Pastor AIO:

Oh dear. This thread promised soo much and delivered so little. Nothing in fact. 0 plus 0 equals 0, to be precise, and no more. What happened to the fatal blows we were looking forward to. shame.

Just one thing I feel the need to say, although you might not find it relevant, for me it is a real sticking point. And that is that Mathematics and Physics are totally different subjects. Yes physics relies heavily on mathematics but they are still very different. Physics is the study of the world, the physical world and the laws of how it operates. Mathematics uses abstractions and studies the laws of how these abstract items interact. Mathematical discoveries do not need to be evidenced in nature.
I'm bringing this up because of the question of whether 0 plus 0 equals 0 is true everywhere in the universe. Zero, the number, is an abstraction and does not exist in the physical universe. Capisce?

Understood!!

This man u too know book sef. . u be lesson tisha?

Pastor AIO:

Oh dear. This thread promised soo much and delivered so little. Nothing in fact. 0 plus 0 equals 0, to be precise, and no more. What happened to the fatal blows we were looking forward to. shame.

Just one thing I feel the need to say, although you might not find it relevant, for me it is a real sticking point. And that is that Mathematics and Physics are totally different subjects. Yes physics relies heavily on mathematics but they are still very different. Physics is the study of the world, the physical world and the laws of how it operates. Mathematics uses abstractions and studies the laws of how these abstract items interact. Mathematical discoveries do not need to be evidenced in nature.
I'm bringing this up because of the question of whether 0 plus 0 equals 0 is true everywhere in the universe. Zero, the number, is an abstraction and does not exist in the physical universe. Capisce?

Na wa oh so zero don seize to exist today?

Pastor AIO:
Just one thing I feel the need to say, although you might not find it relevant, for me it is a real sticking point.  And that is that Mathematics and Physics are totally different subjects.   Yes physics relies heavily on mathematics but they are still very different.  Physics is the study of the world, the physical world and the laws of how it operates.  Mathematics uses abstractions and studies the laws of how these abstract items interact.  Mathematical discoveries do not need to be evidenced in nature. 
I'm bringing this up because of the question of whether 0 plus 0 equals 0 is true everywhere in the universe.  Zero, the number, is an abstraction and does not exist in the physical universe.  Capisce?

I agree with this. A lot of the pronouncements on the whole question of Logic or Mathematics that I have read here are simply underwhelming.

0 + 0=0 is a mathematical fact that is independent of human beings or human reasoning. This is to say that this holds true anywhere in this universe whether or not there are human beings to apprehend a realm of numbers or to do the computation. Numbers in much the same way as  Properties, Relations, Number Sets, Propositions, Mathematical Theorems/Proofs and Logic are properly abstract entities which have their own metaphysical existence different from the physical or material world.

Huxley, I understand that this bot filter of a thing is annoying. It is the reason why I once decided to move a discussion away from the board. I have a reply to the last comment of yours that was directed at me. But I just don't want to waste the time to type it if it will be excised anyway. So, my good friend, I am once again, extending a right hand of fellowship to you so that you can come and post your objection on my blog, if you care to, so as to receive my answer.

Prizm:

I agree with this. A lot of the pronouncements on the whole question of Logic or Mathematics that I have read here are simply underwhelming.

0 + 0=0 is a mathematical fact that is independent of human beings or human reasoning. This is to say that this holds true anywhere in this universe whether or not there are human beings to apprehend a realm of numbers or to do the computation. Numbers in much the same way as  Properties, Relations, Number Sets, Propositions, Mathematical Theorems/Proofs and Logic are properly abstract entities which have their own metaphysical existence different from the physical or material world.

Huxley, I understand that this bot filter of a thing is annoying. It is the reason why I once decided to move a discussion away from the board. I have a reply to the last comment of yours that was directed at me. But I just don't want to waste the time to type it if it will be excised anyway. So, my good friend, I am once again, extending a right hand of fellowship to you so that you can come and post your objection on my blog, if you care to, so as to receive my answer.

But
0 + 0 = 0

you have said nothing mathematically.

Chrisbenogor:

But
0 + 0 = 0

you have said nothing mathematically.

lol, he just felt like blowing some grammar ,

posakosa:


lol, he just felt like blowing some grammar ,

logic & mathematics not grammar pls

what is the definition of existence? When can something be said to exist and when can it be said not to exist?

I've asked this question before and it got ignored. But it is important that we have it defined before we go around claiming this exist or not. To make that claim we need to know that the things referred to fulfill the criteria for existence.

Does existence mean merely to have a position somewhere in Space/time?

Ontology topics

[edit]Some fundamental questions

The principal questions of ontology are "What can be said to exist?" and "Into what categories, if any, can we sort existing things?" Various philosophers have provided different answers to this question.
One common approach is to divide the extant entities into groups called categories. Of course, such lists of categories differ widely from one another, and it is through the co-ordination of different categorial schemes that ontology relates to such fields as theology, library science and artificial intelligence.

Further examples of ontological questions include:

What is existence?
Is existence a property?
Which entities are fundamental?
How do the properties of an object relate to the object itself?
What features are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental, attributes of a given object?
How many levels of existence or ontological levels are there?
What is a physical object?
Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?
Can one give an account of what it means to say that a non-physical entity exists?
What constitutes the identity of an object?
When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?
Why does anything exist rather than nothing? (This overlaps with questions in cosmology.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Failed Reasoning from conception  - Trying to Justify the existence of the Almighty God with logic

" My Ways are far higher than you ways"  & " The Wisest of Man is comparable to Foolishness of God"

God help u all.

blacksta:

Failed Reasoning from conception  - Trying to Justify the existence of the Almighty God with logic

" My Ways are far higher than you ways"  & " The Wisest of Man is comparable to Foolishness of God"

God help u all.

How then do you know you cannot know God with logic, is that statement logically valid?
Why Does God have the properties of human beings ? and you say you do not know Gawd lol

blacksta:

Failed Reasoning from conception  - Trying to Justify the existence of the Almighty God with logic

" My Ways are far higher than you ways"  & " The Wisest of Man is comparable to Foolishness of God"

God help u all.

This is ridiculous and a complete BS. Christians believe in a logical god, and only excuse him from logic in specific instances to allow themselves to hold conflicting ideas at the same time thats all to this sorry of an excuse.  The claim that "God is not bound by our human logic" comes up every so often. The claim that god somehow supersedes logic is usually invoked as a defense for the so-called "paradoxes of christianity for example" Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful who acts like a father figure to all christians as a source of protection but still allows christians to suffer unnecessarily while doing nothing no protect or help them from their sufferings. God is one, yet God is three different entities. God planned everything out from the beginning, yet everyone has free will, and therefore it's your fault if you suffer or if natural disasters comes and kill people off for no reason at all. The Bible has plenary inspiration, yet it was written by human authors who wrote from their own limited perspective. And on and on.

The very ridiculous claim that the christian god transcends our understanding of deduction is thrown out as a conversation-ending bald assertion ONLY when contradictory doctrines come into conflict. It essentially says "I'm right so shut up." or "I don't have to play by your rules at all." The idea that God is not bound by logic is frequently stated more subtly like "Well, it's just a mystery" or "Who are YOU to question God?"  Christians come up with these silly excuses ONLY when they have their backs against the wall and try to explain away or dance around some christian claims that do not make sense at all or can not stand up to basic scrutiny other wise LOGIC is the ONLY thing christians use when talking about their god and what he wants from people, when they are faced with ridiculous assertions of the christian faith that can not be supported at all they come up with the "god's ways are not human ways" forgetting that the same god was written to have said that "come let us REASON TOGETHER" at some point in the bible. So how can you reason together with an entity who you can never understand by logic since reasoning involves logic alone?

I do not know of christians who are willing to follow the claim that their god is not bound by logic to its "logical" conclusion: If God is not bound by logic, then all of the rules of deduction go out the window. One of the most basic rules of logic is the law of non-contradiction, that A != ~A. If you throw that idea out the window, you have basically destroyed the idea of Truth, and  you can say anything that you want to say about god. If  your god is not bound by logic, then you can say that your god both exists, and does not exist at the same time. You can say, without blinking, that your god is sublimely good, yet your god is also the most evil being that ever has existed. If you say your god is not bound by logic, then what's to stop you from saying that Jesus was both god and not god, that Christianity is both true and a lie?

toneyb:


If  your god is not bound by logic, then you can say that your god both exists, and does not exist at the same time. You can say, without blinking, that your god is sublimely good, yet your god is also the most evil being that ever has existed. If you say your god is not bound by logic, then what's to stop you from saying that Jesus was both god and not god, that Christianity is both true and a lie?

you're on to something there.

Knights of the Round Table!

I'm back. Sorry i had to hurry off last night for my nightly round of beer. Lets get the discussion back on track please. Prizm, Pastor, thanks for useful insights. However indulge me a little, cos i'm going with logical decuction only for now, will come to intuition later if necessary.

We stopped at 0 + 0 = 0. I am pleased to note that every body seems to have accepted this. Prizm helped put the nail on that. I hope those who dont see the relevance of that equation to this discourse can ponder a little more on the fact that nothingness clearly cannot spwan somethingness.

Let it be well understood that the world, the universe, existence, whatever you may choose to call it - is something and accordingly could not come out of nothing. That is what the equation proves.

Therefore something caused the universe. (0 + 1= 1)

The question we need to ask is - what is that "something".

The argument now is about the basic attributes of that something. I do not by any means seek to prove or show the totality of the nature of that something, but just a few incontestible attributes, that should be enough to form a composite image.

Once the composite image of that something is formed, any man can chose to call it what he will.

The key attributes of that something which i intend to infer are:

   1. Intelligence

   2. Law

   3. Order

   4. A sense of the Beautiful

   5. Duality

Stay tuned,

While you at it please clear this up for me. . . . . Why can't that "something" with all these characteristics be the universe itself and not some external force

Wait o,can't zero(0) be something ?

Deep Sight:

Knights of the Round Table!

I'm back. Sorry i had to hurry off last night for my nightly round of beer. Lets get the discussion back on track please. Prizm, Pastor, thanks for useful insights. However indulge me a little, cos i'm going with logical decuction only for now, will come to intuition later if necessary.

We stopped at 0 + 0 = 0. I am pleased to note that every body seems to have accepted this. Prizm helped put the nail on that. I hope those who dont see the relevance of that equation to this discourse can ponder a little more on the fact that nothingness clearly cannot spwan somethingness.

Let it be well understood that the world, the universe, existence, whatever you may choose to call it - is something and accordingly could not come out of nothing. That is what the equation proves.

Therefore something caused the universe. (0 + 1= 1)

The question we need to ask is - what is that "something".

The argument now is about the basic attributes of that something. I do not by any means seek to prove or show the totality of the nature of that something, but just a few incontestible attributes, that should be enough to form a composite image.

Once the composite image of that something is formed, any man can chose to call it what he will.

The key attributes of that [b]something which i intend to infer are:

   1. Intelligence

   2. Law

   3. Order

   4. A sense of the Beautiful

   5. Duality[/b]

Stay tuned,

At first you came across as though you were intelligent enough to come and give us food for thought you have slowly become noetic again, first we ask you
what is the difference between 0 + 1 = 1 and 1 = 1 if we eliminate the zero it does not change the equation,
what if I say
1 - 2 -1 -2 + 0 = 1 + 3 -3 -1
the above is the same as 0 + 0 = 0
You and I have basically said the same things mathematically, and there are endless possibilities.

How and why are you jumping to the fact that the first cause has to be intelligent? where is the evidence to support that?
At lease address the concerns of your fellow knights or it might turn into a blood bath!

Deep Sight:

Knights of the Round Table!

I'm back. Sorry i had to hurry off last night for my nightly round of beer. Lets get the discussion back on track please. Prizm, Pastor, thanks for useful insights. However indulge me a little, cos i'm going with logical decuction only for now, will come to intuition later if necessary.

We stopped at 0 + 0 = 0. I am pleased to note that every body seems to have accepted this. Prizm helped put the nail on that. I hope those who dont see the relevance of that equation to this discourse can ponder a little more on the fact that nothingness clearly cannot spwan somethingness.

[size=15pt]Let it be well understood that the world, the universe, existence, whatever you may choose to call it - is something and accordingly could not come out of nothing. That is what the equation proves.

Therefore something caused the universe. (0 + 1= 1)

The question we need to ask is - what is that "something".[/size]

The argument now is about the basic attributes of that something. I do not by any means seek to prove or show the totality of the nature of that something, but just a few incontestible attributes, that should be enough to form a composite image.

Once the composite image of that something is formed, any man can chose to call it what he will.

The key attributes of that something which i intend to infer are:

1. Intelligence

2. Law

3. Order

4. A sense of the Beautiful

5. Duality

Stay tuned,

Hello, nice to see you back.

So far, the only thing with which we all appear to agree is that the universe is something. There are two other points of contention, namely;

1) Something cannot come out of nothing. Although I accept the fact that the universe did not come from nothing, as it is accepted in cosmology that the universe came out of a singularity, it is not altogether clear whether this (ie, Something cannot come out of nothing) is true in all possible worlds.

2) That the universe is caused. You have not demonstrated this, but simply stated it as a fact. What are the conditions that obtained before the singularity started to expand, thus forming the universe? Is it conceivable that under those conditions uncaused things might have been happening?

Please, address these two points before proceeding to the rest of your arguments, otherwise your fundamental premises are untenable.

Pastor AIO:

what is the definition of existence? When can something be said to exist and when can it be said not to exist?

I've asked this question before and it got ignored. But it is important that we have it defined before we go around claiming this exist or not. To make that claim we need to know that the things referred to fulfill the criteria for existence.

Does existence mean merely to have a position somewhere in Space/time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

It got ignored because it is not a frivolous question. CAn we hope to see what you think existence is, or is that asking for a lot?

Having said that, let me attempt a definition. For something to be said to existence, it must display some or all of the following;

1) Realisable in space/time
2) It is mind-independent
3) It has effects that can be perceived (such as energy, heat, light, minds, etc).

That is my vary basic definition and I am sure if your examine it in details you would find many faults with it, or you would find some circularity in the reasoning.

What is your definition for existence? And how would the following fair if assess against you definition?

a) A lump of coal
b) A 10 billion year old star
c) Your mind
d) The football worldcup event

If you cannot explain how the 1 came into existence from nothing, then you are not up to something.

Deep Sight:

Knights of the Round Table!

I'm back. Sorry i had to hurry off last night for my nightly round of beer. Lets get the discussion back on track please. Prizm, Pastor, thanks for useful insights. However indulge me a little, cos i'm going with logical decuction only for now, will come to intuition later if necessary.

We stopped at 0 + 0 = 0. I am pleased to note that every body seems to have accepted this. Prizm helped put the nail on that. I hope those who dont see the relevance of that equation to this discourse can ponder a little more on the fact that nothingness clearly cannot spwan somethingness.

Let it be well understood that the world, the universe, existence, whatever you may choose to call it - is something and accordingly could not come out of nothing. That is what the equation proves.

Therefore something caused the universe. (0 + 1= 1)

The question we need to ask is - what is that "something".

This seems to me to be an argument for panentheism (or is it just pantheism). That is making God equivalent to the universe, because in your equation the 1s on either side of the equation are the same.

Deep Sight:


Once the composite image of that something is formed, any man can chose to call it what he will.

The key attributes of that something which i intend to infer are:

   1. Intelligence

   2. Law

   3. Order

   4. A sense of the Beautiful

   5. Duality

Stay tuned,

I think that we are going to need definitions of what you mean by intelligence, law, order etc

huxley:

It got ignored because it is not a frivolous question.  CAn we hope to see what you think existence is, or is that asking for a lot?

Having said that, let me attempt a definition.  For something to be said to existence, it must display some or all of the following;

1)  Realisable in space/time
2)  It is mind-independent
3)  It has effects that can be perceived (such as energy, heat, light, minds, etc).

That is my vary basic definition and I am sure if your examine it in details you would find many faults with it, or you would find some circularity in the reasoning.

What is your definition for existence? And how would the following fair if assess against you definition?

a)  A lump of coal
b)  A 10 billion year old star
c)  Your mind
d)  The football worldcup event

NO, it is not a frivolous question at all.  I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer to the question, afterall it is only a word.  What you define as existence is up to you and can be totally arbitrary.  The important thing is that once you've defined it, you stick with your definition. 

Let's explore your definitions.
1) That it must occur at some point in space/time. 

This is interesting.  But consider an event that is homogeneous and ubiquitous.

2)It is Mind independent. 

This is a tough one.  As tough as whether or not God exists.  Many would argue that there is nothing that is Mind independent.  That the entire universe is a product of mind, rather than mind is a product of the universe.  I am inclined to the former position.

3)  It has effects that can be perceived (such as energy, heat, light, minds, etc).

Out of curiousity, what are the effects of minds that can be perceived.

Every other example that you've given are sensorily perceptible, ie percieved via the senses.  There is something that all sensory perception shares that would therefore be a trait of what you would call existence.  Senses measure change.  In other words they contrast things.  It follows that for something to exist it must be dynamic (capable of change and movement). 
By this reckoning it follows that if an event were homogeneous (same through out, not changing) and ubiquitous (ie everywhere so doesn't move, no where else to move to) then it wouldn't exist.

Just a few snacks for thought.

Knights!

Excellent ripostes! Good deep thinking by every body.

I think the question which might surmise my thinking is this.

We established that the universe is something. We also established that no amalgamation of nothings can make a something. We therefore saw that something must have been involved in the coming into being of the universe. (0 + 1 = 1).

We are trying to define what that something is.

You are walking in a desert. You come across an intricate, well ordered mathematical equation written in the sand - possessing complicated and advanced equations and laws. You conclude -

1. It appeared there by itself OR
2. Given the extensive complexity of the equations and mathematical principles, there is some element of intelligence (however defined) responsible for the equations.

The universe is the most well ordered, intricate structure governed by observable laws.

Even if, as a preliminary point, we do not accede to the existence of a being, we must perforce accede to the existence of an element of intelligence in the something that is the rationale for the universe. That element of intelligence could be anything, or described in any terms, but it is undeniably present.

I will adduce unquestionble evidence of the existence of the element of intelligence.

Therefore:

0 + 0 = 0; so (for anything to exist) -

0 + 1 = 1, and (as a necessary factor in the existence of "1"

1 + 1 = 2.

The last equation (1 + 1 = 2) is the element of intelligence. The element that, as Prizm said, even in the absence of a mind to conceive it, would remain true. In this lies the secret, which we will shortly discuss.

Understand: the inherent calculum in the last equation as an independent reality is the evidence of the existence of intelligence.

Will be back.

Please DeepSight, your post is hard to follow without an understanding of what you mean by intelligence.

Are you saying that where there is complexity there must be intelligence. When I unplug my kitchen sink the water runs down the plughole in a complex and intricate swirl of vortices. Does that make my Sink an intelligent being?

And as for 1 plus 1 equalling 2, that one is just impossible to agree or disagree without knowing what you mean by intelligence.

Deep Sight:


We established that the universe is something. We also established that no amalgamation of nothings can make a something. We therefore saw that something must have been involved in the coming into being of the universe. (0 + 1 = 1).

What something was involved in the coming into being of the something that brought the universe into being?

When 0 plus 1 equals 1 the both 1s are equivalent. If you use one 1 to represent the universe then how comes the other 1 is God. What you are saying is that
0 plus God = Universe

Therefore God = Universe
QED

Animists attribute intelligence and supernatural Gods to any complex natural systems that they cannot understand. As we understood more, we left behind the old 'Gods' that controlled the winds, volcanoes, floods, illnesses, harvests, etc.

The fact that we have not yet discovered how the universe came into being does not mean that it therefore must have been created by a God. The god of the gaps concept is man made.

It is ok to admit that you do not know and search for answers. Scientists are still searching for the higgs boson particle to help explain the origin of mass in the universe.

It is too easy and intellectually lazy to just say " God did it".

Pastor AIO:

Please DeepSight, your post is hard to follow without an understanding of what you mean by intelligence.

Are you saying that where there is complexity there must be intelligence. When I unplug my kitchen sink the water runs down the plughole in a complex and intricate swirl of vortices. Does that make my Sink an intelligent being?

And as for 1 plus 1 equalling 2, that one is just impossible to agree or disagree without knowing what you mean by intelligence.
What something was involved in the coming into being of the something that brought the universe into being?

When 0 plus 1 equals 1 the both 1s are equivalent. If you use one 1 to represent the universe then how comes the other 1 is God. What you are saying is that
0 plus God = Universe

Therefore God = Universe
QED

Chei lesson tisha you too mush

Chrisbenogor:

Chei lesson tisha you too mush

haha. I swear. . every time I read his posts enlightenment dey catch me.

mantraa:

Animists attribute intelligence and supernatural Gods to any complex natural systems that they cannot understand. As we understood more, we left behind the old 'Gods' that controlled the winds, volcanoes, floods, illnesses, harvests, etc.

The fact that we have not yet discovered how the universe came into being does not mean that it therefore must have been created by a God. The god of the gaps concept is man made.

It is ok to admit that you do not know and search for answers. Scientists are still searching for the higgs boson particle to help explain the origin of mass in the universe.

It is too easy and intellectually lazy to just say " God did it".

The people of Ibadan worship a rock called Oke-ibadan. There is nothing complex or puzzling about the rock. Yet they believe Okebadan to be an intelligent entity that they can interact with.

It would be nice if you could explain to us what you mean by intelligence and what you mean by the animist attributing intelligence to complex processes.

Would you say that ancient folks attributed everything they did not understand to God. I'm sure that there were numerous complex phenomena that they investigated quite scientifically. Some were very aware of the medicines, herbs, and illness. Others used the laws of physics to great effect, building towers and all sorts of monuments. etc etc . . .

posakosa:

If you cannot explain how the 1 came into existence from nothing, then you are not up to something.

I don't think atheists claim to know the origin of the universe.

Pastor AIO:

The people of Ibadan worship a rock called Oke-ibadan.  There is nothing complex or puzzling about the rock.  Yet they believe Okebadan to be an intelligent entity that they can interact with. 

I thought animism was a belief in spirits as apprehended in dreams and visions. The earlier humans are believed to have understood dreams and their  contents as spirits or some kind of "other" reality. From there they developed the idea that all things (objects) were animated with spirits.

The worship of mountains and rivers and trees like that is Totemism, I think.

SO i don't think it was them trying to answer complex questions and just using God and spirits as answers that started belief in God. They just believed spirits existed cause they saw them in dreams and whateva. . .abi?

From wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

Animism is a philosophical, religious or spiritual idea that souls or spirits exist not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena such as thunder, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment, a proposition also known as hylozoism in philosophy. Animism may further attribute souls to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology. Religions which emphasize animism are mostly folk religions, such as the various forms of Shamanism, but also Shinto and certain currents of Hinduism emphasize the concept.

so can we conclude that God was not invented in order to explain the unexplained. There is no 'God of the gaps'.

mantraa:

From wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

Animism is a philosophical, religious or spiritual idea that souls or spirits exist not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena such as thunder, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment, a proposition also known as hylozoism in philosophy. Animism may further attribute souls to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology. Religions which emphasize animism are mostly folk religions, such as the various forms of Shamanism, but also Shinto and certain currents of Hinduism emphasize the concept.

Animism is a belief that all things are animated with spirits. . . that would include mountains, rocks and all of that, OBVIOUSLY.

What i said was the WORSHIP (reverence, whateva u wanna call it) of mountains, rivers and stuff like that is totemism, and not the belief that they have spirits. I mean an organized worship of such things. .  a community effort. 

Pastor AIO:

so can we conclude that God was not invented in order to explain the unexplained. There is no 'God of the gaps'.

There may be a "God of the gaps", but that probably wasn't what led to the whole concept of God, and religion. Atheists like to claim that it is though (God is just an answer to unexplainable stuff) . . but I don't agree with that.