this thread. It doesn't deserve a response.


Lol, predictions of what? behaviour of what? What is it predicting and explaining other than actual entities. You have not yet been able to show the use of math independent of actual entities.......and I am quite sure you won't be able to.

Frankly, I have grown tired of dancing around in circles with you. You have not yet made a sensible statement so far and I think I have been patient enough but now I have run out of patience. You can have the last word on this if you like. I will respond no more.

*facepalm.jpg*

Please don't, your responses are getting more and more embarrassing.

God created everything (because you say so), so he created 1, which translates to 'being', since it is not null. So he created being before he came into being...

Pathetic nonsense you tell yourself just so you could hold onto the belief that you have a sky-daddy looking after you. I tried being xtian for a few hours, it was tough, so I can understand if you want to run and hide...

Edit: seriously, the very notion that god exists before/without numbers... How stoopid?

Every human can only draw knowledge from which is available to him at a particular period. Nobody is born with the knowledge of God, i also assume that when we die will be unconscious like we were before birth. Its quite painful and bizzare for humans to accept that birth and death is an end to both physical and our imagined, non existence spiritual life. God,heaven,hell,re-incarnation,rebirth fills the gap. A God that really exist doesn't need murderers,jihadist,scammers and bigots to defend it.

^^
For sensitive and emotional beings like humans.

Genesis 1, God Almighty is the Creator can't be created. God is a mysterious being.

mrmayor:

Which Coffee; Fresh-brew, Kenco, Nescafe or Maxwell House?

Have you been able to describe the aroma of any of the above?

Kayoski: this question has being bothering me 4 sometyme nw.nd i av found out dat its beyond human comprehension....so i jst want 2 get u guys views. Dis is for those who believe there is a God.

God almighty is uncreated, he lives from everlasting to everlasting.... Psalm 90:2. There was a time when he was upon nothing, then the heaven and earth had not been created by him, until a time came when it pleased him to create. His first creation was the logos in hebrew language or word in english language which means an interpreter or a spoke man for God almighty. You can find this in scripture john 1:1-3.

Love created God-and God created love. The bible said no-one has seen God at any time because God is love.
When you are with family and friends sharing that special moment with them, God is in the midst of you all.
You either believe it, or you don't?-When the bible said we are made in the image of God, believe it.
No-one can run and hide from the essence of love.