Topic: Sntjohnny in the News (Read 12381 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #40 on:** August 26, 2007, 05:31:04 PM »

"If he was introduced to the concept of a number line in grade school and found it to be wrong, nonsensical, useless, etc., then I would say he is in a position to reject the whole of math into the future. If the number line is false, then everything built up from that point is false."

Is a 10th grader really in a position to know that the number line is false and that it is useless? Do we really think that high schoolers are competent enough to make these decisions about any subject? If so, why do we bother to have colleges? Why post-graduate education?

"To the whole field ? Of course not. To whether the field has any truth and / or utility to it ? Yes."

No, I don't really think you believe that. Didn't you say that you are an engineer? As a trained engineer, you wouldn't for a minute think that a 10th grader would be able to decide what kind of content and knowledge would be necessary to be an engineer. I bet that you use stuff in your work that goes back to even your early days in high school that at the time you didn't think would be useful, but was.

"I don't understand the question - is there a typo in there ?"

heh yes, several. My point was that if it is silly for a person to use their daily education over the course of their childhood as a basis for deciding what would be important later and relevant and 'have utility' it is even more silly to think twice a week for an hour of religious instruction could accomplish that, either. However, most Christian youth have only that one hour, and if my experience is any guide, that hour these days is hardly devoted to exploring the content of their faith. Usually it's all about having 'fun.'

"But we're not claiming to know all there is to know about Christian theology."

Who is we? I'm talking about young Christians. This is a basic matter of integrity. You shouldn't reject something you know nothing about. You should know something about Christian theology, shouldn't you? We are giving young people an inadequate foundation to make that evaluation upon. This isn't about you, and Cline, and Cop. I don't mean to be crude, but there is a sense in which you guys are 'lost causes.' (please don't misconstrue this). You are entrenched. I love you, but you're entrenched. Christianity fares better, much better, before you get to that point. I speak from a decade of experience in discoursing with people in various stages of their inquiry during a time in my life when my job was specifically a Christian educator.

"Basic reading / writing - summarize at the beginning and the end, with details in the middle."

Right, but that's my point. None of his details actually speak to my point. You have your summary, your hyperbole, HIS two plausible notions, HIS assault on a position of mine that he still hasn't illustrated, and yes, again, another summary.

The second to last sentence also summarizes.

"An interesting twist on this myth is the idea that atheism is caused by Christian churches failing to adequately explain or defend Christian doctrines."

Yea, and note that it is he that is communicating the notion that all atheism is created by Christian churches, not me. I said Christian churches are producing.... which does not at all communicate that they are the sole cause. Eg, it is like saying "toys are created in factories." This communicates that this is the only way that toys are produced. My statement, "Factories are creating toys..." this does not preclude the possibility that toys could be created some other way.

"If you had merely said Christian churches do a bad job of educating their charges on the whys and hows of Christian beliefs, you would not be getting challenged."

Hogwash. As I have repeatedly already shown, FROM THE ARTICLE, this is exactly what I said.

"Here it is stated that an unqualified number of atheists owe their atheism to the failure of the church to answer questions. How widely should we interpret this ?"

Well, apparently however you widely you, the atheist wants, right?

"Atheists are a minority of the population in the U.S., where the books are best sellers."

Which means that people besides atheists are buying them, correct? Which means that people who ought to know better, don't. People who should be able to recognize the many flaws, don't. There is nothing to fear in the God Delusion for the educated Christian. Nothing at all.

"Regardless of whether you meant it or not, the article does convey the message that "atheism is caused by Christian churches failing to adequately explain or defend Christian doctrines.""

You're just wrong, and that's all there is to it. See my toy factory example. You atheists are over-reacting and over-reaching. It is very, very, important to you to think that your atheism rests on purely rational grounds. But look at our conversations so far. Transcendence and immanence are two core doctrines about God, and you're struggling to follow me. Your atheism may rest on purely rational grounds, but if you don't grasp these concepts, your rejection of Christian theism can't be on rational grounds. A rational basis would require dealing with the actual positions and not a strawman.

Which actually is the problem with TGD, as illustrated by Dawkins's belief that the Christian God is categorically the same as Zeus, Baal, etc. Francis Collins does better, much better. It is because he grasped these concepts that he sought more appropriate methods for making the evaluation. In his case, he found them and was satisfied. Perhaps others might find those methods and not be satisfied. If so, they at least, would be acting rationally.

Let's try a different experiment then the poll. Let's find a forum and sign up. You argue for the Christian position and I'll argue for the atheistic position. We see who does a better job in the eyes of the peers on the board. What do you think?

benjdm · « **Reply #41 on:** August 26, 2007, 08:54:48 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 26, 2007, 05:31:04 PM

"If he was introduced to the concept of a number line in grade school and found it to be wrong, nonsensical, useless, etc., then I would say he is in a position to reject the whole of math into the future. If the number line is false, then everything built up from that point is false."

Is a 10th grader really in a position to know that the number line is false and that it is useless?

The concept of a number line is simple enough that a first or second grader is in a position to know whether it is false and useless or not.

Quote

Do we really think that high schoolers are competent enough to make these decisions about any subject?

Definitely. Do you hold that high schoolers aren't competent enough to make these decisions about astrology ? Alchemy ?

Quote

If so, why do we bother to have colleges? Why post-graduate education?

To teach the advanced concepts and detailed stuff.

Quote

"To the whole field ? Of course not. To whether the field has any truth and / or utility to it ? Yes."

No, I don't really think you believe that.

Yes, I really believe that.

Quote

Didn't you say that you are an engineer? As a trained engineer, you wouldn't for a minute think that a 10th grader would be able to decide what kind of content and knowledge would be necessary to be an engineer. I bet that you use stuff in your work that goes back to even your early days in high school that at the time you didn't think would be useful, but was.

I am very much a book nerd - I thought all the math / science / reading / history stuff was both useful and interesting. About all I disliked was writing essays.

I think engineering is a real subject, based on useful knowledge obtained through reliable methods. I don't think theology is a real subject at all, with no truth or utility to it.

Quote

Who is we? I'm talking about young Christians. This is a basic matter of integrity. You shouldn't reject something you know nothing about. You should know something about Christian theology, shouldn't you? We are giving young people an inadequate foundation to make that evaluation upon.

What is the foundation ? For example, the number line and the counting numbers give you the foundation for math, and you build up from there, slowly adding truth-apt methods of arriving at knowledge. In English, you start with the alphabet and you build up from there, slowly adding more and more to one's ability to communicate. In science, you start with how the method works, including demonstrating how the method arrives at results in labs, and build up a more and more detailed explanation of natural phenomena. In theology, you have nothing. There is no foundation, no method. All you have is misuse of historical methods to elevate a barely documented apocalyptic cult leader from 2,000 years ago to the status of 'Lord,' misuse of math claiming 1+1+1=1...

Give me a link to a 'curriculum.' Show me these truth-apt methods that people can use to converge on more and more accurate theologies. There aren't any. There is no foundation, no number line, no alphabet, no scientific method, nothing.

Quote

This isn't about you, and Cline, and Cop. I don't mean to be crude, but there is a sense in which you guys are 'lost causes.'

True.

Quote

(please don't misconstrue this). You are entrenched. I love you, but you're entrenched. Christianity fares better, much better, before you get to that point. I speak from a decade of experience in discoursing with people in various stages of their inquiry during a time in my life when my job was specifically a Christian educator.

Of course it does. It is a survival-positive trait to generally accept what others tell you - see Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die. The younger you get told it, the more likely will accept it in the first place, and the more likely you will adapt any additional information to fit with it if it tends to contradict it.

Quote

"If you had merely said Christian churches do a bad job of educating their charges on the whys and hows of Christian beliefs, you would not be getting challenged."

Hogwash. As I have repeatedly already shown, FROM THE ARTICLE, this is exactly what I said.

Obviously, we are not going to settle this quoting back and forth. I started a thread here asking "What does this article (it's short) convey to you ?" which is open-ended and not a leading question.

Quote

"Atheists are a minority of the population in the U.S., where the books are best sellers."

Which means that people besides atheists are buying them, correct?

Of my religious friends, I know no one who has bought a copy. I know a former agnostic who bought one, but that's as close as it gets. They are being sold primarily to atheists - preaching to the choir. Even nonfiction bestsellers typically sell well less than a million copies. Considering there are between 36 and 80 million atheists in the country, the books can become bestsellers by appealing primarily to that market, which is almost certainly the case. For an example of both the numbers and the audience, look at Publisher's Weekly (from June):

Quote

The God Delusion, which pubbed last September, has sold 282,000 copies, and Letter to a Christian Nation, another September '06 title, has sold 123,000 copies.

Interestingly, these books are leading PW's most recent hardcover religion bestseller list...

Twelve publisher and editor-in-chief Jonathan Karp considers Hitchens's book, as well as those by Harris and Dawkins, to be direct rebukes to the status quo.

benjdm · « **Reply #42 on:** August 26, 2007, 09:10:20 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 26, 2007, 07:04:20 AM

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=10495

I read it. I'm not sure after one reading that I have a reasonably unbiased opinion - as if I hadn't already read the other article and formed an opinion. Let me try reading it again...

<pet peeve> Why is it that Christians are 'self-described' while atheists are 'admitted' or 'avowed' ? $%$#%$@#% culture.</pet peeve>

Finished. The tone of that article is very different. The idea of the church producing atheists is not in the title, nor in the summarizing at the beginning or end of the article. It is a minor observation in the middle of the story. This article is longer overall while the phrases we are disputing are the same - making them a much smaller fraction of the story. The clear emphasis is on the church communicating its beliefs successfully, a very different emphasis and message than that which is conveyed in the Christianity Today article.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2007, 06:59:09 AM »

Hey, my eyes hurt reading your post there. You missed a /quote. I could admin fix it, but I've admin fixed by accident too many of your posts already :sheepish: Duck in there and fix that, if you will.

About the other story. The interesting thing is that the document that inspired the CP story is the same that inspired the Speronews one. The speronews gent sent a list of questions, the CP lady only one. Even the speronews guy didn't ask me to elaborate on the Dawkins/Da Vinci quote.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2007, 04:44:46 PM »

"Yes, I really believe that."

Nah, I don't believe you. I think if you had money on the line, ie, you were the kid's potential employer, you'd act differently. I'll let the line of questioning rest for now.

"I think engineering is a real subject, based on useful knowledge obtained through reliable methods. I don't think theology is a real subject at all, with no truth or utility to it."

Its utility would be contingent on its truthfulness. Theology would be the study of God, and that would obviously include how one can know God. If it achieves that, there is no higher utility, anywhere.

"misuse of math claiming 1+1+1=1..."

But you are an engineer. You should be able to think of an example even within engineering where 1+1+1=1.

"Give me a link to a 'curriculum.'"

One of my contentions is that curriculums are falling short. That's kind of my point. We'd disagree on how they are falling short, but that is to be expected.

"Of course it does. It is a survival-positive trait to generally accept what others tell you - "

That would be your spin, of course. You would probably also argue that secular atheism fares better when you start out young. I would put that also in the category of 'why bad beliefs don't die' but I would have a different reason for that. At any rate, the question is whether or not such and such is true and accurate. I contend that if you don't provide robust explanations early on, it is a simple matter of betrayed trust. If people hear crap when they're growing up, when someone finally comes along with something decent, they'll be skeptical about it. This need not apply only to Christianity.

"They are being sold primarily to atheists - preaching to the choir. Even nonfiction bestsellers typically sell well less than a million copies."

The point is not worth quibbling about. Dawkins's evangelistic fervor and specific appeals to thoughtful Christians is unmistakable.

"The atheists and other non-Christians are buying the books in droves and Christians are generally giving them a pass. "

I would certainly agree with that in one sense of the phrase 'a pass.'

"Therefore, when you say that 'these books do not become bestsellers in a society that understands what Christianity is all about' it does speak to your first sentence. The number of believers who are buying TGD are essentially negligible."

lol, well I do commend you for digging in to find substantiation for your claim, but I'm not sure that's going to settle it. I know quite a few Christians that have read it and also quite a few that have said "there is something to it." And that especially was the case with the Da Vinci Code.

"While immanence and transcendence don't appear to be as unintelligible as the trinity,"

*shrug* I understand all three just fine. For my part, the ridicule of people citing empiricism in their quest to examine the transcendent is the kind of irony that is more than enough to discredit such attitudes.

"I'm game, though you would have to ask the atheists how good of a job you did and the Christians how good of a job I did."

Naturally, that's exactly what I had in mind. It would seem like you're a member at every single forum that has ever existed, though.

We need a 'clean' forum, where neither of us is a member, and obviously it goes without saying that we'll play the game clean and certainly demand cooperation from members here.

benjdm · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2007, 06:51:44 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 27, 2007, 04:44:46 PM

"misuse of math claiming 1+1+1=1..."

But you are an engineer. You should be able to think of an example even within engineering where 1+1+1=1.

No, addition is the same no matter the units. 1+1+1 always equals 3 (barring bad jokes about 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.)

Quote

It would seem like you're a member at every single forum that has ever existed, though. Wink We need a 'clean' forum, where neither of us is a member, and obviously it goes without saying that we'll play the game clean and certainly demand cooperation from members here.

We could just as easily start new, parallel accounts at any of the existing forums.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2007, 07:27:07 PM »

Are you willing to wager any money on the proposition that 1+1+1 always equals 3, not including bad jokes?

Forum administrators can detect multiple accounts on existing forums. How about the forum over at hannity.com? I haven't been there in years, so I won't likely remember anyone or recall their arguments, but it had a pretty big user base.

benjdm · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2007, 07:42:57 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 27, 2007, 07:27:07 PM

Are you willing to wager any money on the proposition that 1+1+1 always equals 3, not including bad jokes?

Yes.

Quote

Forum administrators can detect multiple accounts on existing forums. How about the forum over at hannity.com? I haven't been there in years, so I won't likely remember anyone or recall their arguments, but it had a pretty big user base.

Sure. Should I tell you the user name I register under or keep it a secret ?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2007, 08:03:52 PM »

Yea that quote thing. I haven't mastered it myself. That's why I just do " " as much as possible.

5 bucks on the bet. Are you on?

Yea, you probably should tell me so I don't end up debating you.

Shall we have a time frame? I propose 1 month. At the end of a month, we don't reveal it to the hannity people, but what we do is find yet another forum to evaluate the worthiness of the debater without telling them, either. That could be tricky, but I say we cross that bridge when we get there.

benjdm · « **Reply #49 on:** August 28, 2007, 05:15:34 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 27, 2007, 08:03:52 PM

Yea that quote thing. I haven't mastered it myself. That's why I just do " " as much as possible.

5 bucks on the bet. Are you on?

Sure. You're going to try and use imprecise units like 'water drops,' I'm going to force you to use precise units like metric or english or 'X amount of water', etc., and we'll end up disputing the winner. <shrug>

Quote

Yea, you probably should tell me so I don't end up debating you.

I don't see why that is a problem.

Quote

Shall we have a time frame? I propose 1 month. At the end of a month, we don't reveal it to the hannity people, but what we do is find yet another forum to evaluate the worthiness of the debater without telling them, either. That could be tricky, but I say we cross that bridge when we get there.

Sure.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** August 28, 2007, 05:56:03 AM »

Oh, I fully expect you to try to weasel out. That's why I only went for five dollars.

You don't have to force me to use precise units. I'm going to force you to use precise units. So you're on for the deal. Great. In order to remove some of your breathing room as you try to rob me

would you agree to the following construction:

1 unit of X+ ... 1 unit of X+ .... 1 unit of X... will, and I quote: "always equals 3" "in addition."

It will be my contention that:

1 unit of X+ ... 1 unit of X+ .... 1 unit of X ... = ... 1. "also using addition."

That's pretty simple and precise. Are you satisfied?

"I don't see why that is a problem."

Maybe not, but we could just do that here.

Shall we start our hannity.com exercise after labor day? I will be out of town this weekend.

benjdm · « **Reply #51 on:** August 28, 2007, 09:02:51 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 28, 2007, 05:56:03 AM

Oh, I fully expect you to try to weasel out. That's why I only went for five dollars.

You don't have to force me to use precise units. I'm going to force you to use precise units. So you're on for the deal. Great. In order to remove some of your breathing room as you try to rob me would you agree to the following construction:

1 unit of X+ ... 1 unit of X+ .... 1 unit of X... will, and I quote: "always equals 3" "in addition."

It will be my contention that:

1 unit of X+ ... 1 unit of X+ .... 1 unit of X ... = ... 1. "also using addition."

The 1 on the right has to be 1 unit of X too, of course, and the operation has to be addition.

Quote

That's pretty simple and precise. Are you satisfied?

Sure.

Quote

"I don't see why that is a problem."

Maybe not, but we could just do that here.

Shall we start our hannity.com exercise after labor day? I will be out of town this weekend.

Sure.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #52 on:** August 28, 2007, 09:24:57 AM »

Excellent.

Using three spring scales, you connect two of them add a force of 1 newton to each, then you attach the third, again adding 1 newton of force to the third. By arranging the three spring scales at various angles in relation to each other, you will eventually find that there is an arrangement in which adding 1 newton to 1 newton to 1 newton equals 1 newton, as the spring scales are put in equilibrium.

1+1+1=1.

benjdm · « **Reply #53 on:** August 28, 2007, 09:35:27 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 28, 2007, 09:24:57 AM

Excellent.

Using three spring scales, you connect two of them add a force of 1 newton to each, then you attach the third, again adding 1 newton of force to the third. By arranging the three spring scales at various angles in relation to each other, you will eventually find that there is an arrangement in which adding 1 newton to 1 newton to 1 newton equals 1 newton, as the spring scales are put in equilibrium.

1+1+1=1.

Forces are vectors. You are performing vector addition, not scalar addition.

1 Newton at 0 degrees + 1 Newton at 0 degrees + 1 Newton at 180 degrees = 1 Newton at 0 degrees (an example; you provided no specific angles)

You are adding different units, because a Vector of 1 Newton at 0 degrees is NOT the same thing as a vector of 1 Newton at 180 degrees.

1 Newton at X degrees + 1 Newton at X degrees + 1 Newton at X degrees = 3 Newtons at X degrees.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #54 on:** August 28, 2007, 09:54:16 AM »

"Forces are vectors. You are performing vector addition, not scalar addition."

You said it had to be addition, you didn't specify what kind of addition.

"1 Newton at 0 degrees + 1 Newton at 0 degrees + 1 Newton at 180 degrees = 1 Newton at 0 degrees (an example; you provided no specific angles)"

Right, I didn't provide angles because I don't have the spring scales on me.

"You are adding different units, because a Vector of 1 Newton at 0 degrees is NOT the same thing as a vector of 1 Newton at 180 degrees."

Looks like double talk to me. You asked me to use a precise unit, and a newton is a precise unit. Each spring has a vector of 1 Newton. This you agree on.

"1 Newton at X degrees + 1 Newton at X degrees + 1 Newton at X degrees = 3 Newtons at X degrees."

Interesting that you would consider a degree as a 'unit.'

Let me suggest that if you think I've twisted within the parameters, you've done far worse in believing that your reduction to 1+1+1=1 of the doctrine of the Trinity actually represents the position and illustrates that it is unintelligible. My point would be that just as in the case of vectors, when we talk about the persons of the Godhead being distinct and yet unified, it is not at all prima facie nonsense.

You could say:

1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance = 1 Godhead.

This is more or less consistent with the Christian doctrine, and as illustrated in this example I've given, not without precedent in our own experience. That you would choose to take this and try to reduce it, ad absurdum, to as nonsensical as saying 1+1+1=1 under your strict and very sterile assumptions about that calculation suggests an unreasonable insistence to deny Christians the right to clarify their meaning.

BTW, my kind of joke here would be 1+1+1=111. :)

I maintain that I win the bet. I used consistent and precise units, and I don't agree that including the angle in which the unit is arranged itself consists of a different unit.

benjdm · « **Reply #55 on:** August 28, 2007, 10:12:44 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 28, 2007, 09:54:16 AM

"Forces are vectors. You are performing vector addition, not scalar addition."

You said it had to be addition, you didn't specify what kind of addition.

"1 Newton at 0 degrees + 1 Newton at 0 degrees + 1 Newton at 180 degrees = 1 Newton at 0 degrees (an example; you provided no specific angles)"

Right, I didn't provide angles because I don't have the spring scales on me.

"You are adding different units, because a Vector of 1 Newton at 0 degrees is NOT the same thing as a vector of 1 Newton at 180 degrees."

Looks like double talk to me. You asked me to use a precise unit, and a newton is a precise unit. Each spring has a vector of 1 Newton. This you agree on.

"1 Newton at X degrees + 1 Newton at X degrees + 1 Newton at X degrees = 3 Newtons at X degrees."

Interesting that you would consider a degree as a 'unit.'

Numbers are unit-less. Everything besides the number in the equation would be part of the unit. You are using different modifiers on the units, just as much as if you said:

1 kilo-gram + 1 gram = 2 grams.

Quote

Let me suggest that if you think I've twisted within the parameters, you've done far worse in believing that your reduction to 1+1+1=1 of the doctrine of the Trinity actually represents the position and illustrates that it is unintelligible.

"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

Quote

My point would be that just as in the case of vectors, when we talk about the persons of the Godhead being distinct and yet unified, it is not at all prima facie nonsense.

If they are distinct and God, they are a God. Simple. 1 God.

Quote

You could say:

1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance = 1 Godhead.

So when they unify, they cancel each other out like vectors ? Which portions add up to 0 ?

Quote

This is more or less consistent with the Christian doctrine, and as illustrated in this example I've given, not without precedent in our own experience. That you would choose to take this and try to reduce it, ad absurdum, to as nonsensical as saying 1+1+1=1 under your strict and very sterile assumptions about that calculation suggests an unreasonable insistence to deny Christians the right to clarify their meaning.

I never reduced it to 1+1+1=1 until after I read the Catholic Encyclopedia clarifying the meaning. Until then, I never bothered with it much.

Quote

I maintain that I win the bet. I used consistent and precise units, and I don't agree that including the angle in which the unit is arranged itself consists of a different unit.

You are wrong.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #56 on:** August 28, 2007, 11:25:56 AM »

"Numbers are unit-less. Everything besides the number in the equation would be part of the unit. You are using different modifiers on the units, just as much as if you said:"

But your problem is in reducing the degrees to 'units.' A degree is a way in which we can measure the angles that these forces are applied at, but in point of fact the springs are being pulled in directions.

In other words, this is a real world experiment that is not happening in the abstract, or on paper.

If I say 1 coin+1 coin+ 1 coin = 1 coin, I am in violation of the law of noncontradiction. And also in real life, if I put three coins together I will still have the three coins. But if I am exerting 1 newton of force against 1 newton of force against 1 newton of force the result is 1 newton of force. The degrees they are in relation to do not modify the individual springs, they only effect the outcome. The scales themselves read: 1 NEWTON. They don't yield a measurement for the degrees in which they are arranged in physical space, do they? If they somehow 'gain' a modifying 'unit', it is only when it is represented on paper. In physical space, no such 'unit' exists.

On paper, 1n+1n+1n=1n would be an accurate representation, though on paper it would look like nonsense. But when you learned that n=newton, you would know you couldn't immediately dismiss it as nonsense.

""1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance = 1 Godhead.""
"So when they unify, they cancel each other out like vectors ? Which portions add up to 0 ?"

We already see you quite agreeing that there are different kinds of addition, scalar, vector, commutative, etc. So, that you chose to apply only the commutative understanding to the CE's description represents your own decision to choose just one understanding and not another. The persons of the Godhead would not be vectors, no. My point was not to say that they were. My point was to say that it is not ridiculous on its face to make such statements. That the orthodox Christian does not view the Godhead in commutative terms is obvious. That the position strikes you as incoherent could just as easily be chalked up to your own inability to imagine other 'types' of 'addition' choosing instead to cling to just one very narrow definition of 'addition' in the face of the existence of many others.

"You are wrong."

Not at all. Each spring scale reads 1 Newton. Within the context of their system, adding them together equals 1 Newton. One good observation is enough to overthrow the best theory.

You should give me $5.00 just for cheek.

benjdm · « **Reply #57 on:** August 28, 2007, 04:43:44 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 28, 2007, 11:25:56 AM

But your problem is in reducing the degrees to 'units.' A degree is a way in which we can measure the angles that these forces are applied at, but in point of fact the springs are being pulled in directions.

In other words, this is a real world experiment that is not happening in the abstract, or on paper.

If I say 1 coin+1 coin+ 1 coin = 1 coin, I am in violation of the law of noncontradiction. And also in real life, if I put three coins together I will still have the three coins. But if I am exerting 1 newton of force against 1 newton of force against 1 newton of force the result is 1 newton of force. The degrees they are in relation to do not modify the individual springs, they only effect the outcome. The scales themselves read: 1 NEWTON. They don't yield a measurement for the degrees in which they are arranged in physical space, do they? If they somehow 'gain' a modifying 'unit', it is only when it is represented on paper. In physical space, no such 'unit' exists.

In physical space it most certainly does - the angles between the springs are measurable differences. The scales measure the scalar value - the magnitude only - of the force. The scales only give an accurate measure of that scalar value when the vector angle is assumed. Try putting your bathroom scale on the wall or at an angle. It won't read correctly, because it is measuring the magnitude (scalar value) of the force applied perpendicular to its surface. If you prop up a bathroom scale at a 45 degree angle and stand on it (without slipping) it will read approximately 70% of your weight.

Quote

On paper, 1n+1n+1n=1n would be an accurate representation, though on paper it would look like nonsense. But when you learned that n=newton, you would know you couldn't immediately dismiss it as nonsense.

It would not be an accurate representation. You could still immediately dismiss it as nonsense because a Newton is a unit of force, a vector, and you are denoting a scalar addition by not specifying angles.

Quote

""1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance + 1 person of the godhead at 'x' nuance = 1 Godhead.""
"So when they unify, they cancel each other out like vectors ? Which portions add up to 0 ?"

We already see you quite agreeing that there are different kinds of addition, scalar, vector, commutative, etc. So, that you chose to apply only the commutative understanding to the CE's description represents your own decision to choose just one understanding and not another. The persons of the Godhead would not be vectors, no. My point was not to say that they were.

Of course. There is no point because all you can do with the Trinity - all anyone can do - is point at ways of obfuscating that 1+1+1 is 3. Even when giving an analogy (vector math) you admit that the way in which vector math can produce a similar effect is NOT the way the Trinity works, because you aren't going to have Jesus or the Holy Spirit cancelling each other out. Nor does any other analogy work.

Quote

My point was to say that it is not ridiculous on its face to make such statements. That the orthodox Christian does not view the Godhead in commutative terms is obvious. That the position strikes you as incoherent could just as easily be chalked up to your own inability to imagine other 'types' of 'addition' choosing instead to cling to just one very narrow definition of 'addition' in the face of the existence of many others.

Then give me the type of addition under which it works. You gave a vector addition but claim that portions of the Godhead do not cancel out to zero, making it unlike vector addition. What is this type of addition under which it DOES work ? Describe it.

Quote

"You are wrong."

Not at all. Each spring scale reads 1 Newton.

And each spring scale is reading 1 Newton in a certain direction. If I tug on a spring scale with a force of 1 Newton at a 90 degree angle it will read 0. If I tug on it with a force of 1 Newton at a 45 degree angle it will read ~.71 Newtons. The angle is inherent in the measurement, though you apparently didn't know enough physics to understand it.

Quote

Within the context of their system, adding them together equals 1 Newton. One good observation is enough to overthrow the best theory.

But you don't have one good observation. You have one basic misunderstanding of a Newton.

Quote

You should give me $5.00 just for cheek.

Ditto. Or, in the words of my favorite 'No Fear' shirt, "You should quit while I'm ahead."

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #58 on:** August 28, 2007, 05:57:39 PM »

"In physical space it most certainly does - the angles between the springs are measurable differences."

Right, but they aren't measured by the spring scale. Correct?

"It would not be an accurate representation. You could still immediately dismiss it as nonsense because a Newton is a unit of force, a vector, and you are denoting a scalar addition by not specifying angles."

Denoting? Or you're assuming?

"Of course. There is no point because all you can do with the Trinity - all anyone can do - is point at ways of obfuscating that 1+1+1 is 3."

Naturally I disagree.

"Even when giving an analogy (vector math) you admit that the way in which vector math can produce a similar effect is NOT the way the Trinity works, because you aren't going to have Jesus or the Holy Spirit cancelling each other out. Nor does any other analogy work."

How would you know? Have you heard them all?

"Then give me the type of addition under which it works. You gave a vector addition but claim that portions of the Godhead do not cancel out to zero, making it unlike vector addition. What is this type of addition under which it DOES work ? Describe it."

HA! It is so tempting. At this point, I might be willing after you stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you insist I didn't win the bet because the units change. On the other hand, you concede that it does work, because it cancels out if one is talking about vectors. Pick one.

"And each spring scale is reading 1 Newton in a certain direction."

Does the spring scale record direction?

"The angle is inherent in the measurement, though you apparently didn't know enough physics to understand it."

Well that's just a cheap shot. In my original statement I said: "By arranging the three spring scales at various angles in relation to each other, you will eventually find that there is an arrangement in which adding 1 newton to 1 newton to 1 newton equals 1 newton, as the spring scales are put in equilibrium."

I think I did know that. Thus the point about finding the correct arrangement. I admit I didn't bother to deduce the correct angles. I don't think my mathematical laziness means that I don't understand the physics. And I think I get a break here. You're an engineer. I'm recalling a physics lesson from almost 15 years ago.

"But you don't have one good observation. You have one basic misunderstanding of a Newton."

It is not newtons we are arguing about. It is about the spring scales. 1 Newton of force on one scale. 1 newton of force on another. 1 newton on the third. Together, 1 newton.

It is legitimately one way in which 1+1+1 can equal 1. Your position is, if I may humbly state it, one of arrogance. You heard the CE talk about the trinity and the best that you could do was reduce it to raw addition. But did you even bother to ask yourself whether or not there could be other systems, or models, or frames of references, and on and on, where the 'calculation' might hold? Of course not. You reduced it, and for you, that ended your inquiry.

That would be fine and dandy, but then people like me have to sit through endless posts where it is assumed that it is self-evident that the position is absurd and has been demonstrated to be absurd by any thinking person. Granted, I have extended the scope of my comments beyond just you, but this certainly does seem to be your attitude thus far.

"Ditto. Or, in the words of my favorite 'No Fear' shirt, "You should quit while I'm ahead.""

Not bad.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #59 on:** August 28, 2007, 06:24:35 PM »

Quote from: benjdm on August 28, 2007, 10:12:44 AM

Numbers are unit-less. Everything besides the number in the equation would be part of the unit. You are using different modifiers on the units, just as much as if you said:

1 kilo-gram + 1 gram = 2 grams.

By definition a vector consists of a scalar and a direction. This is regardless of whether or not any units are involved. The direction is a part of the vector not a unit.

Author Topic: Sntjohnny in the News (Read 12381 times)