Reading Philosophy

Lets take it that most people believe God is an allpowerful, all knowing, and supreme entity, beyond human comprehension. There is nothing more powerful then him. Limits of any kind, defy this definition, simply because it would imply that the limits are more powerful then God is. While this may be hard for some faiths to believe, I honnestly think that good and evil are terms for humans only. God is God and he can do whatever the heck he wants. The limits people try to put on him generally are a controling factor in what I have seen, or attempting to explain some aspect of what they believe that is simply unexplainable. Everything is quite simple. Humans can't control God or else that would make us gods, and God (or whoever we are trying to control) human. This of course applies if you actually do believe in a higher power of some sort.

He could make 1 + 1 = 3

This might be totally unrelated, but... since we are in the philosophy forum, this thing you wrote me got me thinking.

Of course we have the conviction that 1 + 1 = 2 and not 3. And it would be totally unreasonable for us to affirm that 1 + 1 = 3. Though, it could as well be like that if you consider that numbers are just conventions that we use to describe something. Just like words in fact. Words are conventions that every language chooses to describe a particular sign. Sign in linguistics is any kind of action or thing that we can perceive with at least one of our senses.

So, according to what I stated above, 1 + 1 = 3 Because what is 3 afterall? Three is a number, a convention, something that we all agree on that is equivalent to 1 + 1 + 1. But because we stated that this is three, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. We are just basing ourselves on conventions that were stated centuries or millenniums ago, and we are giving them for granted as if they were absolutely right. But, in my opinion, they could be fallacious too.

Why? Again, because they are conventions. What I call tre is called three in English or drei in German or tres in Spanish or trois in French... this just means that we all agreed that the symble 3 is represented by those words in our respective languages. But it could as well be that 1 is the first number, and then there is 3 and then 2 and then 5. Those are just symbols in fact. So what? It could happen that a crazy person who manages somehow to rule the world will say "okay from now onwards 3 is 1 + 1 and 2 is 1 + 1 + 1".

Well sorry for my rambling here... I guess I just wanted to demonstrate how our world is based on conventions, and that in this optic nothing should be given for granted, as everything is at stake. What do you think about it?
Bernie, feel free to move this post, if you think that it can be the start of a brand new topic.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Interesting thought. Very provocative. Conventionality is the bane of my existence; but, I don't want to rule the world. So I won't argue whether 1+1=3. The rosy, the rosy and the brain, brain, brain, brain....

What are we gonna today Brain? Try to take over the world Pinky...

Did you know that if you take the 'r' and the 's' out of my name, and replace them with a 'c' and a 'z', respectively, it spells: cozy? After all, the letters are just symbols for my name... I could be 'cozyxxx' or 'rosyzzz' *nods off* For that matter, you could be 'andromeda', the name I so inexpertly confused you with...what a social faux pas.

I feel like a little mouse listening in on this discussion, because I haven't really made up my mind on the God issue... I ride the fence constantly. I am pretty indecisive about Politics and Religion. I kinda tend to agree with ginsterbusch about the issues that hawkeye brought up... but, that is about it there. This must mean that God exists one moment for me, and not the next. Kind of like a particle-wave. He's there... he's not there. But, he can't really give us free will, and simultaneously give us predestination. That seems to have been an argument in this forum, that has enough holes in it to make it look like Swiss cheese. But, then again, if that argument is anything like 'particle-wave theory'... then it actually is possible. Hmmm.

Actually, I think God is limited by tiny pea-sized brains. Americans on the whole must give him a run for his money.

As far as the convention of assigning symbolic numbers and letters to mathematical quantities... and other related topics... well, what about this thing that one can't have a four-sided triangle? Two-dimensionally, yes. But isn't a pyramid based upon a triangle? And what is that other thing that has four-sides? Maths and geometry are not my forte, but I am asking...

When I took geometry I made a sundial with a nice band-saw cut out gnomen and wood-burned numbers for extra-credit, because otherwise, I would have failed the class miserably. :(

My mind is made up...not like my bed, which is a mess.

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Feb 24, 2005.

what about this thing that one can't have a four-sided triangle?

Well, since a triangle is defined as a two-dimensional "object with three corners" (and thus three sides), the possibility that a four-sided triangle exists would depend on the ability to create a situation where 3=4. Which would bring us back to the question whether 1+1 can be 3. :-)

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Or since we're just going on the ussumption that because it has three angles it only has three sides we could take two solid lines connect them to the three angles, creating two solids sides, then take two pieces of side, put so that they come just short of connecting perhaps by a couple of centemeters, just enough to be a visible gab, we could thusly say that we do indeed have a four sided triangle. Because no one in this thread has specifically stated that the sides of the triangle must be even and connected...

It just has to have three angles and be 2d.

--Jami

P.S. Yes, I'm being a smartass. :-P

--Jami Yeah, that's gonna sting in the morning.

The rosy, the rosy and the brain, brain, brain, brain....

What are we gonna today Brain? Try to take over the world Pinky...

Excellent quote. Gosh, I miss that show. Thanks for brightening this thick discussion with some humor.

Please contiune to vote AND post.

What does this mean for the universe? Are there rules that God has set in motion that He cannot change?

Bit late in the game for this topic, but thought I'd drop by and give you my two cents, which due to inflation is really .5 cents, but hell, you got two damned pieces of copper...

I belive that there are rules that God can change, infact I believe most all of them he can change, BUT since almost every rule is based upon another (ie gravity and mass are corrolated) a change in these rules would create the breakdown and failure of everything else.

So should God create a four sided triangle, the pythag function would be rendered useless. Later, the entire subject of trigonomety (sin, cos, tan, cot, etc) would collapse because they depend on the triangle being of 3 sides, after which many a building and construct would collapse, as the logic that holds it up no longer exists, and so on and so forth. In this frame of reference, God could create said triangle, however the consequences would be too dire for Him to do so.

However, if God were to create a 4 sided triangle, he would actually be creating a 4 sided object and renaming it a triangle, which in reality he didn't create anything new, he created something and shifted names and meanings. Therefore in this mode of logic, God could create a 4 sided triangle.

As for my personal beliefs, I identify with the old movement (1700's ??) whom were called Deists. They basically (and I am really summing it up here) said that God was a clockmaker (or in this day and age, a programmer) that created the Universe and its laws and set it to run. Unlike Deists, I belive that God can apply His hand to our world, say for instance stopping the bullet, ONLY He wouldn't necessarilly stop the bullet, He would create outside occurrences and other events to stop the bullet, or harmlessly deflect its path. In essence He doesn't stop the bullet, but achieves the end goal of saving the man.

Fond memories

Simple. God is the universe and the universe is God.

Since the universe (or multiverse) is infinitely large and infinitely small (as modelled by the signature of God: The GOLDEN CURVE (Phi)), God's reach is infinitely large and infinitely small. Ever expanding and ever decreasing.

chew on that for awhile, then leave me a sassy remark. cheers.

To each his own...

I don't have a sassy remark for you, only stating that you have brought an interesting concept to the table, and I love the connection of a mathematical concept to your reasoning.

Yeah man, Phi is a very interesting phenomena. If you have the time, i suggest you google it.

Phi, also known as the GOLDEN RATIO, is the basis of an infinite multitude of things in our universe.

I say it's the signature because it is seen EVERYWHERE, and it's essentially the "roadmap" or "key" to it all.

Ex.'s of Golden Curve in nature:

- Nautilus Shell
- Shape of a Hurricane
- Orbit track of a large spacial body (eventual)
- Shape of a galaxy
- 2D graphical representation of the DNA helix
- Whirlpools
- Tornados (3D representation/ Funnel)
- water going down a toilet (scary)
- Etc.
- Etc.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the limits of God. To find the limits of God, or the universe (Pantheism), you must first find the bounds of the universe, or multiverse, itself. But i think that may be another topic for another time.

To each his own...