₦airaland Forum

"So he just insert himself into conversations to spoil everyones fun"

Oh yeah, he came to my superbowl party one time and just kept talking about how he only watch for the commercials as if that made him intellectually superior.."

!

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 ---

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.

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).

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".

--Ok---

OlaAjia:
Thanks... Someone sees the irony!

you funny

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.

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.

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?